View Full Version : Gay Rights
TW501
05-07-2009, 08:07 AM
Since the previous gay rights thread was derailed by spammers, I have created this new one to replace it. What sparked my decision to do so was the passage of legislation in two U.S. states that would allow same-sex marriage. The governor of Maine has already signed the new law, and New Hampshire may soon follow.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090506/ts_alt_afp/uspoliticssocietygaysmarriage2nd_20090506192051
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090506/ap_on_re_us/us_xgr_gay_marriage_nh_1
As with the last thread, this will be for the discussion of gay rights in general rather than one specific topic. The same-sex marriage issue will likely be dominant for a while, but other issues are welcome. I'd also like to remind everyone not to spam. Spamming will be dealt with much more strictly than last time, so DO NOT SPAM!!!
Fatstogey
05-07-2009, 12:44 PM
Gays have no rights! LOL
Just kidding!
Well a lot of people are debating the "definition" of marriage between a man and woman. Years ago i would have conscribed to this. However now, marriage is defined by religion. And i could give two fucks what religion says.
I dont like gayness per say. Not meaning i hate gay people. Just that gayness is not something that is not right in my mind. However i believe in freedom and that other people should mind their own fucking business when it comes to others personal affairs. so if people wanna be gay then be gay. If they wanna be called Married, idk why they wanna subscribe to religious labelings?????, then let them.
Personally ill get married some day. But only cause the woman will want to. I have no desire to be called married in any way shape or form since that is a religious thing and religion is the bane of our existence(different thread, lol dont start talking about this here). But since its so ingrained into our culture i doubt ill find a woman with those same views as i have. They dont think that deeply. They just wanna be married. lol
Personally i think that gays are dumb for wanting to be called married. Who cares. But again just MY OPINION and who gives a fuck what i think. Do what you do.
I don't know why people have anything against gay people. It's their choice, if they want to be with someone with the same sex as them, so what! I think they should definitley have rights, though i have heard of some of them doing stuff in public that wouldn't be allowed if they were straight, if that makes sense.
And also i learnt that christians are starting to accept gay people and dont really look down on them anymore... well, some of them.
blunt_smoker_420
05-07-2009, 01:03 PM
Ya we should cut them some slack. I can see why churches wont marry them but they always have civil unions, I think that's the name.
RYUJINN-JACK
05-07-2009, 01:24 PM
I think Civil Unions are unequal to Marriage in terms of benefits bestowed to the couple.
I agree with FatsTo: Marriage is a religious thing, why would a church marry a bhuddist couple? Or a Muslim couple? but not a gay couple?
Weird shit.
"I unite these two under our heavenly father"
_"whao whao, im sorry guy but, wtf is "our" heavenly father? just skip to the 'i doos' ok buddy?"
I wish I would only have to say this once, but repetition is inevitable...
It's not about religion. It never was.
It's about people of non-straight orientation being treated as equals in every sense of the word, regardless of what aspect of life or what institution is involved.
In this specific instance, it's about being treated with the same level of respect, dignity and privilege as any other two people who are in a loving, committed relationship.
No, churches do not marry Buddhists or Muslims, because they do not practice and follow the same philosophy, dogma and/or rituals. Gay people on the other hand may be completely devout members of their church, and may even follow Christianity better than many straight followers [homosexual controversy aside].
The church isn't the only front for gay people. It's also in the workplace, the home, social settings, and so on. Marriage just happens to be the most controversial and frequently covered subtopic of the whole movement.
But since its so ingrained into our culture i doubt ill find a woman with those same views as i have. They dont think that deeply. They just wanna be married. lolGet your head out of your ass--it's not the 1950s. Plenty of women have no interest in marriage because they would rather have an established career or simply do not feel that marriage is compatible with their lifestyle. Hell, some don't even agree with the institution of marriage to begin with.
blunt_smoker_420
05-07-2009, 01:54 PM
I have heard that churches wont marry gays because the bible states marriage is between a man and woman, It's not like they wont let them be apart of the church though.
Show me verses. I've had a textbook that specifically said Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality--only divorce and adultery. As far as I'm concerned, none of the Gospels all line up perfectly in their accounts of really any (much less every) event, so until I see a quote that the Bible claims is from Jesus (or God, I suppose) directly, it just sounds like a old-fashioned, overly traditional interpretation. There was a time when interracial marriage faced similar issues, but virtually no one gives it a second thought today.
blunt_smoker_420
05-07-2009, 02:35 PM
Ill look into it and keep in mind I am not against gay rights or marriage, just quoting what I have heard.
He's a Mentalist
05-07-2009, 06:49 PM
TW501, lol. You are one smart cookie I tell ya!
Get your head out of your ass--it's not the 1950s. Plenty of women have no interest in marriage because they would rather have an established career or simply do not feel that marriage is compatible with their lifestyle. Hell, some don't even agree with the institution of marriage to begin with.
It should be the 1950s minus the holocaust and all the other bs. Fatstogey, the bane of our existence is not religion, but women having careers...
Onto the topic. What rights of gays are being violated? Marriage? That is not the a basic human right, but rather a political right. From a rough estimation, more homosexuals than not, do not believe in god, do not follow religion nor consider it viable, so why do they want to get married? Simple question.
Xelphus
05-07-2009, 07:36 PM
For the record, a minister/priest/rabbi/etc. is not the only one who can marry two individuals. Both a Judge and the Captain of a ship (Don't know where this one comes from, it may just be rumor) can marry someone.
From my understanding, Gays mainly want the legal rights that other married couples share. The most idiotic thing is this: the word marriage. If you called it anything else, then most straight people wouldn't care cause "marriage isn't being violated," as it could be, say, Union or Buttbuddies (rep to whomever gets the reference here :P). Now, Gays are so tied up on the word marriage that calling it something else would be a gross violation of a right they currently don't have.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if Gays can get married or not. I cannot think of a single way as to how it affects my life one way or the other, nor can I think of anything that this could do to affect our declining economy.
<rant>On another note, the fact that Congress is debating Gay Marriage during a time when we should be focusing on rebuilding the economy is just absurd </rant>
arishkegal
05-07-2009, 07:41 PM
In the beginning, marriage was used for families to share assets and prestige, girls were given into marriage for monetary purposes, not love. So, when women talk about how they need to be married, they are just reinforcing that misogynistic(sp) worldview. A piece of paper does not guarantee love, because the same piece of paper could be ripped to shreds over money, look at the divorces of celebrities like Paul McCartney. Gays, if they want to be married, let them go ahead, no problem with me, because that is their business.
However, certain rights and privileges are granted to married couples that are not granted to unmarried couples, like being able to share a health insurance plan, willing property to a partner after death, and custody. Even though some states do have common law marriage, in some instances gay couples were actively discriminated against. So, imo, gay people want to be recognized and treated the same as straight people, so being able to marry is another step in achieving that. This society glorifies marriage so much that it is no getting around it.
Cursed
05-07-2009, 07:42 PM
Like I said before, gays have no rights.
Aidan
05-07-2009, 07:54 PM
*sigh* oh cursed...
Gays should be able to marry. My parents aren't religious, but they're happily married, because it is a symbol of their dedication to each other, their love. Besides, I think it's complete bullshit to bitch about the "sanctity of marriage" when divorce rates are as high as they are.
Another thing that pisses me off is people who are against gays & lesbians adopting or being foster parents on the grounds that the lack of a father or mother figure is bad for the kid's development. Oh, like being in a fucking orphanage or stuck in a foster home that doesn't really want them or is only taking them in for the money is better? Bullshit.
From a rough estimation, more homosexuals than not, do not believe in god, do not follow religion nor consider it viable, so why do they want to get married? Simple question.
Where on earth are you getting information that indicates the majority of gay people have no faith? I've never heard of a single study or survey that even broached the topic, much less published data on it. And as I said, it's not about religion--it's about equality.
Tina Fey may have had a point way back when on SNL's weekend update. She made a claim that legalizing gay marriage would help stimulate the economy.
As for the sanctity of marriage, I don't even think the divorce rates really factor into it. I'd say a more poignant aspect are the wonderful celebrity marriages, like Britney and Kevin. I realize that they are not the norm, but the fact still remains that seeing people enter and end a marriage in such a fashion may leave younger generations with a skewered perception of what kind of commitment marriage actually is.
As for the point on adoption, I completely agree. Plenty of gay couples are more than willing to provide a loving home for a child. They may even have a friend who stops in on occasion as a role model for the gender not represented in the parents. I have yet to see any studies showing detrimental effects on children as a result of being raised by gay parents.
Sure, the child may be harassed at school for it, but they may be harassed for any number of things. Kids can be cruel. It's just part of the transition. Eventually people will get used to the idea, get over their hostilities and misdirected aggressions, stop teaching their children hate in this instance, and accept gays, bisexuals, transgenders, etc. as valid members of society.
Gays exist in virtually every species, albeit in a minor percentage. Humans are not special or different.
1 up and 2 down
05-07-2009, 08:23 PM
For the record, a minister/priest/rabbi/etc. is not the only one who can marry two individuals. Both a Judge and the Captain of a ship (Don't know where this one comes from, it may just be rumor) can marry someone.
From my understanding, Gays mainly want the legal rights that other married couples share. The most idiotic thing is this: the word marriage. If you called it anything else, then most straight people wouldn't care cause "marriage isn't being violated," as it could be, say, Union or Buttbuddies (rep to whomever gets the reference here :P). Now, Gays are so tied up on the word marriage that calling it something else would be a gross violation of a right they currently don't have.
Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if Gays can get married or not. I cannot think of a single way as to how it affects my life one way or the other, nor can I think of anything that this could do to affect our declining economy.
<rant>On another note, the fact that Congress is debating Gay Marriage during a time when we should be focusing on rebuilding the economy is just absurd </rant>
South Park
And I say just give them civil unions that give them the same rights as a married couple gets.
TW501
05-07-2009, 08:30 PM
I'd like to believe that civil unions would be enough, but too often they aren't. Aside from not giving them the same level of dignity and recognition the government gives heterosexual marriage, the benefits often aren't always the same. Another factor is equality; many feel that by giving gays civil unions and heterosexuals marriage, there is the promotion of a 'separate but equal' mentality, which as anyone with basic history knowledge knows is often anything but equal.
Kairen
05-08-2009, 01:20 AM
Just putting my two cents in again cuz I'm too tired to read the whole thread. I'm not gonna try getting into a religious debate here because I doubt that was the purpose of this thread to begin with. For instance, nowhere did TW501 mention anything about religion in his first post. Personally, I don't care if two men, or two women, want to marry each other. If they love each other, I don't think anything should stop them from doing so. Love can't be defined, not by me, not by anyone. If I can't define love, why should I preach that it is wrong for two people of the same sex to love each other? So I say yes, give them all the rights they want. They are human beings walking on the same planet as the rest of us. They shouldn't be ostricized or discriminated for having tendencies different from other people defined as normal.
Feranor
05-08-2009, 04:47 AM
If the "general public" recognized civil unions and marriage as absolutely equal, it wouldn't really matter that they're called differently. However, that's not exactly the case. Civil unions, I'd say, are generally perceived as something like "second class marriage"; and I don't think that this is necessarily (or exclusively) because they don't come with the same rights.
Ignoring the naming problem, the rights and privileges attached to marriage/civil unions should be the same.
Since marriage is neither purely religious nor secular, but rather somewhere in between, the argument that "religion defines marriage as a bond between members of the opposite sex" doesn't work.
Aidan
05-08-2009, 05:37 AM
exactly. Marriage is a symbol of ultimate love and devotion, and no consenting adult couple should be denied it.
btill9000
05-08-2009, 08:46 AM
Since the previous gay rights thread was derailed by spammers, I have created this new one to replace it. What sparked my decision to do so was the passage of legislation in two U.S. states that would allow same-sex marriage. The governor of Maine has already signed the new law, and New Hampshire may soon follow.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090506/ts_alt_afp/uspoliticssocietygaysmarriage2nd_20090506192051
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090506/ap_on_re_us/us_xgr_gay_marriage_nh_1
As with the last thread, this will be for the discussion of gay rights in general rather than one specific topic. The same-sex marriage issue will likely be dominant for a while, but other issues are welcome. I'd also like to remind everyone not to spam. Spamming will be dealt with much more strictly than last time, so DO NOT SPAM!!!
Easy. Legislating Culture = BAD. New topic please.
The fact of what marriage used to be and represent isn't even relevant anymore because like many other societal institutions, it's evolved with culture, history and the needs of contemporary people. Sure there are some traditions that follow older practices, such as the father of the bride paying for the wedding, but why should we be restricted to tradition?
Even if civil unions and marriages had exactly the same legal privileges, etc., the difference in names would still be an issue because two different names implies that they are different. It doesn't matter if the differences are purely superficial. The fact that there is a distinction begs the question of why] the distinction exists. Using the term 'civil unions' is still an ever so slight way of refusing to acknowledge and accept the gay community as a legitimate part of society and culture. It's discrimination.
btill9000
05-08-2009, 11:25 AM
Using the term 'civil unions' is still an ever so slight way of refusing to acknowledge and accept the gay community as a legitimate part of society and culture. It's discrimination.
Thats the fun part about culture. It's up to the people involved in the culture as to what they want to include in it. Using legislation to force something into culture should never be done. Civil Unions include everything except the cultural acceptance, and legislation should not be used to create cultural acceptance.
Not to mention that not all discrimination is illegal in the United States, nor should it should be. Activities that have an enormous and outstanding impact on all things around them should be discriminated against in some cases. This is why you can't smoke, drink, walk around nude, or take a pet anywhere. Federal law only covers discrimination in regards to employment, housing, voting rights, education, access to public facilities, race, age, gender, nationality, disability, and religion.
Thats the fun part about culture. It's up to the people involved in the culture as to what they want to include in it. Using legislation to force something into culture should never be done. Civil Unions include everything except the cultural acceptance, and legislation should not be used to create cultural acceptance.
The reverse is also true. Establishing legislature that contains discrimination [i.e. an amendment banning gay marriage, or civil union legislature that refuses to refer to gay couples as 'married'] reinforces pervading opinions that that discrimination is acceptable and that one group [or groups] has a right to refuse some people the respect and dignity that they deserve.
btill9000
05-08-2009, 11:51 AM
The reverse is also true. Establishing legislature that contains discrimination [i.e. an amendment banning gay marriage, or civil union legislature that refuses to refer to gay couples as 'married'] reinforces pervading opinions that that discrimination is acceptable and that one group [or groups] has a right to refuse some people the respect and dignity that they deserve.
Legislation should not demand respect or dignity. Homosexuals should get the same benefits that Heterosexuals by getting Civil Unions, but thats as far as it should go. If you are doing something that your society doesn't consider respectable or worthy of dignifying that is a personal choice you have made.
Feranor
05-08-2009, 12:39 PM
But what if the "reasoning" behind the discrimination is just blatantly stupid/bigoted/hypocritical?
If the general public's opinion was to deny left-handed citizens the right to drive a car (because the gear shift thingy is on the right side or something equally stupid), the legislative system still wouldn't have to create a law enforcing that.
Aidan
05-08-2009, 12:44 PM
it's not legislation to force people to accept gay marriage, it's legislation to make it not illegal. besides, anyone who's against ending discrimination can go fuck themselves and whatever excuses they try to use.
besides, sexual orientation is not a choice, it's a part of who you are. It's how you're born. Why would anyone have chosen to be gay in the past and still, when they're treated like shit? I refuse to believe that all gays are closet masochists. Fucking stupid.
^ some people do choose to be gay aidan
GeniusBob
05-08-2009, 01:07 PM
Shes got a point. My cousin was perfectly straight until a few years ago.
That aside, I don't care what anybody does with their lives, it's not my business to judge nor care for that matters. No matter what you decide here, somebody is going to pitch a fit. That; the wonder of American culture. We all have the right to stand on a soap box and b*tch until the cows come home about any given topic. I say America's doing pretty good, what with allowing you to choose your sexual orientation and all. Some countries don't that that well at all.
btill9000
05-08-2009, 01:12 PM
it's not legislation to force people to accept gay marriage, it's legislation to make it not illegal.
Sure you want to legislate acceptance. Thats the only reason to change the legal definition of the marriage, rather than accept beneficially equivalent civil unions.
The majority of people that are against Gay Marriage don't have an issue with Civil Unions that consist of everything that comes with marriage. The person, Luna, above was being honest when she said that she wants to legislate respect and dignity. I think you feel the same way as she does.
besides, sexual orientation is not a choice, it's a part of who you are.
This is highly up for debate. Many parents believe that children have a smaller chance of being homosexuals if they are not subjected to it.
But what if the "reasoning" behind the discrimination is just blatantly stupid/bigoted/hypocritical?
Whats stupid about not wanting the government to start legislating culture, society, acceptance, dignity, and other things..
If the general public's opinion was to deny left-handed citizens the right to drive a car (because the gear shift thingy is on the right side or something equally stupid), the legislative system still wouldn't have to create a law enforcing that.
I think you are trying to manufacture a metaphor that just isn't going to work. Don't think I am going to respond to comparing Gay Marriage, Sexual Orientation, and generally culture to a gear shift. Please try again :amused:
GeniusBob
05-08-2009, 01:24 PM
Be it based on bigotry or not, the fact nothing gets done is that just as many people will be ticked one way or the other, no matter what you do. That's the way it's been, which means keeping it like that is the easiest option.
For every open minded decent person, there will always be somebody who is on the opposite side of the spectrum.
Feranor
05-08-2009, 02:31 PM
This is highly up for debate. Many parents believe that children have a smaller chance of being homosexuals if they are not subjected to it.
So what? Why should we care about uneducated opinions like that? It's just a random conclusion based on nothing, arisen from paranoia and stupidity.
Whats stupid about not wanting the government to start legislating culture, society, acceptance, dignity, and other things..
I don't think this is about the government telling you what to like or dislike. It's about the government protecting one group from the stupidity of another.
I think you are trying to manufacture a metaphor that just isn't going to work. Don't think I am going to respond to comparing Gay Marriage, Sexual Orientation, and generally culture to a gear shift. Please try again :amused:
It's called an analogy. And unless someone provides a valid reason not to allow same sex couples to marry, my sarcastic suggestion here is just as justified.
---
If seeing gay people makes you gay, then logically seeing straight people makes you straight. How does that work? Also, by the same arbitrary reasoning, seeing black people would make you black. Seeing autistic people would make you autistic. And so on.
And if being gay is a choice, then being straight is a choice as well. Yet there's a rather large number of gay people that suffer from discrimination and sometimes even go as far as killing themselves because of the hardships often connected to homosexuality. If they could just choose to be straight, then how do you explain the relatively high suicide rate among gay teenagers?
Cursed
05-08-2009, 03:47 PM
Seeing straight people does in fact make you straight. My best friend was formerly a lesbian until she started hanging out with me and my group of friends. After about 2 years she said that she is a bisexual as opposed to being a lesbian.
Recently she has shown more proper, straight behavior, and I believe it'll only take another year before she entirely turns straight.
The moral of the story is to turn hot lesbian chicks you like into proper, straight girls.
My view about gay rights has always been one of tolerance. I believe that people have the right to choose what they want to do with their life, because they will take on the good and bad effects of their decisions. As long as they keep their beliefs to themselves, and don't involve me in anything that I would otherwise not have done. Seriously though, who gave us the power to decide how someone wants to live their life? Homosexuality is not a disease...it's a lifestyle. So, using children impressions as an excuse to hide behind is just trying to avoid being labeled as a "homo-phobe." Children are products of their environment, but they are able to make their own decisions about who they want to spend their their life with.
He's a Mentalist
05-08-2009, 05:01 PM
Seriously though, who gave us the power to decide how someone wants to live their life?
Lol, every time I see these types of questions I start to laugh. Who gave who the power? The answer should be obvious, we did! We are a society, societies have different institutions set in place, and those same institutions act like some type of social club. In this case, the enticing social club of the church which instituted contracts between two people, primarily female and male in order to validate their love to one another. In the same respect this practice has become so popular that it was instituted into the minds that this is what two people do when they are in love! Well, that is bullshit. When you are in love you do not need a contract to solidify that, you know it.
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Moscow has banned a gay parade planned to coincide with its hosting of the Eurovision Song Contest because it will "destroy morals" in the capital, a spokesman for the city's mayor said Thursday.
Gay rights activists have staged small unsanctioned parades in Moscow without government approval over the past few years. But they have faced arrests and severe beatings by anti-gay and neo-fascist groups.
"The Moscow government is saying: Moscow has never had gay parades and it never will," said Mayor Yuri Luzhkov's spokesman, Sergei Tsoi. "Not only do they destroy morals within our society, but they consciously provoke disorder which threatens the lives of Muscovites and visitors."
Parade organizer and prominent gay rights activist Nikolai Alekseyev said on his website www.gayrussia.ru (http://www.gayrussia.ru) that the event would take place anyway.
"This is our right and it is guaranteed by the constitution. No official, including the Moscow mayor, has the right to violate it," Alekseyev said.
But Luzhkov's spokesman said any attempt to hold an unsanctioned gay parade would be "toughly stopped by law enforcement agencies in accordance with the law."
Luzhkov, who has been mayor of Moscow since 1992, once said gay parades were "a satanic act"
Russia did not decriminalize gay sex until 1993, two years after the Soviet Union's collapse, and intolerance is widespread.
Moscow has no gay-friendly district and the homosexual scene is still largely underground. Public displays of affection between same-sex couples are rare.
The gay parade, scheduled for May 16, was meant to coincide with Moscow's hosting of the Eurovision Song Contest. Activists had asked that competitors back homosexual rights on stage.
A Swiss-based Eurovision spokesman, currently in Moscow, declined to comment on the banning of the parade but said: "It's not a secret that we have a large gay audience and we respect everyone's backgrounds."
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE54654020090507 (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/i...E54654020090507)
But that's implying that you don't believe in God's will. Sorry, but for the religious...that's not how it's viewed. You can voice your opinion, but don't make it sound like you're stating fact over fiction....it's just your observation.
Though I do admit your right when it comes to needing a "contract" to prove your love to someone...
He's a Mentalist
05-08-2009, 06:26 PM
I don't get the first part of your post. I wasn't implicating the unbelief of God's will. I was stating that the church is a place where the proposed idea of having it etched in writing (paper) that two people are married. I could care-less about homos needing to conform to such a reckless, dumb idea of marriage. And yes I am stating mostly facts which is the history of modern marriage in a nut shell.
Now in the old days before this crap of a society revamped marriage, marriage was not between a woman and man, but the man (potential groom) gaining the approval of the father. If the father approved of the groom he walked his daughter down to the groom in a public place to show people that he approved of them being together. That is the old way of marriage, there were no contract and priests involved, just the father approving of the groom. The woman had no say in the matter. Nowadays women want all this bs which costs way too much money when they should be thinking about their future and buying a house.
Besides, modern marriage only allows the weaker spouse to inherit more than they are worth from the stronger spouse. Even prenuptial agreements have been thrown out in some cases which is ridiculous. Those high powered lawyers are something else I tell ya...
Lol @ the link dyne posted...
Homosexuality is not a disease. It is not contagious. It has no pathology.
Homosexuality is not a choice. No sane person chooses to take on an unfamiliar, unwelcome lifestyle. No one chooses to be confused. People come out at any age. It may turn out to be a phase for some people. they may not be sure and experiment as a means of determining their inherent preference. It may be that some people are attracted to both genders, but not equally, or do not have the same level of commitment for both. The fact that someone lived most of their life one way and then comes out may be from living in self-denial, lack of self-discovery, lack of self-knowledge, fear, or years of confusion and no one to talk to. It can be for any number of reasons. Many people have made it to middle age, not feeling right, never having a clue what seemed wrong. It may not have occurred to a person that they could be gay, and then one day, they meet someone who turns their world upside down.
As for the parental paranoia, I agree with Feranor. Parents were also afraid when the first black children were allowed into a white school. I don't see this as really any different. No parent is perfect. No parent can be definite what will or will not be detrimental to a child's development, outside of statistical probability. I have not seen any statistics that conclusively claim gay parents raise gay children. Nor have I seen conclusive evidence that exposure to the concept of homosexuality influences sexual orientation.
Homosexuality is not a disease. It is not contagious. It has no pathology.
Homosexuality is not a choice. No sane person chooses to take on an unfamiliar, unwelcome lifestyle. No one chooses to be confused. People come out at any age. It may turn out to be a phase for some people. they may not be sure and experiment as a means of determining their inherent preference. It may be that some people are attracted to both genders, but not equally, or do not have the same level of commitment for both. The fact that someone lived most of their life one way and then comes out may be from living in self-denial, lack of self-discovery, lack of self-knowledge, fear, or years of confusion and no one to talk to. It can be for any number of reasons. Many people have made it to middle age, not feeling right, never having a clue what seemed wrong. It may not have occurred to a person that they could be gay, and then one day, they meet someone who turns their world upside down.
As for the parental paranoia, I agree with Feranor. Parents were also afraid when the first black children were allowed into a white school. I don't see this as really any different. No parent is perfect. No parent can be definite what will or will not be detrimental to a child's development, outside of statistical probability. I have not seen any statistics that conclusively claim gay parents raise gay children. Nor have I seen conclusive evidence that exposure to the concept of homosexuality influences sexual orientation.
Um there is no proof in what you say, in fact their is much more evidence that it is psychological which would make it choice. you fail stop making up facts
Psychological factors do not make it a conscious choice.
That's like saying a person chooses to be afraid of spiders. Yes, there's psychology involved, possibly an event long ago that established that fear, but it's a reaction, not a choice.
Psychological factors do not make it a conscious choice.
That's like saying a person chooses to be afraid of spiders. Yes, there's psychology involved, possibly an event long ago that established that fear, but it's a reaction, not a choice.
you're not born afraid of spiders
No people are not born afraid of spiders.
Where have I said people are born gay? Infants and children have no concept of sexuality. That kicks in later with adolescence when all the hormones let loose, possibly sooner depending on how much affection they bear witness to earlier on.
nuttychemist
05-08-2009, 08:52 PM
Show me verses. I've had a textbook that specifically said Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality--only divorce and adultery. today.
Thank you! Its not often that there are level headed discussions regarding "same sex marriage" toss in religion and its like handling an armed nuclear device :P
It should be the 1950s minus the holocaust and all the other bs. Fatstogey, the bane of our existence is not religion, but women having careers....
I'm only responding to you because if you're going to make statements about things... you should know the *FACTS* Like the fact that the Holocaust happened during World War II... which started in the early 1930's and ended in the 1940's. While I'm sure you think the '50s is a great time to live.. I'm sure you'd get sick of it quickly... there are many things that modern day society takes for granted that they didn't have back then...
*sigh* oh cursed...
Another thing that pisses me off is people who are against gays & lesbians adopting or being foster parents on the grounds that the lack of a father or mother figure is bad for the kid's development. Oh, like being in a fucking orphanage or stuck in a foster home that doesn't really want them or is only taking them in for the money is better? Bullshit.
I agree with you whole heartedly... there is no good reason to discriminate against same sex couples looking to adopt...
I'd like to believe that civil unions would be enough, but too often they aren't. Aside from not giving them the same level of dignity and recognition the government gives heterosexual marriage, the benefits often aren't always the same. Another factor is equality; many feel that by giving gays civil unions and heterosexuals marriage, there is the promotion of a 'separate but equal' mentality, which as anyone with basic history knowledge knows is often anything but equal.
The separate but equal shit didn't work in the 60's when it came to segregation and the education system (just as an example)
Legislation should not demand respect or dignity. Homosexuals should get the same benefits that Heterosexuals by getting Civil Unions, but thats as far as it should go. If you are doing something that your society doesn't consider respectable or worthy of dignifying that is a personal choice you have made.
I really don't understand what people are deluded enough to honestly believe that any gay/lesbian/transgender individual would CHOOSE to be this way... Oh yeah... I just *LOVE* being discriminated against and treated differently because I happen to be wired this way... I've always had a "thing" for girls... since I was a small child... before I knew anything about gay/straight or diagonal :P
it's not legislation to force people to accept gay marriage, it's legislation to make it not illegal. besides, anyone who's against ending discrimination can go fuck themselves and whatever excuses they try to use.
besides, sexual orientation is not a choice, it's a part of who you are. It's how you're born. Why would anyone have chosen to be gay in the past and still, when they're treated like shit? I refuse to believe that all gays are closet masochists. Fucking stupid.Thank you!!!!that's my point too... I don't understand what people have this stupid misconception on the ability to "choose" your sexuality.... do you really think I enjoy being judged and hated based just on the fact that I like WOMEN?!?
I lived in Los Angeles during the election and it was a very interesting thing... I don't think any of the people who stood on street corners waving Signs for Yes on Prop 8... this people are minorities... going against another minority... to deny a group a basic RIGHT! I should be able to marry the person I love... whether its a man or woman... its not like the gay/lesbian/transgender community want to marry animals... they want to marry who they love! since when is that wrong???
I love how people claim to be "cured of homosexuality" Umm its called they're lying and just want people to leave them alone... this is why I generally don't discuss my personal preferance. It should matter to anyone who I prefer to sleep with :P
its choice end of discussion
Goroth
05-08-2009, 08:52 PM
Not again.
I stand firm on my status towards gay rights as they should be limited to relationship, marriage, but no child adoption.
He's a Mentalist
05-08-2009, 09:04 PM
I'm only responding to you because if you're going to make statements about things... you should know the *FACTS* Like the fact that the Holocaust happened during World War II... which started in the early 1930's and ended in the 1940's. While I'm sure you think the '50s is a great time to live.. I'm sure you'd get sick of it quickly... there are many things that modern day society takes for granted that they didn't have back then...
Well excuse me.
I really don't understand what people are deluded enough to honestly believe that any gay/lesbian/transgender individual would CHOOSE to be this way.
Like dyne mentioned several times, it is a choice based on your environment and psychological factor. That is what sexuality is based upon. You people seem to think that sexuality is an inherent product of our existence and we can not choose it. That is wrong.
Thank you!!!!that's my point too... I don't understand what people have this stupid misconception on the ability to "choose" your sexuality.... do you really think I enjoy being judged and hated based just on the fact that I like WOMEN?!?
You chose your sexuality simply because you deviate towards women due to your own psychological state. Once the conclusive evidence that sexual preference is a genotype then I will start believing that it is inherent and not chosen, but until I see this conclusive evidence I will divulge myself in the mindset that homosexuality is not normal. Even if it is a genotype then it is a defective gene similar to trisomy 21 or mental retardation.
Being influenced by the environment or psychological factors are NOT CONSCIOUS DECISIONS. Do you choose the dynamics of the household you grow up in? No. Do you choose to be born in a certain time or place, with a certain genetic makeup? No.
Homosexuality is not like buying a car. You don't research the options and then decide accordingly. You just know what you like and what you don't like [and sometimes you don't even know that much].
Goroth
05-08-2009, 09:16 PM
Being influenced by the environment or psychological factors are NOT CONSCIOUS DECISIONS. Do you choose the dynamics of the household you grow up in? No. Do you choose to be born in a certain time or place, with a certain genetic makeup? No.
Homosexuality is not like buying a car. You don't research the options and then decide accordingly. You just know what you like and what you don't like [and sometimes you don't even know that much].
Natural-born gays are one thing, I guess. But how the fuck do they become gay out of the blues? This is what buzzles me. I don't think it's a late kick in the brain that gay-spark ignites, more like a modern social mental disorder or something.
I already covered that question here (http://forums.bleachexile.com/showpost.php?p=1780043&postcount=39)
Goroth
05-08-2009, 09:23 PM
Interesting. So, this means that we (men) can become gays at that given right moment of self-relief and enlightenment? How is this possible? Let's imagine I have 2 kids and a wife, I'm a middle class man who works from 9-5 on monday to friday. And I love my wife, more so, I love to have sex with her and I'm a good father. However, I feel a bit paranoid, uneasy etc... then all of a sudden, I become GAY?! I mean wft?!
He's a Mentalist
05-08-2009, 09:23 PM
Lol, if weak arguments like the one I am about to respond keeps being posted, then I see no further use of this topic aside from having a bunch of people conforming under one mind set.
Being influenced by the environment or psychological factors are NOT CONSCIOUS DECISIONS. Do you choose the dynamics of the household you grow up in? No. Do you choose to be born in a certain time or place, with a certain genetic makeup? No.That is a major weak analogy. Firstly, children/teenager cannot actually choose where they grow up because they are not old enough to move, and if they ran away they would probably be in a worse environment. And what the hell does growing up in a household, choosing to be born in a certain place or time, have anything to do with your conclusion? Go back to the drawing board because those flimsy premises are invalid and are just stupid.
Homosexuality is not like buying a car. You don't research the options and then decide accordingly. You just know what you like and what you don't like [and sometimes you don't even know that much].How does this factor into it not being a choice? Again, you need some premises to support such a conclusion because right now, either you have no supporting reasoning for your conclusion, or you down right support your conclusion with weak, or invalid premises.
@Goroth: That answer was easily shot down...
Interesting. So, this means that we (men) can become gays at that given right moment of self-relief and enlightenment? How is this possible? Let's imagine I have 2 kids and a wife, I'm a middle class man who works from 9-5 on monday to friday. And I love my wife, more so, I love to have sex with her and I'm a good father. However, I feel a bit paranoid, uneasy etc... then all of a sudden, I become GAY?! I mean wft?!
I never said that was an automatic explanation. All I said was it was a possibility. There have been people of both genders who have lived and hand families as straight individuals and then realized they never actually felt true love for their partner. I never said someone who honestly believes that they love their opposite sex spouse and love having sex with their opposite sex spouse woke up one day and magically was gay.
And to Mental, I was illustrating a point with analogies. Something you obviously aren't grasping.
He's a Mentalist
05-08-2009, 09:37 PM
You seriously have some type of reading/comprehension obstruction. Something you aren't getting is, those analogies were weak... Read into my post more and maybe you can construct a better argument next time.
I never said someone who honestly believes that they love their opposite sex spouse and love having sex with their opposite sex spouse woke up one day and magically was gay.
No one else is either! Just stating that homos chose their sexuality.
You seriously have some type of reading/comprehension obstruction. Something you aren't getting is, those analogies were weak... Read into my post more and maybe you can construct a better argument next time.
You don't grasp my point because your concept of 'choice' is flawed.
No one else is either! Just stating that homos chose their sexuality.
Ok, ignoring straight or gay, who chooses who they are attracted to? Yes, you can identify attributes that you typically find attractive, but it is entirely possible to meet a person who has none of those traits, and still be attracted to them. How is that a choice?
He's a Mentalist
05-08-2009, 10:02 PM
You don't grasp my point because your concept of 'choice' is flawed.
My concept of choice ties in with the actual reference of the word 'choice,' not some made up assumption of what it might mean. That is the difference. My concept is flawed? Back it up.
Ok, ignoring straight or gay, who chooses who they are attracted to? Yes, you can identify attributes that you typically find attractive, but it is entirely possible to meet a person who has none of those traits, and still be attracted to them. How is that a choice?
I am getting tired of these moronic hypothetical situations and lack of philosophical motif placed behind them. They aren't even substantially worth considering something to respond to, but while I wait, I will respond.
We ignore straight and gay... Identify attributes we find attractive... Stumble upon someone who does not possess not one attribute we find attractive... Then, you assert that it is possible that we become attracted to them?
Let me tell you this, if a person has none of the features I am attracted to, they would either be a man, or a woman with bad breath, hairy body, unintelligent, a blond, no ass nor breasts, doesn't listen to any of the music I do, has a dyke-like figure, and is ugly beyond describable means. You are saying that I would find them attractive? Not even in a hypothetical situation would I find them attractive.
Psychological factors do not make it a conscious choice.
That's like saying a person chooses to be afraid of spiders. Yes, there's psychology involved, possibly an event long ago that established that fear, but it's a reaction, not a choice.
lol dear if u chose to be lesbian to be *diferent* and to have fun thats non of my problem go lick all the pussys in the world and stay quiet i dont need u to stick this on my face, and i dont need anyone like you to say wants to addopt kids and whatnot
gay rights my ass, homos raising kids owell sure then what if 2 woman or 2 men raise kid? its automatically mentally disturbed bc it has no real view of parrent factors
get lost
also it gets pretty old people coming out saying *omg we support gays*..like look at us we are soo open minded yay? Try to think with ur heads for a change doesnt take more then a few hundred braincells, ofcourse u need to have them i forgot
nuttychemist
05-09-2009, 01:20 AM
lol dear if u chose to be lesbian to be *diferent* and to have fun thats non of my problem go lick all the pussys in the world and stay quiet i dont need u to stick this on my face, and i dont need anyone like you to say wants to addopt kids and whatnot
Again, I'm going to say its *not* a choice! The fact that you can't use proper English and resort to such close-minded attitude is pathetic. Why bother reading a thread discussing gay-marriage and rights, if it bothers you so much. This thread is about discussing the issue, not judging. If you have a thing against gay/lesbian/transgender people, that's your deal, but I think its sad. I'll say this, if you don't want "i dont need u to stick this on my face" don't keep reading this thread, you're just spewing bigoted bullshit and not contributing.
gay rights my ass, homos raising kids owell sure then what if 2 woman or 2 men raise kid? its automatically mentally disturbed bc it has no real view of parrent factors
Umm... wow, what an "intelligent" contribution to this conversation *rolls eyes* I wonder how you feel about single parents? Divorced couples? Are they really any better? All that you've been spouting is bigoted propaganda, there are no facts or truth behind what you say. None. I suggest you open your mind a bit and take a look at the world around you. The ability to raise a child doesn't lie in anything but the ability to love and nourish. I'm sure a child raised in a same-sex household is going to have a better grasp of the world than you do. They're going to probably grow up with a better perspective of the world... especially since they're going to have to deal with people like you, who are so close-minded and bigoted its sad. [/QUOTE]
get lost
also it gets pretty old people coming out saying *omg we support gays*..like look at us we are soo open minded yay? Try to think with ur heads for a change doesnt take more then a few hundred braincells, ofcourse u need to have them i forgot
It gets really old listening to the same old lame ass close-minded propaganda. I think its the conservative Christian's of this world that are able to brain-wash the majority of weak minded individuals to believe that homosexuality is evil and that God hates gays. I think the person who needs to use their head is you, between typos and the lack of ability to type a coherent sentence really has me questioning your own ability to do exactly what you seem to think those of us who don't agree with your twisted close-minded views. There is a reason gays/lesbians/transgender people live "in the closet" its to hide from bigoted assholes like you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by He's a Mentalist
Well excuse me.
Just wanted to keep it real... besides the get the facts straight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by He's a Mentalist
Like dyne mentioned several times, it is a choice based on your environment and psychological factor. That is what sexuality is based upon. You people seem to think that sexuality is an inherent product of our existence and we can not choose it. That is wrong.
Umm... I'd like to ask this then, how is it that I grew up in a loving HETEROSEXUAL household, if you're opinion is based on "environment & psychological factor" I'd love to know how growing up in a safe, loving, heterosexual environment could some how make me a lesbian? I lack for nothing and no I was never sexually/physically/mentally abused. Where is your proof saying that sexuality *isn't* an inherent product of our existence?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_prof.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality
[/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by He's a Mentalist
You chose your sexuality simply because you deviate towards women due to your own psychological state. Once the conclusive evidence that sexual preference is a genotype then I will start believing that it is inherent and not chosen, but until I see this conclusive evidence I will divulge myself in the mindset that homosexuality is not normal. Even if it is a genotype then it is a defective gene similar to trisomy 21 or mental retardation.
I can respect your choice in belief, it's well said and thought out, something that I appreciate even if I don't agree. I think the problem with this whole debate is the fact that its going to be difficult to research properly without bias because this is such a polorazing topic. There is aren't many people that stand in the middle ground. Maybe its part psychological and part genetic... I personally know that I've always been attracted to women. I attribute that to the fact that I find the woman figure much more beautiful as an artist. Sure there are good looking men out there that I appreciate their beauty... but it doesn't do anything for me personally. I'll add that I don't have this set list of attributes that I look for in a partner. Sure there are physical attributes I like, but when I'm thinking what I'm looking for in a partner, I'm more interested in meeting people who are intelligent(or who can hold interesting, thoughtful conversations), have a sense of humor and are compassionate.
Sarvik
05-09-2009, 02:52 AM
I don't think that government should regulate marriage.
Again, I'm going to say its *not* a choice! The fact that you can't use proper English and resort to such close-minded attitude is pathetic. Why bother reading a thread discussing gay-marriage and rights, if it bothers you so much. This thread is about discussing the issue, not judging. If you have a thing against gay/lesbian/transgender people, that's your deal, but I think its sad. I'll say this, if you don't want "i dont need u to stick this on my face" don't keep reading this thread, you're just spewing bigoted bullshit and not contributing.
Umm... wow, what an "intelligent" contribution to this conversation *rolls eyes* I wonder how you feel about single parents? Divorced couples? Are they really any better? All that you've been spouting is bigoted propaganda, there are no facts or truth behind what you say. None. I suggest you open your mind a bit and take a look at the world around you. The ability to raise a child doesn't lie in anything but the ability to love and nourish. I'm sure a child raised in a same-sex household is going to have a better grasp of the world than you do. They're going to probably grow up with a better perspective of the world... especially since they're going to have to deal with people like you, who are so close-minded and bigoted its sad.
It gets really old listening to the same old lame ass close-minded propaganda. I think its the conservative Christian's of this world that are able to brain-wash the majority of weak minded individuals to believe that homosexuality is evil and that God hates gays. I think the person who needs to use their head is you, between typos and the lack of ability to type a coherent sentence really has me questioning your own ability to do exactly what you seem to think those of us who don't agree with your twisted close-minded views. There is a reason gays/lesbians/transgender people live "in the closet" its to hide from bigoted assholes like you.[/QUOTE]
-------------------------------------------------------
lol u consider urself inteligent? sorry to break ur buble what choice kids who eventually get addopted by gay ppl have?
wow i think none so? where is human rights? Dont play all opened minded to me ive seen enouf of that bullcrap
if 2 ppl same gender were ment to have kids they wouldbve be able REPRODUCE THEMSELVES
now stick ur smartness in ur gaywhole and go to fuck off
im sick of ur lame progay propaganda mister openminded shit
go learn psycology, go get simple education and go learn to use ur brains then come argue
or wait u are one of the *its not in my house so i support it*
fuck the hell off
Feranor
05-09-2009, 03:20 AM
Sorry, but if you're going to claim that homosexuality is a choice, you'll have to account for that.
Besides, this has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of rights, because whether it's a choice has no influence on whether it should be accepted or not.
Also, you still have to give a reason why homosexuals should not be given the exact same rights as heterosexuals.
---
Seeing straight people does in fact make you straight. My best friend was formerly a lesbian until she started hanging out with me and my group of friends. After about 2 years she said that she is a bisexual as opposed to being a lesbian.
Recently she has shown more proper, straight behavior, and I believe it'll only take another year before she entirely turns straight.
The moral of the story is to turn hot lesbian chicks you like into proper, straight girls.
So if I were to throw a glass out of the window, and it didn't break; that means that everything made of glass is indestructible?
I've been playing card games with a number of friends every other week or so for almost two years, about half of them know that I'm gay, yet no one turned more gay in any way. Nor did I turn straight. Hasty generalizations won't get you anywhere.
Um there is no proof in what you say, in fact their is much more evidence that it is psychological which would make it choice. you fail stop making up facts
Could you share this evidence with us then?
---
Like dyne mentioned several times, it is a choice based on your environment and psychological factor. That is what sexuality is based upon. You people seem to think that sexuality is an inherent product of our existence and we can not choose it. That is wrong.
Well, you obviously seem to think otherwise. Would saying "That is wrong." refute this? Unless you provide any evidence, yes it does.
Or are you still talking about the choice to act according to your innate orientation like in the other thread?
You chose your sexuality simply because you deviate towards women due to your own psychological state. Once the conclusive evidence that sexual preference is a genotype then I will start believing that it is inherent and not chosen, but until I see this conclusive evidence I will divulge myself in the mindset that homosexuality is not normal. Even if it is a genotype then it is a defective gene similar to trisomy 21 or mental retardation.
The chance that an identical twin of a gay person is also gay is much higher than when comparing fraternal twins. Thus, genes do play a major role, but they're not the only factor.
Goroth
05-09-2009, 05:48 AM
I never said that was an automatic explanation. All I said was it was a possibility. There have been people of both genders who have lived and hand families as straight individuals and then realized they never actually felt true love for their partner. I never said someone who honestly believes that they love their opposite sex spouse and love having sex with their opposite sex spouse woke up one day and magically was gay.
No, you never did say exactly like that. But your sentences and words do paint a similar picture. I mean, people will live thru troubled times, it's inescapable. Just because of less love, less enjoyment doesn't necessarily open the doors to gayism. I just stand firm on gays not should have the rights or the thoughts of adopting a child, that's my bottom line on gay-rights pff..
pyre-fly
05-09-2009, 06:13 AM
Why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to adopt? If they are able to provide a stable, loving household with financial security, they are far more capable of providing for a child than many other parents out there.
Sure, these kids may experience some sort of psychological funk as they grow older, but I think it would make the majority of them better and more understanding/tolerant adults for it.
The operative keyword is may. It's not like a child raised by gay parents is deranged by default. Find me the evidence (real, credible evidence) that contradicts this, and I'll retract that statement.
At the end of the day, I would rather see a child raised by loving gay (adoptive) parents than see the same child beaten to death (by their biological parents) on the 6 o'clock news.
Goroth
05-09-2009, 06:29 AM
Why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to adopt? If they are able to provide a stable, loving household with financial security, they are far more capable of providing for a child than many other parents out there.
Sure, these kids may experience some sort of psychological funk as they grow older, but I think it would make them better and more understanding/tolerant adults for it.
The operative keyword is may. It's not like a child raised by gay parents is deranged by default. Find me the evidence (real, credible evidence) that contradicts this, and I'll retract that statement.
At the end of the day, I would rather see a child raised by loving gay (adoptive) parents than see the same child beaten to death (by their biological parents) on the 6 o'clock news.
Call me a conservative bastard or whatever it is that you label the traditional ways. The thing is not about the child or the stable environment that he/she might grow up in. What I disagree on is that a child should be raised by mom and dad, not dad and dad. Sure they can adopt, sure they can provide nourishment, but I'd hate to be that kid who has gay parents. There is simpy no force today to end the stereotyping of fags, therefore the kid will only go thru tough times at school, parties, conventions, even churches... rofl, so to spare the child from pressure, adaptation should be prohibited to gays IMO.
I know myself as an extremist on gays, but just can't say I agree
here...
by the way: We don't have much gays here, so no real-life evidence to support my ideals. But I'm sure the world is full of it...
pyre-fly
05-09-2009, 06:56 AM
Call me a conservative bastard or whatever it is that you label the traditional ways. The thing is not about the child or the stable environment that he/she might grow up in. What I disagree on is that a child should be raised by mom and dad, not dad and dad. Sure they can adopt, sure they can provide nourishment, but I'd hate to be that kid who has gay parents. There is simpy no force today to end the stereotyping of fags, therefore the kid will only go thru tough times at school, parties, conventions, even churches... rofl, so to spare the child from pressure, adaptation should be prohibited to gays IMO.
I know myself as an extremist on gays, but just can't say I agree
here...
by the way: We don't have much gays here, so no real-life evidence to support my ideals. But I'm sure the world is full of it...
I get that, and I appreciate the difference in opinion.
Personally, I'm nowhere near as conservative in my opinions. If a kid's biggest problem in life is the stigma associated with their homosexual parents, I'd say that they still have it easy compared to the children that die as a result of starvation, neglect, and/or violence each day.
Most of those children (it's not right to assume 'all') would accept food, shelter and a stable home, regardless of who the providers are.
If same-sex couples have the means and the desire to raise and adopt children, I don't see any reason why they can't do just that.
As for locating evidence, I would start with psychological journals, since you're looking at psychological issues.
EDIT: Also, this is my 1337th post. Just thought I'd put it out there. :odd:
blunt_smoker_420
05-09-2009, 08:55 AM
I get that, and I appreciate the difference in opinion.
Personally, I'm nowhere near as conservative in my opinions. If a kid's biggest problem in life is the stigma associated with their homosexual parents, I'd say that they still have it easy compared to the children that die as a result of starvation, neglect, and/or violence each day.
Most of those children (it's not right to assume 'all') would accept food, shelter and a stable home, regardless of who the providers are.
If same-sex couples have the means and the desire to raise and adopt children, I don't see any reason why they can't do just that.
As for locating evidence, I would start with psychological journals, since you're looking at psychological issues.
EDIT: Also, this is my 1337th post. Just thought I'd put it out there. :odd:
I agree when they adopt it can only do good and I'm sure the child has a good since of gratitude for it.
Cursed
05-09-2009, 08:59 AM
So if I were to throw a glass out of the window, and it didn't break; that means that everything made of glass is indestructible?
I've been playing card games with a number of friends every other week or so for almost two years, about half of them know that I'm gay, yet no one turned more gay in any way. Nor did I turn straight. Hasty generalizations won't get you anywhere.
Applying the same logic to everything in the fucking world just shows how retarded you are.
The best part about this whole ordeal is that it doesn't matter if you don't like it or don't believe it. Change is already happening. States have already started allowing gay marriage. It's just a matter of time before it snowballs. One day, people will look at homophobes and similar people the same way that they see the KKK.
Goroth
05-09-2009, 09:29 AM
I get that, and I appreciate the difference in opinion.
Personally, I'm nowhere near as conservative in my opinions. If a kid's biggest problem in life is the stigma associated with their homosexual parents, I'd say that they still have it easy compared to the children that die as a result of starvation, neglect, and/or violence each day.
Most of those children (it's not right to assume 'all') would accept food, shelter and a stable home, regardless of who the providers are.
If same-sex couples have the means and the desire to raise and adopt children, I don't see any reason why they can't do just that.
As for locating evidence, I would start with psychological journals, since you're looking at psychological issues.
EDIT: Also, this is my 1337th post. Just thought I'd put it out there. :odd:
Well, if we are to talk about children dying of certain reasons, then I'm with you, but you too also have no evidence to support that gay people treat every single kid with respect, care, love etc...
Most children eih? That's because they're counseled or pushed by other adults who feel for them, not that the kids are choosing
a) parent couple 1 - straights, but kicks kids' ass
b) gay parents, unknown people
therefore, of course the parenting or the one who is looking after decides for them, surely he/she won't throw a chick into a lion's cage.
Same-sex couples, god, now I feel like talking like those gay right activists... Anyhow, I disagree. I see raising child as a very serious thing, it's not like adopting a puppy, kitten, plant etc. A child must be a unity between a male and a female, that comes from their love and result of their mating. Modern day child-care, child-adoptation is ok for circumstances, but gays.. Nay!
Psy-journals?! I guess I'll look into some, after all, this is a discussion, not a battle royal ^^
on EDIT: Congrats to that! 1k poster!
@ Luna: Some states huh?
Feranor
05-09-2009, 09:36 AM
Applying the same logic to everything in the fucking world just shows how retarded you are.
I'm afraid that's how logic works. If you accept a certain way of reasoning for one thing, but not for another, you have a double standard. Which is ultimately irrelevant in this case, because your reasoning is fallacious anyway.
TW501
05-09-2009, 11:26 AM
I found a rather interesting article on how gay marriage has become accepted to a significantly greater degree in Massachusetts than five years ago when it became the first state to allow same-sex marriage.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090509/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_five_years
Cursed
05-09-2009, 12:18 PM
If that's your view on logic than you have no common sense.
nuttychemist
05-09-2009, 12:37 PM
Well, if we are to talk about children dying of certain reasons, then I'm with you, but you too also have no evidence to support that gay people treat every single kid with respect, care, love etc...
Most children eih? That's because they're counseled or pushed by other adults who feel for them, not that the kids are choosing
a) parent couple 1 - straights, but kicks kids' ass
b) gay parents, unknown people
therefore, of course the parenting or the one who is looking after decides for them, surely he/she won't throw a chick into a lion's cage.
Same-sex couples, god, now I feel like talking like those gay right activists... Anyhow, I disagree. I see raising child as a very serious thing, it's not like adopting a puppy, kitten, plant etc. A child must be a unity between a male and a female, that comes from their love and result of their mating. Modern day child-care, child-adoptation is ok for circumstances, but gays.. Nay!
I'm wondering where you're getting your information? It sounds to me like personal opinions which have no facts to support them. I hate to point it out to you, but adopting a child is a complex and expensive ordeal. Its not like going to the pound and adopting an animal. Any person can walk into the Humane Society and adopt a dog, cat, bunny, etc. Not just anyone can adopt a child, there are standards/screenings and processes that have to be gone through before a couple can be even considered for a child. To sit there and spout crap about how a gay couple is going to mistreat a child is just bullshit. You have no backing and no facts to back this up. There was a documentary on HBO awhile back about a vacation cruise for same sex couples, so that these families can have fun together without being looked down upon and judged. The children that appeared with their same sex parents seemed extremely happy and well cared for and the only thing that made them sad was how people treat their parents.
I'd like to point out that none of the anti-gay people have addressed the question of if they're so apposed to same-sex parents, what about single parents? Do you think a single mother is incapable of raising a child on their own? In today society there are a wide variety of families... with the increasing number of divorce and teenage pregnancy... I think people who are banging on and on about how there "has to be a mother and father present to raise a child" need to take a good look at today's society and the demographics.
(sorry about double posting >.< it was 4amish and I got a little hot headed...)
Kairen
05-09-2009, 12:54 PM
I'm wondering where you're getting your information? It sounds to me like personal opinions which have no facts to support them. I hate to point it out to you, but adopting a child is a complex and expensive ordeal. Its not like going to the pound and adopting an animal. Any person can walk into the Humane Society and adopt a dog, cat, bunny, etc. Not just anyone can adopt a child, there are standards/screenings and processes that have to be gone through before a couple can be even considered for a child. To sit there and spout crap about how a gay couple is going to mistreat a child is just bullshit. You have no backing and no facts to back this up. There was a documentary on HBO awhile back about a vacation cruise for same sex couples, so that these families can have fun together without being looked down upon and judged. The children that appeared with their same sex parents seemed extremely happy and well cared for and the only thing that made them sad was how people treat their parents.
I'd like to point out that none of the anti-gay people have addressed the question of if they're so apposed to same-sex parents, what about single parents? Do you think a single mother is incapable of raising a child on their own? In today society there are a wide variety of families... with the increasing number of divorce and teenage pregnancy... I think people who are banging on and on about how there "has to be a mother and father present to raise a child" need to take a good look at today's society and the demographics.
(sorry about double posting >.< it was 4amish and I got a little hot headed...)
Agreed. As I said before, love cannot be defined by anyone. Two men are just as capable of loving each other as a man and a woman is. It simply doesn't happen as often as love between opposite sex and so it isn't viewed as a normal thing, and it's often frowned upon because it doesn't meet the unwritten social criteria of normality. But the world is changing, it's different from what it used to be until the 19th or 20th century, when slowly but surely, the entire world was going through changes, mostly due to world-wide conflicts. People should learn to be more open-minded.
As for the matter of a same-sex couple raising a child, I actually think the child will be much better educated and well-mannered than children raised by a couple of the opposite sex. It will make them far more open-minded than other children and more accepting of the differences that exists between different people or cultures. Given the chance, I might even encourage same-sex couples to adopt children.
reiatsudown
05-09-2009, 01:35 PM
If being gay was a choice, does that change anyone's opinion on gay rights? Oppositely if being gay wasn't a choice, does that change anyone's opinion on gay rights? IMO whether or not homosexuality can be consciously realized and altered is beside the point in just about every gay rights argument under the sun.
Is this an issue because if it's a choice people are worried that being raised by gay parents would influence their adopted children to be gay, or..? That's the only reason I can think of. Although it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you remember that most gay people were raised up in a straight household. Familial pressures probably don't influence kids so directly.
Feranor
05-09-2009, 02:30 PM
If that's your view on logic than you have no common sense.
Non sequitur.
Depends on your definition of common sense, which is mostly an empty phrase anyway. "My view on logic" is shared by virtually everyone who understands logic, because logic is designed to work in a certain way. Logic wouldn't work if everyone had "their own version" of it.
---
If being gay was a choice, does that change anyone's opinion on gay rights? Oppositely if being gay wasn't a choice, does that change anyone's opinion on gay rights? IMO whether or not homosexuality can be consciously realized and altered is beside the point in just about every gay rights argument under the sun.
Is this an issue because if it's a choice people are worried that being raised by gay parents would influence their adopted children to be gay, or..? That's the only reason I can think of. Although it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you remember that most gay people were raised up in a straight household. Familial pressures probably don't influence kids so directly.
I'm not really sure myself, but I'd guess that the choice nonsense implies something like this: "If homosexuals want equal rights, they can simply choose to be heterosexual." Or in other words "It's their own fault for choosing to be homosexual."
It could also be a Christian thing, you know, "Hate the sin, not the sinner". Assuming that it's a choice probably makes it much easier to hate homosexuals.
if a homo wants a kid then they should go knock up some chick
Cursed
05-09-2009, 04:06 PM
Non sequitur.
Depends on your definition of common sense, which is mostly an empty phrase anyway. "My view on logic" is shared by virtually everyone who understands logic, because logic is designed to work in a certain way. Logic wouldn't work if everyone had "their own version" of it.
Bullshit, only retards share your logic.
Feranor
05-09-2009, 05:30 PM
Bullshit, only retards share your logic.
Here's the problem:
You're trying to prove something, but your fragmentary syllogisms are fallacious on multiple levels, which means that whatever conclusion you're trying to reach is invalid.
You're basically claiming that there are multiple "versions" of logic which, depending on the user or on the context, reach entirely different conclusions. Which is essentially the same as saying that 10+5 equals 15 in Canada, but in Australia it equals 7.5 because "their view on math" is that you should always divide whatever result you get by 2.
Or in short, unless you manage to produce logically flawless arguments, the conclusions you draw won't reach people capable of thinking rationally.
---
Now I have to think of something more relevant to the topic...
Has anyone seen or heard more of the experiment in the video below? I've never been a fan of "homophobes are homosexuals in denial" because it sounds too much like wishful thinking - on the other hand, an explanation is needed for why some people feel threatened by gays - but what do you think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcAcuS5aXMs&feature=related
xTHHxAimiForevr
05-09-2009, 07:38 PM
if a homo wants a kid then they should go knock up some chick
Lol. Yea, it's kinda sad to miss out on the chance to create life and raise your own child, all because of your sexual preference. One of those days that kid is going to want to know who his parents are. Telling him/her would be difficult.
reiatsudown
05-09-2009, 08:51 PM
One of those days that kid is going to want to know who his parents are. Telling him/her would be difficult.
That's an issue with anyone who adopts. I thought we were talking about problems with gay adoption specifically.
I know some people are trying to get in coherent points for and against gay rights in between all the lulz, but we've had 8,563,454 threads on this already. As best I can remember most of the arguments against gay rights, from marriage to military, have been curb stomped. Does anybody remember which ones survived? If someone does please re-post them. I can't keep track, and I know there are at least a few people here who want to continue the discussion.
imo the only things we have left to talk about are all those gay undertones in Bleach if the swords were actually phallic cock symbols.
http://manga.bleachexile.com/bleach-chapter-97-page-13.html
http://manga.bleachexile.com/bleach-chapter-97-page-14.html
:amazed:
TW501
05-09-2009, 09:01 PM
There is still plenty to discuss. Every time a state or country makes a new law or measure regarding gay rights, there is something to discuss. Not just the principle, but the law itself (its language, impact, opposition, chances of success, etc.). There's a hate crimes bill that in all likelihood will be passed soon, and two of the top six U.S. Supreme court nominee candidates are lesbians. I'd say there is plenty to discuss.
Cursed
05-09-2009, 09:22 PM
Here's the problem:
You're trying to prove something, but your fragmentary syllogisms are fallacious on multiple levels, which means that whatever conclusion you're trying to reach is invalid.
You're basically claiming that there are multiple "versions" of logic which, depending on the user or on the context, reach entirely different conclusions. Which is essentially the same as saying that 10+5 equals 15 in Canada, but in Australia it equals 7.5 because "their view on math" is that you should always divide whatever result you get by 2.
Or in short, unless you manage to produce logically flawless arguments, the conclusions you draw won't reach people capable of thinking rationally.
---
Now I have to think of something more relevant to the topic...
Has anyone seen or heard more of the experiment in the video below? I've never been a fan of "homophobes are homosexuals in denial" because it sounds too much like wishful thinking - on the other hand, an explanation is needed for why some people feel threatened by gays - but what do you think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcAcuS5aXMs&feature=related
Since your response to my post was nonsense, I shall respond to your second part. I'm not threatened by gays, I'm only disgusting by their preferences. To me, homosexuality is on the level of bestiality, and necrophilia. To have such a preferences to surrender your right as a human.
nuttychemist
05-09-2009, 10:25 PM
There is still plenty to discuss. Every time a state or country makes a new law or measure regarding gay rights, there is something to discuss. Not just the principle, but the law itself (its language, impact, opposition, chances of success, etc.). There's a hate crimes bill that in all likelihood will be passed soon, and two of the top six U.S. Supreme court nominee candidates are lesbians. I'd say there is plenty to discuss.
Wow... I learned something new today... I was not aware of the fact that the two of the top six nominee candidates for the Supreme court are lesbian... that's awesome! Its reading things like this that renew my faith in humanity, because to be honest... reading some of the racists, narrow-minded bullshit thats being spewed out by people... I really wonder why people who obviously have no other insight other than their own opinion, are in a thread where we are discussing denying rights to a fellow human being... I would comment further... but fear getting banned because... well my thoughts, opinions and very being go against them... Oh well :)
My only hope is that some day this will be a world full of love... not hate... and where gay bashers are put in the same category as KKK members.
Since your response to my post was nonsense, I shall respond to your second part. I'm not threatened by gays, I'm only disgusting by their preferences. To me, homosexuality is on the level of bestiality, and necrophilia. To have such a preferences to surrender your right as a human.
Agreed.
reiatsudown
05-10-2009, 04:45 AM
To have such a preferences to surrender your right as a human.
Legally we're not even allowed to completely ignore a pedophile's right as a human, much less your examples' (horse fuckers, necros). Your opinion is your opinion, but practically it would be the wrong attitude because it's flat out discouraged and denied by law. If you openly practiced what you have just preached you would likely be arrested.
I'm only disgusting by their preferences. To me, homosexuality is on the level of bestiality, and necrophilia.
Do you have a reason Why other than your own gut feeling of personal disgust? I can't argue a gut feeling.
Before you answer here are a few reasons that have already been largely discredited in earlier threads, and will be yet again if they're presented: "homosexuality is unnatural", "homosexuality doesn't allow procreation so it could hurt our species", and "homosexuality is inherently psychologically perverse/eccentric/damaging somehow and shouldn't be encouraged in people". Hopefully you'll take it from there, or else this is going to get repetitive.
Exploits
05-10-2009, 06:50 AM
I still can't get my head around why this thread remains on-going, let alone the difficulties in granting homosexual rights. Of course, I didn't grow up ingorant/close-minded/deeply religious (Religion pending), nor in a family that enforced either of the three so my outlook and viewpoint on these things can only be called drastically different.
It's not a crime, let them do it - I don't like it either. Hell, just yesterday I asked a gay couple who were making out to do it elsewhere because I couldn't enjoy my damn lunch with them dancing tongues around each other (And now I just ruined my snack by recalling this). I didn't piss and moan or threaten them, I simply asked politely and they nodded and left. Good for me. I could have, say, pulled a Cursed and shoved my opinion down their throats with increasing bluntness, but where would that have left me? At the mercy of a far more out-spoken liberal society. Great!
Much the same, I know people who don't like when I crack my knuckles in public; Should I be stricken of my rights to marry, vote, and generally live my life on the simplistic, fallicious basis of personal disgust?
No.
Yes, I also understand that in some places, sodomy is a crime, but this is a ridiculous fact considering that for a crime to actually be a crime, it has to be committed on an unwilling or unwitting victim, not by two consenting individuals. A two-second re-write of the law stating just this would throw the entire problem out the window.
Cursed
05-10-2009, 08:47 AM
Legally we're not even allowed to completely ignore a pedophile's right as a human, much less your examples' (horse fuckers, necros). Your opinion is your opinion, but practically it would be the wrong attitude because it's flat out discouraged and denied by law. If you openly practiced what you have just preached you would likely be arrested.
Do you have a reason Why other than your own gut feeling of personal disgust? I can't argue a gut feeling.
Before you answer here are a few reasons that have already been largely discredited in earlier threads, and will be yet again if they're presented: "homosexuality is unnatural", "homosexuality doesn't allow procreation so it could hurt our species", and "homosexuality is inherently psychologically perverse/eccentric/damaging somehow and shouldn't be encouraged in people". Hopefully you'll take it from there, or else this is going to get repetitive.
Well, pedophiles aren't as bad as gays so I don't see your point. Gays are disgusting, for all the reasons you listed yet said were "discredited". I don't see how they're discredited when they're all perfectly valid reasons to hate gays. You can't say they are discredited of just the majority of this forum agrees with you, especially since 90% of the people in this thread are gay loving faggots.
Feranor
05-10-2009, 09:21 AM
Well, pedophiles aren't as bad as gays so I don't see your point. Gays are disgusting, for all the reasons you listed yet said were "discredited". I don't see how they're discredited when they're all perfectly valid reasons to hate gays. You can't say they are discredited of just the majority of this forum agrees with you, especially since 90% of the people in this thread are gay loving faggots.
"You can't say they are discredited of just the majority of this forum agrees with you."
That's not what he wanted to say, but:
Why not? This would be an argument from popularity - a logical fallacy - but you're using fallacies to "prove" your point as well.
Actually, these points were discredited because they commited logical fallacies in the process of reaching the conclusion. Like your little rant there. You start off with an obviously false premise "pedophiles aren't as bad as gays" (you neither defined bad nor proved the statement). Then you go on claiming that the already discarded pseudo-reasons are "perfectly valid reasons" (you're arbitrarily assuming the conclusion to be true, another fallacy), offering a nonsense ad hominem attack as "proof".
Virtually everything you said is false or at least doesn't meet its burden of proof.
But maybe I should illustrate why logical fallacies render everything invalid:
Well, apples aren't as bad as bananas so I don't see your point. Bananas are disgusting, for all the reasons you listed yet said were "discredited". I don't see how they're discredited when they're all perfectly valid reasons to hate bananas. You can't say they are discredited of just the majority of this forum agrees with you, especially since 90% of the people in this thread are banana loving monkeys.
This carries exactly the same truth value as what you wrote. Because all it does is make unaccounted claims. A syllogism filled with logical fallacies usually allows you to "prove" anything, which is why we don't accept them.
reiatsudown
05-10-2009, 12:25 PM
:unsure: I don't think Cursed is on the level here. He's probably just fucking around.
TW501^ there are a lot of specific areas of gay rights to discuss, and they are interesting. But these threads always devolve into this broad argument of gay rights vs gay lynchings. I'm going to make an example of this repetition below, pretending that Cursed is actually being serious (I doubt he is).
Well, pedophiles aren't as bad as gays so I don't see your point. Gays are disgusting, for all the reasons you listed yet said were "discredited". I don't see how they're discredited when they're all perfectly valid reasons to hate gays. You can't say they are discredited of just the majority of this forum agrees with you, especially since 90% of the people in this thread are gay loving faggots.
Feranor talked about this already from his viewpoint. But for me personally, when I say they're "largely discredited" I mean that a few of them were factually wrong. Most just had issues with their own internal logic. Take what you just said for instance. You hate gays due to all the reasons I listed, and prefer pedophiles to them, even though pedophelia is also 1. unnatural 2. damaging to healthy procreation in those rare instances when the boys/girls being molested are actually old enough to procreate at all and 3. inherently psychologically perverse, eccentric and damaging, and shouldn't be encouraged in people. Either you arbitrarily hate gays more for the same assumed behaviors as pedophiles or you arbitrarily forgive pedophiles in a way that you don't forgive gays, which is why it's irrational and contradictory. If you wanted to reword yourself, rephrase yourself, or explain yourself you could, but this particular wording and phrasing are now discredited imo.
Here are some other ways to discredit homophobic arguments:
When someone sez "I hate gays because they're unnatural", remind them how many unnatural things they may embrace, such as the internet, young monogamy, abstinence, condoms, cars, wisdom teeth removal, kidney transplants, and so on. Simply being unnatural clearly isn't a reason to hate.
When someone sez "I hate gays for being unable to procreate", remind them that today there are over 6 billion people on earth and overpopulation is a legitimate problem, so in light of that the occasional inability to procreate wouldn't doom our species. Aside from that there are ways to artificially inseminate women, so whether or not a couple naturally procreates isn't really an issue for the next generation of people. Aside from that there are many men without healthy sperm and women with barren wombs, and I get the feeling you don't hate any of them.
When someone sez "I hate gays for the psychological damage it causes in people", remind them that you're not aware of any conclusive study showing people being psychologically fucked purely because they are attracted to the same sex. Also remind them that you are, however, aware of conclusive studies that show people being psychologically fucked when they're forced to repress their homosexual desires...
The reason it's so easy to discredit these particular arguments is because homophobia doesn't come from a place of logic. It comes from the gut. From the knee jerk. It might try to recruit logic as a device to rationalize itself to others (ie "I hate gays BECAUSE..."), but that front is usually easy to see through and clearly very easy to tear down.
Exploits
05-10-2009, 01:27 PM
The reason it's so easy to discredit these particular arguments is because homophobia doesn't come from a place of logic. It comes from the gut. From the knee jerk. It might try to recruit logic as a device to rationalize itself to others (ie "I hate gays BECAUSE..."), but that front is usually easy to see through and clearly very easy to tear down.
I don't kid myself, I hate gays, I really do. I'm completely uncomfortable around them and, in that sense, my life would be easier if they were all dead. But from a human, rational, logical, and sane perspective that's obviously the wrong choice to make, because once again, perhaps I also possess qualities that annoy others to the same degree. So despite my clear, underlining loathing for them, I simply know better. Call it sugar-coating or supressive or whatever, but I'm better than any animal out there, so I don't care.
nuttychemist
05-10-2009, 03:59 PM
:unsure: I don't think Cursed is on the level here. He's probably just fucking around.
TW501^ there are a lot of specific areas of gay rights to discuss, and they are interesting. But these threads always devolve into this broad argument of gay rights vs gay lynchings. I'm going to make an example of this repetition below, pretending that Cursed is actually being serious (I doubt he is).
I'm praying that Cursed is fucking around... I find it extremely disturbing to be ok with molesting children... but think that homosexuality is the be all, end all of evil.
I agree with you... it seems like instead of this being a debate of gay rights... there seems to be a few of us actually discussing the topic, while the rest of the time its what I like to call twinks, coming in and gay bashing.
I don't kid myself, I hate gays, I really do. I'm completely uncomfortable around them and, in that sense, my life would be easier if they were all dead. But from a human, rational, logical, and sane perspective that's obviously the wrong choice to make, because once again, perhaps I also possess qualities that annoy others to the same degree. So despite my clear, underlining loathing for them, I simply know better. Call it sugar-coating or supressive or whatever, but I'm better than any animal out there, so I don't care.
I respect your opinion and I appreciate the fact that instead of coming in here and just saying that you hate gays with no reason or explination. Even though I disagree with you, I respect the fact that you've stated yourself intelligently. I will say that you probably know people that are gay and you don't even know it. Most people I know, have no clue as to my sexual preference because honestly its no one's business but mine. I'm not ashamed of my sexuality, I just don't feel the need be hated for no other reason than the fact that I like women.
"homosexuality doesn't allow procreation so it could hurt our species"
Are you serious? There are people who believe there is a valid possibility that homosexuality would HURT our species?
Has anyone noticed the world population in total? Or the crowding problems; overuse, misuse and abuse of land for food or profit; pollution; massive amounts of garbage and non-biodegradable materials being produced and dumped; mass manufacturing of ecologically unsound products; destruction of wildlife habitats; dissolution of natural resources; etc. Hell, our species is RAPING THE PLANET. It has been for centuries.
If anything, allowing gay rights including adoption would possibly keep birth rates in check since I imagine they typically would not be conceiving children, but adopting them. Not everyone is a narcissistic product of basic biology that insists on procreating to pass down their own genes (an instinct which has become useless and destructive in itself). Some people are perfectly happy having a family that bears no biological relation.
Exploits
05-10-2009, 05:33 PM
I respect your opinion and I appreciate the fact that instead of coming in here and just saying that you hate gays with no reason or explination. Even though I disagree with you, I respect the fact that you've stated yourself intelligently. I will say that you probably know people that are gay and you don't even know it. Most people I know, have no clue as to my sexual preference because honestly its no one's business but mine. I'm not ashamed of my sexuality, I just don't feel the need be hated for no other reason than the fact that I like women.
Well, lesbians don't bother me. Otherwise I would have said "homosexuals" and not gays. Years of lesbian/bisexual porn will do that to you, I suppose.
I did have a close friend who came out to me. We still were friends after, but he knows as well as I do that things have changed. Although we haven't spoken in a few years (Not since I moved away three times over), our friendship at that point became awkward and strange because I constantly had this subconcious vibe that he came out to me because he thought I would be, or because he hoped I would like him (And I mean gay-like, not friend-like).
I'm plenty aware that both vibes were entirely untrue, and he himself made that clear when I finally grew the stones to admit it. But the entire event and fact still left me uncomfortable around him, and it made me look back at everything we had ever done together and doubt his intentions behind them all. In a way, I would have preferred to know he was gay at the very start of our friendship, as opposed to down the road.
On a similar note, people who are simply gay does not bother me as much. As you've said, some individuals are gay and you would never know it. It's simply the . . . gay . . . love, of it all. Men kissing men is just not right in my mind. Why is women kissing women okay then? Again, fuck if I know, but its probably the porn talking. Not like entertainment itself doesn't have a massive habit of portraying lesbians as "hot" and gay people as awkward, feminine, lisp-struck men.
nuttychemist
05-10-2009, 06:05 PM
Well, lesbians don't bother me. Otherwise I would have said "homosexuals" and not gays. Years of lesbian/bisexual porn will do that to you, I suppose.
I always forget that people often separate it into gay and lesbian...
I did have a close friend who came out to me. We still were friends after, but he knows as well as I do that things have changed. Although we haven't spoken in a few years (Not since I moved away three times over), our friendship at that point became awkward and strange because I constantly had this subconcious vibe that he came out to me because he thought I would be, or because he hoped I would like him (And I mean gay-like, not friend-like).
I'm plenty aware that both vibes were entirely untrue, and he himself made that clear when I finally grew the stones to admit it. But the entire event and fact still left me uncomfortable around him, and it made me look back at everything we had ever done together and doubt his intentions behind them all. In a way, I would have preferred to know he was gay at the very start of our friendship, as opposed to down the road.
I think thats a common thing to happen with guys... I've had friends who've experienced similar situations... So I can understand where you're coming from.
On a similar note, people who are simply gay does not bother me as much. As you've said, some individuals are gay and you would never know it. It's simply the . . . gay . . . love, of it all. Men kissing men is just not right in my mind. Why is women kissing women okay then? Again, fuck if I know, but its probably the porn talking. Not like entertainment itself doesn't have a massive habit of portraying lesbians as "hot" and gay people as awkward, feminine, lisp-struck men.
I think its kind of interesting that I think for the most part the majority of people are ok with lesbians... but uncomfortable about gay men... I think part of it is the stereo typing of what a gay man is like... the flamboyant... flamingly gay... example being Jack from Will & Grace or Carson from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Unlike lesbians, who are generally represented in the minds of most men... as the hot girl on girl action found in most porn.
Cursed
05-10-2009, 06:05 PM
I'd rather live next to pedophile than a gay. Totally fucking serious.
btill9000
05-10-2009, 07:49 PM
Been out of town so im catching up on the people that responded to me.
I really don't understand what people are deluded enough to honestly believe that any gay/lesbian/transgender individual would CHOOSE to be this way... Oh yeah... I just *LOVE* being discriminated against and treated differently because I happen to be wired this way... I've always had a "thing" for girls... since I was a small child... before I knew anything about gay/straight or diagonal :P
You can't justify something by how you feel. Check out any surveys you want. Survey says that a number of homosexual either chose to be that way or were driven their by some event in their life. The next three things I am about to list may get flamed(especially number 3), but oh well it's all the truth.
1. Many homosexuals were sexually abused when they were younger.
2. Many start out doing it to anger their parents or as a fad.
3. Their is also a the hormones. It's proven that in *some* cases, correcting a hormone imbalance will decrease homosexual tendencies.
So what? Why should we care about uneducated opinions like that? It's just a random conclusion based on nothing, arisen from paranoia and stupidity.
It's not paranoia or stupidity. Everyone MUST agree that adolescents have a tendency to mimic what they see on a daily basis. Will their be 0% homosexuals if children are never exposed to homosexuals, probably not. Any realistic person must agree that the percent will go down if exposure if limited.
I don't think this is about the government telling you what to like or dislike. It's about the government protecting one group from the stupidity of another.
What protection do homosexuals need? Gay people are not put into ovens, hanged, executed, killed massively. They can use any bathroom they want and attend any school they want. They can run for public office and vote. They can't join the military for obvious reasons, but outside of that they are in pretty good shape to be masquerading as oppressed people. Homosexuals have the same protection as everyone else in the United States.
It's called an analogy. And unless someone provides a valid reason not to allow same sex couples to marry, my sarcastic suggestion here is just as justified.
Because I call you on your completely unrelated analogy, you accuse me of not knowing what an analogy is? That my friend would get you kicked out of the debate club if you were in one. Comparing left handed people driving a right-handed stick shift to sexual orientation is, at the very least, bad form...
If seeing gay people makes you gay, then logically seeing straight people makes you straight. How does that work?
Their are no absolutes in human behavior. Once you get to college, if you plan to go, you should take a class on the topic. Some people choose not to smoke while being exposed to smokers, but some people do choose to smoke because of exposure to it. Some people choose to do things, because the people around them give off the signal that it's okay, and vice-versa.
Also, by the same arbitrary reasoning, seeing black people would make you black. Seeing autistic people would make you autistic. And so on.
I haven't read the rest of this board yet, because I've been out of town, but I hope all of the black people on this board have already flamed you for this. Race is not a behavior. Their is NO argument over race being a choice or not. Whether you agree or not, you must accept that their is legit argument in the scientific community as to whether homosexuals are born that way or not.
If anything, allowing gay rights including adoption would possibly keep birth rates in check since I imagine they typically would not be conceiving children, but adopting them.
I am going to try to be as moderate as possible in my response to this. Their are many straight people that don't mind homosexuals or at least tolerate them. You are pushing it to another level when you suggest that people should encourage it. Giving homosexuals guardianship over children is just like encouraging homosexuality, or no more than a step away.
You can't justify something by how you feel. Check out any surveys you want. Survey says that a number of homosexual either chose to be that way or were driven their by some event in their life. The next three things I am about to list may get flamed(especially number 3), but oh well it's all the truth.
1. Many homosexuals were sexually abused when they were younger.
2. Many start out doing it to anger their parents or as a fad.
3. Their is also a the hormones. It's proven that in *some* cases, correcting a hormone imbalance will decrease homosexual tendencies.
I am going to try to be as moderate as possible in my response to this. Their are many straight people that don't mind homosexuals or at least tolerate them. You are pushing it to another level when you suggest that people should encourage it. Giving homosexuals guardianship over children is just like encouraging homosexuality, or no more than a step away.
Wtf? Do NOT quote someone else's text and claim that it is me. The link in your first quote goes to a post of mine that DOES NOT say any of that.
--But to your third point, yes, there's also chemical castration conducted on straight sexual predators, which reduces their straight sexual urges. What's your point? Who's to say what is or is NOT an imbalance? Psychiatry is by no means a perfect science. I happen to have six years' worth of firsthand experience in that respect.
Yes, part one of your response is true. I am not suggesting to encourage anything. An overwhelming majority of gay people come from completely straight homes. Are you suggesting that their straight parents somehow contributed to their being gay? It is entirely possible for gay parents to raise a straight child, just as it is for straight parents to raise a gay one.
btill9000
05-10-2009, 08:41 PM
Wtf? Do NOT quote someone else's text and claim that it is me. The link in your first quote goes to a post of mine that DOES NOT say any of that.
No need to overreact. It's obvious that it was a mistake, and has been fixed.
Who's to say what is or is NOT an imbalance? Psychiatry is by no means a perfect science. I happen to have six years' worth of firsthand experience in that respect.
So your essentially saying, who is to say that a hormone imbalance is bad? Do I have to list to you the number of medical issues that hormone imbalances cause? I am not talking about psychology at all. The psychological effects are really side-effects. When medical imbalances in hormones are corrected, homosexual tendencies sometimes decrease. It's proven that people with hormone imbalances don't live nearly as long as people without them, and a whole plethora of other issues that are causes by hormone imbalances. If you don't believe me webmd that shit lol.
Yes, part one of your response is true. I am not suggesting to encourage anything.
You said you want homosexuals to be able to adopt and that is encouraging homosexuality.
An overwhelming majority of gay people come from completely straight homes. Are you suggesting that their straight parents somehow contributed to their being gay? It is entirely possible for gay parents to raise a straight child, just as it is for straight parents to raise a gay one.
Some things stick and some things don't, but all parents try to raise their kids a certain way. It's possible for homosexual parents to try to raise a straight child, but really why would they? Athiest don't purposely raise catholics, and vice-versa. Straight dads encourage their sons to pick up girls and feel pride when they do, and I imagine things might be different under a homosexual dad. Whats viewed as okay and encouraged greatly effects the behavior of a child.
I can't see how anyone could disagree with this statement. If you place a male child under the care of a homosexual male, you are encouraging that child to become homosexual. It may stick and it may not, but regardless you are increasing the child's chance of becoming a homosexual. This is encouraging homosexuality, and I think it's unfair for you to ask that of people. Tolerance should be enough.
So your essentially saying, who is to say that a hormone imbalance is bad? Do I have to list to you the number of medical issues that hormone imbalances cause? I am not talking about psychology at all. The psychological effects are really side-effects. When medical imbalances in hormones are corrected, homosexual tendencies sometimes decrease. It's proven that people with hormone imbalances don't live nearly as long as people without them, and a whole plethora of other issues that are causes by hormone imbalances. If you don't believe me webmd that shit lol.
I did not say anything about imbalances being good or bad. My comment referred to what is classified as an imbalance. Your response didn't address that at all. Classifying something as an 'imbalance' almost automatically labels it as bad regardless of the side effects, which may be minimal or non-detrimental. If homosexuals do indeed have different hormone levels in some cases than straight people, who is to say that that is an imbalance? What problems does that cause which actually have a detrimental effect on a homosexuals health? And I don't want to hear bullshit about AIDS, or poor mental stability from how people treat each other because those examples are completely irrelevant to the question.
You said you want homosexuals to be able to adopt and that is encouraging homosexuality.
Some things stick and some things don't, but all parents try to raise their kids a certain way. It's possible for homosexual parents to raise a straight child, but really why would they? Athiest don't purposely raise catholics, and vice-versa. Straight dads encourage their sons to pick up girls and feel pride when they do, and I imagine things might be different under a homosexual dad. Whats viewed as okay and encouraged greatly effects the behavior of a child.
I can't see how anyone could disagree with this statement. If you place a male child under the care of a homosexual male, you are encouraging that child to become homosexual. It may stick and it may not, but regardless you are increasing the child's chance of becoming a homosexual. This is encouraging homosexuality, and I think it's unfair for you to ask that of people. Tolerance should be enough.
How is that encouraging anything? You're suggesting that homosexuals preach like missionaries. Any time that I have ever encountered a gay person who was blatantly encouraging someone to engage in gay relations, it was a joke. Teaching a child acceptance and encouraging them are two entirely different things.
No one is standing on street corners, trying to turn people into homosexuals the way that religious activists will hand out free copies of the New Testament [and please, no one twist this into some bullshit about protests trying to turn people gay because that's ridiculous].
btill9000
05-10-2009, 11:16 PM
I did not say anything about imbalances being good or bad. My comment referred to what is classified as an imbalance. Your response didn't address that at all. Classifying something as an 'imbalance' almost automatically labels it as bad regardless of the side effects, which may be minimal or non-detrimental.
Oh you don't get it. Any kind of hormone imbalance has been shown to have negative effects, and occasionally decrease lifespan. It's not something that I am labeling, I am just going off of the medial information thats available. By hormone imbalance I mean men having too much estrogen or women having to much testosterone.
*Important* All people with hormone imbalances don't experience homosexual behavior and urges. It's just common that many people that are homosexuals also have hormone imbalances.
What problems does that cause which actually have a detrimental effect on a homosexuals health? And I don't want to hear bullshit about AIDS, or poor mental stability from how people treat each other because those examples are completely irrelevant to the question.
I am going to do the male side of hormone imbalances, because I don't have the time or knowledge to do the female side. So consider this introduction to male hormone imbalances :idea:
Hormone imbalances are new to the 20th century, and they are caused partially by exposure to Xenoestrogens. Xenoestrogens are synthetic estrogen that are used in many to increase production and decrease cost. They are in the air, fuels, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, plastics, clothing, bug / mosquito sprays and personal care products. Synthetic Estrogen is also used to make cattle gain weight and too increase milk and egg size and production. Even wonder why KFC chicken breasts are the size of a human foot. So men are constantly getting more estrogen than they need. As the amount of synthetic estrogen in our environment increases, so shall the number of homosexual males. This isn't to say that this is the cause of all homosexuality, but it's a possible to cause to some of it.
Outside of throwing sexual urges and regular behavior out of wack, here are some of the other things it may cause. Enlarged Prostate, Urinary Problems, Low Sex Drive, Impotence, Diabetes, Allergies, Depression, Fatigue, Foggy thinking, increased risk of stroke, infertility, rapid increase in weight.
If homosexuals do indeed have different hormone levels in some cases than straight people, who is to say that that is an imbalance?
All of the medical proof out there. People going in with all sorts of symptoms thinking they have diabetes, high blood pressure, and a plethora of other things, and it turning out to just be a hormone imbalance. People spending years with "diabetes", then getting their hormone imbalanced fix and poof the "diabetes" goes away. Homosexuality often starts out as unwanted urges , and many just decide that this "must be the way they were born", so they adapt.
Teaching a child acceptance and encouraging them are two entirely different things.
Well I guess this is a matter of opinion. It's my opinion that any homosexual, just like any heterosexual, will consciously or subconsciously encourage their children to follow their own sexual orientation as well as many other things.
It was easy enough for me to figure out what sport my dad would love for me to play without him having to tell me or put it in my head. I noticed at a very young age that baseball made my dad happy. He watched basketball and football, but it was clear that baseball was his favorite sport. So, I played baseball.
How is that encouraging anything? You're suggesting that homosexuals preach like missionaries.
No one is standing on street corners, trying to turn people into homosexuals the way that religious activists will hand out free copies of the New Testament [and please, no one twist this into some bullshit about protests trying to turn people gay because that's ridiculous].
Recruiting and missionary work isn't necessary with children and their initial religion. Missionaries aim to bring people over to a new religion. No one has to work very hard to get a child to pick their first religion. They usually start out as what their parents are. Some people do, but most people don't switch from the religion that they were exposed to through their parents. What you are describing above is people trying to convince other people to switch from their initial religion to a new one. The bolded items are the items I think apply to placing a child into a homosexual household.
Just stop trying to get around it. Just say you don't think their is anything wrong with raising children to be homosexual. At least you'll be being honest. Saying that you expect homosexuals to purposely and consciously raise heterosexual children is just not honest....
*Important* All people with hormone imbalances don't experience homosexual behavior and urges.
True.
It's just common that many people that are homosexuals also have hormone imbalances.
Where are you getting your information? I've never heard that except from you.
Well I guess this is a matter of opinion. It's my opinion that any homosexual, just like any heterosexual, will consciously or subconsciously encourage their children to follow their own sexual orientation as well as many other things.
Yet, for the overwhelming number of straight parents, we still have a significant number of homosexuals. If that number keeps growing, and we still don't have really any gay parents, it negates your statement.
Just stop trying to get around it. Just say you don't think there is anything wrong with raising children to be homosexual. At least you'll be honest. Saying that you expect homosexuals to purposely and consciously raise heterosexual children is just not honest....
Firstly, I've never said that. Second, I don't take kindly to people who indirectly call me a liar. My stance is and has been that regardless of the orientation of the parents, the children can have any sexual orientation under the sun, and therefore discrimination is pointless.
Feranor
05-10-2009, 11:59 PM
It's not paranoia or stupidity. Everyone MUST agree that adolescents have a tendency to mimic what they see on a daily basis. Will their be 0% homosexuals if children are never exposed to homosexuals, probably not. Any realistic person must agree that the percent will go down if exposure if limited.
Again, how is that supposed to work? Do you really think that children/teenagers might see a gay couple and go "oh, maybe I should try that instead of going after the opposite sex"?
What protection do homosexuals need? Gay people are not put into ovens, hanged, executed, killed massively. They can use any bathroom they want and attend any school they want. They can run for public office and vote. They can't join the military for obvious reasons, but outside of that they are in pretty good shape to be masquerading as oppressed people. Homosexuals have the same protection as everyone else in the United States.
That's because in order to enforce something as law, you need a reason. Most of the time, at least. Since the conservative wingnuts' ideas are not based on reason, they generally can't become state/federal law. That doesn't mean we should simply ignore them, since they unfortunately do have some influence on politics.
Because I call you on your completely unrelated analogy, you accuse me of not knowing what an analogy is? That my friend would get you kicked out of the debate club if you were in one. Comparing left handed people driving a right-handed stick shift to sexual orientation is, at the very least, bad form...
Debate club? I would have loved to be in one, there's no such thing in most German schools. We were supposed to debate in every class, though. The most fun to take apart were those teachers who tried telling us that "every opinion is valid" and that "there are no stupid questions". Every time someone spouted this kind of nonsense I replied something along the lines of "What is the colour of time? My opinion is that the colour of time is apple, but what do you think?". Good times. My point being, idiotic reasoning (not specifically yours, but what is seen as "arguments" against gay rights) doesn't deserve "good form" replies. Nonsense will be met with ridicule.
Their are no absolutes in human behavior. Once you get to college, if you plan to go, you should take a class on the topic. Some people choose not to smoke while being exposed to smokers, but some people do choose to smoke because of exposure to it. Some people choose to do things, because the people around them give off the signal that it's okay, and vice-versa.
I am in university, but that has little influence on the matter, since my whole life is a study on human behaviour; it's what interests me, after all.
Your analogy is invalid. Smoking is a conscious choice, homosexuality is not. The only choice involved is whether you act based on your innate orientation. Your analogy would make some sense if there was an innate need to smoke in some people and if not acting based on that would cause psychological harm. But is there any reason to assume this?
I haven't read the rest of this board yet, because I've been out of town, but I hope all of the black people on this board have already flamed you for this. Race is not a behavior. Their is NO argument over race being a choice or not. Whether you agree or not, you must accept that their is legit argument in the scientific community as to whether homosexuals are born that way or not.
I actually think that genes are not the only factor determing sexuality. But evidence tells us that they play a major role. Homosexuality is not a behaviour either, it's a trait. Acting based on that trait may be regarded as behaviour, but that is irrelevant. The debate about whether "homosexuals are born that way" is legitimate, the "debate" about whether homosexuality is a choice, however, is not.
Again, how is that supposed to work? Do you really think that children/teenagers might see a gay couple and go "oh, maybe I should try that instead of going after the opposite sex"?
Exactly.
[More in line with my previous post] Parents are not the sole example of romantic interaction nearly as much as they used to be back when we didn't have cable TV, the internet, etc. Plus, for the amount of time that children spend away from their parents in school or elsewhere, they will see plenty of examples of heterosexuality as it is still the overwhelming majority.
btill9000
05-11-2009, 01:27 AM
.
Where are you getting your information? I've never heard that except from you.
Here are some of the places I refer to in many of my responses on this particular topic. Theirs also some books too, but they are not online.
This site below has the pros and cons. It also has the alphabet soup of the doctors that are pushing the ideas.
http://borngay.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=000020
The site below that directly links lesbians with hormone disorders.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2003/07/03/892229.htm
This site has a lot of information on homosexuality not being natural, not being genetic, and so on.
http://www.forthechildreninc.com/issues/homosexuality/index.html
http://www.forthechildreninc.com/issues/homosexuality/BadForChildren.html
This section of the site above discusses the effects on children.
Yet, for the overwhelming number of straight parents, we still have a significant number of homosexuals. If that number keeps growing, and we still don't have really any gay parents, it negates your statement.
It doesn't negate anything. Maybe you forgot what we were talking about. We are talking about the effect homosexual households will have on kids. Straight kids can come out of homosexual households, and heterosexual kids can come out of straight house holds. Although, more than likely you'll find it the opposite. Again, kids tend to follow their parents. At the very least, kids in homosexual households will be more likely to experiment with homosexuality.
Firstly, I've never said that. Second, I don't take kindly to people who indirectly call me a liar. My stance is and has been that regardless of the orientation of the parents, the children can have any sexual orientation under the sun, and therefore discrimination is pointless.
Your stance isn't really a stance. It's just a statement that says absolutely nothing, but makes your beliefs okay in your mind. Homosexual children are more likely to come out of homosexual households, therefore you have to be okay with encouraging homosexuality in youths if you want to make homosexual adoptions okay. From my understanding, neuroscientists overwhelming agree that external factors effect adolescent development.
This paper discusses adolescent homosexuality and the fact that adolescent brains are heavily effected by external and emotional factors. http://www.narth.com/docs/breiner2.html
Again, how is that supposed to work? Do you really think that children/teenagers might see a gay couple and go "oh, maybe I should try that instead of going after the opposite sex"?
Actually, yes. Children tend to do what they see. They rebel on some things, but usually they do what they see. I'd imagine that children raised in homosexual homes are more likely to experiment with homosexuality. In the end, they may not become homosexuals, but I can't see how anyone would disagree with them being more likely to try it.
Medical fact: The developing brain of the adolescent is significantly influenced by external emotional and social factors.
That's because in order to enforce something as law, you need a reason. Most of the time, at least. Since the conservative wingnuts' ideas are not based on reason, they generally can't become state/federal law. That doesn't mean we should simply ignore them, since they unfortunately do have some influence on politics.
Ignore what? How are homosexuals oppressed? Their is almost nothing that homosexuals cannot do other than call their unions marriages, adopt children, and join the military. They can actually join the military as long as they don't flame it around. No one actually does anything to homosexuals other than dislike them, not respect them, and dis-include them when it's possible, and none of that is illegal.
My point being, idiotic reasoning (not specifically yours, but what is seen as "arguments" against gay rights) doesn't deserve "good form" replies. Nonsense will be met with ridicule.
Maybe I am reading you wrong, but you seem to be saying that all arguments against gay rights show idiotic reasoning? Again, homosexuals have the right to do just about everything they want to do. Trying to legislate changes to society is going to do nothing back cause society to lash out.
Your analogy is invalid. Smoking is a conscious choice, homosexuality is not. The only choice involved is whether you act based on your innate orientation. Your analogy would make some sense if there was an innate need to smoke in some people and if not acting based on that would cause psychological harm. But is there any reason to assume this?
Some homosexuality is a choice. Many homosexuals start out as bi-sexual, and at some point they make the choice to go one way or the other. Some people have horrible experiences with members of the opposite sex and make a conscious decision to go the other way. Theirs a plethora of other scenarios where a choice is consciously made. Just screaming that it's not a choice isn't very smart, because it clearly depends on the case.
Medical fact: The developing brain of the adolescent is significantly influenced by external emotional and social factors.
I actually think that genes are not the only factor determing sexuality. But evidence tells us that they play a major role. Homosexuality is not a behaviour either, it's a trait. Acting based on that trait may be regarded as behaviour, but that is irrelevant. The debate about whether "homosexuals are born that way" is legitimate, the "debate" about whether homosexuality is a choice, however, is not.
Their are many factors that determine sexual orientation, some of them natural some of them not. Whether you think the debate is valid is actually the invalid thing. The fact that their is a large debate on the topic remains.
Feranor
05-11-2009, 03:30 AM
Actually, yes. Children tend to do what they see. They rebel on some things, but usually they do what they see. I'd imagine that children raised in homosexual homes are more likely to experiment with homosexuality. In the end, they may not become homosexuals, but I can't see how anyone would disagree with them being more likely to try it.
Medical fact: The developing brain of the adolescent is significantly influenced by external emotional and social factors.
Check your sources. Almost all of the links you provide refer to homophobic organisations claiming that homosexuality is a disease that should be cured, which is regarded as absolute nonsense by virtually every respectable medical institution in the western world.
It's like citing a neo nazi organisation on the context of Judaism.
And again, you're implying that children have the ability to acquire a trait by means of watching someone act based on that trait.
Ignore what? How are homosexuals oppressed? Their is almost nothing that homosexuals cannot do other than call their unions marriages, adopt children, and join the military. They can actually join the military as long as they don't flame it around. No one actually does anything to homosexuals other than dislike them, not respect them, and dis-include them when it's possible, and none of that is illegal.
So because we don't have it that bad, we should be content with the status quo? The desirable goal is equal rights, nothing below (or above) that.
Maybe I am reading you wrong, but you seem to be saying that all arguments against gay rights show idiotic reasoning? Again, homosexuals have the right to do just about everything they want to do. Trying to legislate changes to society is going to do nothing back cause society to lash out.
No, you're not. Every argument I've heard against homosexuality in general or same sex marriage was rubbish. And you're making a dangerous implication here: if "society" wanted to deny all left-handed citizens the right to receive medical care, would that justify a law enforcing that?
Some homosexuality is a choice. Many homosexuals start out as bi-sexual, and at some point they make the choice to go one way or the other. Some people have horrible experiences with members of the opposite sex and make a conscious decision to go the other way. Theirs a plethora of other scenarios where a choice is consciously made. Just screaming that it's not a choice isn't very smart, because it clearly depends on the case.
Medical fact: The developing brain of the adolescent is significantly influenced by external emotional and social factors.
Again, check your sources. Also, arbitrarily conceding that the delevopment of the brain can be influenced by emotional and social factors; it doesn't mean that every trait/behaviour is subject to that.
Their are many factors that determine sexual orientation, some of them natural some of them not. Whether you think the debate is valid is actually the invalid thing. The fact that their is a large debate on the topic remains.
Existence does not prove validity. We can debate about the colour of stupid, but that doesn't mean it's a valid assumption to think that stupid has a colour.
arthur11
05-11-2009, 04:31 AM
It doesn't negate anything. Maybe you forgot what we were talking about. We are talking about the effect homosexual households will have on kids. Straight kids can come out of homosexual households, and heterosexual kids can come out of straight house holds. Although, more than likely you'll find it the opposite. Again, kids tend to follow their parents. At the very least, kids in homosexual households will be more likely to experiment with homosexuality.
If you were to look at statistics, the number of gay adoptees compared to the total number of non-parent homosexuals i think you would find that the numbers are reasonably seperate in amount. So this begs the question about all the non-adoptee/parent homosexuals, were most of their parents homosexuals? How can this be when the number of homosexual parents is always substantionally lower than the homosexual population?
I think this shows that homosexuality will naturally always remain predominantly spawn mainly from heterosexual households. And you also said something about playing sports your dad liked...this is a singular instance thus a weak arguement, alot of kids hate the sports their parents like as a lot of kids dont even play sports. Either way i dont like your overall arguement, your use of science connotating this statement. 'The allowed adoptation of children by homosexual couples will promote and spread the disease that is homosexuality.'
One point, humanity is a disease for this planet with many diseases for itself within itself. There is no cure for the diverse nature of humanity and indeed no need for one, we are solely people put into an enviroment with certain genetics with only the hope of leaving something positive behind from our lifespan when we cop it, my arguement is, ultimatly it doesnt matter which way you swing in the wind aslong as you leave something good and comforting behind for future generations.
btill9000
05-11-2009, 06:27 AM
Check your sources. Almost all of the links you provide refer to homophobic organisations
Okay either your gonna discuss this or your not lol. Any organization or person that disagrees with you your gonna call homophobic so lets get past that.
claiming that homosexuality is a disease that should be cured, which is regarded as absolute nonsense by virtually every respectable medical institution in the western world.
So why don't you stop making emotional statements and try to say something meaningful that isn't just spouting out emotions. We already know how you "feel". ABC certainly isn't homophobic I don't think, and this article shows that lesbians tend to have more hormone imbalances.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl.../03/892229.htm
I never said it's a disease or that it needs to be cured. I'm simply showing evidence that certain medical conditions occur in homosexuals more than they do in heterosexuals. Said evidence suggests that if said medical conditions are treated, occasionally the individual may lose their homosexual tendencies.
And again, you're implying that children have the ability to acquire a trait by means of watching someone act based on that trait.
Traits are genetically determined characteristics. It's up in the air, as far as the scientific community is concerned, whether being emotionally attracted to the same sex is a trait or not. I am inclined to say it's not a trait. Although, having sex with the opposite sex is certainly not a trait. Thats like calling pedophilia or necrophilia a trait.
The main thing that separates homosexuals and heterosexuals are their actions. I am suggesting that children have the ability to mimic actions that they are exposed to. I am suggesting that children are more likely to mimic actions that they are encouraged to mimic. I am suggesting that children are more likely take part in actions that they are raised to believe are good.
So because we don't have it that bad, we should be content with the status quo? The desirable goal is equal rights, nothing below (or above) that.
You should stop acting like your being treated like Jews in Nazi Germany. It's things like this that makes people not like you and not respect homosexuals. What Rights, do you even know what your rights are? The constitution doesn't guarantee everyone the right to get married. The constitution doesn't guarantee everyone the right to adopt children. It certainly doesn't guarantee everyone the ability join the military. Of the true rights that are offered by our government, you have all of them.
No, you're not. Every argument I've heard against homosexuality in general or same sex marriage was rubbish. And you're making a dangerous implication here: if "society" wanted to deny all left-handed citizens the right to receive medical care, would that justify a law enforcing that?
Not theirs a difference between what you said above and what you said before. What your saying above is that once you hear the arguments you decide that they are rubbish. What you said earlier is that all arguments against anything related to homosexuality are rubbish before you even hear them.
Again, check your sources. Also, arbitrarily conceding that the delevopment of the brain can be influenced by emotional and social factors; it doesn't mean that every trait/behaviour is subject to that.
Okay, I've called you once and I'll call you again. Stop trying to use absolutes or lack of absolutes to prove or disprove a point. Their are no absolutes in this kind of thing. Of course it doesn't effect or change everything, because it's a case by case bases. Everyone that has unprotected sex doesn't get aids, but most people that get aids have had unprotected sex. Emotional and Social factors impact children significantly in different ways depending on the individual. That said, how can you two keep disagreeing that the different emotional and social factors associated with living in a homosexual home would have no effect ever.
Existence does not prove validity. We can debate about the colour of stupid, but that doesn't mean it's a valid assumption to think that stupid has a colour.
Well no one is trying to prove the validity of stupid having a color. On the other hand, theirs plenty of people that have put much research into validating this topic. Just because you don't like it or it doesn't agree with your lifestyle doesn't mean it's invalid.
If you were to look at statistics, the number of gay adoptees compared to the total number of non-parent homosexuals i think you would find that the numbers are reasonably seperate in amount. So this begs the question about all the non-adoptee/parent homosexuals, were most of their parents homosexuals? How can this be when the number of homosexual parents is always substantionally lower than the homosexual population?
It depends on what statistics you look at, and who is sponsoring the research. The statistics that I looked at support what I say. I linked some of it above, but theirs much that I didn't link. Even the pro-homosexuality sponsored statistics admit that children raised in a homosexual household are more likely to experiment with homosexuality, even if they don't become homosexual when it's all said and done.
And you also said something about playing sports your dad liked...this is a singular instance thus a weak arguement, alot of kids hate the sports their parents like as a lot of kids dont even play sports.
:unsure: I guess you didn't read what I said. The fact that I ended up playing the sport he liked is immaterial. The important part was that I could tell what he liked and approved of without him having to tell me. Children can easily tell what their parents like and approve of. Many children end up doing many of the things that their parents like and approve of. Even if everything doesn't always stick, the fact still remains that children are, more often than not, affected by what their parents do.
'The allowed adoptation of children by homosexual couples will promote and spread the disease that is homosexuality.'
No my argument was to trying to get the dishonest people on this board to tell the truth. I think you jumped in right in the middle of something. Basically, some people above say that they want homosexuals to be able to adopt, but they turn around and say that it doesn't encourage homosexuality in children. I think it's dishonest to say that. I am not even arguing whether encouraging homosexuality in children is wrong just yet, because the folks above wont give in and admit that they think it's okay.
Feranor
05-11-2009, 07:36 AM
Okay either your gonna discuss this or your not lol. Any organization or person that disagrees with you your gonna call homophobic so lets get past that.
The neutral sources of those you posted stated what you apparently accept as fact as a mere hypothesis.
The other sources are downright disgusting. They're either dishonest or incredibly stupid. Their "arguments" crumble as soon as someone capapable of rational thought takes a look at them.
Again, if you want to convince a Jew that he's evil you probably shouldn't quote Hitler (does Godwin's law ever fail?) as an expert on the subject. Those Christian nutjobs hopefully don't plan on killing gays (the delusion that they supposedly will suffer an eternity of torture in hell probably satisfies this urge of their twisted minds), so the analogy obviously isn't flawless; but once more, it doesn't deserve one that is.
So why don't you stop making emotional statements and try to say something meaningful that isn't just spouting out emotions. We already know how you "feel". ABC certainly isn't homophobic I don't think, and this article shows that lesbians tend to have more hormone imbalances.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl.../03/892229.htm
"Emotional statements"? Are you trying to set up a straw man? Also, are you suggesting that hormonal imbalance is caused by having gay parents?
I never said it's a disease or that it needs to be cured. I'm simply showing evidence that certain medical conditions occur in homosexuals more than they do in heterosexuals. Said evidence suggests that if said medical conditions are treated, occasionally the individual may lose their homosexual tendencies.
Let's assume that being left-handed causes hormonal imbalance. So fixing the hormonal imbalance makes the patient right-handed. Makes perfect sense. Oh wait...
Stop it with the logical fallacies. You're arbitrarily suggesting that hormonal imbalance is a major cause for homosexuality. Correlation does not imply causation. You're also assuming that fixing the symptom also fixes the cause. Which just doesn't make sense at all.
Homosexuals don't have traits. The only thing that separates them are their actions. I am suggesting that children have the ability to mimic actions that they are exposed to. I am suggesting that children are more likely to mimic actions that they are encouraged to mimic. I am suggesting that children are more likely take part in actions that they are raised to believe are good.
You're starting with an obviously false premise, so everything that follows from that is automatically invalid. Convenient, put rather pointless.
There is a difference between liking pizza and eating pizza. You apparently don't get that.
You should stop acting like your being treated like Jews in Nazi Germany. It's things like this that makes people not like you and not respect homosexuals. What Rights, do you even know what your rights are? The constitution doesn't guarantee everyone the right to get married. The constitution doesn't guarantee everyone the right to adopt children. It certainly doesn't guarantee everyone the ability join the military. Of the true rights that are offered by our government, you have all of them.
So you wouldn't mind if people of Asian descent (arbitrarily chosen group of citizens) were denied the right to marry / to adopt children in the US? Why should white male supremacists be given certain rights when others are not? What justification do you have to separate them? After all, if the constitution doesn't guarantee these rights, you should either grant them to everyone or to no one.
Not theirs a difference between what you said above and what you said before. What your saying above is that once you hear the arguments you decide that they are rubbish. What you said earlier is that all arguments against anything related to homosexuality are rubbish before you even hear them.
Stop splitting hairs. If there was a good argument, people would use it.
Do you have one?
Okay, I've called you once and I'll call you again. Stop trying to use absolutes or lack of absolutes to prove or disprove a point. Their are no absolutes in this kind of thing. Of course it doesn't effect or change everything, because it's a case by case bases. Everyone that has unprotected sex doesn't get aids, but most people that get aids have had unprotected sex. Emotional and Social factors impact children significantly in different ways depending on the individual. That said, how can you two keep disagreeing that the different emotional and social factors associated with living in a homosexual home would have no effect ever.
The analogy blows. Again, correlation does not imply causation. We know that the HIV Virus is transmitted mainly via sperm, blood, ... thus we can explain why the majority of people infected with HIV had unprotected sex or somehow came into contact with infected blood. If we didn't know that, we couldn't assume the causation, only the correlation.
1. Emotional and social factors can have an impact on children.
2. Therefore, homosexuality can be caused by emotional and social factors.
Can you say 'non sequitur'?
Well no one is trying to prove the validity of stupid having a color. On the other hand, theirs plenty of people that have put much research into validating this topic. Just because you don't like it or it doesn't agree with your lifestyle doesn't mean it's invalid.
Appeal to popularity/motive. The density and diversity of fallacies in your reasoning is rather impressive.
Define 'homosexuality' and 'choice' and make your point.
No my argument was to trying to get the dishonest people on this board to tell the truth. I think you jumped in right in the middle of something. Basically, some people above say that they want homosexuals to be able to adopt, but they turn around and say that it doesn't encourage homosexuality in children. I think it's dishonest to say that. I am not even arguing whether encouraging homosexuality in children is wrong just yet, because the folks above wont give in and admit that they think it's okay.
For the sake of argument, let's bend over backwards and assume that children are more likely to become homosexual if they're raised by homosexuals. Why would that have any influence on whether homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children? You're apparently implying that homosexuality is somehow a bad thing.
btill9000
05-11-2009, 08:59 AM
The neutral sources of those you posted stated what you apparently accept as fact as a mere hypothesis.
The other sources are downright disgusting. They're either dishonest or incredibly stupid. Their "arguments" crumble as soon as someone capapable of rational thought takes a look at them.
Everything and everyone that disagrees with you is evil. You already said that any arguments against homosexuality are idiotic even if you haven't heard them yet.
Also, are you suggesting that hormonal imbalance is caused by having gay parents?
No, I am saying that hormone imbalances cause many illnesses. Hormone imbalances happen to be present in homosexuals more often than heterosexuals. When the hormone imbalance is treated the homosexual urges and behavior is occasionally effected. This suggest that sometimes homosexual urges and behavior can be a symptom of a hormone imbalance.
Let's assume that being left-handed causes hormonal imbalance. So fixing the hormonal imbalance makes the patient right-handed. Makes perfect sense. Oh wait...
Wrong, Homosexual urges are the symptoms not the Hormone Imbalance. Evidence shows that homosexual urges are sometimes a symptom of Hormone Imbalances. In other words, occasionally when you treat the Hormone Imbalance, that particular symptom goes away.
Hormome Imbalances aside, their is a lot of evidence that supports that homosexual behavior being unhealthy and shortenining the life span. According to everything I can find, even not including HIV cases, the average homosexual lifespan is between 40 and 45. Heres a few links.
http://www.seafox.com/lifespan.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/apr/07040309.html
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/hosx_lifspn.htm
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-4070.html
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2005/07/are-homosexual/
http://americansfortruth.com/news/study-shows-gay-married-lifespans-average-24-years-shorter-than-hetero-marrieds-in-norway-denmark.html
You're starting with an obviously false premise, so everything that follows from that is automatically invalid. Convenient, put rather pointless.
LOL what a lazy way to side step something that you could not otherwise find a way to dodge. Aquiring a trait and acquiring a taste for an action are different things, but they have much the same effect in this discussion. For the sake of the arguments lets assume that being attracted to the same sex is a trait, which I think it isn't. I guess you can scientifically argue that a child cannot acquire that trait. You, however, cannot argue that the child wont mimic the homosexual behavior that they are being exposed to.
So you wouldn't mind if people of Asian descent (arbitrarily chosen group of citizens) were denied the right to marry / to adopt children in the US?
LOL. First you compare homosexuals to Black people and now Asians. You think that Homosexuals are a race now or something? Next you'll be comparing them to
Indians.
Why should white male supremacists be given certain rights when others are not? What justification do you have to separate them? After all, if the constitution doesn't guarantee these rights, you should either grant them to everyone or to no one.
The thread is titled homosexual rights. Exactly which right are you guys being banned from? Before you answer respect and acceptance are not rights.
The only thing that homosexuals are specifically banned from is the term marriage. Although, they can still acquire an equivalent civil union, therefor the right is granted to everyone. The term, however, isn't. They can adopt children in certain circumstances and they can join the military. Why is the term necessary?
1. Emotional and social factors can have an impact on children.
2. Therefore, homosexuality can be caused by emotional and social factors.
Emotional and social factors, however, do play a role in sexual orientation and sexual experimentation.
Define 'homosexuality' and 'choice' and make your point.
Homosexuality has 2 scientific definitions. The first is attraction to the same-sex. The second is sexual activity with members of the same-sex. Maybe I have astounding will power, but I can choose who I am attracted to and most certainly who I have sex with. It's like giving pedophiles and necrophiliacs a pass because their body, for whatever reason, is urging them to do something.
For the sake of argument, let's bend over backwards and assume that children are more likely to become homosexual if they're raised by homosexuals. Why would that have any influence on whether homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children? You're apparently implying that homosexuality is somehow a bad thing.
Yes I do think it's a bad thing but it's not like end of the world bad or anything. I am one of the people that are tolerant of homosexuals, but not supportive. In other words, if someone ends up homosexual then fine, but I am not trying to encourage their behavior increase in their numbers.
Sarvik
05-11-2009, 09:26 AM
Maybe I have astounding will power, but I can choose who I am attracted to and ...
So like you could become attracted to other males/dead people/animals/midgets/little childer/vegetables/etc. simply if you decided so? Thats pretty impressive, I find homosexual behaviour far too discusting for my taste to switch my attractions with so little effort.
btill9000
05-11-2009, 09:42 AM
So like you could become attracted to other males/dead people/animals/midgets/little childer/vegetables/etc. simply if you decided so? Thats pretty impressive, I find homosexual behaviour far too discusting for my taste to switch my attractions with so little effort.
Whoever said anything about the difficulty of it? The fact remains that many people decide to change what they are attracted to, and with some effort sometimes it sticks. Not all but some homosexuals were originally just heterosexuals rebelling, experimenting, or reacting to a bad situation. Nothing is set in stone with the human mind.
Feranor
05-11-2009, 09:55 AM
Everything and everyone that disagrees with you is evil. You already said that any arguments against homosexuality are idiotic even if you haven't heard them yet.
Straw man. Neither is true. I'm dismissing those sources because there's barely a single true paragraph to find. And if there was a good argument against homosexuality, people would be using it and I would have heard it an obscene amount of times.
Again, do you have one?
No, I am saying that hormone imbalances cause many illnesses. Hormone imbalances happen to be present in homosexuals more often than heterosexuals. When the hormone imbalance is treated the homosexual urges and behavior is occasionally effected. This suggest that sometimes homosexual urges and behavior can be a symptom of a hormone imbalance.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Wrong, Homosexual urges are the symptoms not the Hormone Imbalance. Evidence shows that homosexual urges are sometimes a symptom of Hormone Imbalances. In other words, occasionally when you treat the Hormone Imbalance, that particular symptom goes away.
How do you know which one's the cause and which one's the symptom if all we have is correlation? And how does all this relate to the issue of adoption/marriage etc.?
Hormome Imbalances aside, their is a lot of evidence that supports that homosexual behavior being unhealthy and shortenining the life span. According to everything I can find, even not including HIV cases, the average homosexual lifespan is between 40 and 45. Heres a few links.
http://www.seafox.com/lifespan.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/apr/07040309.html
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/hosx_lifspn.htm
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-4070.html
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2005/07/are-homosexual/
http://americansfortruth.com/news/study-shows-gay-married-lifespans-average-24-years-shorter-than-hetero-marrieds-in-norway-denmark.html
The only valid source among all of that bullshit states the following:
"The tentative conclusion:
Among all adult men who are behaviorally gay or bisexual, HIV/AIDS reduces life expectancy by 1.2 years. (Among African American men who have sex with men, however, life expectancy drops 7.7 years.)"
You also have to understand statistics. It doesn't mean that you're going to die 1.2 years earlier if you're gay. Stay away from anonymous/unprotected sex and the statistic won't have to bother you.
LOL what a lazy way to side step something that you could not otherwise find a way to dodge. Aquiring a trait and acquiring a taste for an action are different things, but they have much the same effect in this discussion. For the sake of the arguments lets assume that being attracted to the same sex is a trait, which I think it isn't. I guess you can scientifically argue that a child cannot acquire that trait. You, however, cannot argue that the child wont mimic the homosexual behavior that they are being exposed to.
I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you there. Why would a child with heterosexual urges engage in homosexual behaviour?
LOL. First you compare homosexuals to Black people and now Asians. You think that Homosexuals are a race now or something? Next you'll be comparing them to
Indians.
You've yet to show why the comparison is supposedly invalid.
The only thing that homosexuals are specifically banned from is the term marriage. Although, they can still acquire an equivalent civil union, therefor the right is granted to everyone. The term, however, isn't. They can adopt children in certain circumstances and they can join the military. Why is the term necessary?
The rights aren't equal, and there's no reason for them not to be. There are, however, plenty reasons why they should be. Therefore, a rational thinker should want them to be equal.
Emotional and social factors, however, do play a role in sexual orientation and sexual experimentation.
So does hair colour. Arguments from ignorance / unaccounted claims are fun. And useless.
Homosexuality has 2 scientific definitions. The first is attraction to the same-sex. The second is sexual activity with members of the same-sex. Maybe I have astounding will power, but I can choose who I am attracted to and most certainly who I have sex with. It's like giving pedophiles and necrophiliacs a pass because their body, for whatever reason, is urging them to do something.
So you could, on the spot, decide to feel sexually attracted toward the same sex and lead a fulfilling relationship with a member thereof?
Stop comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, there is no connection.
Yes I do think it's a bad thing but it's not like end of the world bad or anything. I am one of the people that are tolerant of homosexuals, but not supportive. In other words, if someone ends up homosexual then fine, but I am not trying to encourage their behavior increase in their numbers.
Why not? You still haven't given even one plausible reason why homosexuality is, in any way, bad.
I take it you acknowledge the other points you didn't respond to.
btill9000
05-11-2009, 11:51 AM
The rights aren't equal, and there's no reason for them not to be. There are, however, plenty reasons why they should be. Therefore, a rational thinker should want them to be equal.
What rights are not equal that should be?
So does hair colour. Arguments from ignorance / unaccounted claims are fun. And useless.
So your calling the fact that social and emotional experiences effect child development an unaccounted claim.
So you could, on the spot, decide to feel sexually attracted toward the same sex and lead a fulfilling relationship with a member thereof?
I never said on the spot. I think that anyone can change what they are attracted to if they chose too. With work and help, pedophiles can change what they are attracted to.
Straw man. Neither is true. I'm dismissing those sources because there's barely a single true paragraph to find. And if there was a good argument against homosexuality, people would be using it and I would have heard it an obscene amount of times.
Again, do you have one?
Well of course their is no good argument against homosexuality to a homosexual. Just like their no good argument that basketball sucks to a basketball player. Although, I am not making arguments against homosexuality. Everything I have said in this thread has been a response to homosexual adoption, gay rights and how gays arn't lacking any rights, whether homosexuality is a choice, and whether the cause of homosexuality is in some way medical.
Correlation does not imply causation.
I am not trying to prove causation. Causation is an absolute and I don't work in absolutes. If absolutes were required to do anything then nothing would get done. The fact remains that lesbians have more hormone imbalance issues than straight women. The fact also remains that treating hormone imbalances, has been shown to decrease homosexual urges in some cases. The bolded words are very important. I'd appreciate if you'd stop using the middle school debate tactic of driving your opponents statement to the absolute extreme to make it look absurd. Also, the tactic is discounting something because it doesn't apply in all cases is childish as well. When I use words like some, more, and sometimes they are very important to my statement.
Please take the bolded words into consideration when your responding.
How do you know which one's the cause and which one's the symptom if all we have is correlation?
Either way it goes their is a problem and the problem doesn't change much regardless of how you flip it.
1. If homosexuality is the cause, then homosexuality causes hormone imbalances sometimes. Hormone imbalances are serious medical issues.
2. If hormone imbalances are the cause, then hormone imbalances can cause homosexual urges in some cases along with serious illnesses.
Please take the bolded word into consideration before you use your drive the statement to the absolute tactic.
And how does all this relate to the issue of adoption/marriage etc.?
You jumped into the middle of this from a discussion Luna and I were having on whether homosexuality is a choice or not. If it turns out that hormone treatment can decrease the urges in some individuals, then it becomes a choice for some individuals. Please take the bolded word into consideration before you use your drive the statement to the absolute tactic.
The only valid source among all of that bullshit states the following:
"The tentative conclusion:
Among all adult men who are behaviorally gay or bisexual, HIV/AIDS reduces life expectancy by 1.2 years. (Among African American men who have sex with men, however, life expectancy drops 7.7 years.)"
You also have to understand statistics. It doesn't mean that you're going to die 1.2 years earlier if you're gay. Stay away from anonymous/unprotected sex and the statistic won't have to bother you.
You can't prove something invalid by emotionally disagreeing with it. I don't see anything wrong with any of the sources that I have provided on this board. You haven't shown me anything that is wrong with my sources or than the fact that they don't agree with you. Also, I wasn't going to go there, but since you brought it up, HIV/AIDs is another huge issue in the homosexual community.
I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you there. Why would a child with heterosexual urges engage in homosexual behaviour?
Good question but it happens quite often. Many people come out as bi-sexual to be different or rebel. Sometimes it sticks and they end up becoming fully homosexual.
You've yet to show why the comparison is supposedly invalid.
Homosexuality is not a race. It's not my responsibility to show you the difference between a sexual orientation or a race of people. You should know already. On a side note, this is why Homosexuals are disliked by many, not respected, and dis-included. Making comparisons like this is just insulting to many people. This is why Black people voted the way they did in California.
Stop comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, there is no connection.
Seriously, what is the difference? The only thing different about homosexuals, other than an occasional treatable hormone imbalance, is how they have sex and who they do it with. That happens to be the only thing different about pedophiles as well.
Their ARE actually differences between homosexuality and race, but you continue contend that they are the same. If two things that are different can be the same, then why not two things that actually share the same characteristics and connections.
Why not? You still haven't given even one plausible reason why homosexuality is, in any way, bad.
You never asked me why it was bad, so I've had no reason to give you a plausible reason. You asked me if I thought it was bad to raise children as homosexuals. Again, you jumped in here and ran with a conversation that was being had with others. Other homosexuality advocates in this thread, claimed that they expect homosexuals to purposely raise hetersexual children. I think thats a ridiculous expectation.
As far as why it's bad, it goes to my stance on homosexuality. I tolerate it but I don't encourage it.
I take it you acknowledge the other points you didn't respond to.
I was at work but I don't remember skipping anything meaningful. Let me know what and I'll respond. I certainly don't concede any points though :weird:
Feranor
05-11-2009, 02:43 PM
What rights are not equal that should be?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory#North_America
So your calling the fact that social and emotional experiences effect child development an unaccounted claim.
Another straw man...
I never said on the spot. I think that anyone can change what they are attracted to if they chose too. With work and help, pedophiles can change what they are attracted to.
So if someone told you that you should choose to be homosexual, would you do that?
Well of course their is no good argument against homosexuality to a homosexual. Just like their no good argument that basketball sucks to a basketball player. Although, I am not making arguments against homosexuality. Everything I have said in this thread has been a response to homosexual adoption, gay rights and how gays arn't lacking any rights, whether homosexuality is a choice, and whether the cause of homosexuality is in some way medical.
I'm talking purely logical here. Those arguments are logically false/invalid and therefore not applicable. Whether I'm gay or not has absolutely no influence on that judgement.
I am not trying to prove causation. Causation is an absolute and I don't work in absolutes. If absolutes were required to do anything then nothing would get done. The fact remains that lesbians have more hormone imbalance issues than straight women. The fact also remains that treating hormone imbalances, has been shown to decrease homosexual urges in some cases. The bolded words are very important. I'd appreciate if you'd stop using the middle school debate tactic of driving your opponents statement to the absolute extreme to make it look absurd. Also, the tactic is discounting something because it doesn't apply in all cases is childish as well. When I use words like some, more, and sometimes they are very important to my statement.
So your whole argument is based on questionable speculation that could possibly apply to a miniscule minority of cases. Alright.
Please take the bolded words into consideration when your responding.
That barely improves anything.
[QUOTE]Either way it goes their is a problem and the problem doesn't change much regardless of how you flip it.
1. If homosexuality is the cause, then homosexuality causes hormone imbalances sometimes. Hormone imbalances are serious medical issues.
2. If hormone imbalances are the cause, then hormone imbalances can cause homosexual urges in some cases along with serious illnesses.
Please take the bolded word into consideration before you use your drive the statement to the absolute tactic.
You're the one trying to slip causility in there.
You jumped into the middle of this from a discussion Luna and I were having on whether homosexuality is a choice or not. If it turns out that hormone treatment can decrease the urges in some individuals, then it becomes a choice for some individuals. Please take the bolded word into consideration before you use your drive the statement to the absolute tactic.
Ok, so for a negligible minority it might be possible to change your sexuality. If you have a hormonal imbalance, fix it. If that changes your sexuality, fine. If it doesn't, fine. It's irrelevant whether it's true or not.
You can't prove something invalid by emotionally disagreeing with it. I don't see anything wrong with any of the sources that I have provided on this board. You haven't shown me anything that is wrong with my sources or than the fact that they don't agree with you. Also, I wasn't going to go there, but since you brought it up, HIV/AIDs is another huge issue in the homosexual community.
I'm not "emotionally disagreeing with it". I've looked at the sources you posted, read what they had to say on a few different topics, noticed that the authors are delusional fucktards and should therefore not be taken seriously and moved on.
Good question but it happens quite often. Many people come out as bi-sexual to be different or rebel. Sometimes it sticks and they end up becoming fully homosexual.
The reason why some homosexuals first come out as bisexual is because bisexuality is generally perceived as less of a shock. This is based on what people (who have personal experience in this regard) I asked about this virtually uniformly gave as an explanation.
Homosexuality is not a race. It's not my responsibility to show you the difference between a sexual orientation or a race of people. You should know already. On a side note, this is why Homosexuals are disliked by many, not respected, and dis-included. Making comparisons like this is just insulting to many people. This is why Black people voted the way they did in California.
I never said that homosexuality is a race. The comparison is valid because they face similar bullshit for similar pseudo-reasons. The vote in California is sad, simply because it shows that a certain minority that rather recently was granted equal rights apparently doesn't care (not all of them, obviously) about other minorities. Educational issues might be involved, too, as educated and/or intelligent people tend to be less homophobic/racist/sexist/..., mostly because they can think rationally.
Seriously, what is the difference? The only thing different about homosexuals, other than an occasional treatable hormone imbalance, is how they have sex and who they do it with. That happens to be the only thing different about pedophiles as well.
Their ARE actually differences between homosexuality and race, but you continue contend that they are the same. If two things that are different can be the same, then why not two things that actually share the same characteristics and connections.
So in other words, the differences/similarities between homosexuals and pedophiles are the same as between heterosexuals and pedophiles.
You never asked me why it was bad, so I've had no reason to give you a plausible reason. You asked me if I thought it was bad to raise children as homosexuals. Again, you jumped in here and ran with a conversation that was being had with others. Other homosexuality advocates in this thread, claimed that they expect homosexuals to purposely raise hetersexual children. I think thats a ridiculous expectation.
You're implying that it's bad because otherwise you'd have no point.
As far as why it's bad, it goes to my stance on homosexuality. I tolerate it but I don't encourage it.
I still don't see a reason.
I was at work but I don't remember skipping anything meaningful. Let me know what and I'll respond. I certainly don't concede any points though :weird:
You basically just did since you didn't refute most of the points I demonstrated to be fallacious and conceded the rest of them as non-essential.
TW501
05-11-2009, 03:57 PM
Ignore what? How are homosexuals oppressed?
No one actually does anything to homosexuals other than dislike them, not respect them, and dis-include them when it's possible, and none of that is illegal.
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2008/06/08/story33417.asp
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/02/nyregion/neighborhood-report-jackson-heights-antigay-attack-rekindles-ever-present-fears.html
http://www.outsmartmagazine.com/issue/i07-01/broussard.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1996/08/22/MN50950.DTL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/05/99/the_nail_bomb_terror/333913.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/24/nyregion/signs-in-grisly-killing-point-to-bias-and-stepfather-who-killed-himself.html?sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/507805.stm
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-27486159_ITM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/942255.stm
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/02/05/bc-arron-webster-ryan-cran-released.html?ref=rss
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/12/nyregion/newark-preaches-tolerance-of-gays-year-after-killing.html
http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20060504/news/news2.html
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid18908.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4653655.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/02/gay.shooting/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/nyregion/21plumb.html?_r=1
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid42467.asp
http://www.365gay.com/news/school-bus-driver-charged-in-homophobic-attack-on-student/
http://www.observernewsonline.com/content/view/73644/1/
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/4175826.BICKLEY__Police_name_59_year_old_murder_vi ctim/
"No one actually does anything to homosexuals other than dislike them," huh?
btill9000
05-11-2009, 06:35 PM
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2008/06/08/story33417.asp
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/02/nyregion/neighborhood-report-jackson-heights-antigay-attack-rekindles-ever-present-fears.html
http://www.outsmartmagazine.com/issue/i07-01/broussard.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1996/08/22/MN50950.DTL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/05/99/the_nail_bomb_terror/333913.stm
[/URL]
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/24/nyregion/signs-in-grisly-killing-point-to-bias-and-stepfather-who-killed-himself.html?sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/507805.stm
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-27486159_ITM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/942255.stm
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/02/05/bc-arron-webster-ryan-cran-released.html?ref=rss
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/12/nyregion/newark-preaches-tolerance-of-gays-year-after-killing.html
http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20060504/news/news2.html
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid18908.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4653655.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/02/gay.shooting/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/nyregion/21plumb.html?_r=1
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid42467.asp
http://www.365gay.com/news/school-bus-driver-charged-in-homophobic-attack-on-student/
http://www.observernewsonline.com/content/view/73644/1/
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/4175826.BICKLEY__Police_name_59_year_old_murder_vi ctim/
"No one actually does anything to homosexuals other than dislike them," huh?
I don't think you've been reading the back and forth I've been having. You just jumped in at the tail end, took the statement out of context, and started link raging. It's already illegal to murder homosexuals. Tons of people get murdered every day, and the police do their best to catch every single murderer. The links you've posted don't represent homosexuals having any lack of rights, and if you'd taken time to read the thread you'd see thats what the topic of discussion was.
Unfortunately, all kinds of people get their rights violated. People murder, kill, steal, kidnap, and commit all sorts of crimes every day. That, however, doesn't represent any lack of rights. You might go start up a private investigation firm to investigate these crimes, or start up community groups that help get information to police officers about crimes. Don't call it a lack of rights though....
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory#North_America (http://web.archive.org/web/20060213230320/www.davidclemens.com/gaymilitary/rolstobarry.htm)
My opinions are only related to the United States. It's not my concern what goes on elsewhere, because I am against the whole policing the world thing. I'll respond to each thing represented on this website, in regards to the United States.
1. These things are not rights. Non of this stuff is guaranteed by our constitution, but I'll respond anyway.
2. I don't mind civil unions. Any Gay couple can go somewhere and get a civil union. However, Marriage is a cultural and religious term, which is not a right.
3.We are already talking about adoption, and I've already fleshed out why I don't think homosexuals should be able to adopt.
4. "Don't ask don't tell" is as fair gets, and I can't understand why anyone has an issue with it. "Don't ask don't tell" is another way of saying no flamers.
Another straw man...
Call it whatever you want. I am going to keep asking you the question as long as we keep discussing this. You want to know whats wrong with homosexual adoption in my view, well answer the question. Do you or do you not accept the fact that emotional and social factors effect child development.
So if someone told you that you should choose to be homosexual, would you do that?
Im 23 now, so no I wouldn't. Don't take the discussion out of context to skirt the argument. We are talking about children here. We both know good and well that a child just might do that if their parent told them to, whether they were consciously or subconsciously telling them to do it.
I'm talking purely logical here. Those arguments are logically false/invalid and therefore not applicable. Whether I'm gay or not has absolutely no influence on that judgement.
Do you really want me to crawl back through this thread and link back to you the post where you said that any argument against any gay right is idiotic, and you framed the statement to say that you didn't need to even hear the argument to decide that it's idiotic. Thats not logic.
So your whole argument is based on questionable speculation that could possibly apply to a miniscule minority of cases. Alright.
LOL, would somebody else please chime in on this. Am I the only one seeing it. Am I crazy. Why does this guy keep taking things to the furthest extreme to find a way out. Either it's invalid because it's only miniscule amount of cases or invalid because it's not all cases. Even homosexuals must see that this debate tactic makes them look all the worse. There are articles available on many mainstream news sites, like the ABC one that I linked, that point to a sizable amount of homosexuals having treatable hormone disorders.
That barely improves anything.
Sure it does. It seems like your incapable of reading anything without taking it to one of 2 absolute extremes in order to try to disprove it. If anyone is still reading the exchange between us, anybody with a brain recognizes that your tactic is BS. I am just trying to get you to realize it.
It's like arguing with a 10 year old. Every time you say something applies to some people, then they hit you back with some "So your saying that all people are insert random statement"
You're the one trying to slip causility in there.
I am not slipping anything in casually. Whether homosexuality can be changed, and the percentage in which it can be changed, it's important in the discussion whether homosexuality is natural or genetic. The reason it's important is because we know that hormone disorders are not natural. You'll be hard pressed to find anything that says hormone disorders are natural.
Ok, so for a negligible minority it might be possible to change your sexuality. If you have a hormonal imbalance, fix it. If that changes your sexuality, fine. If it doesn't, fine. It's irrelevant whether it's true or not.
Here you go again, just going to the opposite extreme. Seriously, if all I am going to get out of you is a restatement of my statement but forced to an extreme that makes you feel better, I am about done with responding to you.
Again it's very relevant as to whether it's true or not. All doctors agree that hormone disorders are bad and are new to the 20th century. Therefor, if homosexual urges can be caused by some hormone imbalance, it's leap toward proving that it's not natural or genetic.
I'm not "emotionally disagreeing with it". I've looked at the sources you posted, read what they had to say on a few different topics, noticed that the authors are delusional fucktards and should therefore not be taken seriously and moved on.
Exactly, the act of disagreeing with you makes them delusional.
The reason why some homosexuals first come out as bisexual is because bisexuality is generally perceived as less of a shock. This is based on what people (who have personal experience in this regard) I asked about this virtually uniformly gave as an explanation.
The fact remains that bisexuals are capable of being highly attracted to men and women. Bisexuals are capable of having meaningful relationships with men and women. This means that at some point they make a "choice". You say that there is no choice in sexual orientation.
I never said that homosexuality is a race. The comparison is valid because they face similar bullshit for similar pseudo-reasons. The vote in California is sad, simply because it shows that a certain minority that rather recently was granted equal rights apparently doesn't care (not all of them, obviously) about other minorities. Educational issues might be involved, too, as educated and/or intelligent people tend to be less homophobic/racist/sexist/..., mostly because they can think rationally.
Next time you want to know why black people, more than likely, will never vote for any homosexual right take a look at this portion of the post. Homosexuals haven't nearly gone through anything compared to black people, Jews, or even Asians; yet you guys continue to try to force the comparison.
So in other words, the differences/similarities between homosexuals and pedophiles are the same as between heterosexuals and pedophiles.
No because heterosexuality is the norm, and it's how most people are. What sets homosexuality apart from heterosexuality is that it's different than the norm. It's really rather pointless. Homosexuality is just an exercise in achieving sexual pleasure, and no this isn't saying that homosexuals can't love each other. I am saying that the change they've made to sex renders it useless other than a pleasure facilitator.
You're implying that it's bad because otherwise you'd have no point.
Yes, I am not in favor of homosexuality or homosexuals, but that had nothing to do with the conversation you intercepted. You responded saying that I never gave you a plausible reason. Although, you never asked for a reason.
I still don't see a reason.
You have my reasons splattered all of this responses and others, but I'll sum it up for you. Homosexuality has obvious health concerns, and shortens the life. Homosexuals come into contact with human excrement more than is safe. Their hormones are imbalanced, more so than regular people, thus making them even more unhealthy. Many reports say that homosexuality shortens the life more than smoking. The have the audacity to compare their minor struggles to the paramount, major struggles other people have had that are on a whole different level. They seek to have the government legislate culture by giving them the "right" to marry, rather than accepting civil unions.
The above is the summation as to why I don't encourage or support homosexuals nor homosexuality.
You basically just did since you didn't refute most of the points I demonstrated to be fallacious and conceded the rest of them as non-essential.
No, to cut down on the size of the response, I opted to not respond to something that was similar to something I'd already responded to. In such cases where you'd repeated yourself or stated the same point multiple times in one response.
Again, if theirs something you were wanting a response to that I skipped, let me know : )
TW501
05-11-2009, 08:07 PM
I don't think you've been reading the back and forth I've been having. You just jumped in at the tail end, took the statement out of context, and started link raging. It's already illegal to murder homosexuals. Tons of people get murdered every day, and the police do their best to catch every single murderer. The links you've posted don't represent homosexuals having any lack of rights, and if you'd taken time to read the thread you'd see thats what the topic of discussion was.
Unfortunately, all kinds of people get their rights violated. People murder, kill, steal, kidnap, and commit all sorts of crimes every day. That, however, doesn't represent any lack of rights. You might go start up a private investigation firm to investigate these crimes, or start up community groups that help get information to police officers about crimes. Don't call it a lack of rights though....
Sorry, I was gone and wasn't able to reply immediately when you posted, though I did read the conversation in context, and it seemed to me you were making a statement in which you had a rather dismissive attitude about the gay rights movement. My intention was to demonstrate the sheer level of hatred gays face and to demonstrate the necessity of people to fight for gay rights. Civil rights goes beyond just making legislation that makes gays equal on paper. There is still massive discrimination against gays in housing, employment, and in everyday life. I originally intended to list other (more day-to-day) examples of discrimination, but ended up stopping. The reason I listed so many links was to demonstrate the enormity of the discrimination and hatred these people face. I know I kind of put a lot in there, lol.
I'll post a more detailed version later, but to quote myself on how barring same sex couples from marrying is discriminatory...
Here are a few of the benefits/rights given to married couples:
-Social security pensions, veterans pensions, survivor benefits, etc. for deceased spouse.
-Employment assistance and transitional services for spouses being separated by military service.
-Payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating.
-Sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits.
-Veteran's disability benefits.
-Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates.
-Joint filing of bankruptcy.
-Joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records.
-Family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison.
-Next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims.
-Custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce.
-Access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods.
-Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs.
-Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
-Joint tax filing.
-Making spousal medical decisions.
-Right to inheritance of property.
-Spousal privilege in court cases.
When you deny these rights to one group and deny them to another, it cannot be labeled as anything other than systematic discrimination (which is of course exactly what the religious right wants).
There are even more examples that I will list at a later time (particularly housing and employment discrimination).
He's a Mentalist
05-11-2009, 08:37 PM
There are even more examples that I will list at a later time (particularly housing and employment discrimination).
Mexican, black, and Asian people have had many more cases of housing discrimination than homosexuals have. Their housing discrimination is minimal at best, but I won't argue that it does not happen because it does. Some people discriminate against ugly people as well as people who dress a certain way. All these types of discriminations occur within the housing market. I don't see the significance of homosexuals being discriminated against when practically everyone else is discriminated against.
Im 23 now, so no I wouldn't. Don't take the discussion out of context to skirt the argument. We are talking about children here. We both know good and well that a child just might do that if their parent told them to, whether they were consciously or subconsciously telling them to do it.
Children are the most impressionable during their younger years. Basing an argument against that is ridiculous.
I know you did not do it, but I am just saying.
Debate club? I would have loved to be in one, there's no such thing in most German schools
Debate club sucked for me. Nothing to do when you've memorized most aspects of a debate and your opponent is using various forms of informal and formal fallacies, followed by categorical syllogistic errors. The common fallacy that most arguers use is the red herring one, which in the debate club, happened often during our sessions. I would never join another one because of the negative connotations behind it.
btill9000
05-11-2009, 09:08 PM
My understanding is that all of the rights you've listed could be aquired through civil unions. If homosexuals focused on civil unions, I am sure that they could get some things done, but instead they focus on the term marriage. Other than the people on the Pat Robertson level, most people have no issue with Civil Unions. Military benefits are the only items on the list that are unavailable to homosexual couples, and I support "don't ask don't tell" completely.
There are even more examples that I will list at a later time (particularly housing and employment discrimination).
Hmm, well this could be a sticky debate. It will probably get heated sooner than later with Obama in the white house now, since we know that Obama wont veto certain things that Bush would have. Would be glad to debate the facts of it with you.
Feranor
05-12-2009, 12:51 AM
1. These things are not rights. Non of this stuff is guaranteed by our constitution, but I'll respond anyway.
Then how do you justify granting these rights only to certain groups of citizens?
2. I don't mind civil unions. Any Gay couple can go somewhere and get a civil union. However, Marriage is a cultural and religious term, which is not a right.
If marriage is a religious thing, then why do states, who are supposed to be secular, decide who is allowed to marry and who isn't?
3.We are already talking about adoption, and I've already fleshed out why I don't think homosexuals should be able to adopt.
Yes, but your reasoning behind that is incredibly moot and, on top of that, only actually reaches a point when you're homophobic to begin with.
4. "Don't ask don't tell" is as fair gets, and I can't understand why anyone has an issue with it. "Don't ask don't tell" is another way of saying no flamers.
http://forums.bleachexile.com/showthread.php?t=47774
Call it whatever you want. I am going to keep asking you the question as long as we keep discussing this. You want to know whats wrong with homosexual adoption in my view, well answer the question. Do you or do you not accept the fact that emotional and social factors effect child development.
Again, your premise is that emotional and social factors can effect child development. As vague as that may be, it's most likely true. Then you instantly jump to the conclusion that emotional and social factors can alter a child's sexuality. Non sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises.
Im 23 now, so no I wouldn't. Don't take the discussion out of context to skirt the argument. We are talking about children here. We both know good and well that a child just might do that if their parent told them to, whether they were consciously or subconsciously telling them to do it.
So what if I told you that there's an invisible heterophobic dragon living in my back yard who wants you to either turn homosexual or to live in abstinency, threatening to torture you forever if you don't? Because that's basically the reasoning most of the sources you cited give.
Do you really want me to crawl back through this thread and link back to you the post where you said that any argument against any gay right is idiotic, and you framed the statement to say that you didn't need to even hear the argument to decide that it's idiotic. Thats not logic.
For the third time or so, if there was a good argument, people would use it. If you have one, let us hear it.
LOL, would somebody else please chime in on this. Am I the only one seeing it. Am I crazy. Why does this guy keep taking things to the furthest extreme to find a way out. Either it's invalid because it's only miniscule amount of cases or invalid because it's not all cases. Even homosexuals must see that this debate tactic makes them look all the worse. There are articles available on many mainstream news sites, like the ABC one that I linked, that point to a sizable amount of homosexuals having treatable hormone disorders.
Is pointing out fallacies a debate tactic? Anyway, you're complaying about me "taking things to the extreme", yet you're the one making extremely hasty generalizations, arguing against everyone of X based on something that might possibly apply to a minority of X.
Sure it does. It seems like your incapable of reading anything without taking it to one of 2 absolute extremes in order to try to disprove it. If anyone is still reading the exchange between us, anybody with a brain recognizes that your tactic is BS. I am just trying to get you to realize it.
It's like arguing with a 10 year old. Every time you say something applies to some people, then they hit you back with some "So your saying that all people are insert random statement"
The fallacy density is worthy of a /facepalm. You should have realised by now that I don't accept fallacious reasoning.
I am not slipping anything in casually. Whether homosexuality can be changed, and the percentage in which it can be changed, it's important in the discussion whether homosexuality is natural or genetic. The reason it's important is because we know that hormone disorders are not natural. You'll be hard pressed to find anything that says hormone disorders are natural.
Not 'casually', 'causality' (or causation, whatever is the correct term in this context). Skip the nonsense and speculation, the only thing that can be agreed upon is that hormonal imbalance should, in most cases, be fixed, if possible. Whether this has any impact on sexual orientation is completely irrelevant.
Here you go again, just going to the opposite extreme. Seriously, if all I am going to get out of you is a restatement of my statement but forced to an extreme that makes you feel better, I am about done with responding to you.
Again it's very relevant as to whether it's true or not. All doctors agree that hormone disorders are bad and are new to the 20th century. Therefor, if homosexual urges can be caused by some hormone imbalance, it's leap toward proving that it's not natural or genetic.
I'm simply weeding out the fallacies and faulty generalisations.
Exactly, the act of disagreeing with you makes them delusional.
No, the fact that they arbitrarily assume the existence of a magical sky daddy telling them that homosexuality is bad and somehow destroys society or something equally ludicrous is what makes them delusional.
The fact remains that bisexuals are capable of being highly attracted to men and women. Bisexuals are capable of having meaningful relationships with men and women. This means that at some point they make a "choice". You say that there is no choice in sexual orientation.
Red herring + straw man. Do bisexuals choose to be bisexual? No. They have the innate ability to feel attracted towards either sex and they can choose to act based on that. Same procedure as in heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Next time you want to know why black people, more than likely, will never vote for any homosexual right take a look at this portion of the post. Homosexuals haven't nearly gone through anything compared to black people, Jews, or even Asians; yet you guys continue to try to force the comparison.
Anyone who votes against equal rights without having a logically sound reason to do so is a hypocritical bigot. Even more so if they experienced discrimination/oppression themselves.
No because heterosexuality is the norm, and it's how most people are.
Irrelevant premise.
What sets homosexuality apart from heterosexuality is that it's different than the norm.
Another irrelevant premise. But I haven't lost hope just yet.
It's really rather pointless.
Non sequitur, bare assertion fallacy.
Homosexuality is just an exercise in achieving sexual pleasure, and no this isn't saying that homosexuals can't love each other.
Contradictory premise.
I am saying that the change they've made to sex renders it useless other than a pleasure facilitator.
Rephrasing the "homosexual couples can't produce children on their own, so they're bad" nonsense? Oh please. As if heterosexual couples would only have sex that results in pregnancy. This isn't even a good criterium for 'good' or 'bad', even if it was true.
Yes, I am not in favor of homosexuality or homosexuals, but that had nothing to do with the conversation you intercepted. You responded saying that I never gave you a plausible reason. Although, you never asked for a reason.
I'm always asking for a reason. Because opinions have no merit if not based on reason.
Homosexuality has obvious health concerns, and shortens the life.
No. This is only true for male homosexuals having anonymous, promiscuous, unprotected sex. Your data is outdated and irrelevant to anyone who does not fall under the aforementioned criteria.
Homosexuals come into contact with human excrement more than is safe.
Did you ever hear of condoms?
Their hormones are imbalanced, more so than regular people, thus making them even more unhealthy.
That is hypothetic speculation about a minority within a minority and cannot be used to account for a definite statement about "all of X" or anything even remotely close to that.
Many reports say that homosexuality shortens the life more than smoking.
And why exactly should I care about reports made by scientifically illiterate morons?
The have the audacity to compare their minor struggles to the paramount, major struggles other people have had that are on a whole different level. They seek to have the government legislate culture by giving them the "right" to marry, rather than accepting civil unions.
Give a reason why homosexuals should not have the same rights as heterosexuals.
Do your struggles compare to the "paramount, major struggles other people have had that are on a whole different level"? If not, then you should, by your own reasoning, gladly give up your right to marry/adopt children.
Oh, and homosexuals suffered the same fate in Nazi Germany as jews did, for instance. Nowadays, if anyone even does as a much as state valid criticism on something even remotely related to Judaism, society goes batshit insane as if someone just resurrected Hitler. Spouting unconcealed hatred against homosexuals? Nothing happens.
The above is the summation as to why I don't encourage or support homosexuals nor homosexuality.
Repeating something does not make it less false. You still haven't offered a single plausible reason.
---
Debate club sucked for me. Nothing to do when you've memorized most aspects of a debate and your opponent is using various forms of informal and formal fallacies, followed by categorical syllogistic errors. The common fallacy that most arguers use is the red herring one, which in the debate club, happened often during our sessions. I would never join another one because of the negative connotations behind it.
Yeah, but isn't that the same almost everywhere except for maybe in the academic arena?
The thing annoying me is not so much people committing fallacies, but rather people not understanding what effect this has on their argumentation. Ex falso quodlibet.
TW501
05-12-2009, 08:06 AM
My understanding is that all of the rights you've listed could be aquired through civil unions. If homosexuals focused on civil unions, I am sure that they could get some things done, but instead they focus on the term marriage. Other than the people on the Pat Robertson level, most people have no issue with Civil Unions.
There are enough people opposing civil unions to have passed ammendments in 19 states to ban both marriage and any type of civil union or domestic partnership.
I used to believe that civil unions were an acceptable compromise, but after witnessing the amount of hate and discrimination LGBT people face, I have come to feel that they should not settle for a substitute. Civil Unions are better than nothing, but don't always grant the same rights (the civil unions in New Jersey contain the same rights as regular marriage, but in some other states the civil unions/domestic partnerships don't provide the same rights) and dignity as marriage. Civil unions, while certainly better than having no such institutions at all, promote a 'separate but equal' mentality.
btill9000
05-12-2009, 08:15 AM
EDIT: Okay I am dropping a new topic at the top of this that probably fits in the Gay Rights discussion. Will Homosexual Accusations hurt the Christ, the Governor of Florida, who just announced that he will end his term as governor early and running for a senate seat. I think so because theirs some pretty significant evidence out there, and Florida isn't the most tolerant state. IMO, the media could choose to end his campaign as fast as he started it.
____________
Tired of typing so much so I am going to be stacking some of your statements and responding to them all at one time.
Repeating something does not make it less false. You still haven't offered a single plausible reason.
Give a reason why homosexuals should not have the same rights as heterosexuals.
Then how do you justify granting these rights only to certain groups of citizens?
It depends on the actual group of citizens. All groups of citizens don't get all rights.
1. For example, morality is what sets homosexuality apart from race. Sex falls into the moral arena, Employers have the right to discriminate based on Moral Turpitude.
2. Homosexuality also falls in to the sexual orientation arena. By removing bias based on sexual orientation you force people to marry, hire, and essential accept the people in these spoiler tags.
1. Apotemnophilia - sexual arousal associated with the stump(s) of an Amputee
2. Asphyxophilia - sexual gratification derived from activities that involve oxygen deprivation through hanging, strangulation, or other means
3. Autogynephilia - the sexual arousal of a man by his own perception of himself as a woman or dressed as a woman (p. 574)
4. Bisexual - the capacity to feel erotic attraction toward, or to engage in sexual interaction with, both males and females
5. Coprophilia - sexual arousal associated with feces (p. 576)
6. Exhibitionism - the act of exposing one’s genitals to an unwilling observer to obtain sexual gratification (p. 569)
7. Fetishism/Sexual Fetishism - obtaining sexual excitement primarily or exclusively from an inanimate object or a particular part of the body (p. 570)
8. Frotteurism - approaching an unknown woman from the rear and pressing or rubbing the penis against her buttocks (p. 570)
9. Heterosexuality - the universal norm of sexuality with those of the opposite sex
10. Homosexual/Gay/Lesbian - people who form sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with members of their own gender
11. Gender Identity Disorder - a strong and persistent cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, or the other sex, "along with" persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex or a sense of the inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex (p. 576)
12. Gerontosexuality - distinct preference for sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with an elderly partner
13. Incest - sex with a sibling or parent
14. Kleptophilia - obtaining sexual excitement from stealing
15. Klismaphilia - erotic pleasure derived from enemas (p. 576)
16. Necrophilia - sexual arousal and/or activity with a corpse (p. 576)
17. Partialism - A fetish in which a person is sexually attracted to a specific body part exclusive of the person (p. 576)
18. Pedophilia - Sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account; the adult may be sexually attracted to opposite sex, same sex, or prefer either (p. 571)
19. Prostitution - the act or practice of offering sexual stimulation or intercourse for money
20. Sexual Masochism - obtaining sexual gratification by being subjected to pain or humiliation (p. 573)
21. Sexual Sadism - the intentional infliction of pain or humiliation on another person in order to achieve sexual excitement (p. 574)
22. Telephone Scatalogia - sexual arousal associated with making or receiving obscene phone calls (p. 576)
23. Toucherism - characterized by a strong desire to touch the breast or genitals of an unknown woman without her consent; often occurs in conjunction with other paraphilia
24. Transgenderism - an umbrella term referring to and/or covering transvestitism, drag queen/king, and transsexualism
25. Transsexual - a person whose gender identity is different from his or her anatomical gender
26. Transvestite - a person who is sexually stimulated or gratified by wearing the clothes of the other gender
27. Transvestic Fetishism - intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing (p. 575)
28. Urophilia - sexual arousal associated with urine (p. 576)
29. Voyeurism - obtaining sexual arousal by observing people without their consent when they are undressed or engaged in sexual activity (p. 575)
30. Zoophilia/Bestiality - engaging in sexual activity with animals (p. 576)
If marriage is a religious thing, then why do states, who are supposed to be secular, decide who is allowed to marry and who isn't?
Religious and cultural is what I said. You can't split the two apart. Secondly, that whole non-secular state thing is nothing more than a misinterpretation of the Constitution.
Yes, but your reasoning behind that is incredibly moot and, on top of that, only actually reaches a point when you're homophobic to begin with.
You don't get a response here if all you can do is spout off some meaningless gibberish and then follow that up by calling me homophobic.
http://forums.bleachexile.com/showthread.php?t=47774
Putting openly flaming gay people into the military would be comparable to dropping an openly flaming gay guy into a varsity football locker room. It would cause emotional and social stress on that team, thus making the team lose games. Although, with the military lives will be on the line not games.
Again, your premise is that emotional and social factors can effect child development. As vague as that may be, it's most likely true. Then you instantly jump to the conclusion that emotional and social factors can alter a child's sexuality. Non sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises.
I never said that emotional and social factors effect sexuality. We never got to discussing that, because it took you a day to admit that emotional and social factors effect behavior. It can be argued that attraction cannot be derived from homosexual behavior, I guess even though I disagree. The action of having sex however, is a behavior. In youths, attraction is not always required for sex and other homosexual behavior. Some kids begin experimenting with sex before their bodies are even capable of "completing the act".
So what if I told you that there's an invisible heterophobic dragon living in my back yard who wants you to either turn homosexual or to live in abstinency, threatening to torture you forever if you don't? Because that's basically the reasoning most of the sources you cited give.
I'd say that this is another example of the reason that Black people wont vote for you. You compare your minor inconvenience to torture, and then try to get the support of people that have actually been tortured.
For the third time or so, if there was a good argument, people would use it. If you have one, let us hear it.
Whether you consider them good arguments doesn't matter to me. Your opinion of my argument is much different than you disproving my arguments. You haven't disproved anything.
The fallacy density is worthy of a /facepalm. You should have realised by now that I don't accept fallacious reasoning.
Is pointing out fallacies a debate tactic? Anyway, you're complaying about me "taking things to the extreme", yet you're the one making extremely hasty generalizations, arguing against everyone of X based on something that might possibly apply to a minority of X.
Decisions are made without absolutes every day. Decisions are made due to possibilities and percentages all the time.
the only thing that can be agreed upon is that hormonal imbalance should, in most cases, be fixed, if possible. Whether this has any impact on sexual orientation is completely irrelevant.
It doesn't matter if you agree if you cannot disprove. Hormone Imbalances should be treated. Hormone Imbalances are much more common in homosexuals. It's proven that some homosexuals lose homosexual urges once their hormone imbalance is treated.
I'm simply weeding out the fallacies and faulty generalisations.
So proving that something, can in certain circumstances, cause homosexual urges in a person is not a step in the direction of disproving your theory of genetics?
No, the fact that they arbitrarily assume the existence of a magical sky daddy telling them that homosexuality is bad and somehow destroys society or something equally ludicrous is what makes them delusional.
Like it or not, religion is guaranteed under the constitution(within certain limits). Homosexual rights, however are not.
Do your struggles compare to the "paramount, major struggles other people have had that are on a whole different level"? If not, then you should, by your own reasoning, gladly give up your right to marry/adopt children.
Anyone who votes against equal rights without having a logically sound reason to do so is a hypocritical bigot. Even more so if they experienced discrimination/oppression themselves.
This is another fun part about the United States. The people have the freedom to vote however they please. You cannot insult them and then expect them to vote for you. Regardless if you are deluded enough to think your struggle is comparable to the struggle of African Americans, you should recognize that black people don't appreciate having your minor struggles compared to their major struggles, if you want them to vote in favor or you. In the United States, it's required to bring your case before the people and convince them to come over to your side. Just because you "want" the bill passed does not mean you can say anything you want and it'll still pass.
Oh, and homosexuals suffered the same fate in Nazi Germany as Jews did.
Yes Hitler didn't like anyone that was a member of his preferred subset of people. He had a special hate for Jews though, and since there was more of them they got the short end of the stick. Although, I'd imagine that most homosexuals killed by Nazi's were Homosexual Jews. The Holocaust is associated with Jews not homosexuals. Using comparisons like this is why the The Union for Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America recently said that Torah and Jewish law affirms marriage as only between a man and woman. It's like comparing 10 homosexual's getting hit by an airplane to 9/11. Emotions and Erroneous comparisons do not get bills passed.
Irrelevant premise.
So your disagreeing with the fact that heterosexuality is the accepted norm int he United States?
Another irrelevant premise. But I haven't lost hope just yet.
Rephrasing the "homosexual couples can't produce children on their own, so they're bad" nonsense? Oh please. As if heterosexual couples would only have sex that results in pregnancy. This isn't even a good criterium for 'good' or 'bad', even if it was true.
Non sequitur, bare assertion fallacy.
Contradictory premise.
Since all of the above responses are to the same thing I am stacking them. Baring some kind of illness, heterosexuals can produce human children, thus justifying them to be given children through adoption. What justification do you have that you should be given children, if you cannot produce them on your own.
I'm always asking for a reason. Because opinions have no merit if not based on reason.
No, you are not always asking for a reason. The first time you asked me for a reason was in the same paragraph that you told me I never gave you one.
No. This is only true for male homosexuals having anonymous, promiscuous, unprotected sex. Your data is outdated and irrelevant to anyone who does not fall under the aforementioned criteria.
Did you ever hear of condoms?
No not true. The sources I linked say that homosexuals live shorter lives, HIV/AIDS aside. When you add HIV/AIDS into the equation it just gets worse. The title of the research done below is called The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and after the AIDS Epidemic. It uses obituaries. I can't find a study that disproves this. Their are plenty of people that seek to disprove it, but I cannot find a single study that finds opposite results to this one. If it wasn't true then certainly there would be a plethora of studies that support homosexuals having the same lifespan as heterosexuals.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ506109&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ506109
That is hypothetic speculation about a minority within a minority and cannot be used to account for a definite statement about "all of X" or anything even remotely close to that.
A definite statement about all of X is not necessary in many of the decisions that are made in the world today. The only person that deals in Absolutes is someone in a mathematical career.
Red herring + straw man. Do bisexuals choose to be bisexual? No. They have the innate ability to feel attracted towards either sex and they can choose to act based on that. Same procedure as in heterosexuals and homosexuals.
And why exactly should I care about reports made by scientifically illiterate morons?
It doesn't matter that you think they are scientifically illiterate, if you don't prove it. One of my sources was the Kinsey studies, and those are the foremost studies in sex that have ever been done. The Kinsey studies support the fact that Sexual Orientation changes. Many things can be said about the Kinsey Studies, but they are not bias.
but after witnessing the amount of hate and discrimination LGBT people face, I have come to feel that they should not settle for a substitute.
I imagine that the majority of the gay people in the United States support the bolded statement above. You want to stem the hate by not settling for a substitute. That is legislating acceptance. You are the third person on this board, to in a round about way, admit that legislating acceptance is what you want.
Feranor
05-12-2009, 10:26 AM
It depends on the actual group of citizens. All groups of citizens don't get all rights.
A euphemism for unjustified arbitrary discrimination?
1. For example, morality is what sets homosexuality apart from race. Sex falls into the moral arena, Employers have the right to discriminate based on Moral Turpitude.
Another red herring; now you're implying that homosexuality is "less moral" than heterosexuality? If so, prove it.
2. Homosexuality also falls in to the sexual orientation arena. By removing bias based on sexual orientation you force people to marry, hire, and essential accept the people in these spoiler tags.
1. Apotemnophilia - sexual arousal associated with the stump(s) of an Amputee
2. Asphyxophilia - sexual gratification derived from activities that involve oxygen deprivation through hanging, strangulation, or other means
3. Autogynephilia - the sexual arousal of a man by his own perception of himself as a woman or dressed as a woman (p. 574)
4. Bisexual - the capacity to feel erotic attraction toward, or to engage in sexual interaction with, both males and females
5. Coprophilia - sexual arousal associated with feces (p. 576)
6. Exhibitionism - the act of exposing one’s genitals to an unwilling observer to obtain sexual gratification (p. 569)
7. Fetishism/Sexual Fetishism - obtaining sexual excitement primarily or exclusively from an inanimate object or a particular part of the body (p. 570)
8. Frotteurism - approaching an unknown woman from the rear and pressing or rubbing the penis against her buttocks (p. 570)
9. Heterosexuality - the universal norm of sexuality with those of the opposite sex
10. Homosexual/Gay/Lesbian - people who form sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with members of their own gender
11. Gender Identity Disorder - a strong and persistent cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, or the other sex, "along with" persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex or a sense of the inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex (p. 576)
12. Gerontosexuality - distinct preference for sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with an elderly partner
13. Incest - sex with a sibling or parent
14. Kleptophilia - obtaining sexual excitement from stealing
15. Klismaphilia - erotic pleasure derived from enemas (p. 576)
16. Necrophilia - sexual arousal and/or activity with a corpse (p. 576)
17. Partialism - A fetish in which a person is sexually attracted to a specific body part exclusive of the person (p. 576)
18. Pedophilia - Sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account; the adult may be sexually attracted to opposite sex, same sex, or prefer either (p. 571)
19. Prostitution - the act or practice of offering sexual stimulation or intercourse for money
20. Sexual Masochism - obtaining sexual gratification by being subjected to pain or humiliation (p. 573)
21. Sexual Sadism - the intentional infliction of pain or humiliation on another person in order to achieve sexual excitement (p. 574)
22. Telephone Scatalogia - sexual arousal associated with making or receiving obscene phone calls (p. 576)
23. Toucherism - characterized by a strong desire to touch the breast or genitals of an unknown woman without her consent; often occurs in conjunction with other paraphilia
24. Transgenderism - an umbrella term referring to and/or covering transvestitism, drag queen/king, and transsexualism
25. Transsexual - a person whose gender identity is different from his or her anatomical gender
26. Transvestite - a person who is sexually stimulated or gratified by wearing the clothes of the other gender
27. Transvestic Fetishism - intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing (p. 575)
28. Urophilia - sexual arousal associated with urine (p. 576)
29. Voyeurism - obtaining sexual arousal by observing people without their consent when they are undressed or engaged in sexual activity (p. 575)
30. Zoophilia/Bestiality - engaging in sexual activity with animals (p. 576)
You do realize that this is just a non-judgemental list of things people can feel sexually attracted to / get aroused by?
Now you're trying to slip in another slightly modified version of a stupid argument in there: "If you allow homosexuals to marry, people will start marrying their cat, their fridge, the apple tree in their backyard, ..."
Religious and cultural is what I said. You can't split the two apart, Secondly, that whole non-secular state thing is nothing more than a misinterpretation of the Constitution.
You didn't define cultural. And no, you're absolutely wrong about the second part. This has been discussed to hell and back in the religious discussion thread; and the only proven conclusion was that the founding fathers unanimously wanted a secular form of government and that the religious nonsense was slipped in later, partly in response to communism.
Putting openly flaming gay people into the military would be comparable to dropping an openly flaming gay guy into a varsity football locker room. It would cause emotional and social stress on that team, thus making the team lose games. Although, with the military lives will be on the line not games.
Also wrong. Every other nation that is working together with the US in Iraq allows homosexuals to openly serve in the military. None of what you're afraid would happen did happen. The British had the exact same discussion you currently have about Don't Ask Don't Tell. When they got rid of it, nothing got worse. Your soldiers are currently working together, possibly showering/sleeping in the same facilities with them and nothing happens. You're simply wrong.
I never said that emotional and social factors effect sexuality. We never got to discussing that, because it took you a day to admit that emotional and social factors effect behavior. It can be argued that attraction cannot be derived from homosexual behavior, I guess even though I disagree. The action of having sex however, is a behavior. In youths, attraction is not always required for sex and other homosexual behavior. Some kids begin experimenting with sex before their bodies are even capable of "completing the act".
I simply waited for you to concede on the leap of logic between your premise and your conclusion.
So what if some kid tries both ways in order to find out what works best for him? That won't change the result, unless he's bisexual and enjoys the first try so much that he won't bother trying the other option.
I'd say that this is another example of the reason that Black people wont vote for you. You compare your minor inconvenience to torture, and then try to get the support of people that have actually been tortured.
You're still not making sense. Using your reasoning, we inevitably arrive at the conclusion that the rights we're talking about should only be granted to the group of individuals (or maybe even only the one individual) which is the worst off. Because they could, by your reasoning, always argue that all the other groups didn't suffer as much as they did, and therefore do not deserve these rights.
By your reasoning homosexuals deserve the right to marry and to adopt children more than heterosexuals because the former usually suffer more.
Whether you consider them good arguments doesn't matter to me. Your opinion of my argument is much different than you disproving my arguments. You haven't disproved anything.
Your arguments are logically flawed and therefore invalid. Which has nothing to do with my opinion.
Decisions are made without absolutes every day. Decisions are made due to possibilities and percentages all the time.
So what? I see two almost synonymous premises, but no conclusion. To be fair, I'll tell you beforehand that the conclusion "therefore it's valid/correct to do so." would be a fallacy, in case that's what you had in mind.
So proving that something, can in certain circumstances, cause homosexual urges in a person is not a step in the direction of disproving your theory of genetics?
I lost count of the straw men you set up until now. I never said that genes are the only factor.
Like it or not, religion is guaranteed under the constitution(within certain limits). Homosexual rights, however are not.
It guarantees equality.
This is another fun part about the United States. The people have the freedom to vote however they please. You cannot insult them and then expect them to vote for you.
The people I choose to insult (and most of those that take offense) are too stupid to vote based on anything but their primitive knee jerk reaction, or gut feeling, if you will, anyway.
Regardless if you are deluded enough to think your struggle is comparable to the struggle of African Americans, you should recognize that black people don't appreciate having your minor struggles compared to their major struggles, if you want them to vote in favor or you.
You should make clear which time frame you're talking about. Because among my age group, homosexuals generally have to face far more bullshit than people of ethnic minorities. And again, this is a bad argument, because it, as I've shown, leads to the conclusion that only the group/individual that suffers the most should be granted the rights in question.
In the United States, it's required to bring your case before the people and convince them to come over to your side. Just because you "want" the bill passed does not mean you can say anything you want and it'll still pass.
I'd prefer if people listened to reason instead of arbitrary nonsense when making decisions. Then again, most of your population believes in a personal god. You do the math.
Yes Hitler didn't like anyone that was a member of his preferred subset of people. He had a special hate for Jews though, and since there was more of them they got the short end of the stick. Although, I'd imagine that most homosexuals killed by Nazi's were Homosexual Jews.
You can imagine all you want, but you'd be better off reading up on the facts.
The Holocaust is associated with Jews not homosexuals.
You seem to be very fond of using popular opinion as "proof" for something. Aside from the fact that this is a fallacy; from my experience, popular opinion is usually stupid.
Using comparisons like this is why the The Union for Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America recently said that Torah and Jewish law affirms marriage as only between a man and woman. It's like comparing 10 homosexual's getting hit by an airplane to 9/11. Emotions and Erroneous comparisons do not get bills passed.
So what? Religion is, in most cases by definition even, not qualified to make such statements. Especially not the religions advocating a personal god.
So your disagreeing with the fact that heterosexuality is the accepted norm int he United States?
That depends on your definition of norm. But that's not the point. The point is that it's irrelevant whether heterosexuality is the norm or not, unless you're implying that 'the norm' is automatically better than everything else. In which case you have to prove that.
Baring some kind of illness, heterosexuals can produce human children, thus justifying them to be given children through adoption. What justification do you have that you should be given children, if you cannot produce them on your own.
Uh, what?
Are you saying that only those who can naturally produce children should be allowed to adopt children?
Why would a couple capable of producing children on their own need to adopt children? It makes far more sense to adopt a child when you can't have one of your own, which includes infertile couples, homosexual couples etc.
No, you are not always asking for a reason. The first time you asked me for a reason was in the same paragraph that you told me I never gave you one.
By always, I meant 'by default'. Implicitly. I've already given the reason why this is mandatory.
No not true. The sources I linked say that homosexuals live shorter lives, HIV/AIDS aside. When you add HIV/AIDS into the equation it just gets worse. The title of the research done below is called The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and after the AIDS Epidemic. It uses obituaries. I can't find a study that disproves this. Their are plenty of people that seek to disprove it, but I cannot find a single study that finds opposite results to this one. If it wasn't true then certainly there would be a plethora of studies that support homosexuals having the same lifespan as heterosexuals.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ506109&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ506109
You're not adressing the point I made, so I'll ask you directly:
As a homosexual who does not engage in anonymous and/or promiscuous and/or unprotected sex and does not have a hormonal imbalance or any other malady, why do you think my life is going to be shorter than it would be if I were heterosexual?
A definite statement about all of X is not necessary in many of the decisions that are made in the world today. The only person that deals in Absolutes is someone in a mathematical career.
Therefore, you can't enforce an absolute law based on that. My point exactly.
It doesn't matter that you think they are scientifically illiterate, if you don't prove it. One of my sources was the Kinsey studies, and those are the foremost studies in sex that have ever been done. The Kinsey studies support the fact that Sexual Orientation changes. Many things can be said about the Kinsey Studies, but they are not bias.
Read the studies again. You're confusing/mixing up orientation and behaviour.
I imagine that the majority of the gay people in the United States support the bolded statement above. You want to stem the hate by not settling for a substitute. That is legislating acceptance. You are the third person on this board, to in a round about way, admit that legislating acceptance is what you want.
It's not legislating acceptance, it's legislating equality.
d3m1G0d
05-12-2009, 01:00 PM
Devil's advocate here.
Feranor, you said that gays should have the same equal "rights" as straights. As a man I can't marry another man in the U.S., neither can you. As a man I can marry a woman in the U.S., so can you. So you are referring to a new set of "rights" not the same "rights".
Feranor
05-12-2009, 01:17 PM
Devil's advocate here.
Feranor, you said that gays should have the same equal "rights" as straights. As a man I can't marry another man in the U.S., neither can you. As a man I can marry a woman in the U.S., so can you. So you are referring to a new set of "rights" not the same "rights".
It's obviously difficult being the advocatus diaboli in a debate between reason and impulsive hogwash and while I generally appreciate it when people try and do that for the sake of argument, it is without merit in such cases.
Even if it's probably better than blatant fallacies, splitting hairs won't help either. I'm not the emotional type who'd refer to these rights as "the right to marry the one you love" or something similar, because if you try and get specific about this it suddenly necessitates all sorts of other specifications (like making sure "the one" is actually an adult human capable of consent etc. pp.).
The point is that homosexual and heterosexual couples should be equal under the law (and seen as equal by society as well, but that would require most people not to be morons, which, as a cynic, I know to be very improbable). Neither one should be discriminated against, positively or negatively.
btill9000
05-12-2009, 03:16 PM
A euphemism for unjustified arbitrary discrimination?
Another red herring; now you're implying that homosexuality is "less moral" than heterosexuality? If so, prove it.
In some cases, moral turpitude doesn't have to be proven, and I support this. If you are going to group yourselves based on something that falls into the moral arena, then be prepared to be judged by that. It would cause issues in the work place if employers didn't have the ability to discriminate based on moral issues.
Now you're trying to slip in another slightly modified version of a stupid argument in there: "If you allow homosexuals to marry, people will start marrying their cat, their fridge, the apple tree in their backyard, ..."
You do realize that this is just a non-judgemental list of things people can feel sexually attracted to / get aroused by?
Homosexuality is rightly included on that list. Employers should be able to discriminate based on sexual factors, because sexual factors fall into the morals arena(unlike other groups you like to compare yourself to.)
You didn't define cultural.
I feel as if you should have a general idea of what the word means.
And no, you're absolutely wrong about the second part. This has been discussed to hell and back in the religious discussion thread; and the only proven conclusion was that the founding fathers unanimously wanted a secular form of government and that the religious nonsense was slipped in later, partly in response to communism.
I didn't take part in that thread, but I do know that the constitution doesn't reflect what you are saying.
Also wrong. Every other nation that is working together with the US in Iraq allows homosexuals to openly serve in the military.
Our military is the most powerful military on the planet, so we have no need to mimic others. The only military that can be compared to ours is China's, and if you think being homosexual here is hard go on over there. Polls report that the majority of the members of our military want Don't Ask Don't Tell to stay as it is. This poll is done yearly and the same result is found every year.
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/12/122908_military_poll_DADT/
None of what you're afraid would happen did happen. The British had the exact same discussion you currently have about Don't Ask Don't Tell. When they got rid of it, nothing got worse. Your soldiers are currently working together, possibly showering/sleeping in the same facilities with them and nothing happens. You're simply wrong.
The British military doesn't have any room to get worse. I certainly don't have any goals for our military to be more like Britain's.
I simply waited for you to concede on the leap of logic between your premise and your conclusion.
I didn't concede anything. I've been talking about actions and behavior the whole time. It took you a day to finally admit that actions and behavior can be affected by emotional and social factors.
So what if some kid tries both ways in order to find out what works best for him? That won't change the result, unless he's bisexual and enjoys the first try so much that he won't bother trying the other option.
Again, it's up in the air as to whether it'll change anything. Secondly, until proof is shown that it wont change anything, your logic is the exact reason that homosexuals shouldn't have the right to adopt. They would encourage the kids try it different ways until they figure out what fits best. The kids first impulse will be to try what their parents are doing. Trying it both ways instantly creates a higher risk for STD's.
You're still not making sense. Using your reasoning, we inevitably arrive at the conclusion that the rights we're talking about should only be granted to the group of individuals (or maybe even only the one individual) which is the worst off. Because they could, by your reasoning, always argue that all the other groups didn't suffer as much as they did, and therefore do not deserve these rights.
By your reasoning homosexuals deserve the right to marry and to adopt children more than heterosexuals because the former usually suffer more.
The people I choose to insult (and most of those that take offense) are too stupid to vote based on anything but their primitive knee jerk reaction, or gut feeling, if you will, anyway.
This is why you got voted down in California and will continue to lose votes and the respect of racial minorities. Regardless of how you frame it, Black people are not happy about you comparing your struggle to their struggle.
How and why are the two struggles even remotely equivalent? Explain if your so sure of it.
Your arguments are logically flawed and therefore invalid. Which has nothing to do with my opinion.
Your opinion that my arguments are logical flawed are meaningless. You've proved nothing.
So what?
So whats means "Yeh I am wrong but it doesn't matter."
So I'll presume that you concede the point.
I lost count of the straw men you set up until now. I never said that genes are the only factor.
I never said that you said genetics are the only factor. My statement meant that genetics would be proven not to be a factor at all.
It guarantees equality.
Homosexual Equality is not guaranteed either.
You should make clear which time frame you're talking about. Because among my age group, homosexuals generally have to face far more bullshit than people of ethnic minorities.
Obviously invoking the civil rights movement is refering to an earlier time frame. Although, I think you concede the point that Black People faced more problems than Homosexuals in the 1950's/1960's.
Although, I gather that you think that homosexuals have more issues currently. That is also incorrect.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_01.htm
Please compare the Anti-Black Column with the entire Sexual Orientation section of the FBI's hate crimes statistics for 2007. Their are more hate crimes against just black people than homosexuals of all types. Theirs nearly double the number of Black Hate Crime victims compared to Homosexual Hate Crime Victims.
I'd prefer if people listened to reason instead of arbitrary nonsense when making decisions. Then again, most of your population believes in a personal god. You do the math.
So you consider comparing homosexual struggles with the civil rights movement reason? If you guys stepped up your "reasoning" a bit maybe people would listen.
You can imagine all you want, but you'd be better off reading up on the facts.
So you are saying that this isn't true? Your really arguing that homosexuals were the main target of the holocaust? Please refer to the post above about stepping up your "reason".
You seem to be very fond of using popular opinion as "proof" for something. Aside from the fact that this is a fallacy; from my experience, popular opinion is usually stupid.
Stupid to you. Why don't you go ahead and show me how homosexuals were effected by the holocaust in the same manner and severity as Jews? This is a chance for you to step up your "reasoning", so don't miss it by making another one of your pointless abstract statements.
So what? Religion is, in most cases by definition even, not qualified to make such statements. Especially not the religions advocating a personal god.
Here you go ignoring the point again, but I'll respond anyway. So the Jews are not qualified to publicize what the Torah says. I hope you are not suggesting that they should amend what the Torah says.
That depends on your definition of norm. But that's not the point. The point is that it's irrelevant whether heterosexuality is the norm or not, unless you're implying that 'the norm' is automatically better than everything else. In which case you have to prove that.
Cultural Norm if it makes you feel better. Your trying to run from conceding the point, but you are the one that suggested that heterosexuality is not the norm. Now that I've called you on it, you want to deflect it by moving to another topic.
can't[/b] have one of your own, which includes infertile couples, homosexual couples etc.
Are you saying that only those who can naturally produce children should be allowed to adopt children?
Yes barring some kind of illness. Illnesses include infertile couples. If someone, no matter what they did, can never have a human child they shouldn't be given one. People that can have children, under normal circumstances, are equipped to raise them. Nature decided that it wants to deliver children to a man and a woman.
By always, I meant 'by default'. Implicitly. I've already given the reason why this is mandatory.
I don't care what you meant. Don't accuse me of not answering a question, if the first time you asked me it was in the same paragraph that you accused me of not answering it.
You're not adressing the point I made, so I'll ask you directly:
As a homosexual who does not engage in anonymous and/or promiscuous and/or unprotected sex and does not have a hormonal imbalance or any other malady, why do you think my life is going to be shorter than it would be if I were heterosexual?
Wow, your going to ask me something directly? If you do that more often it could make this easier.
Well for one, you can't just knock aids aside. These figures are represented on many sites, but I took my time and found an particularly non-biased one.The first link here is their page on homosexuality and they seem to support the majority of your views. http://www.avert.org/being-gay.htm. All that said, lets get into their studies. Their studies report that people are most likely to get HIV/AIDS from a homosexual encounter. http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm
Okay, now HIV/AIDS aside, this guy took 6,714 obituaries from sixteen United States homosexual journals. They then compared those results to obituaries from two conventional newspapers. It was reported that the median lifespan of homosexuals with aids was 39 and without was 42. To this day it's the largest homosexuality lifespan study that has ever be performed.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007_docs/CameronHomosexualFootprint.pdf
This one includes aids, but it still represents the average for all homosexuals, which is far below the average for heterosexuals. You'll probably say that the Cameron study is bias, but this one certainly isn't.
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657?maxt-show=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=QID_NOT_SET&FIRSTINDEX=&volume=26&first%2520page=657&journalcode=intjepid
Now do me a favor. Respond with something not abstract that doesn't reek of emotional opinion...
Therefore, you can't enforce an absolute law based on that. My point exactly.
You are wrong. You should say that you think think absolute law should never be based on possibilities. Unfortunately, a lot of it is.
It's not legislating acceptance, it's legislating equality.
The constitution does not guarantee all encompassing equality. Hate crimes should be punished with the harshest punishment. However, hate itself cannot be legislated. Asking the government to give you equality is essentially telling them to make people hate you less than they hate others or at least to make peoples hate toward you equivalent to their hate toward others.
TW501
05-12-2009, 03:59 PM
1. For example, morality is what sets homosexuality apart from race. Sex falls into the moral arena, Employers have the right to discriminate based on Moral Turpitude.
2. Homosexuality also falls in to the sexual orientation arena. By removing bias based on sexual orientation you force people to marry, hire, and essential accept the people in these spoiler tags.
1. There will always be people who think that others are immoral, but if they are capable of performing a job equally well, they cannot be fired for their personal race, religion, gender, creed, etc. If you're allowed to discriminate in the hiring of gay individuals due to a supposed lack of morality inherent to them, why not allow employers to fire individuals of a religion they find immoral? What if they fired all people who they considered to have 'immoral' political stances?
2. That is not true. I recognized the "30 sexual orientations" the moment you posted them. They're part of a campaign that's been going on across the internet against the hate crimes bill. Luckily, it's already been disproven time and time again.
You see, there are only four sexual orientations recognized by the American Psychological Association. ONLY four. Not thirty, four. They are: Sexually Attracted to Males, Sexually Attracted to Females, Sexually Attracted to Both, and Sexually Attracted to Neither. That's it. None of those others you listed are true sexual orientations. The definition of sexual orientation on their site is:
"Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female), and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior)."
If marriage is a religious thing, then why do states, who are supposed to be secular, decide who is allowed to marry and who isn't?
Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry."
Sexual orientation wasn't listed, but one must remember that when it was created (1948) merely being gay was enough to land you in jail in most places. The point of this is that Marriage is considered a fundamental human right, not a strictly religious practice. If the basis for banning gay marriage is religious in nature, then it is government legislating on the basis of religion, which violates the separation of church and state.
I'd say that this is another example of the reason that Black people wont vote for you. You compare your minor inconvenience to torture, and then try to get the support of people that have actually been tortured.
Regardless if you are deluded enough to think your struggle is comparable to the struggle of African Americans, you should recognize that black people don't appreciate having your minor struggles compared to their major struggles, if you want them to vote in favor or you.
Yes Hitler didn't like anyone that was a member of his preferred subset of people. He had a special hate for Jews though, and since there was more of them they got the short end of the stick. Although, I'd imagine that most homosexuals killed by Nazi's were Homosexual Jews. The Holocaust is associated with Jews not homosexuals.
Nobody is claiming that their struggles are the same, but the comparisons are valid and parallels between the two movements exist. As Coretta Scott King has said
"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group."
"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people. ... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."
You apparently are unaware of the struggle gays and lesbians have faced if you think their struggles amount to 'minor inconveniences'. For the record, 15-20,000 gays were killed in the holocaust and 50,000 imprisoned. Not as high as the number of Jews or Roma killed, but by no means a small number. Afterwards, freed gays were largely ignored and not acknowledged as victims of the holocaust at first. I'd also like to remind you that it was a long and difficult struggle on the part of gays and lesbians to get where they are today. They faced decades of discrimination, violence, and legal persecution in order to gain the rights they have. Even today there is still a lot of discrimination, and a lot of people think it's perfectly fine.
When they compare their struggle to the struggle of african-americans, women, etc., they aren't saying that it is exactly the same, they're saying that they have faced and continue to face hatred and discrimination in a similar manner.
People hate them for no other reason than who they are. Violence is inflicted upon them simply for existing. People actively and fiercely seek to deny them rights. They are treated as being less worthy of basic respect and dignity than the rest of us. That is where the primary comparison lies.
I imagine that the majority of the gay people in the United States support the bolded statement above. You want to stem the hate by not settling for a substitute. That is legislating acceptance. You are the third person on this board, to in a round about way, admit that legislating acceptance is what you want.
You misinterperet me. I meant that I decided that they should not have to settle on their rights for the sake of people who have a problem with them. Civil unions promote a 'separate but equal' mentality. I know that you hate these sort of comparisons, but it's really the only thing I can think of that is a parallel to this situation. "Straights/Whites get the white drinking fountains/marriage, gays/blacks get the black drinking fountains/civil unions. Both are equal, everybody's happy." (no, I am not saying they are exactly the same, I'm saying that the premise is similar)
Civil unions are not equal to marriage. They usually do not provide the same rights, and they don't provide the same dignity. Since it's the anti-gay people who have the problem, I don't see why the gays should be the ones compromising.
you guys put way to much time and effort into this. Faggots do not deserve your time.
RYUJINN-JACK
05-12-2009, 04:15 PM
I wish I would only have to say this once, but repetition is inevitable...
It's not about religion. It never was.
It's about people of non-straight orientation being treated as equals in every sense of the word, regardless of what aspect of life or what institution is involved.
In this specific instance, it's about being treated with the same level of respect, dignity and privilege as any other two people who are in a loving, committed relationship.
No, churches do not marry Buddhists or Muslims, because they do not practice and follow the same philosophy, dogma and/or rituals. Gay people on the other hand may be completely devout members of their church, and may even follow Christianity better than many straight followers [homosexual controversy aside].
The church isn't the only front for gay people. It's also in the workplace, the home, social settings, and so on. Marriage just happens to be the most controversial and frequently covered subtopic of the whole movement.
Get your head out of your ass--it's not the 1950s. Plenty of women have no interest in marriage because they would rather have an established career or simply do not feel that marriage is compatible with their lifestyle. Hell, some don't even agree with the institution of marriage to begin with.
Sorry i didnt see your post earlier, I dont really come to these forums much.. it feels all clammy here =P
Anyway, I beg to differ, madmoiselle! It is all about religion.
The biggest campaign in opposition to Gay Marriage is "the sanctity" of it. Which is all about religious values.
And, I do believe most [any] church will Marry a heterosexual Bhuddist couple.
It's all part of the idea that, a person need not believe in Jesus Christ to recognize the sanctity that is marriage.
In thinking about gay marriage, I feel that, heterosexual would not find it at all pleasing to know that a Man can marry another Man, or a Woman can Marry another Woman.
That's stating the obvious, but a more underlying effect goes un-noticed, that being this.
Marriage looses it's sanctity, the word 'marriage' itself looses 'sanct' value and ends up being 'Civil Union'
TW501
05-12-2009, 04:44 PM
There really is no sanctity to marriage in the context we're talking about. We're talking about civil marriage, which is entirely different from religious marriage (and I don't see how letting gays marry affects that either). It doesn't matter what religious arguments against gays and same-sex marriage people make, those types of arguments should hold no weight in a secular democracy like the U.S.
RYUJINN-JACK
05-12-2009, 05:13 PM
What context do you believe in?
The word 'marriage' itself, has developed an intrinsic equality with the word 'Sanctity'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_(ethics)
I have always felt that a marriage had priorities;
the person who loves first (the sanctity)
then the asset each person is working with (kids, college funds, property, death benefits X(, ect:
TW501
05-12-2009, 07:15 PM
We're talking about civil marriage, that is, the marital rights and recognition given to a couple by the government. Civil marriage is more of a legal or civil institution than a religious or cultural institution. Religious beliefs are irrelevant to the discussion.
btill9000
05-12-2009, 08:40 PM
1. There will always be people who think that others are immoral, but if they are capable of performing a job equally well, they cannot be fired for their personal race, religion, gender, creed, etc. If you're allowed to discriminate in the hiring of gay individuals due to a supposed lack of morality inherent to them, why not allow employers to fire individuals of a religion they find immoral? What if they fired all people who they considered to have 'immoral' political stances?
Well thats a sticky situation because the government cannot decide what is moral and what isn't. Sex in general, who people have sex with, how often and open they are about sex, and so on are moral issues. It's unfortunate for you, but it's perfectly legal to terminate employment based on moral turpitude. Removing that right would cause more problems than it would fix.
1. Also, Are you suggesting that political affiliation discrimination is illegal. It's illegal in some cases but not all cases. At best it's a case by case bases.
2. Religion is usually not associated with morals as sex is. In certain situations when it is, religious discrimination has been allowed. Religious Discrimination has legally occurred in the US, but it's very situational.
You see, there are only four sexual orientations recognized by the American Psychological Association.
The APA is really immaterial. Legislation does not refer to the APA. Depending on where you look at, their are multiple definitions of Sexual Orientation. Some of the legislation that I have read has been very loosely worded. The most recent hate crimes bill, was a good idea, but the wording is too loose. The house has passed it, but I don't think the senate will. Theirs also a lot of questionable content in that bill.
Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry."
Holy shit did you just site a UN Article. Well I am not even going to respond to it, but props for having the balls to do it.
Nobody is claiming that their struggles are the same, but the comparisons are valid and parallels between the two movements exist. As Coretta Scott King has said
"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group."
"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people. ... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."
I respectfully disagree with Coretta. Civil Rights involves things that don't change. Their are a number of people out there that claim to be ex-gay.
You apparently are unaware of the struggle gays and lesbians have faced if you think their struggles amount to 'minor inconveniences'. For the record, 15-20,000 gays were killed in the holocaust and 50,000 imprisoned. Not as high as the number of Jews or Roma killed, but by no means a small number. Afterwards, freed gays were largely ignored and not acknowledged as victims of the holocaust at first. I'd also like to remind you that it was a long and difficult struggle on the part of gays and lesbians to get where they are today. They faced decades of discrimination, violence, and legal persecution in order to gain the rights they have. Even today there is still a lot of discrimination, and a lot of people think it's perfectly fine.
20,000 versus 6 million doesn't begin to make a comparison. It's okay to say "Homosexuals were killed in the holocaust as well." However, it's inaccurate the base your argument for rights on comparisons to Jews.
When they compare their struggle to the struggle of african-americans, women, etc., they aren't saying that it is exactly the same, they're saying that they have faced and continue to face hatred and discrimination in a similar manner.
People hate them for no other reason than who they are.
No thats what your saying and what your saying is, for the most part okay. What people like Feranor say goes along the lines of "Black people get Insert Random Item so why don't homosexuals get Insert Random Item. They also say "our movement is just like the civil rights movement." If they said it how you say it they wouldn't get so much backlash.
Also, Black people are also a special case, because they were actually brought here forcefully. When they tried to leave, during the "back to Africa movement", they were essentially told they couldn't. This is going to come out the wrong way, but no one brought homosexuals here and no one ever made any attempts to force them to stay. They have no remote similarity to the hardship that Black people have gone through.
Violence is inflicted upon them simply for existing. People actively and fiercely seek to deny them rights. They are treated as being less worthy of basic respect and dignity than the rest of us. That is where the primary comparison lies.
Violence against homosexuals is illegal. If someone is committing violence against you or someone that you know please report it, find a good lawyer, and become a millionaire from a court case if it's not being investigated properly or efficiently. Do not, however, claim you have no rights against violence. Respect, Dignity, and acceptance are not rights.
"Straights/Whites get the white drinking fountains/marriage, gays/blacks get the black drinking fountains/civil unions. More like they can both drink from the same fountain, but one of you has use a different term for the fountain. Seems ridiculous when referring to a fountain because a fountain is in no way sacred, valued. Nor do fountains have any perceived religious value or cultural value.
Civil unions are not equal to marriage. They usually do not provide the same rights, and they don't provide the same dignity. Since it's the anti-gay people who have the problem, I don't see why the gays should be the ones compromising.
Ideally Civil Unions do or will provide the same rights. They, however, should not be legislated to provide dignity.
once_and_again
05-12-2009, 11:31 PM
Where on earth are you getting information that indicates the majority of gay people have no faith? I've never heard of a single study or survey that even broached the topic, much less published data on it. And as I said, it's not about religion--it's about equality.
Tina Fey may have had a point way back when on SNL's weekend update. She made a claim that legalizing gay marriage would help stimulate the economy.
As for the sanctity of marriage, I don't even think the divorce rates really factor into it. I'd say a more poignant aspect are the wonderful celebrity marriages, like Britney and Kevin. I realize that they are not the norm, but the fact still remains that seeing people enter and end a marriage in such a fashion may leave younger generations with a skewered perception of what kind of commitment marriage actually is.
As for the point on adoption, I completely agree. Plenty of gay couples are more than willing to provide a loving home for a child. They may even have a friend who stops in on occasion as a role model for the gender not represented in the parents. I have yet to see any studies showing detrimental effects on children as a result of being raised by gay parents.
Sure, the child may be harassed at school for it, but they may be harassed for any number of things. Kids can be cruel. It's just part of the transition. Eventually people will get used to the idea, get over their hostilities and misdirected aggressions, stop teaching their children hate in this instance, and accept gays, bisexuals, transgenders, etc. as valid members of society.
Gays exist in virtually every species, albeit in a minor percentage. Humans are not special or different.
If I had to find a reasoning in my observations of humanity in general as to why gay marriage or the entire notion of being gay shouldn't be validated through legalization, it would be this: biologically speaking, 2 males or 2 females of the human species will not produce offspring. If this cannot happen, and procreation cannot occur, then if gay/lesbian practices were to spread, what would happen to us as a species? We would die out. I say this from a mainly theoretical perspective, but people should be able to see the point I'm making. Being gay can never be "natural", simply because our own biology (if not our own God/gods, then) does not make it feasible.
Of course, Western societies have gone a long way towards espousing the "rights" of the individual while at the same time demolishing the meaning of religion/morality so badly that pretty much anything can be justified if only it leads to personal benefit. One should wonder how often the government of a country will cite its "national security" as a reason to invade the privacy of its citizens and detain anyone whom it deems a threat. The line needs to be drawn somewhere, as we've spent the last few hundred years erasing any line (of moral guidance, communal self-perpetuation, etc) that ever existed. If this decline continues at this pace, I would bet that humanity will be little more than a marketplace of people, returning to slavery in a most technologically advanced form.
Feranor
05-13-2009, 05:16 AM
In some cases, moral turpitude doesn't have to be proven, and I support this. If you are going to group yourselves based on something that falls into the moral arena, then be prepared to be judged by that. It would cause issues in the work place if employers didn't have the ability to discriminate based on moral issues.
Morals cannot be arbitrary and valid, either.
Homosexuality is rightly included on that list. Employers should be able to discriminate based on sexual factors, because sexual factors fall into the morals arena(unlike other groups you like to compare yourself to.)
Heterosexuality is on that list, too. Your point?
I feel as if you should have a general idea of what the word means.
It's like 'common sense'. A word that doesn't really mean anything specific, which is why you have to define.
I didn't take part in that thread, but I do know that the constitution doesn't reflect what you are saying.
http://forums.bleachexile.com/showpost.php?p=1677572&postcount=2189
Our military is the most powerful military on the planet, so we have no need to mimic others. The only military that can be compared to ours is China's, and if you think being homosexual here is hard go on over there. Polls report that the majority of the members of our military want Don't Ask Don't Tell to stay as it is. This poll is done yearly and the same result is found every year.
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/12/122908_military_poll_DADT/
Straw man.
The British military doesn't have any room to get worse. I certainly don't have any goals for our military to be more like Britain's.
Straw man.
I didn't concede anything. I've been talking about actions and behavior the whole time. It took you a day to finally admit that actions and behavior can be affected by emotional and social factors.
I should've just ctrl+c'd 'straw man'.
Again, it's up in the air as to whether it'll change anything. Secondly, until proof is shown that it wont change anything, your logic is the exact reason that homosexuals shouldn't have the right to adopt. They would encourage the kids try it different ways until they figure out what fits best. The kids first impulse will be to try what their parents are doing. Trying it both ways instantly creates a higher risk for STD's.
Sure, a child with homosexual parents will have lots of unprotected promiscuous sex the moment puberty hits and the same child would live in abstinence until marrying a woman if it had heterosexual parents.
You should just add "in Bizarro World" to the end of your sentences.
This is why you got voted down in California and will continue to lose votes and the respect of racial minorities. Regardless of how you frame it, Black people are not happy about you comparing your struggle to their struggle.
The reason for the vote result was stupidity, homophobia, bigotry and so on.
How and why are the two struggles even remotely equivalent? Explain if your so sure of it.
TW501 already covered this.
Your opinion that my arguments are logical flawed are meaningless. You've proved nothing.
Logic does not care about my opinion. Logic says you're wrong. I simply agree with logic as that's the most rational thing to do.
So whats means "Yeh I am wrong but it doesn't matter."
So I'll presume that you concede the point.
There was no point. You just stated two premises, but no conclusion.
I never said that you said genetics are the only factor. My statement meant that genetics would be proven not to be a factor at all.
Ok, so if a miniscule number of homosexuals are homosexual because of hormonal imbalance, it means that genes are not a factor at all? This probably sets the new stupidity threshold.
Homosexual Equality is not guaranteed either.
What exactly do you think 'all' means?
Obviously invoking the civil rights movement is refering to an earlier time frame. Although, I think you concede the point that Black People faced more problems than Homosexuals in the 1950's/1960's.
Although, I gather that you think that homosexuals have more issues currently. That is also incorrect.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_01.htm
Please compare the Anti-Black Column with the entire Sexual Orientation section of the FBI's hate crimes statistics for 2007. Their are more hate crimes against just black people than homosexuals of all types. Theirs nearly double the number of Black Hate Crime victims compared to Homosexual Hate Crime Victims.
TW501 already covered this.
So you consider comparing homosexual struggles with the civil rights movement reason? If you guys stepped up your "reasoning" a bit maybe people would listen.
I can go far more abstract and formal than I did until now. But what makes you think that stupid people will understand this any better?
So you are saying that this isn't true? Your really arguing that homosexuals were the main target of the holocaust? Please refer to the post above about stepping up your "reason".
Straw man. Homosexuals were dealt with in about the same way as Jews (and others). And now you should look at the compensation Jews got since the Holocaust (obviously not saying that this is bad) and compare that. Then compare the current general opinion on groups like ethnic minorities, "race" and the LGBT.
Stupid to you. Why don't you go ahead and show me how homosexuals were effected by the holocaust in the same manner and severity as Jews? This is a chance for you to step up your "reasoning", so don't miss it by making another one of your pointless abstract statements.
TW501 already covered this.
Here you go ignoring the point again, but I'll respond anyway. So the Jews are not qualified to publicize what the Torah says. I hope you are not suggesting that they should amend what the Torah says.
Straw man. What the Torah says is not automatically qualified to be taken as truth / valid moral. I don't care whether something is written on lunch napkin or in the Bible/Torah/Quoran/Dianetics/whatever, the content is what matters.
Cultural Norm if it makes you feel better. Your trying to run from conceding the point, but you are the one that suggested that heterosexuality is not the norm. Now that I've called you on it, you want to deflect it by moving to another topic.
You're still calling out a straw man on irrelevant topics. No need to say anything until you come to a relevant conclusion.
Yes barring some kind of illness. Illnesses include infertile couples. If someone, no matter what they did, can never have a human child they shouldn't be given one. People that can have children, under normal circumstances, are equipped to raise them. Nature decided that it wants to deliver children to a man and a woman.
Now this is just fucked up.
Nature didn't decide anything. Nature it not conscious.
And again, you didn't define the important term here. Nature. What is nature? Is nature 'what animals do'? If so, then both homosexuality (behaviour and orientation) and adopting children are natural. Are computers natural? Is a spear fashioned of a stick and a sharp rock natural? Is cooked food natural? When does something stop being natural? By what criteria do you determine that? And what makes you think that something is automatically bad/immoral if it's not "natural"?
I don't care what you meant. Don't accuse me of not answering a question, if the first time you asked me it was in the same paragraph that you accused me of not answering it.
Maybe that's just me, but I don't like playing poker without cards.
Wow, your going to ask me something directly? If you do that more often it could make this easier.
Doesn't seem so, as you're not answering the question.
Well for one, you can't just knock aids aside. These figures are represented on many sites, but I took my time and found an particularly non-biased one.The first link here is their page on homosexuality and they seem to support the majority of your views. http://www.avert.org/being-gay.htm. All that said, lets get into their studies. Their studies report that people are most likely to get HIV/AIDS from a homosexual encounter. http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm
Okay, now HIV/AIDS aside, this guy took 6,714 obituaries from sixteen United States homosexual journals. They then compared those results to obituaries from two conventional newspapers. It was reported that the median lifespan of homosexuals with aids was 39 and without was 42. To this day it's the largest homosexuality lifespan study that has ever be performed.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007_docs/CameronHomosexualFootprint.pdf
This one includes aids, but it still represents the average for all homosexuals, which is far below the average for heterosexuals. You'll probably say that the Cameron study is bias, but this one certainly isn't.
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657?maxt-show=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=QID_NOT_SET&FIRSTINDEX=&volume=26&first%2520page=657&journalcode=intjepid
Now do me a favor. Respond with something not abstract that doesn't reek of emotional opinion...
I already excluded all that in the question, since it doesn't apply to me (or anyone else I know). You're still assuming that homosexuals are going to have unprotected promiscuous sex.
You are wrong. You should say that you think think absolute law should never be based on possibilities. Unfortunately, a lot of it is.
I thought it was obvious that the world isn't perfect.
The constitution does not guarantee all encompassing equality. Hate crimes should be punished with the harshest punishment. However, hate itself cannot be legislated. Asking the government to give you equality is essentially telling them to make people hate you less than they hate others or at least to make peoples hate toward you equivalent to their hate toward others.
Again, I'm not asking the government to force everyone to be reasonable, that would ironically be unreasonable. But since that has nothing to do with being equal under the law, my point remains.
btill9000
05-13-2009, 07:33 AM
Morals cannot be arbitrary and valid, either.
You don't seem to get it. You'd be infringing on someone else's right to create your right.
Heterosexuality is on that list, too. Your point?
Exactly, A homosexual business could decide not to hire homosexual people.
It's like 'common sense'. A word that doesn't really mean anything specific, which is why you have to define.
The customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group
http://forums.bleachexile.com/showpost.php?p=1677572&postcount=2189
Unfortunately I wasn't in that thread. Since you have no point I'll presume that you concede the point.
Straw man.
No response. I'll presume that you concede the point.
Straw man.
No response. I'll presume that you concede the point.
I should've just ctrl+c'd 'straw man'.
No response. I'll presume that you concede the point.
Sure, a child with homosexual parents will have lots of unprotected promiscuous sex the moment puberty hits and the same child would live in abstinence until marrying a woman if it had heterosexual parents.
It's not about what a child will do. It's what the parents think is okay. Let me remind you that you implied that their is nothing wrong with a kid participating in this behavior~~~>>]So what if some kid tries both ways in order to find out what works best for him? That won't change the result, unless he's bisexual and enjoys the first try so much that he won't bother trying the other option.
You deserve to be judged by the morals in that statement.
You should just add "in Bizarro World" to the end of your sentences.
No response, I'll presume you concede the point.
The reason for the vote result was stupidity, homophobia, bigotry and so on.
Since you declined to respond to my post and instead went abstract on me again, I'll presume that you concede the point.
TW501 already covered this.
I've responded to TW501. I am sure that you are two different people, so I'll presume you concede the point.
Logic does not care about my opinion. Logic says you're wrong. I simply agree with logic as that's the most rational thing to do.
Logic is no an opinion. Have you ever taken a logic course? You can't just say "your logic is wrong." Proof is required to call logic wrong.
There was no point. You just stated two premises, but no conclusion.
Again you response is unrelated to anything. Just one of your generic responses. I'll presume you concede teh point.
Ok, so if a miniscule number of homosexuals are homosexual because of hormonal imbalance, it means that genes are not a factor at all? This probably sets the new stupidity threshold.
Finally you actually say something that relates to the discussion again. Figures that your only other response will include one of your extremes, so this time we are going with miniscule. Here you go with another one of your "So your saying ______ is ______ at all". The hormone information is a step in the direction of proving that genes are not a factor at all. Their are no medical causes of race and every scientist will tell you this. On the other hand, quite a few scientists have reservation about genetics as related to homosexuality.
What exactly do you think 'all' means?
It's your way of dodging something that you cannot otherwise disprove or respond too.
TW501 already covered this.
Another conceded point, cool.
I can go far more abstract and formal than I did until now. But what makes you think that stupid people will understand this any better?
Understand what. You rarely say anything and when you do it's something declaration that my statement doesn't apply to every single thing.
Straw man. Homosexuals were dealt with in about the same way as Jews (and others).
Yeh 20,000 is about the same as 6 million. Yup.
And now you should look at the compensation Jews got since the Holocaust (obviously not saying that this is bad) and compare that. Then compare the current general opinion on groups like ethnic minorities, "race" and the LGBT.
Not sure I grasp your point here. You want homosexuals to get compensation for the holocaust and you want me to compare the opinion of race to LGBT? Do you even see a difference between race and homosexuality?
TW501 already covered this.
Another conceded point, cool.
Straw man. What the Torah says is not automatically qualified to be taken as truth / valid moral.
I didn't say it was qualified to be taken as truth. The Torah wasn't even the point of the statement. The point = It's possible that homosexuals comparing themselves to jews, could be the reason that the Jews recently came out against homosexuals. Assuming that everyone is homophobic gets you no where. "They wont give us what we want, so they must hate and fear us." You ask and convince people to vote for you.....you don't insult them and demand it. This is how voting works in the United States.
You're still calling out a straw man on irrelevant topics. No need to say anything until you come to a relevant conclusion.
Well you extracted the statement from the conclusion. As always, the conclusion is always included in the statement. You then cut and pasted the conclusion out, and argue just the statement. Once you get stumped on arguing the statement you argue that their is no conclusion, which you cut out yourself.
And again, you didn't define the important term here. Nature. What is nature? Is nature 'what animals do'? If so, then both homosexuality (behaviour and orientation) and adopting children are natural.
Did you never learn context clues. You use them when you don't know the exact definition of something.
Are computers natural? Is a spear fashioned of a stick and a sharp rock natural? Is cooked food natural? When does something stop being natural? By what criteria do you determine that? And what makes you think that something is automatically bad/immoral if it's not "natural"?
Food, computers, rocks, and other things are not life. Perhaps, you cannot tell the difference between nature in regards to live versus nature in regards to items.
If you are able to naturally have children, barring some illness, you can just have sex and conceive a child. In all of human nature, only a man and a woman can conceive a child, therefore we should observe that when deciding who can adopt children. Whose to say if other mixtures are equipped to raise children. Debate it all you want, but nature says that a man and a woman are.
Maybe that's just me, but I don't like playing poker without cards.
??
Doesn't seem so, as you're not answering the question.
I've answered everything I've been asked, and I've responded to everything you typed. You usually respond in a way that does even refer to what I typed.
I already excluded all that in the question, since it doesn't apply to me (or anyone else I know). You're still assuming that homosexuals are going to have unprotected promiscuous sex.
No assumptions are made. Let me see if I can explain this to you. When determining life span, all factors that effect said life are included. The number of people that die to illnesses are taken into account when determining the normal human lifespan. You cannot discount the AIDS factor when it effects the homosexual community more than any other. Like it or not, the average lifespan of, a random homosexual is less than that of anyone else.
Also, I've read the article that claims homosexual lifespans are lower without the AIDS factor, and it looks pretty straight forward to me. Definitely the best information out there on the topic.
I thought it was obvious that the world isn't perfect.
That is assuming that everything should be based on absolutes and it should not. Is everyone going to go out and kill people? No. Murder should still be illegal though.
Again, I'm not asking the government to force everyone to be reasonable, that would ironically be unreasonable. But since that has nothing to do with being equal under the law, my point remains.
It would detrimentally effect so many things. From the Military all the way down to Bathrooms.
d3m1G0d
05-13-2009, 11:08 AM
If I had to find a reasoning in my observations of humanity in general as to why gay marriage or the entire notion of being gay shouldn't be validated through legalization, it would be this: biologically speaking, 2 males or 2 females of the human species will not produce offspring. If this cannot happen, and procreation cannot occur, then if gay/lesbian practices were to spread, what would happen to us as a species? We would die out. I say this from a mainly theoretical perspective, but people should be able to see the point I'm making. Being gay can never be "natural", simply because our own biology (if not our own God/gods, then) does not make it feasible.
Of course, Western societies have gone a long way towards espousing the "rights" of the individual while at the same time demolishing the meaning of religion/morality so badly that pretty much anything can be justified if only it leads to personal benefit. One should wonder how often the government of a country will cite its "national security" as a reason to invade the privacy of its citizens and detain anyone whom it deems a threat. The line needs to be drawn somewhere, as we've spent the last few hundred years erasing any line (of moral guidance, communal self-perpetuation, etc) that ever existed. If this decline continues at this pace, I would bet that humanity will be little more than a marketplace of people, returning to slavery in a most technologically advanced form.
I am with you from a purely scientific point of view on the first paragraph. As animals we procreate through sex to have progeny. Our simple cells are not aware of technology(i.e. your gonads don't know the workings of artificial insemination) therefore homosexuality itself is about as natural as cancer, in that it is based on genetics but not conducive to life. As I said in the first thread about this, only because gays are functioning members of society who can live their lives like other humans(in terms of most social aspects, life expectancy and so on) they make the argument that there is nothing "wrong" with homosexuality. Cancer on the other hand is natural but not conducive to life so people with treatable cancer try to have those cells removed as soon as possible.
So my question to homosexuals is would you have that aspect of your life changed if you could? If you were to keep yourself gay, would you have your children changed if they exhibited the same traits?
Kairen
05-13-2009, 11:30 AM
I am with you from a purely scientific point of view on the first paragraph. As animals we procreate through sex to have progeny. Our simple cells are not aware of technology(i.e. your gonads don't know the workings of artificial insemination) therefore homosexuality itself is about as natural as cancer, in that it is based on genetics but not conducive to life. As I said in the first thread about this, only because gays are functioning members of society who can live their lives like other humans(in terms of most social aspects, life expectancy and so on) they make the argument that there is nothing "wrong" with homosexuality. Cancer on the other hand is natural but not conducive to life so people with treatable cancer try to have those cells removed as soon as possible.
So my question to homosexuals is would you have that aspect of your life changed if you could? If you were to keep yourself gay, would you have your children changed if they exhibited the same traits?
I agree with the scientific point of view. The functions of the human body only allow procreation via sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex. And yes, homosexuality does occur naturally, but comparing it to concer is wrong. Being gay doesn't kill you, whereas cancer does. What I don't agree with is how people look down on homosexuals because they have different tastes, and even comparing their preferences to a cancer. Some people may view it as a cancer toward society, but like I said before, love cannot be defined, especially by science. Just because science says that babies cannot be made through activity between two memebers of the opposite sex doesn't mean love should exist only between a man and a woman. Love can take many forms. Men can love other men, sometimes as lovers, sometimes as brothers, among many other possibilities. Also, some people choose to be gay, or lesbian, and their preferences can change, but nobody should force other people to change their views. That is entirely their choice.
Feranor
05-13-2009, 11:42 AM
You don't seem to get it. You'd be infringing on someone else's right to create your right.
Giving homosexuals equal rights would infringe on which right exactly?
Exactly, A homosexual business could decide not to hire homosexual people.
Another reason to change something, if that is true.
The customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group
To me, common sense is basically synonymous to reason. Which is why I asked for your definition, which doesn't seem relevant to a secular government.
Unfortunately I wasn't in that thread. Since you have no point I'll presume that you concede the point.
My point is that the US were not founded on religion, but on secularism.
No response. I'll presume that you concede the point.
No response. I'll presume that you concede the point.
No response. I'll presume that you concede the point.
You don't seem to know what 'straw man' means in this context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
It's not about what a child will do. It's what the parents think is okay. Let me remind you that you implied that their is nothing wrong with a kid participating in this behavior~~~>>
You deserve to be judged by the morals in that statement.
Another straw man. I never said that kids should engage in promiscuous unprotected sex. And you're implying that homosexual parents automatically think that promiscuous unprotected sex is ok. Which doesn't make sense, as homosexuals are more likely to be educated about STDs.
Since you declined to respond to my post and instead went abstract on me again, I'll presume that you concede the point.
This presumption is obviously also false. I simply corrected you.
I've responded to TW501. I am sure that you are two different people, so I'll presume you concede the point.
People capable of thinking rationally will arrive at similar conclusions when given the same premises. I don't see the need to repeat everything he already said.
Logic is no an opinion. Have you ever taken a logic course? You can't just say "your logic is wrong." Proof is required to call logic wrong.
I'm fluent in logic. You're committing logical fallacies in just about every argument you present, which renders them invalid (ex falso quodlibet). Your logic isn't wrong, your arguments aren't logical. Demonstrating the fallaciousness is the required proof.
Again you response is unrelated to anything. Just one of your generic responses. I'll presume you concede teh point.
It's directly related. You gave two premises, but no conclusion. Therefore, you didn't make a point. Thus, there's nothing to respond to. I can guess what your implied conclusion was, but since that was fallacious, I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
Finally you actually say something that relates to the discussion again. Figures that your only other response will include one of your extremes, so this time we are going with miniscule. Here you go with another one of your "So your saying ______ is ______ at all". The hormone information is a step in the direction of proving that genes are not a factor at all. Their are no medical causes of race and every scientist will tell you this. On the other hand, quite a few scientists have reservation about genetics as related to homosexuality.
"a step in the direction of proving that genes are not a factor at all"
It doesn't work like that. Evidence suggests that genes are the major factor, albeit not the only one. The fact that apparently there are other factors does not indicate that genes are not a factor at all. It doesn't indicate anything other than what we already know: that genes are the major factor, albeit not the only one.
It's your way of dodging something that you cannot otherwise disprove or respond too.
Says you, who is just now trying to dodge the fact that 'all' includes homosexuals.
Another conceded point, cool.
Nope, I simply agree with TW501.
You: Gravity doesn't exist.
Me: Newton already covered that.
You: Oh, so gravity doesn't exist. QED.
Get real.
Understand what. You rarely say anything and when you do it's something declaration that my statement doesn't apply to every single thing.
Thanks for proving my point. You already don't understand why you're arguments fail and you want me to get more abstract/formal?
Yeh 20,000 is about the same as 6 million. Yup.
"Homosexuals were dealt with in about the same way as Jews (and others)." = "The same amount of homosexuals and Jews were killed?"
I don't think so, Tim.
This is probably the most blatant straw man so far.
Not sure I grasp your point here. You want homosexuals to get compensation for the holocaust and you want me to compare the opinion of race to LGBT? Do you even see a difference between race and homosexuality?
Of course I do; but that's irrelevant because the mentioned groups were/are discriminated against for similar reasons.
Another conceded point, cool.
I beg to differ. Gravity is real.
I didn't say it was qualified to be taken as truth. The Torah wasn't even the point of the statement. The point = It's possible that homosexuals comparing themselves to jews, could be the reason that the Jews recently came out against homosexuals. Assuming that everyone is homophobic gets you no where. "They wont give us what we want, so they must hate and fear us." You ask and convince people to vote for you.....you don't insult them and demand it. This is how voting works in the United States.
Like I care. I'm a rational cynic. Again, I'm not comparing race to faith to sexual orientation, I'm comparing how "society" dealt/deals with them.
Well you extracted the statement from the conclusion. As always, the conclusion is always included in the statement. You then cut and pasted the conclusion out, and argue just the statement. Once you get stumped on arguing the statement you argue that their is no conclusion, which you cut out yourself.
Not at all. If the conclusion is in the premise, we call that circular reasoning. A logical fallacy.
Did you never learn context clues. You use them when you don't know the exact definition of something.
Me: God exists.
John Doe: Prove it.
Me: Huh? It's broad daylight, just look at the sky.
John Doe: What am I supposed to see?
Me: God.
John Doe: ...
Me: You don't see it?
John Doe: what exactly do you mean by God?
Me: The sun, obviously. I'm a sun worshipper.
(No, I don't actually worship the sun, or any god, for that matter.)
Food, computers, rocks, and other things are not life. Perhaps, you cannot tell the difference between nature in regards to live versus nature in regards to items.
Did it ever cross your mind that my definition of nature could include inanimate nature as well?
You didn't say life, you said nature. This fallacy is called equivocation.
If you are able to naturally have children, barring some illness, you can just have sex and conceive a child.
Then why would you need to adopt a child in this case? What makes you more qualified to adopt a child?
In all of human nature, only a man and a woman can conceive a child, therefore we should observe that when deciding who can adopt children.
Non sequitur. That's a completely arbitrary leap to the conclusion. Explain why fertile opposite sex couples who could theoretically produce children on their own are supposedly more qualified to adopt children.
Whose to say if other mixtures are equipped to raise children. Debate it all you want, but nature says that a man and a woman are.
Actually, it doesn't. Animals often adopt children, too. Your definition of nature seemingly includes animals.
??
Debating using nothing but groundless opinions is about as meaningful as playing poker without cards.
I've answered everything I've been asked, and I've responded to everything you typed. You usually respond in a way that does even refer to what I typed.
No assumptions are made. Let me see if I can explain this to you. When determining life span, all factors that effect said life are included. The number of people that die to illnesses are taken into account when determining the normal human lifespan. You cannot discount the AIDS factor when it effects the homosexual community more than any other. Like it or not, the average lifespan of, a random homosexual is less than that of anyone else.
Also, I've read the article that claims homosexual lifespans are lower without the AIDS factor, and it looks pretty straight forward to me. Definitely the best information out there on the topic.
Again, all of this doesn't concern me. My life span will not be shorter because I'm gay. If anything, it'll be longer (or at least more fun per time, but that is going off on a tangent). The same is true for most homosexuals roughly in my age group as they're more likely to be educated about those risks.
Remember, those studies you're so fond of include the generation that was massively afflicted by the HIV outbreak. Society played a major role in that as they basically forced homosexuals to live that underground live often accompanied by primitive satisfaction of sexual urges, regardless of love, risk, consequence. Accepting homosexuality increases their lifespan.
That is assuming that everything should be based on absolutes and it should not. Is everyone going to go out and kill people? No. Murder should still be illegal though.
Straw man. We should try to reach the optimum, because regardless of the fact that the optimum is probably impossible to reach, it still means progress/improvement.
It would detrimentally effect so many things. From the Military all the way down to Bathrooms.[/QUOTE]
So homosexuals should be punished for the deficiencies of their oppressors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by d3m1G0d
I am with you from a purely scientific point of view on the first paragraph. As animals we procreate through sex to have progeny. Our simple cells are not aware of technology(i.e. your gonads don't know the workings of artificial insemination) therefore homosexuality itself is about as natural as cancer, in that it is based on genetics but not conducive to life. As I said in the first thread about this, only because gays are functioning members of society who can live their lives like other humans(in terms of most social aspects, life expectancy and so on) they make the argument that there is nothing "wrong" with homosexuality. Cancer on the other hand is natural but not conducive to life so people with treatable cancer try to have those cells removed as soon as possible.
Evolution isn't that easy. Not everything that doesn't directly produce children is "bad" (in the context of natural selection). It's about making sure your genes are carried on, which can be aided by seemingly altruistic acts towards close kinship, for instance. Which doesn't necessarily exclude homosexuality.
It's not comparable to cancer, however. From my understanding (I'm not a biologist, so this is mostly a guess), cancer is caused by the flaws in the mechanism by which our cells reproduce. These flaws, I guess, are also responsible for advancement in evolution. Maybe it's just two sides of the same coin; but I don't see the connection to homosexuality.
Quote:
So my question to homosexuals is would you have that aspect of your life changed if you could? If you were to keep yourself gay, would you have your children changed if they exhibited the same traits?
I wouldn't change if I had the choice. I'm happy the way I am and I don't hurt anyone because of who I am, on the contrary, me coming out to someone usually raises their consciousness about a number of things and makes them more reasonable overall.
I'm also indifferent towards the sexual orientation of my hypothetic children. I'd accept them for who they are and raise them to my best of my judgement/knowledge/ability.
d3m1G0d
05-13-2009, 11:56 AM
I agree with the scientific point of view. The functions of the human body only allow procreation via sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex. And yes, homosexuality does occur naturally, but comparing it to concer is wrong. Being gay doesn't kill you, whereas cancer does. What I don't agree with is how people look down on homosexuals because they have different tastes, and even comparing their preferences to a cancer. Some people may view it as a cancer toward society, but like I said before, love cannot be defined, especially by science. Just because science says that babies cannot be made through activity between two memebers of the opposite sex doesn't mean love should exist only between a man and a woman. Love can take many forms. Men can love other men, sometimes as lovers, sometimes as brothers, among many other possibilities. Also, some people choose to be gay, or lesbian, and their preferences can change, but nobody should force other people to change their views. That is entirely their choice.
Dude I made the point of saying it kill you, like cancer would, and that it doesn't prevent a person from being fully functional in life. I only use cancer to draw an analogy that just because something is naturally occuring it isn't inherently good nor evil.
Kairen
05-13-2009, 12:07 PM
Dude I made the point of saying it kill you, like cancer would, and that it doesn't prevent a person from being fully functional in life. I only use cancer to draw an analogy that just because something is naturally occuring it isn't inherently good nor evil.
I wasn't referring to you specifically, but to people who tend to compare Homosexuality to it. I know you didn't mean it in that sense.
TW501
05-13-2009, 01:17 PM
The APA is really immaterial. Legislation does not refer to the APA. Depending on where you look at, their are multiple definitions of Sexual Orientation. Some of the legislation that I have read has been very loosely worded. The most recent hate crimes bill, was a good idea, but the wording is too loose. The house has passed it, but I don't think the senate will. Theirs also a lot of questionable content in that bill.
The reason I brought up the APA is because a lot of the lists of 'sexual orientations' were allegedly from the APA. I know that right-wing groups send out that kind of thing in their newsletters a lot, so I assumed that is where you got it from. No matter though, there is already a federal definition of sexual orientation that is quite similar to the APA's definition. Thus, they didn't need include a definition as part of the hate crimes bill as a federal definition already existed.
Holy shit did you just site a UN Article. Well I am not even going to respond to it, but props for having the balls to do it.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a revolutionary document that layed out the rights that all humans are entitled to. It is the foundation for a number of international treaties and has been adopted into or has influenced most national constitutions since 1948. Regardless of your feelings of the UN, you should recognize the significance of this.
I respectfully disagree with Coretta. Civil Rights involves things that don't change. Their are a number of people out there that claim to be ex-gay.
The 'ex-gay' movement is a fraud. I'm sure there are some gays who decided to become straight on their own with no ill effect (though one must question if they truly were gay in this case), but the movement as a whole is nothing more than a fraud and extension of the religious right agenda.
The key part of the "ex-gay" movement is conversion therapy, a vile practice. It is considered to be a pseudoscience and potentially harmful by most mainstream groups and psychologists. People put into conversion therapy are often coerced by their families or are tricked and manipulated by the process. Several ex-gay groups have been charged with child abuse in their aggressive conversion therapies of adolescents. Usually these 'therapies' are ineffective and just lead to depression.
Furthermore (in reference to King's quote) I believe that all of the civil rights movements are tied together. The black rights movement, the women's rights movement, the gay rights movement, etc. Whether the basis is race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or gender, I think that no person deserves unjust discrimination. They may not all have experienced the same things in the same ways, but they've all had struggles, and they all must continue to fight for equality.
btill9000
05-13-2009, 07:01 PM
The reason I brought up the APA is because a lot of the lists of 'sexual orientations' were allegedly from the APA. I know that right-wing groups send out that kind of thing in their newsletters a lot, so I assumed that is where you got it from.
No I am far from right wing. Believe it or not, on most issues I am moderately liberal, but I swing back and forth between moderately liberal and moderately conservative depending on the issue. Of course, there are a few in which I a fully to one side or the other, like this one.
Your assumptions is incorrect though. That list accurately represents many of the items that fall under the definitions of sexual orientation and gender identity.
No matter though, there is already a federal definition of sexual orientation that is quite similar to the APA's definition.
Thus, they didn't need include a definition as part of the hate crimes bill as a federal definition already existed.
That definition you are referring to is very vague, and pedophilia does fall into that definition. It also doesn't take into account that the majority of legislation included gender identity along with sexual orientation, and gender identity has never been defined in a federal document.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a revolutionary document that layed out the rights that all humans are entitled to. It is the foundation for a number of international treaties and has been adopted into or has influenced most national constitutions since 1948. Regardless of your feelings of the UN, you should recognize the significance of this.
Sorry siting UN documents is invalid when discussing the United States.
The 'ex-gay' movement is a fraud. I'm sure there are some gays who decided to become straight on their own with no ill effect (though one must question if they truly were gay in this case), but the movement as a whole is nothing more than a fraud and extension of the religious right agenda.
I never said anything about any ex-gay movement. I said that the fact that their are people that claim to be ex-gay, sets homosexuality apart. The fact that someone could decide not to be gay anymore is definitely valid, because that makes it no longer a civil right.
Hypothetically you are gay. Could you pass yourself off as a straight person. Yes you could and all gay people can. On the other hand, Black people, in general, cannot do this. This isn't an argument that it's not a right. It, however, is an argument that it's not a civil right.
Furthermore (in reference to King's quote) I believe that all of the civil rights movements are tied together.
Civil rights are things that cannot be changed or fluctuate. Homosexuals like to get emotional and declare that their attractions don't fluctuate, but their is proof to the contrary. Their have been no studies as far reaching or ground break as the Kinsey Studies. The Kinsey studies support my points. Other smaller studies support this as well.
It would detrimentally effect so many things. From the Military all the way down to Bathrooms.
Giving homosexuals equal rights would infringe on which right exactly?
The right to discriminate based on immorality as I stated earlier. Discrimination is not illegal. Your burden is to prove that discrimination against homosexuals is illegal. Discrimination itself is fine.
You should talk to the people trying to legislate this for you. They generally group gender identity with homosexuals, and that extends the ranges of the debate.
We all discriminate everyday in some way or another.
1.Smokers and non-smokers discriminate against each other everyday.
2. Age related neighborhoods don't allow other people in like 50's plus neighborhoods.
3. Singles apartments.
4. Catholics don't allow you to take part in communion if your not catholic.
5. Illegal to drink when your under 25.
6. Can't rent a car when your below like 25 I think?
7. Insurance companies discriminate for a plethora of reasons.
8. If you have open tattoos companies wont hire you.
Of course I do; but that's irrelevant because the mentioned groups were/are discriminated against for similar reasons.
Of course not. None of those other groups were discriminated against because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Even if they don't agree, people can respect arguing that discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong. They however cannot respect your implication that sexual orientation is similar to race.
Another reason to change something, if that is true.
It still shows that you have the same right.
To me, common sense is basically synonymous to reason. Which is why I asked for your definition, which doesn't seem relevant to a secular government.
My point is that the US were not founded on religion, but on secularism.
No where does any document support what you are saying.
You don't seem to know what 'straw man' means in this context.
I know exactly what it is. It's just not worth my time to continue to respond when you can't come up with anything better than cut and paste. You don't seek to show why anything is a straw man. You just go down the list and cut/past straw man. I just assume that you don't have any better response than that, and I bet that anyone else, crazy enough to still be following this discussion, does the same thing.
Another straw man. I never said that kids should engage in promiscuous unprotected sex.
This is the crux of my issue. When confronted with your post, the only thing you can say is..."Well I didn't say he should wear protection when trying it both ways." Of course you never said they should engage in promiscuous sex. You said that there was nothing wrong with it.
Note: I consider trying it both ways until you figure out whats good for you promiscuous sex.
This presumption is obviously also false. I simply corrected you.
You called every black person that voted nay in California either stupid, a homophobe, or a bigot. This simply is not the case.
People capable of thinking rationally will arrive at similar conclusions when given the same premises. I don't see the need to repeat everything he already said.
Everything he said was refuted, therefor I presume you concede the point.
I'm fluent in logic. You're committing logical fallacies in just about every argument you present, which renders them invalid (ex falso quodlibet). Your logic isn't wrong, your arguments aren't logical. Demonstrating the fallaciousness is the required proof.
So you consider typing "Logical Fallacy" is proof that something is a Logical Fallacy. Exactly which logic are you fluent in lol? I wish that my professors accepted stuff like that.
"a step in the direction of proving that genes are not a factor at all"
There is no proof that genes are a factor, at least I haven't found any. There, however, is more proof to the contrary. I think this is very important to keep in mind when discussing this topic.
It doesn't work like that. Evidence suggests that genes are the major factor,
Which evidence?
Says you, who is just now trying to dodge the fact that 'all' includes homosexuals.
I never said all doesn't include all. Unfortunately all doesn't apply to everything.
Nope, I simply agree with TW501.
I refuted all of those points, so I'll presume that you concede those points.
Thanks for proving my point. You already don't understand why you're arguments fail and you want me to get more abstract/formal?
Putting a lot thought into your responses would be appreciated lol.
This is probably the most blatant straw man so far.
I don't think so, Tim.
"Homosexuals were dealt with in about the same way as Jews (and others)." = "The same amount of homosexuals and Jews were killed?"
That means that they weren't dealt with in nearly the same way. Mass is a huge component when deciding whether something was the same or not. Again 20 homosexuals getting hit by an airplane doesn't put them on the same level as 9/11.
I beg to differ. Gravity is real.
Im just shortening this down. When you choose not to respond, I add that to my win list and move on.
Like I care. I'm a rational cynic. Again, I'm not comparing race to faith to sexual orientation, I'm comparing how "society" dealt/deals with them.
Society doesn't deal with Homosexuals the way it dealt with Black people, so your still wrong. Theirs a difference between pointing out some similarities, between the two, and declaring that the two are similar.
Not at all. If the conclusion is in the premise, we call that circular reasoning. A logical fallacy.
What exactly are you referring to?
Me: God exists.
John Doe: Prove it.
Me: Huh? It's broad daylight, just look at the sky.
John Doe: What am I supposed to see?
Me: God.
John Doe: ...
Me: You don't see it?
John Doe: what exactly do you mean by God?
Me: The sun, obviously. I'm a sun worshipper.
I presume that this means you actually have no response to what I said?
Did it ever cross your mind that my definition of nature could include inanimate nature as well?
Nope it never crossed my mind that you might consider computers to be nature. I hope your not going hippie on me.
You didn't say life, you said nature.
It was obvious what I meant.
Then why would you need to adopt a child in this case? What makes you more qualified to adopt a child?
Non sequitur. That's a completely arbitrary leap to the conclusion. Explain why fertile opposite sex couples who could theoretically produce children on their own are supposedly more qualified to adopt children.
How about you explain why we should give children to people that cannot naturally have one even if they are 100% healthy.
Actually, it doesn't. Animals often adopt children, too. Your definition of nature seemingly includes animals.
When is the last time you saw a turtle adopt a cat.
Debating using nothing but groundless opinions is about as meaningful as playing poker without cards.
I've supported my thoughts with more evidence than you have.
Again, all of this doesn't concern me. My life span will not be shorter because I'm gay.
I guess I finally see the hang up in this whole discussion. Apparently you some how thought I was talking about you? When I say average lifespan of a homosexual, it means precisely that. Most of the evidence says that said lifespan will be much shorter. I am not talking about your life expectancy though.
r (or at least more fun per time, but that is going off on a tangent). The same is true for most homosexuals roughly in my age group as they're more likely to be educated about those risks.
Your fun isn't worth the trade off.
Remember, those studies you're so fond of include the generation that was massively afflicted by the HIV outbreak. Society played a major role in that as they basically forced homosexuals to live that underground live often accompanied by primitive satisfaction of sexual urges, regardless of love, risk, consequence. Accepting homosexuality increases their lifespan.
Now you finally admit that their lifespan is shorter, but you blame it on society. Society never did what you are accusing it of doing. Refer to your fun statement 1 post up, thats what did it.
Straw man. We should try to reach the optimum, because regardless of the fact that the optimum is probably impossible to reach, it still means progress/improvement.
No some things should not even be based on absolutes at all.
TW501
05-13-2009, 07:22 PM
That definition you are referring to is very vague, and pedophilia does fall into that definition. It also doesn't take into account that the majority of legislation included gender identity along with sexual orientation, and gender identity has never been defined in a federal document.
Pedophilia is already illegal, it wouldn't be protected under the bill. It was just a scare campaign on the part of anti-gay groups. Their opposition to it is taking on an obvious tone of desperation.
Sorry siting UN documents is invalid when discussing the United States.
It was adopted by the general assembly, and the United States voted in favor of it. It is considered one of the foundations of international law. My reason for citing it was to show that right to marriage is considered to be a fundamental human right, whereas you claimed that it was a religious issue and not a government protected right.
Civil rights are things that cannot be changed or fluctuate. Homosexuals like to get emotional and declare that their attractions don't fluctuate, but their is proof to the contrary.
I wouldn't consider that the definition of civil rights. The general definition of civil rights that I have read includes...
-Ensuring peoples' physical integrity and safety
-Natural justice (procedural fairness) in law (such as the rights of the accused, including the right to a fair trial; due process; the right to seek redress or a legal remedy)
-Protection from discrimination (based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.)
-Individual political freedom, including rights of individuals (freedom of thought and conscience, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of movement) and the right to participate in civil society and politics (freedom of association, right to assemble, right to petition, right to vote)
5. Illegal to drink when your under 25.
I'm pretty sure that 21 is the drinking age.
btill9000
05-13-2009, 07:50 PM
I presume you have no response to the stuff you ignored : )
Pedophilia is already illegal, it wouldn't be protected under the bill. It was just a scare campaign on the part of anti-gay groups. Their opposition to it is taking on an obvious tone of desperation.
Yes but it create a new argument point. There will be a law that directly prohibits pedophilia and there will be a law that directly says pedophilia is okay. Given the right lawyer and right jury, passing this legislation could cause problems.
It was adopted by the general assembly, and the United States voted in favor of it. It is considered one of the foundations of international law. My reason for citing it was to show that right to marriage is considered to be a fundamental human right, whereas you claimed that it was a religious issue and not a government protected right.
We are discussing US Law. UN items do not count.
I wouldn't consider that the definition of civil rights. The general definition of civil rights that I have read includes...
-Ensuring peoples' physical integrity and safety
-Natural justice (procedural fairness) in law (such as the rights of the accused, including the right to a fair trial; due process; the right to seek redress or a legal remedy)
-Protection from discrimination (based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.)
-Individual political freedom, including rights of individuals (freedom of thought and conscience, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of movement) and the right to participate in civil society and politics (freedom of association, right to assemble, right to petition, right to vote)
I didn't ask for your opinion as to what a civil right is. Adding Sexual Orientation in there doesn't make it part of the definition.
I'm pretty sure that 21 is the drinking age.
Regardless those items prove that your campaign against discrimination is unrealistic, because it's done daily. You can't base it being wrong on the fact that it is discrimination.
TW501
05-14-2009, 12:33 AM
I presume you have no response to the stuff you ignored : )
Well, I'm tired and I'd rather not get too deeply invested in arguing the smaller points, lol.
btill9000
05-14-2009, 01:10 AM
Well, I'm tired and I'd rather not get too deeply invested in arguing the smaller points, lol.
I think it's very important that gender identity is almost always included with sexual orientation in legislation. You can't spend all day arguing the definition of sexual orientation and ignore that other important doodad thats always attached to it.
As far as legislation is concerned, sexual orientation has a very vague definition. Gender Identity, however doesn't even have one.
Feranor
05-14-2009, 04:48 AM
The right to discriminate based on immorality as I stated earlier. Discrimination is not illegal. Your burden is to prove that discrimination against homosexuals is illegal. Discrimination itself is fine.
You're still implying that homosexuality is immoral. Prove it or leave it.
We all discriminate everyday in some way or another.
Here comes the tangent.
Of course not. None of those other groups were discriminated against because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Even if they don't agree, people can respect arguing that discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong. They however cannot respect your implication that sexual orientation is similar to race.
Of course it has. You have no say in the matter and being different from others doesn't cause any harm.
It still shows that you have the same right.
Which is implying that heterosexuals are justified to think that homosexuality is immoral for no reason (or vice versa). And personally, I don't have that right, as you might get in trouble for not hiring someone only because of their sexual orientation in Germany (because it doesn't have to do anything with morality).
No where does any document support what you are saying.
Yes it does, I even gave you the link. Here it is again: http://forums.bleachexile.com/showpost.php?p=1677572&postcount=2189
And the source: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html
And the most important part:
"Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation."
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
I know exactly what it is. It's just not worth my time to continue to respond when you can't come up with anything better than cut and paste. You don't seek to show why anything is a straw man. You just go down the list and cut/past straw man. I just assume that you don't have any better response than that, and I bet that anyone else, crazy enough to still be following this discussion, does the same thing.
Responding to a straw man would be granting the fallacy, therefore allowing you to further build an "argument" on top of the misrepresentation of my point. Therefore, I don't. I consider the usage of a straw man a default concession.
This is the crux of my issue. When confronted with your post, the only thing you can say is..."Well I didn't say he should wear protection when trying it both ways." Of course you never said they should engage in promiscuous sex. You said that there was nothing wrong with it.
When speaking of the devil... straw man.
Note: I consider trying it both ways until you figure out whats good for you promiscuous sex.
Another straw man. I never said that "trying it both ways" means what you think it does. A touch, a kiss, even a thought experiment is usually enough to determine whether you're straight or gay.
You called every black person that voted nay in California either stupid, a homophobe, or a bigot. This simply is not the case.
True, there are other options. They could also just be complete morons, sadists and so on. It's just that it's highly unlikely that anyone under that category deserves to be referred to using positive terms. Also note that I don't care whether an idiot is black or white, the important thing is the idiocy. It's just that black people voting for something that has similar "reasoning" behind it as racist laws did is quite ironic.
Everything he said was refuted, therefor I presume you concede the point.
I think that the premise is false in that syllogism.
So you consider typing "Logical Fallacy" is proof that something is a Logical Fallacy. Exactly which logic are you fluent in lol? I wish that my professors accepted stuff like that.
Straw man. If I notice that a fallacy has been committed, I simply point that out. I can't be bothered to explain it every single time when it occurs in basically every argument someone presents. Doing that would be similar to granting your argument from verbosity/repetition fallacy.
There is no proof that genes are a factor, at least I haven't found any. There, however, is more proof to the contrary. I think this is very important to keep in mind when discussing this topic.
Which evidence?
Twin studies. And animals.
I never said all doesn't include all. Unfortunately all doesn't apply to everything.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/all
I refuted all of those points, so I'll presume that you concede those points.
Quite a bold claim.
That means that they weren't dealt with in nearly the same way. Mass is a huge component when deciding whether something was the same or not. Again 20 homosexuals getting hit by an airplane doesn't put them on the same level as 9/11.
Completely irrelevant. It's about the way they were dealt with (actions against them and intentions behind those actions), not how many were killed.
Im just shortening this down. When you choose not to respond, I add that to my win list and move on.
Me: What's wrong about finding out on your own whether you're gay or straight?
You: So you promote promiscuous sex?
Me: Straw man.
You: You didn't respond. I win.
/facepalm.
Society doesn't deal with Homosexuals the way it dealt with Black people, so your still wrong. Theirs a difference between pointing out some similarities, between the two, and declaring that the two are similar.
TW501 already covered this.
What exactly are you referring to?
You gave the premise that heterosexuality is 'the norm' but didn't draw a conclusion from that.
I presume that this means you actually have no response to what I said?
I can't stop you from doing that. I can only warn you that it would be stupid to do so.
I was simply proving my point that not defining the terms you're using makes a debate about them useless. If we were debating God's existence, and my god was the sun, whereas your god was Jahwe, for instance, we wouldn't get anywhere. Your claim was that it isn't necessary to define such things.
Nope it never crossed my mind that you might consider computers to be nature. I hope your not going hippie on me.
Another straw man. I specifically asked you where your definition of nature begins, where it ends and what it includes.
So, again: is a primitive spear/hammer/knife/whatever still nature to you? If yes, then why is a computer not?
It was obvious what I meant.
Obviously it wasn't. You meant life, but said nature.
http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/nature
http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/life
How about you explain why we should give children to people that cannot naturally have one even if they are 100% healthy.
Because:
1. there is no reason not to do so (if you disagree, please prove why an infertile/homosexual/whatever couple is less qualified to raise a child)
2. they can't get children themselves, so it would help them
3. it doesn't harm anyone (again, if you disagree, make your point and prove it)
etc.
When is the last time you saw a turtle adopt a cat.
Woah, I almost didn't catch that straw man because you not only failed to refute the original point, but also the straw man you set up.
Anyway, I wasn't even talking about adoption between species (though there are countless cases of felines, pigs, canines, ducks, goose, birds, apes etc. pp. adopting members of a species different from their own), so that straw man was kind of useless. Animals also adopt children of their own species (for instance when they're cast out by their biological parents, or when their parents die etc.).
I've supported my thoughts with more evidence than you have.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrF5x1OSJuQ
I guess I finally see the hang up in this whole discussion. Apparently you some how thought I was talking about you? When I say average lifespan of a homosexual, it means precisely that. Most of the evidence says that said lifespan will be much shorter. I am not talking about your life expectancy though.
This was the only way to get you a bit away from misunderstanding statistics and towards reality.
Your fun isn't worth the trade off.
I didn't define fun because, as I said, it's going off on a tangent. But maybe you should define fun, as this could be one of the reasons for your misunderstandings. Which trade off, anyway? There's no trade off, on the contrary.
Now you finally admit that their lifespan is shorter, but you blame it on society. Society never did what you are accusing it of doing. Refer to your fun statement 1 post up, thats what did it.
No, I don't, I explained why the statistics are the way they are. Which is the most important thing when analysing statistics, and you completely fail at it.
No some things should not even be based on absolutes at all.
So we shouldn't aim for the optimum?
TW501
05-14-2009, 08:24 AM
I think it's very important that gender identity is almost always included with sexual orientation in legislation. You can't spend all day arguing the definition of sexual orientation and ignore that other important doodad thats always attached to it.
As far as legislation is concerned, sexual orientation has a very vague definition. Gender Identity, however doesn't even have one.
I agree it's important, I was just saying I think I'll take a break from the argument and just observe for a while
btill9000
05-14-2009, 09:05 AM
You're still implying that homosexuality is immoral. Prove it or leave it.
Did you just hit rewind or something? I've already explained that moral turpitude doesn't have to be proven to terminate employment. Gender Identity certainly falls into the moral arena, and gender identity almost always follows sexual orientation in legislation.
Here comes the tangent.
I presume you have no response. I guess finding out that everyone discriminates legally will derail a anti-discrimination argument. Especially when your arguing that something is wrong based on it being discrimination. Maybe you didn't understand that you have to state why a certain type of discrimination is wrong, not the fact that it is discrimination.
Of course it has. You have no say in the matter and being different from others doesn't cause any harm.
Okay when were Black people, or for that matter any race, discriminated on based sex. You cannot call sexual orientation/gender identity and race similar unless you can prove it?
Which is implying that heterosexuals are justified to think that homosexuality is immoral for no reason (or vice versa). And personally, I don't have that right, as you might get in trouble for not hiring someone only because of their sexual orientation in Germany (because it doesn't have to do anything with morality).
Yes you are correct that some countries place less moral judgment on sex than the United States. I certainly have no desire to see the United States become more similar to Germany. Prostitution is legal in Germany as well, and I'd hate the see the US follow them on that too. John Edward's political career is essential over, because people decided that he's immoral based on sex, but in many countries no one would've cared. Unfortunately for you, in this country people are allowed to make moral decisions based on sex.
Yes it does, I even gave you the link. Here it is again: http://forums.bleachexile.com/showpost.php?p=1677572&postcount=2189
I didn't participate in that thread. Prove your case or concede the point and move on.
And the source: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html
And the most important part:
"Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation."
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
^Doesn't prove anything. That treaty was sent to people that were attacking us, based on their perception of our country's religious belief. This was the United States's first war as a nation. The only purpose of that treaty was the differentiate the US from Europe, and make it clear the US was not threat to them as Europe had been.
Secondly your a little off topic. How does^ effect my statement. Even if the United States weren't specifically a Christian Nation, how does that determine if marriage is a right? Also how does it determine if marriage if a cultural and religious term.
Here is what I said originally before you went off on this tanget~~~>2. I don't mind civil unions. Any Gay couple can go somewhere and get a civil union. However, Marriage is a cultural and religious term, which is not a right.
Responding to a straw man would be granting the fallacy, therefore allowing you to further build an "argument" on top of the misrepresentation of my point. Therefore, I don't. I consider the usage of a straw man a default concession.
At least a little proof that it is a straw man would make you seem more intelligent. Cut/Paste straw man doesn't seem to be a very intelligent tactic.
When speaking of the devil... straw man.
Why do you think it is a straw man?
True, there are other options. They could also just be complete morons, sadists and so on. It's just that it's highly unlikely that anyone under that category deserves to be referred to using positive terms. Also note that I don't care whether a fucktard is black or white, the important thing is the fucktardedness. It's just that black people voting for something that has similar "reasoning" behind it as racist laws did is quite ironic.
That is the issue with your cause. You seem to think your entitled to a vote. No one is entitled to a vote no matter how right they think their cause is. First you insult black people; then you find out what you did insults them; so in response to finding out you insulting them, you insult them more. Then you call them names for not voting for you?
I think that the premise is false in that syllogism.
Explain why....else I presume you concede the point.
Straw man. If I notice that a fallacy has been committed, I simply point that out. I can't be bothered to explain it every single time when it occurs in basically every argument someone presents. Doing that would be similar to granting your argument from verbosity/repetition fallacy.
If you can't point out your issue with my argument that usually means you are incapable is giving a logical reason. Stop the rubber stamping and just concede the points you can't defend.
Twin studies. And animals.
Really what twin studies?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/all
Apparently your not understanding. All doesn't apply to your argument so the definition is immaterial.
Quite a bold claim.
Disprove it or leave it.
There's really no need to. When you're on the moral and logical high ground, in this case almost per definition, all you really have to do is point out the reasons why another position is not. It only gets difficult when your own position isn't really the high ground, in which case one should move to the truly rational position anyway, so that's also kind of moot.
So you find no need to put thought into your responses? Thats refreshing. At least it lets me know why most of them are copied and pasted, and ones that are not copied and pasted make little sense.
Completely irrelevant. It's about the way they were dealt with (actions against them and intentions behind those actions), not how many were killed.
When comparing what happened to one group of people to another group of people, how many determined how much of that group of people were effected. This is very important when making comparisons on the level of the ones you are making.
Another straw man. I never said that "trying it both ways" means what you think it does. A touch, a kiss, even a thought experiment is usually enough to determine whether you're straight or gay.
Me: What's wrong about finding out on your own whether you're gay or straight?
You: So you promote promiscuous sex?
Me: Straw man.
You: You didn't respond. I win.
Now your trying to say that you weren't talking about sex but just finding out on there own. It had been the topic for a while because we were discussing children picking up sexual habits from social and emotional factors. I made a direct statement that showed what the context of our discussion was, and it was clear that sex was the topic.
My statement
The action of having sex however, is a behavior. In youths, attraction is not always required for sex and other homosexual behavior. Some kids begin experimenting with sex before their bodies are even capable of "completing the act".
Your response
So what if some kid tries both ways in order to find out what works best for him? That won't change the result, unless he's bisexual and enjoys the first try so much that he won't bother trying the other option.
Your response is a direct response to the sexual topic saying so what if a kid tries both ways. Calling your statement promiscuous is being nice. It's easy enough to disprove your "straw man" BS when you state why you think something is a straw man, so I guess thats why you rarely do.
TW501 already covered this.
TW was refuted, so I'll take this as something else you are incapable of defending. With all these conceded points, looks like we are almost done.
You gave the premise that heterosexuality is 'the norm' but didn't draw a conclusion from that.
Guess you forgot. We were talking about the difference between homosexuality, pedophilia, and heterosexuality. I was explaining to you that heterosexuality is the norm and that is one of the things that sets them apart. You then extracted norm from my statement and began to debate that heterosexuality isn't the norm.
I can't stop you from doing that. I can only warn you that it would be stupid to do so.
I was simply proving my point that not defining the terms you're using makes a debate about them useless. If we were debating God's existence, and my god was the sun, whereas your god was Jahwe, for instance, we wouldn't get anywhere. Your claim was that it isn't necessary to define such things.
Regardless of the debate, making statements that don't even relate to the debate is useless. Making objections and not explaining them is also useless.
Another straw man. I specifically asked you where your definition of nature begins, where it ends and what it includes.
So, again: is a primitive spear/hammer/knife/whatever still nature to you? If yes, then why is a computer not?
So when I say,"barring illness, heterosexuals are naturally able to have children", you don't understand what I mean? Explain to me exactly, which part of that you don't get.
Obviously it wasn't. You meant life, but said nature.
http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/nature
http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/life
Your splitting hairs but you still cannot disprove the point of my statement.
Because:
1. there is no reason not to do so (if you disagree, please prove why an infertile/homosexual/whatever couple is less qualified to raise a child)
Infertility is an illness, and I've already said "barring illness" three times. Illness alters the natural state of a human causing them to be different than they would be without the illness.
Woah, I almost didn't catch that straw man because you not only failed to refute the original point, but also the straw man you set up.
Anyway, I wasn't even talking about adoption between species (though there are countless cases of felines, pigs, canines, ducks, goose, birds, apes etc. pp. adopting members of a species different from their own), so that straw man was kind of useless. Animals also adopt children of their own species (for instance when they're cast out by their biological parents, or when their parents die etc.).
Humans are not animals so this line of discussion leads no where anyway, but we can continue it. So, when is the last time you saw homosexual animals raising children?
2. they can't get children themselves, so it would help them
Exactly, helping homosexuals is the first thing you spout out, but helping the children is much more important. Your so focused on getting your "rights", that the benefit of the child didn't even enter your thought pattern. So, lets say we are not interested in helping homosexuals, instead we prefer to help the children.
So tell me. How would placing children in the care of homosexuals help them?
3. it doesn't harm anyone (again, if you disagree, make your point and prove it)
I already proved it and you've been trying to refute my proof for a while. Originally I said that studies show that children raised in homosexual homes are more likely to experiment sexually both ways. This is called harm to me, although you say nothing is wrong with it.
This was the only way to get you a bit away from misunderstanding statistics and towards reality.
In other words, saying that I was referring directly to you was your last line of defense. In that case concede the point and move on. Wait you already did concede the point but followed that up by blaming it on society.
Remember, those studies you're so fond of include the generation that was massively afflicted by the HIV outbreak. Society played a major role in that as they basically forced homosexuals to live that underground live often accompanied by primitive satisfaction of sexual urges, regardless of love, risk, consequence. Accepting homosexuality increases their lifespan.
I didn't define fun because, as I said, it's going off on a tangent. But maybe you should define fun, as this could be one of the reasons for your misunderstandings. Which trade off, anyway? There's no trade off, on the contrary.
I don't care if you have fun. Just don't turn around and blame the results of your fun on society.
No, I don't, I explained why the statistics are the way they are. Which is the most important thing when analysing statistics, and you completely fail at it.
Yes essentially you said that the statistics are flawed because they include a group of homosexuals that had a lot of HIV/AIDS, and then you went on to say that shouldn't be counted because it's society's fault. I think that including those homosexuals is important to determining average lifespan. When determining the lifespan of others, things that have greatly effected their lifespan isn't dis included, so why should it be so with homosexuals.
So we shouldn't aim for the optimum?
It depends on the situation when your talking about legislation.
Feranor
05-14-2009, 01:09 PM
Did you just hit rewind or something? I've already explained that moral turpitude doesn't have to be proven to terminate employment. Gender Identity certainly falls into the moral arena, and gender identity almost always follows sexual orientation in legislation.
What about interracial marriage? Could I not hire someone because they're married to someone of a different "race"?
I presume you have no response. I guess finding out that everyone discriminates legally will derail a anti-discrimination argument. Especially when your arguing that something is wrong based on it being discrimination. Maybe you didn't understand that you have to state why a certain type of discrimination is wrong, not the fact that it is discrimination.
It's wrong because it causes harm and does no good.
Okay when were Black people, or for that matter any race, discriminated on based sex. You cannot call sexual orientation/gender identity and race similar unless you can prove it?
That doesn't relate to what it's apparently supposed to respond to.
Yes you are correct that some countries place less moral judgment on sex than the United States. I certainly have no desire to see the United States become more similar to Germany. Prostitution is legal in Germany as well, and I'd hate the see the US follow them on that too. John Edward's political career is essential over, because people decided that he's immoral based on sex, but in many countries no one would've cared. Unfortunately for you, in this country people are allowed to make moral decisions based on sex.
You're constantly complaining about the straw man nonsense that I'm supposedly comparing "race" to sexual orientation (which, again, I'm not), yet you're comparing pedophilia/prostitution to homosexuality (but not to heterosexuality)? Doesn't work.
^Doesn't prove anything. That treaty was sent to people that were attacking us, based on their perception of our country's religious belief. This was the United States's first war as a nation. The only purpose of that treaty was the differentiate the US from Europe, and make it clear the US was not threat to them as Europe had been.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
Secondly your a little off topic. How does^ effect my statement. Even if the United States weren't specifically a Christian Nation, how does that determine if marriage is a right? Also how does it determine if marriage if a cultural and religious term.
Here is what I said originally before you went off on this tanget~~~>2. I don't mind civil unions. Any Gay couple can go somewhere and get a civil union. However, Marriage is a cultural and religious term, which is not a right.
The US are supposed to be secular. Therefore, if the states decide who is allowed to marry and who isn't, it's not a religious or "cultural", but a legal decision.
At least a little proof that it is a straw man would make you seem more intelligent. Cut/Paste straw man doesn't seem to be a very intelligent tactic.
My point ≠ the point you're adressing.
Why do you think it is a straw man?
Because you misrepresent my position (A) to make it look like I promote promiscuous sex (A'), and then you try and refute A'. I won't comment on A', because it's not what I introduced, but simply point out that A is still valid.
That is the issue with your cause. You seem to think your entitled to a vote. No one is entitled to a vote no matter how right they think their cause is. First you insult black people; then you find out what you did insults them; so in response to finding out you insulting them, you insult them more. Then you call them names for not voting for you?
I don't insult black people. I insult willfully ignorant, dishonest, bigot, hyprocritical, ... people.
You also got the sequence wrong, it doesn't start with me insulting someone, it starts with the stupidity of people voting against homosexual rights for no reason other than knee-jerk reaction and gut feeling (or religion, which for that matter is nothing more than ritualised stupidity). Which are basically the same reasons that led to racism (maybe you understand the comparison this time), hence the irony. And the /facepalming.
Explain why....else I presume you concede the point.
Because all you did was "respectfully disagree" based on some arbitrary definition of 'Civil Rights' (which, even assuming it to be valid, doesn't change anything) and the blatant lie that is the ex-gay nonsense.
If you can't point out your issue with my argument that usually means you are incapable is giving a logical reason. Stop the rubber stamping and just concede the points you can't defend.
I never said I couldn't. I just won't bother if virtually everything you present is fallacious. Anyway, I did at least once somewhere above in this post, just for the sake of argument.
Really what twin studies?
I got most of the information from a video which I didn't find on the internet; but there are probably some good sources. I'll look them up when I have the time. The main point here, while I'm aware of all the problems with twin studies (the other theories also suffer from comparable problems, which is why I don't exclude any, but twin studies and the prenatal stuff are at least quite testable) is that identical twins have a higher chance of having the same sexual orientation than non-identical twins.
Apparently your not understanding. All doesn't apply to your argument so the definition is immaterial.
Stop splitting hairs. Everyone should be equal under the law. That's what it essentially means.
Disprove it or leave it.
Same as somewhere above.
So you find no need to put thought into your responses? Thats refreshing. At least it lets me know why most of them are copied and pasted, and ones that are not copied and pasted make little sense.
It may not make sense to you. The 'no need' part comes from the fact that I have no reason to assume that you understand logic (on the contrary, given the obscene amount of continuous logical fallacies), thus going more abstract/formal would most likely result in something that, while being even more valid, would make even less sense to you.
When comparing what happened to one group of people to another group of people, how many determined how much of that group of people were effected. This is very important when making comparisons on the level of the ones you are making.
No, actually, it's completely irrelevant, because the important part is the intention.
Imagine two people and two buildings.
Person 1 hates Muslims.
Person 2 hates Jews.
Their hatred is based on the same "reasoning".
Building 1 is a Mosque with 100 Muslims within.
Building 2 is a Synagogue with 50 Jews within.
Person 1 kills all the people in Building 1.
Person 2 kills all the people in Building 2.
100 Muslims were killed and 50 Jews. Does that mean that person 1 is more evil? Does that mean that Muslims are worse off in this fictional world than Jews? Does that mean that it's OK to deny Jews certain rights because more Muslims than Jews were killed?
Now your trying to say that you weren't talking about sex but just finding out on there own. It had been the topic for a while because we were discussing children picking up sexual habits from social and emotional factors. I made a direct statement that showed what the context of our discussion was, and it was clear that sex was the topic.
My statement
The action of having sex however, is a behavior. In youths, attraction is not always required for sex and other homosexual behavior. Some kids begin experimenting with sex before their bodies are even capable of "completing the act".
Your response
So what if some kid tries both ways in order to find out what works best for him? That won't change the result, unless he's bisexual and enjoys the first try so much that he won't bother trying the other option.
Your response is a direct response to the sexual topic saying so what if a kid tries both ways. Calling your statement promiscuous is being nice. It's easy enough to disprove your "straw man" BS when you state why you think something is a straw man, so I guess thats why you rarely do.
My goodness, the army of straw men finally gathered and formed a giant argument from verbosity.
I'm not promoting promiscuous/anonymous/unprotected sex. I never said, nor meant to imply that I want kids to fornicate (under consent of the king or not) with everything and everyone they can get their hands on to affirm their sexuality. You're refuting a point that you made up.
TW was refuted, so I'll take this as something else you are incapable of defending. With all these conceded points, looks like we are almost done.
No, he wasn't.
Guess you forgot. We were talking about the difference between homosexuality, pedophilia, and heterosexuality. I was explaining to you that heterosexuality is the norm and that is one of the things that sets them apart. You then extracted norm from my statement and began to debate that heterosexuality isn't the norm.
Analogy Time! Yay!
Imagine 3 options (See? I even meet you half way with the choice nonsense)
1. Buying a car
2. Renting a car
3. Destroying a car (that doesn't belong to you) with a sledge hammer
Assume that the options are mutually exclusive.
Let's assume that most people (say 80%) buy a car, 15% rent a car and 5% destroy a car with a sledge hammer.
So, by your reasoning, buying a car is 'the norm', therefore everything else is joined by the fact that it's not 'the norm'. Thus, by your reasoning, renting a car is more similar to destroying a car with a sledge hammer than it is to buying a car.
Regardless of the debate, making statements that don't even relate to the debate is useless. Making objections and not explaining them is also useless.
I thought I already explained that this is called an analogy?
You claimed that it's not important to define the terms you're talking about. I proved that this claim is false (proving the obvious...) and gave you an analogy so you could understand why.
So when I say,"barring illness, heterosexuals are naturally able to have children", you don't understand what I mean? Explain to me exactly, which part of that you don't get.
What the heck? We were talking about the definition of nature and whether computers are nature.
Your splitting hairs but you still cannot disprove the point of my statement.
You didn't make a point, you committed the fallacy of equivocation (which is why I'm asking for your definitions) in order to slip some random conclusion in there.
Infertility is an illness, and I've already said "barring illness" three times. Illness alters the natural state of a human causing them to be different than they would be without the illness.
Ok, so now nature suddenly changed to 'natural state' and really means 'the norm'? Fine, as long as you don't conclude nonsense from that. But I'm afraid that this will be the next step.
Humans are not animals so this line of discussion leads no where anyway, but we can continue it. So, when is the last time you saw homosexual animals raising children?
Humans are animals.
Exactly, helping homosexuals is the first thing you spout out, but helping the children is much more important. Your so focused on getting your "rights", that the benefit of the child didn't even enter your thought pattern. So, lets say we are not interested in helping homosexuals, instead we prefer to help the children.
So tell me. How would placing children in the care of homosexuals help them?
It increases their chances of being raised by considerate, open-minded, unprejudiced, reasonable people.
I already proved it and you've been trying to refute my proof for a while. Originally I said that studies show that children raised in homosexual homes are more likely to experiment sexually both ways. This is called harm to me, although you say nothing is wrong with it.
Yes, there's nothing wrong with it in the way I meant it. Which is also the most likely way.
Again, you're implying that a straight male kid, for instance, will have wild unprotected sex with multiple other males because he has two fathers. This is complete nonsense.
In other words, saying that I was referring directly to you was your last line of defense. In that case concede the point and move on. Wait you already did concede the point but followed that up by blaming it on society.
I didn't concede anything. I explained the statistics you were using as you obviously don't understand their cause.
You're arguing against your own point here. HIV afflicted homosexuals more then heterosexuals because it was less likely for homosexuals to be in a faithful relationship. Why? Mainly because society wouldn't let them live the same way as heterosexuals.
I don't care if you have fun. Just don't turn around and blame the results of your fun on society.
There you go again implying that 'fun' automatically means fornication in the context of homosexuality. You're both wrong and biased.
This wasn't even supposed to be a trap. Oh well.
Yes essentially you said that the statistics are flawed because they include a group of homosexuals that had a lot of HIV/AIDS, and then you went on to say that shouldn't be counted because it's society's fault. I think that including those homosexuals is important to determining average lifespan. When determining the lifespan of others, things that have greatly effected their lifespan isn't dis included, so why should it be so with homosexuals.
Apparently one straw man didn't make it into the army. I never said that "it shouldn't be counted because it's society's fault". I also never said that it should be completely excluded. I simply noted that the reason for the short lifespan indicated by the statistics is becoming obsolete.
It depends on the situation when your talking about legislation.
No, it doesn't. Do you even know what 'optimum' means?
btill9000
05-14-2009, 01:51 PM
@Feranor
Nice battle, I am sure we'll clash again eventually.
Im pretty much done for now. Your barely responding anymore outside of cut/paste material. We'll just have to agree to disagree. We've been going back and forth for a while though, so I'd appreciate any outside comments on the things we discussed. I am really interested in how observers perceived our discussion, so feel free to chime in people.
He's a Mentalist
05-14-2009, 04:41 PM
Lol @ the discussion... I mean come on. You can argue facts but morals are never wrong nor right in some contexts, although you can't convince the one you are arguing with, you can however, dismember his argument to have him wandering around in ignorance and making him "rethink" his own view... meh. Since btill is done, I will only respond to a few comments.
It increases their chances of being raised by considerate, open-minded, unprejudiced, reasonable people.
Lol, seriously that is wrong. Placing children in the care of homosexuals only increases the chances of a child becoming homosexual. Open-minded, less prejudice, and reasonable behavior only comes from how the child is taught by the parents. Homosexuals can impress their own negative outlooks on the child. It is up to the parents to weed out the negativity like prejudices, etc..., and raise the child to be reasonable. Merely having homosexual parents do not increase those chances you listed.
Humans are animals.
Wow, I've never seen such an accident used like this... You have to understand biology in order to assess that humans are animals. Merely equating humans to animals brings in the wrong connotations.
An animal is defined as any living thing being able to acquire food and digest it internally, is multi-cellular, limited growth, can move voluntarily, eukaryotic, etc... That is the gist of the definition. Now what do you believe an animal is exactly? We are animals but not in the sense of what the general "thought" of an animal. From that perspective you tend to run into problems.
We are higher animals, not lesser animals like gorillas, dogs, sheep, cows, etc... Just because you see two male dogs engaging in sexual behavior does not mean humans should do it. Are you like the lesser animals? Yes in a molecular sense, but that is all. Our minds differentiate us from animals.
I think btill meant we aren't lesser animals...
The US are supposed to be secular. Therefore, if the states decide who is allowed to marry and who isn't, it's not a religious or "cultural", but a legal decision.
The US is still mostly religious from the percentages I've seen. It is like 60% religious and 40% secular. In any case, the law of banning homosexual marriage was because people were against it. "Legal" decisions do not matter when it is based on whether people want it to be legal or not. If you want to get into the legality of marriage then lets get into the natural order of things... Being homosexual is not natural. "Common sense" should tell you that.
NoxieDC
05-14-2009, 09:02 PM
I will only attempt to argue with btill9000 a little for now.
Humans are not animals
Au contraire mon seignor. We are very much animals. The only and, I repeat, ONLY difference between you and me from a sheep is our ability to truly critical and objectively think. At our base we still want to and have to eat and have sex but the way we now achieve this (by friendships, love, guilt and group mentality) is so much more complex then anything we can see elsewhere in nature. I consider this layer of complexity as the bullshit that get waxed on for a more comfortable ride in life so if you didn't realize this, I understand and forgive your gap.
heterosexuality is the norm and that is one of the things that sets them apart
What is this again? Ad hominem?
Already said, just because an option is more popular then the other doesn't make it the "right" option. Rednecks were once humiliating, tormenting and making life a hell for women and blacks for a long time but now we figured that isn't fair so we aren't doing it anymore. Savvy?
I'm not saying we should all turn gay. All I'm saying is "Live and let live. And if someone doesn't agree with this, take that person outside, beat him across the head and shoot the motherfucker!" - George Carlin
I couldn't follow every intricacy of your discussion with Feranor so if you want me to elaborate on how I see you as narcissistic and full of shit, please reply. :-)
He's a Mentalist
05-14-2009, 09:17 PM
Already said, just because an option is more popular then the other doesn't make it the "right" option.
I know you only want to address btill, but don't follow up your argument with an insult like "full of shit" with what I just quoted. That quote is nothing but full of shit. Heterosexuality is, in fact "right" and the norm because it is right. Viable reproduction is supported by nature.
Feranor
05-15-2009, 05:36 AM
Lol, seriously that is wrong. Placing children in the care of homosexuals only increases the chances of a child becoming homosexual.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim? And why would that be bad if it was true?
Open-minded, less prejudice, and reasonable behavior only comes from how the child is taught by the parents. Homosexuals can impress their own negative outlooks on the child. It is up to the parents to weed out the negativity like prejudices, etc..., and raise the child to be reasonable. Merely having homosexual parents do not increase those chances you listed.
Negative outlooks? What do you mean by that? I was referring to the fact that the people who experienced the results of prejudice, unreasonable hatred, bigotry, hypocrisy etc. (which isn't limited to homosexuals) are more likely to realise the idiocy behind those things and subsequently pass this wisdom on to their children.
Wow, I've never seen such an accident used like this... You have to understand biology in order to assess that humans are animals. Merely equating humans to animals brings in the wrong connotations.
An animal is defined as any living thing being able to acquire food and digest it internally, is multi-cellular, limited growth, can move voluntarily, eukaryotic, etc... That is the gist of the definition. Now what do you believe an animal is exactly? We are animals but not in the sense of what the general "thought" of an animal. From that perspective you tend to run into problems.
We are higher animals, not lesser animals like gorillas, dogs, sheep, cows, etc... Just because you see two male dogs engaging in sexual behavior does not mean humans should do it. Are you like the lesser animals? Yes in a molecular sense, but that is all. Our minds differentiate us from animals.
I think btill meant we aren't lesser animals...
He didn't define animals, therefore I used the literal definition. He also tried to use it to try and distract from the point he would have had to concede.
I know very well that we don't necessarily get our morals from other animals. But that doesn't mean the argument from 'nature' against homosexuality is valid.
The US is still mostly religious from the percentages I've seen. It is like 60% religious and 40% secular. In any case, the law of banning homosexual marriage was because people were against it. "Legal" decisions do not matter when it is based on whether people want it to be legal or not. If you want to get into the legality of marriage then lets get into the natural order of things... Being homosexual is not natural. "Common sense" should tell you that.
I was talking about the government. The founding fathers wanted the government to be secular, because they knew form their own experience what happens when it isn't. Faith is, by defintion, irrational and should therefore not be considered in any important decision.
My common sense (the oxymoron is intentional) tells me that it is. Why? Because the the "common" definition of nature is "everything that was not created by humans", which includes homosexuality.
I know you only want to address btill, but don't follow up your argument with an insult like "full of shit" with what I just quoted. That quote is nothing but full of shit. Heterosexuality is, in fact "right" and the norm because it is right. Viable reproduction is supported by nature.
You added something to the original quote to balance out some of the 'shit'. But natural selection is not about producing children, it's about survival of the genes. Producing children on your own is the main means to that, hence the heterosexuality majority, but not the only one.
btill9000
05-15-2009, 06:58 AM
I will only attempt to argue with btill9000 a little for now.
Btill9000 is done arguing in this thread for a while, but I'll respond to you since you addressed me directly and neg repped me to get my attention lol.
Au contraire mon seignor. We are very much animals. The only and, I repeat, ONLY difference between you and me from a sheep is our ability to truly critical and objectively think. At our base we still want to and have to eat and have sex but the way we now achieve this (by friendships, love, guilt and group mentality) is so much more complex then anything we can see elsewhere in nature. I consider this layer of complexity as the bullshit that get waxed on for a more comfortable ride in life so if you didn't realize this, I understand and forgive your gap.
Whether you like it or not creationism is an accepted belief in the United States. The bolded statement above lets me know, that at least subconsciously, you understand that your view is nothing more than an opinion.
Since we are dealing in opinions here, I'll give mine: Once all humans begin to consider themselves no different than an animal and ceases to believe in anything, we will have lost a large part of what makes us human.
As far as the important stuff like science and facts are concerned, I wont go there since Mentalist shut you down pretty hard in that arena already. I'd suggest responding to him, because my views are about the same as his.
What is this again? Ad hominem?
Already said, just because an option is more popular then the other doesn't make it the "right" option. Rednecks were once humiliating, tormenting and making life a hell for women and blacks for a long time but now we figured that isn't fair so we aren't doing it anymore. Savvy?
Sexual Orientation is much different than Race and Gender.
1.No one has given proof as to why Sexual Orientation should be protected. No one has given evidence that it isn't a choice, but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
2. In terms of pure legislation, almost all sexual orientation legislation has been flawed. Most of it included things like Gender Identity Rights along with Sexual Orientation rights.
In conclusion, you guys need to do two things. Get some proof that homosexuality isn't a choice, and fire the person that is writing your legislation for you.
I'm not saying we should all turn gay. All I'm saying is "Live and let live. And if someone doesn't agree with this, take that person outside, beat him across the head and shoot the motherfucker!" - George Carlin
If this is your belief then you have much more in common with rednecks than you think.
d3m1G0d
05-15-2009, 08:09 AM
If this is your belief then you have much more in common with rednecks than you think.
Dude that part was a George Carllin bit. It's just a joke.
btill9000
05-15-2009, 08:53 AM
Dude that part was a George Carllin bit. It's just a joke.
I know this.
Feranor
05-15-2009, 11:29 AM
Regardless of whether you're still going to respond or not, I still feel the need to correct humbug.
Whether you like it or not creationism is an accepted belief in the United States. The bolded statement above lets me know, that at least subconsciously, you understand that your view is nothing more than an opinion.
Creationism is stupid. Blatantly stupid. I suggest you watch some of the videos from this series: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AC3481305829426D
Since we are dealing in opinions here, I'll give mine: Once all humans begin to consider themselves no different than an animal and ceases to believe in anything, we will have lost a large part of what makes us human.
Reason is our greatest gift. Faith is our greatest curse.
As far as the important stuff like science and facts are concerned, I wont go there since Mentalist shut you down pretty hard in that arena already. I'd suggest responding to him, because my views are about the same as his.
He's just repeating the same stuff we already dismantled in other threads.
Sexual Orientation is much different than Race and Gender.
For the umpteenth time, this is not the relevant point.
1.No one has given proof as to why Sexual Orientation should be protected. No one has given evidence that it isn't a choice, but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Just like there are no intermediate forms in the fossil record (according to creationists, that is). Blatant lies are not valid arguments.
In conclusion, you guys need to do two things. Get some proof that homosexuality isn't a choice, and fire the person that is writing your legislation for you.
You're asking us to proof a negative. You desperately want it to be a choice and you desperately repeat the "it's not the same as race" nonsense so you don't have to face the fact that you're no better than a racist or an antisemite. So I'm going to repeat my opening question, which no one adressed so far: if homosexuality is a choice, then why are there gay teenagers killing themselves instead of just choosing to be straight?
He's a Mentalist
05-15-2009, 02:09 PM
Do you have any evidence to support this claim? And why would that be bad if it was true?
The evidence is in psychology. Taking a few courses in children's psychology would prove my case on this stance. When a child is raised in a home whether it'd be two fathers or mothers, that child's outlook will more-than likely follow in that direction. It would be considered the normality of how things are supposed to work. Whereas the opposite happens in moderation with two heterosexual parents. To address the last point, sometimes the child's outlook is skewered by a pervert member of the family who molested them at a young age.
Negative outlooks? What do you mean by that? I was referring to the fact that the people who experienced the results of prejudice, unreasonable hatred, bigotry, hypocrisy etc. (which isn't limited to homosexuals) are more likely to realise the idiocy behind those things and subsequently pass this wisdom on to their children.
Whether you believe it or not, I've met some pretty racist homosexuals. Like heterosexuals, homosexuals are no different in how they view the world. Like-wise with black people, Mexicans, and Asians, there are some racists out there in each group and race of people. Simply saying just because homosexuals are persecuted by society makes them less likely to envelop negative outlooks on people, ideals, and cultures, is quite wrong. Those same people who realize the idiocy and unreasonable hatred in people are a rarity.
He didn't define animals, therefore I used the literal definition. He also tried to use it to try and distract from the point he would have had to concede.
Ah...
I know very well that we don't necessarily get our morals from other animals. But that doesn't mean the argument from 'nature' against homosexuality is valid.
Show me the invalidity of the argument then...
I was talking about the government. The founding fathers wanted the government to be secular, because they knew form their own experience what happens when it isn't. Faith is, by defintion, irrational and should therefore not be considered in any important decision.
Faith can be used when someone is making a crucial decision about something important like whether gay marriage should be legal or not. Simply looking into rationality will only lead a person on the same path. A reasonable person is reasonable in the eyes of the billions of people on Earth, but isn't exactly reasonable. What do you define a reasonable person? A person who would like everyone to pursue their individual happiness? That isn't reasonable but rather irrational and stupid.
My common sense (the oxymoron is intentional) tells me that it is. Why? Because the the "common" definition of nature is "everything that was not created by humans", which includes homosexuality.
Nature itself disproves of homosexuality. Just because homosexuals are still around doesn't mean it is nature that approves of it. The only reason homosexuals are more prevalent than not in today's society is because of humans.
You added something to the original quote to balance out some of the 'shit'. But natural selection is not about producing children, it's about survival of the genes. Producing children on your own is the main means to that, hence the heterosexuality majority, but not the only one.
Survival of genes can only be met out by reproducing one's genes into the next generation, which then is brought about sexual reproduction, then woman having a baby, then that baby starting the same process over. So, yes, natural selection is about viable reproduction and whether an organism is fit in its given environment to produce offspring.
Feranor
05-16-2009, 02:57 AM
The evidence is in psychology. Taking a few courses in children's psychology would prove my case on this stance. When a child is raised in a home whether it'd be two fathers or mothers, that child's outlook will more-than likely follow in that direction. It would be considered the normality of how things are supposed to work. Whereas the opposite happens in moderation with two heterosexual parents. To address the last point, sometimes the child's outlook is skewered by a pervert member of the family who molested them at a young age.
Because the child will obviously be kept in a cage in a basement so that it'll never realize that the majority of people around them are heterosexual. Makes perfect sense.
A lot of gay teenagers think they're "the only one who is that way" until they realise there are others. Doesn't exactly fit your explanation either. Why are they gay in the first place if all they knew was heteronormativity? Oh, of course, they must obviously have been molested by a perverted (read: homosexual, being a cynic is fun) family member.
My second point wasn't adressed at all. Are you confusing cause and reaction? It might be possible that getting molested messes up your sexuality. Since the connection to homosexuality is missing entirely, non sequitur.
Whether you believe it or not, I've met some pretty racist homosexuals. Like heterosexuals, homosexuals are no different in how they view the world. Like-wise with black people, Mexicans, and Asians, there are some racists out there in each group and race of people. Simply saying just because homosexuals are persecuted by society makes them less likely to envelop negative outlooks on people, ideals, and cultures, is quite wrong. Those same people who realize the idiocy and unreasonable hatred in people are a rarity.
I never said that homosexuals are decent people by default. It's about raising consciousness.
Show me the invalidity of the argument then...
The premise that homosexuality is 'unnatural' is both false and irrelevant.
Faith can be used when someone is making a crucial decision about something important like whether gay marriage should be legal or not. Simply looking into rationality will only lead a person on the same path. A reasonable person is reasonable in the eyes of the billions of people on Earth, but isn't exactly reasonable. What do you define a reasonable person? A person who would like everyone to pursue their individual happiness? That isn't reasonable but rather irrational and stupid.
It can, but it shouldn't. Basing your decision on faith means basing them on nothing, since faith is arbitrary. It's the same as when committing logical fallacies, the result is not reached by valid methods, therefore it's invalid (which effectively means that you can no longer determine whether it's true or false).
A reasonable person is, in essence, someone who questions absolutely everything by means of rational/critical thinking, discarding (in terms of acting based on it) everything that is flawed.
Nature itself disproves of homosexuality. Just because homosexuals are still around doesn't mean it is nature that approves of it. The only reason homosexuals are more prevalent than not in today's society is because of humans.
Nature doesn't approve of anything, as that would require a consciousness. Nature doesn't have a plan nor foresight. And homosexuality occurs in animals, making it undeniably 'natural'. But you still didn't explain why this should matter to us. You yourself said that deriving our morals (or behavioural patterns) from animal behaviour isn't exactly the smartest thing to do, since we're probably the smartest animal to begin with.
Survival of genes can only be met out by reproducing one's genes into the next generation, which then is brought about sexual reproduction, then woman having a baby, then that baby starting the same process over. So, yes, natural selection is about viable reproduction and whether an organism is fit in its given environment to produce offspring.
I thought this was obvious, but whatever: in order to increase the likelihood that your genes survive, you can either produce a large number of offspring, or you can increase the chance of surivial of your kinship, which share about 50% of your genes. This is obvious by the fact that most species living in groups show individuals putting their own lives at risk to help their close kin survive. You don't have to inseminate everything that moves in order to be favoured by natural selection.
He's a Mentalist
05-16-2009, 09:54 AM
Because the child will obviously be kept in a cage in a basement so that it'll never realize that the majority of people around them are heterosexual. Makes perfect sense.
Look to the point below.
A lot of gay teenagers think they're "the only one who is that way" until they realise there are others. Doesn't exactly fit your explanation either. Why are they gay in the first place if all they knew was heteronormativity? Oh, of course, they must obviously have been molested by a perverted (read: homosexual, being a cynic is fun) family member.
You are missing the point entirely... Comparisons are more reliable than analogies. Anyway, although racists are few and small within children and teenagers there are still some children who are racists because they held onto their parents ideals. The parents being racists increased the chances of the child to become racist. That is all I am saying in regards to that is, it merely increases the chances of a child to become homosexual.
My second point wasn't adressed at all. Are you confusing cause and reaction? It might be possible that getting molested messes up your sexuality. Since the connection to homosexuality is missing entirely, non sequitur.
I don't think I am confusing anything...
I never said that homosexuals are decent people by default. It's about raising consciousness.
It increases their chances of being raised by considerate, open-minded, unprejudiced, reasonable people.
^ That was what I was responding to. But since you seem to concede on that point, I have no further use in addressing it.
The premise that homosexuality is 'unnatural' is both false and irrelevant.
Hm, first time I had to concede on a point based on my own faulty wording.
It can, but it shouldn't. Basing your decision on faith means basing them on nothing, since faith is arbitrary. It's the same as when committing logical fallacies, the result is not reached by valid methods, therefore it's invalid (which effectively means that you can no longer determine whether it's true or false).
What you are talking about doesn't and should not be interpreted as, "basing your decision on whether gay marriage should be outlawed or not," that in itself is a philosophical question people must ask themselves. Whether homosexuals should indulge in the same practices as heterosexuals. That isn't a reasonable question and reason would only lead them on a similar path. "Normality" that has been in occurrence since the dawn of the first non-asexual organism. To ask someone to reason this question will only lead to unreasonable behavior if they do not have the knowledge to reach the valid method. It remains philosophical to the ignorant in my honest opinion, which is faith based.
A reasonable person is, in essence, someone who questions absolutely everything by means of rational/critical thinking, discarding (in terms of acting based on it) everything that is flawed.
^ Read the post above, it addresses this point as well.
Nature doesn't approve of anything, as that would require a consciousness. Nature doesn't have a plan nor foresight. And homosexuality occurs in animals, making it undeniably 'natural'. But you still didn't explain why this should matter to us. You yourself said that deriving our morals (or behavioural patterns) from animal behaviour isn't exactly the smartest thing to do, since we're probably the smartest animal to begin with.
Goddam will you stop using the amphibloy? Me saying, "nature doesn't approve..." is not to be taken as a literal statement, but rather an aphorism that homosexuality does not work within this world. As said before, "due to my faulty wording I concede on that point." I meant to say homosexuality isn't normal, but we don't need to tread down that lane unless you feel like addressing it now.
I thought this was obvious, but whatever: in order to increase the likelihood that your genes survive, you can either produce a large number of offspring, or you can increase the chance of surivial of your kinship, which share about 50% of your genes. This is obvious by the fact that most species living in groups show individuals putting their own lives at risk to help their close kin survive. You don't have to inseminate everything that moves in order to be favoured by natural selection.
I'd suggest reading into Boolean's square of opposition and the fallacy of equivocation. IT was stated, but I did not say we should or should not derive our morals from animals. That statement was misconstrued by you. I was asking a question and showing evidence of differences between animals and humans. What I am saying now, and what I mean now is, we have already derived some sort of moral code from animals or our previous ancestor... The kinship as you stated, protection, shelter, hunting and gathering, etc... These same practices are still in effect today. Here is another thing I think (opinion), just because it occurs does not mean it is necessarily the right thing to do. Rape is both an occurrence that happens in animals (look into dolphins and chimps), humans, and has been since the dawn of man, but that doesn't make it right.
GeniusBob
05-16-2009, 03:57 PM
Creationism is stupid. Blatantly stupid. I suggest you watch some of the videos from this series: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AC3481305829426D
Lulz at offtopicness. Don't prattle you links here, it's hardly the topic(though they are quite interesting,in some places)
The gay rights debate really comes down to who we want to tick off. Either way, you step on somebodies toes. So the question would be who do we tick off?
Feranor
05-16-2009, 05:46 PM
You are missing the point entirely... Comparisons are more reliable than analogies. Anyway, although racists are few and small within children and teenagers there are still some children who are racists because they held onto their parents ideals. The parents being racists increased the chances of the child to become racist. That is all I am saying in regards to that is, it merely increases the chances of a child to become homosexual.
Now you're comparing racism to homosexuality. This doesn't deserve more than a /facepalm as an answer. You're apparently either willfully ignorant or dishonest, with a dubious intent.
^ That was what I was responding to. But since you seem to concede on that point, I have no further use in addressing it.
It doesn't seem like you understand the meaning of chance, probability or likelihood. Again, someone who for whatever reason thought rationally about homosexuality or similar issues is more likely to have become considerate, open-minded, unprejudiced, reasonable people than those who did not. The two main impeti for that are being homosexual (in this case) yourself or talking to someone who is.
What you are talking about doesn't and should not be interpreted as, "basing your decision on whether gay marriage should be outlawed or not," that in itself is a philosophical question people must ask themselves. Whether homosexuals should indulge in the same practices as heterosexuals. That isn't a reasonable question and reason would only lead them on a similar path. "Normality" that has been in occurrence since the dawn of the first non-asexual organism. To ask someone to reason this question will only lead to unreasonable behavior if they do not have the knowledge to reach the valid method. It remains philosophical to the ignorant in my honest opinion, which is faith based.
Are you high or something? This is almost too incoherent to even be possible to adress. Reason is the only valid method here and everywhere else. Philosophy is not arbitrary (^= faith based), but also based on reason. Take a philosophy lecture, most of the time you'll be doing logic. You're still trying to bring 'nature' in there, even though you dismissed it yourself in terms of whether we should deduce our behavioural patterns from it. Even if homosexuality was somehow 'against nature', which is simply not true, it wouldn't matter, since it doesn't harm mankind (on the contrary, we're massively overpopulating the planet).
^ Read the post above, it addresses this point as well.
Random gibberish about philosophy being arbitrary?
Goddam will you stop using the amphibloy? Me saying, "nature doesn't approve..." is not to be taken as a literal statement, but rather an aphorism that homosexuality does not work within this world. As said before, "due to my faulty wording I concede on that point." I meant to say homosexuality isn't normal, but we don't need to tread down that lane unless you feel like addressing it now.
I don't have to because it's both irrelevant and false.
I'd suggest reading into Boolean's square of opposition and the fallacy of equivocation. IT was stated, but I did not say we should or should not derive our morals from animals. That statement was misconstrued by you. I was asking a question and showing evidence of differences between animals and humans. What I am saying now, and what I mean now is, we have already derived some sort of moral code from animals or our previous ancestor... The kinship as you stated, protection, shelter, hunting and gathering, etc... These same practices are still in effect today. Here is another thing I think (opinion), just because it occurs does not mean it is necessarily the right thing to do. Rape is both an occurrence that happens in animals (look into dolphins and chimps), humans, and has been since the dawn of man, but that doesn't make it right.
Those aren't morals. Those are behavioural patterns that are (or were) favoured by natural selection, which is why they still exist. Homosexuality is obviously among those things.
Rape is a positive thing in terms of natural selection, because the rapist inseminates someone it could otherwise not inseminate, thus producing more offspring. Rape is no different from "protection, shelter, hunting and gathering, etc." in this regard. Natural selection doesn't care about your moral standards. It indiscriminately favours things that increase the survival of the genes.
And again, rape (or pedophilia, or any other nonsense comparison you might want to use to display homosexuality as something oh so evil and harmful) has nothing to do with homosexuality (^= just as much as heterosexuality does).
He's a Mentalist
05-16-2009, 06:15 PM
Now you're comparing racism to homosexuality. This doesn't deserve more than a /facepalm as an answer. You're apparently either willfully ignorant or dishonest, with a dubious intent.
You have to understand the meaning of the comparison. Racism is comparable to homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality in the single most common way that it elicits some type of standard onto the child's life. You seem not to understand that and would address it with "facepalm" statements...
It doesn't seem like you understand the meaning of chance, probability or likelihood. Again, someone who for whatever reason thought rationally about homosexuality or similar issues is more likely to have become considerate, open-minded, unprejudiced, reasonable people than those who did not. The two main impeti for that are being homosexual (in this case) yourself or talking to someone who is.
... I hate circling back and forth with this argument. Whether you support homosexuality or not does not make you either reasonable or unreasonable. It comes down to why you support it, or why you do not support it. A reasonable, nonprejudicial person could very well be against homosexuality.
Are you high or something? This is almost too incoherent to even be possible to adress. Reason is the only valid method here and everywhere else. Philosophy is not arbitrary (^= faith based), but also based on reason. Take a philosophy lecture, most of the time you'll be doing logic. You're still trying to bring 'nature' in there, even though you dismissed it yourself in terms of whether we should deduce our behavioural patterns from it. Even if homosexuality was somehow 'against nature', which is simply not true, it wouldn't matter, since it doesn't harm mankind (on the contrary, we're massively overpopulating the planet).
I was referring to metaphysical philosophy in which people lope to when concerning the issue. Again, keep up. I brought, "normal," not nature. Two different meanings... Massively over population doesn't call for homosexuals. Even though we have homosexuals the population is still rising. We need more wars to be honest.
As for taking a course in philosophy? Took two semesters in logical reasoning.
Random gibberish about philosophy being arbitrary?
Just because you didn't understand it doesn't make it gibberish...
I don't have to because it's both irrelevant and false.
Wow, you are something else... If this is how you are going to argue then by all means stop.
Those aren't morals. Those are behavioural patterns that are (or were) favoured by natural selection, which is why they still exist. Homosexuality is obviously among those things.
So are some negative aspects which I won't bring into this thread. As for behavioral patterns, I don't care because I don't want to get wordy. So, I'll let you have it.
Rape is a positive thing in terms of natural selection, because the rapist inseminates someone it could otherwise not inseminate, thus producing more offspring. Rape is no different from "protection, shelter, hunting and gathering, etc." in this regard. Natural selection doesn't care about your moral standards. It indiscriminately favours things that increase the survival of the genes.
Someone it could not inseminate? Dolphins are similar to human males. They don't get a boost in hormones every 6 months, or so, they have that urge whenever it arises like humans. It is rare though in Dolphins to rape, but it happens. As for other animals? They have a clock telling them when its time. As for humans, rape is not "positive" only for reproducing children that would soon be killed by the mother which is still negative.
And again, rape (or pedophilia, or any other nonsense comparison you might want to use to display homosexuality as something oh so evil and harmful) has nothing to do with homosexuality (^= just as much as heterosexuality does).
And again, learn to read between the lines and understand the argument at hand. Comparison on a faulty bridge... I will restate it though.
Rape is both an occurrence that happens in animals (look into dolphins and chimps), humans, and has been since the dawn of man, but that doesn't make it right.
Although it has nothing to do with homosexuality it has something to do with the argument. Also, Natural selection doesn't favor homosexuality...
reiatsudown
05-16-2009, 08:51 PM
I'm only going after one particular argument right now.
For the sake of it:
If homosexual parents would have a greater chance of influencing their children to be gay, so what? I have an idea why btill9000 and mentalist might take that as a bad scenario, but I don't want to jump to conclusions- it would waste time. I'd like either of you to list some reasons why it would be bad for homosexual parents to influence their kids into a similarly gay lifestyle (or bi lifestyle). If you already have and don't want to repeat yourselves, let me know and I'll go back over the thread to see if I missed anything. As far as I can tell there's nothing more than some weird general assumption lingering in the air that parents influencing their adopted kids to be attracted to the same sex is bad.
I also think the children/parent mimicries you're both referencing are mostly controlled by biological relations. They have zilch to do with the kind of casual influences we get from everyday interactions with our neighbors and community. We're now discovering that a lot of these unconscious behaviors of ours are biologically patterned by our parents. And to those who believe that homosexuality is a conscious choice- or at least a choice that's conscious enough to be swayed by other people- even social habits have been traced back to biological parents. That's the ultimate overriding influence.
For example, my mother and two uncles were adopted into the same family at a very young age- young enough to have no recollections of their biological parents. None of them grew up alike, nor remotely similar to their foster parents. On the other hand they are similar to their individual biological parents (who they later tracked down at different points in their lives). So in my experience the old cliche of adopted kids feeling at odds both psychically and mentally with their new family is true.
He's a Mentalist
05-16-2009, 10:27 PM
If homosexual parents would have a greater chance of influencing their children to be gay, so what? I have an idea why btill9000 and mentalist might take that as a bad scenario, but I If homosexual parents would have a greater chance of influencing their children to be gay, so what? I have an idea why btill9000 and mentalist might take that as a bad scenario, but I don't want to jump to conclusions- it would waste time. I'd like either of you to list some reasons why it would be bad for homosexual parents to influence their kids into a similarly gay lifestyle (or bi lifestyle). If you already have and don't want to repeat yourselves, let me know and I'll go back over the thread to see if I missed anything. As far as I can tell there's nothing more than some weird general assumption lingering in the air that parents influencing their adopted kids to be attracted to the same sex is bad.don't want to jump to conclusions- it would waste time. I'd like either of you to list some reasons why it would be bad for homosexual parents to influence their kids into a similarly gay lifestyle (or bi lifestyle). If you already have and don't want to repeat yourselves, let me know and I'll go back over the thread to see if I missed anything. As far as I can tell there's nothing more than some weird general assumption lingering in the air that parents influencing their adopted kids to be attracted to the same sex is bad.
As for your question, whether homosexuals raising children is bad or not? That isn't up to me to decide. I'll let you guys banter over what is wrong and what isn't wrong. I was simply arguing that homosexuals raising children merely increases the chances of a child becoming homosexual. Should homosexuals adopt? Possibly, I don't see any heterosexual against homo adoption, adopting those children. If I were in facility for children without a home, I would not mind being adopted by homosexuals. I would want to get out of their and have a decent life. That is just me though.
SteveW311
05-16-2009, 10:52 PM
be forwarned I didn't really read the 17 pages of this thread... so I very well may some of the same shit everyone else has said...
1. Marriage is a human right. if they want to get married because they love each other, who are we to stop them.
2. HOWEVER! if they do marry, whether its man and man or woman and woman. they should lose the right to adopt children and/or have them. Why, do you ask... let me explain...
no child should be adopted into a place of ridicule and resentment. Not by the family. but by the world around them. And I don't want to hear the argument of "who cares if the family loves them." because that is way wrong. I don't care how much their family loves them, that is simply not enough. And if being gay was socially acceptable(and I'm not saying its not) its just not there yet, we wouldn't have the issue of gay marriage in the first place. that being said, its not fair for any child to be made fun of because of thier parents choices in life. not everyone will agree with their parents lifestyle, and the constant harrassment isn't fair.
NoxieDC
05-16-2009, 11:00 PM
Btill9000 is done arguing in this thread for a while, but I'll respond to you since you addressed me directly and neg repped me to get my attention lol.
Don't make me sound like an attention whore, m'kay? (spoilers include faith talk that don't relate to gay rights)
Whether you like it or not creationism is an accepted belief in the United States.
Accepted by who? The flying spaghetti monster believers? And just because those particular people live in the US doesn't make them suddenly intelligent. You just have to look a little into detail to see how unbelievably stupid even the most intelligent person can be (situation also sometimes referred to as hypocrisy, read "To kill a Mockingbird" to find some good examples of that).
And here's the problem: it's a belief on something that doesn't even necessarily and vitally matter at this point in history! But if you want to argue about what I said and the origin of life, here is my simple honest belief (until proven fact): everything we do is driven by mindless illogical fear and the will to survive*. Think for a second: would you have one guy as a friend if he didn't make you feel good or help you some other way? (well, probably not cause you don't believe in this but still...)
*that doesn't make me more of an animal then you, I just accept it while having changed very few mannerisms. The change that did happen occurred in that now things appear more clearly then they did when trying to guess what is right and wrong, funny and unfunny, smart and stupid etc.**
**I'm not perfect, I only see as far as my mind power allows me to
Since we are dealing in opinions here, I'll give mine: Once all humans begin to consider themselves no different than an animal and ceases to believe in anything, we will have lost a large part of what makes us human.
Bigotry, discrimination, hate, "how the **** did that even happen" kind of inequality? I personally wouldn't mind. It's because if all could have a better honest view of what they want (to feel they're alive now and tomorrow) then peace wouldn't be just the dream of a stoned hippie.
As far as the important stuff like science and facts are concerned, I wont go there since Mentalist shut you down pretty hard in that arena already. I'd suggest responding to him, because my views are about the same as his.
No problem here, I agree. Gays won't procreate their genes, that's why homosexuality should be legal. They themselves aren't going to have many children, so it will in time be seen as "untrendy" if you will, at least for the mainstream so as a society we won't slowly die off. Possibly quite to the contrary.
Sexual Orientation is much different than Race and Gender.
1.No one has given proof as to why Sexual Orientation should be protected. No one has given evidence that it isn't a choice, but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
0) Yes but the logic is the same flawed kind. Different = bad and I despise such braindead unthought reasoning.
1) Just one question to settle this: how many homosexuals have siblings and/or young relatives? Because I don't see this as choosing a color but more like some unconscious choice that it isn't your duty to pass on your blood.
As for the legislation point, I'm not very learned in that region so I'm going to ask for clarification. Pretty please with sugary shit on top? :smile:
If this is your belief then you have much more in common with rednecks than you think.
It's subtle. If you see someone that is going to outright deny your freedom of speech, that's who you should shoot! You, I'm gonna let live, I enjoy this. :popcorn:
@SteveW311: educate the public. Gays adopting children will exist for a long time to come (seeing as they lived in ancient Greece and still are, incompetent Hitler...) so start now and easily get rid of the whole bullshit mentality!
People who discriminate are like macho male assholes who think they're the best and can't live a day without bragging how they win everything. Newsflash if you fit the description: nobody likes you! You're not going to get far in life if your picky about who you work with. It's survival and beggers can't be choosers!
End of story, goodbye, the end!
reiatsudown
05-17-2009, 09:52 AM
I was simply arguing that homosexuals raising children merely increases the chances of a child becoming homosexual.
I know. I was wondering if that's the case, so what? I wasn't sure if you were making an argument (against something) or just an observation. Now it sounds like you were just making an observation on the topic of gay adoption.
Btill9000, I've read you echoing mentalist's point. Are you making an observation as well, or is this, for you, some argument against gay adoption? If so, my question is passed on to you: even if homosexuals increased the chances of a child becoming homosexual, so what? In your opinion, what's the negative connotation of that?
Feranor
05-17-2009, 12:33 PM
... I hate circling back and forth with this argument. Whether you support homosexuality or not does not make you either reasonable or unreasonable. It comes down to why you support it, or why you do not support it. A reasonable, nonprejudicial person could very well be against homosexuality.
Of course, this is exactly what I meant. However, there are plenty good reasons not to discriminate against homosexuals, whereas there are none at all to justify it.
I was referring to metaphysical philosophy in which people lope to when concerning the issue. Again, keep up. I brought, "normal," not nature. Two different meanings... Massively over population doesn't call for homosexuals. Even though we have homosexuals the population is still rising. We need more wars to be honest.
Which isn't arbitrary either. Faith is not metaphysics. Faith is people arbitrarily assuming things for no valid reason. Still, what is your point? I'm not suggesting that homosexuality exists because it's nature's means of keeping population under control, nature doesn't do such a thing. Nature doesn't care whether humankind will eradicate itself or not. Unless we blow up the whole planet or something, other species will replace us.
As for taking a course in philosophy? Took two semesters in logical reasoning.
Formal logic, in my case. Was a (business informatics) math lecture, after all. Still, we didn't start off any syllogism with "God exists." nor did we try to define something into existence by playing semantics games; and I presume you didn't either.
Someone it could not inseminate? Dolphins are similar to human males. They don't get a boost in hormones every 6 months, or so, they have that urge whenever it arises like humans. It is rare though in Dolphins to rape, but it happens. As for other animals? They have a clock telling them when its time. As for humans, rape is not "positive" only for reproducing children that would soon be killed by the mother which is still negative.
Well, that is assuming that natural selection has already "reacted" to the relatively new concept (I suppose) of abortion. It also mostly, if not exclusively, applies to humans.
Although it has nothing to do with homosexuality it has something to do with the argument. Also, Natural selection doesn't favor homosexuality...
Then why does it exist?
btill9000
05-17-2009, 02:17 PM
Just like there are no intermediate forms in the fossil record (according to creationists, that is). Blatant lies are not valid arguments.
Reason is our greatest gift. Faith is our greatest curse.
Creationism is stupid. Blatantly stupid. I suggest you watch some of the videos from this series: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AC3481305829426D
I'll repeat my statment. Creationism is accepted in this country whether you like it or not. Not saying I agree with it but it is accepted. This is pretty off topic though, so I wont be responding to this line of thought anymore. Should go in the religion thread.
He's just repeating the same stuff we already dismantled in other threads.
No I don't think any of that has ever been dismantled.
For the umpteenth time, this is not the relevant point.
Of course it's relevant. Race isn't a choice. Homosexuality is a choice. Therefore it's very relevant. BTW, if your going to respond by asking me for proof that it is a choice, I have three responses for you.
1. Scroll up an read all the stuff I linked that supports it being a choice. Especially the Kinsey studies because they are the best sexual studies ever done.
2. If your still not satisfied, then your must realize that the burden of proof is on you. Find something that refutes the Kinsey studies and the other things I linked, or just concede the point.
Don't make me sound like an attention whore, m'kay? (spoilers include faith talk that don't relate to gay rights)
You said it not me.
Bigotry, discrimination, hate, "how the **** did that even happen" kind of inequality? I personally wouldn't mind. It's because if all could have a better honest view of what they want (to feel they're alive now and tomorrow) then peace wouldn't be just the dream of a stoned hippie.
Sorry I can't respond to this because I am having trouble understanding how it relates to what your responding too.
You're asking us to proof a negative. You desperately want it to be a choice and you desperately repeat the "it's not the same as race" nonsense so you don't have to face the fact that you're no better than a racist or an antisemite. So I'm going to repeat my opening question, which no one adressed so far: if homosexuality is a choice, then why are there gay teenagers killing themselves instead of just choosing to be straight?
No problem here, I agree. Gays won't procreate their genes, that's why homosexuality should be legal. They themselves aren't going to have many children, so it will in time be seen as "untrendy" if you will, at least for the mainstream so as a society we won't slowly die off. Possibly quite to the contrary.
0) Yes but the logic is the same flawed kind. Different = bad and I despise such braindead unthought reasoning.
1) Just one question to settle this: how many homosexuals have siblings and/or young relatives? Because I don't see this as choosing a color but more like some unconscious choice that it isn't your duty to pass on your blood.
~Stacked you guys up to reply all at once.~
None of this^ even begins to address whether Homosexuality is a choice or not. If this^ is the best you can do when faced with that question, you guys need to go out and do some studies or something. I hope you don't expect us to take your word for it?
Homosexual Suicide does not count as reason that it isn't a choice. People commit suicide all the time over things that are not genetic. I'll use your completely flawed racial comparison, Black people had it much worse than homosexuals and they never started committing suicide in mass.
As for the legislation point, I'm not very learned in that region so I'm going to ask for clarification. Pretty please with sugary shit on top? :smile:
In most legislation relating to sexual orientation, gender identity is included with it. Gender identity is defined as a personal conception of oneself as male, female, both, or neither. This lumps transsexuals, cross dressers, and other things in with homosexuals. The legislation usually has a slew of other issues and broad statements.
It's subtle. If you see someone that is going to outright deny your freedom of speech, that's who you should shoot! You, I'm gonna let live, I enjoy this. :popcorn:
Exactly, if someone degrees with you shoot them. Looks like you do have something in common with rednecks.
If homosexual parents would have a greater chance of influencing their children to be gay, so what?
Yeh this has been discussed already but it can be summed up in 4 steps.
1. Children in homosexual households are more likely to experiment with with sex both ways.
2. Health Risks.
3. Homosexuals a shown to have much shorter life spans.
4. Encouraging relationships with the inability to reproduce.
NoxieDC
05-17-2009, 09:16 PM
Sorry I can't respond to this because I am having trouble understanding how it relates to what your responding too.[/quote]
You said if we egin to see ourselves as animals we will lose what makes us unique. I simply enlisted examples of what our uniqueness consists off: complex forms of selfishness and narcissism.
None of this^ even begins to address whether Homosexuality is a choice or not.
1) Just one question to settle this: how many homosexuals have siblings and/or young relatives? Because I don't see this as choosing a color but more like some unconscious choice that it isn't your duty to pass on your blood.
How exactly is it not? It's not a conciuos choice if that's what you were asking for.
And at least I'm trying with various methods to find out. What did you do? Prove me it is a choice! Make it fair for everyone.
Homosexual Suicide does not count as reason that it isn't a choice. People commit suicide all the time over things that are not genetic. I'll use your completely flawed racial comparison, Black people had it much worse than homosexuals and they never started committing suicide in mass.
And yet they weren't taught like today's ridicules. Black people those days were raised in that manor, they didn't know it shouldn't be that way, that was how they saw how their life was and more or less accepted it (accepted it just enough as to not commit suicide that is).
In most legislation relating to sexual orientation, gender identity is included with it. Gender identity is defined as a personal conception of oneself as male, female, both, or neither. This lumps transsexuals, cross dressers, and other things in with homosexuals. The legislation usually has a slew of other issues and broad statements.
Sounds vague.
Exactly, if someone degrees with you shoot them. Looks like you do have something in common with rednecks.
Do you wanna get shot? You really are an idiot just so you know.
Last time I repeat myself: I'm not going to automatically shoot you just cause you dissagree with me (regardless of the pleasure that would bring). I'm only going to kill the tyrants, the dictators who say something, label it as fact and don't allow for debate or discussion. Forcing one's opinion is condemnable. Being a dumbass isn't.
1. Children in homosexual households are more likely to experiment with with sex both ways.
2. Health Risks.
3. Homosexuals a shown to have much shorter life spans.
4. Encouraging relationships with the inability to reproduce.
1) Likely.
2) Possibly.
3) Need a recent study, AIDS education must've changed the numbers.
4) Encouraging? Inability to produce? You make it sound like it's a bad thing. Need I remind our system can't take care of how many we already are?
reiatsudown
05-17-2009, 09:43 PM
Children in homosexual households are more likely to experiment with with sex both ways.
Right. And my question to that was, so what?
2. Health Risks
I only know of mental risks to the gay lifestyle, all- yes all- of which are caused by repression of the gay lifestyle by family or community or culture. There's nothing inherent to the "gay lifestyle" that causes these things. Repression is the cause of sexual abnormalities like sadism (statistically linked to gays), and of mental issues like depression or stress (also statistically linked to gays). Certain religious heterosexuals who are taught not to masturbate or engage in sex have the same statistical curve of sexual abnormalities, depression, and stress developing in their lives. The common is repression of sexuality, not sexuality itself. So while gays are at risk of these mental problems right now, the solution imo is just to support the lifestyle more. There's no reason to think a supported lifestyle would still skew itself and stress itself and become depressed.
Otherwise I'm not aware of physical risks to gay people. If you've posted them already, tell me and I'll look back over the thread. If you haven't posted them, plz do so. But I suspect you're talking mental problems, or mental come physical problems.
3. Homosexuals a shown to have much shorter life spans.
Unless it's directly related to the aforementioned stress/depression/mental problems (in which case see above), you're getting inaccurate information. I remember you posting links to a few websites, and if it keeps you from wasting time repeating yourself I'll be glad to look back at those later on and show you exactly where the articles' information is inaccurate, and why. The reason I'm not doing so right now is because I'm assuming these shorter life spans are directly related to the stress/depression/mental problems. See above.
4. Encouraging relationships with the inability to reproduce.
This has been brought up before as an argument against homosexuality, and every time it's been discredited. The reason I'm saying "discredited" is because nobody has yet to counter the replies that point out 1. we're overpopulated as it is 2. we've the technology to reproduce REGARDLESS of sexual preference, and 3. for the sake of the argument a gay person could jack himself off until he felt ready, then stick his penis into a woman's vagina and go off into her. In other words as long as a man has healthy sperm he can procreate whether he's gay or straight. Gays aren't unable to reproduce, so they can't possibly endanger the next generation even if that generation was ever in trouble (which it won't be in the foreseeable future).
btill9000
05-17-2009, 10:01 PM
Right. And my question to that was, so what?
::Sigh:: Me and Feranor already went through this, but at least it proves my point since you also don't see an issue with kids experimenting with multiple sex partners.
First, By having multiple sex partners it puts the kids at more risk, because of the increased risk of getting a disease from homosexual sex. Before you even mention condomes, kids don't use condoms as often as adults, and if they do theirs still a higher chance of getting a disease from homosexual activity. If you want proof it's below in the responses to Noxie.
Secondly, the lack morals in the above statement is kind of scary. It's weird that you and Feranor responded the same way. Honestly, would I be wrong to deny adoption to you, based on your "so what" statement above?
Again just in case you read it wrong, this is what your saying "so what to".
1. Children in homosexual households are more likely to experiment with with sex both ways.
The rest of your stuff, I think is addressed in my replies to Noxie.
You said if we egin to see ourselves as animals we will lose what makes us unique. I simply enlisted examples of what our uniqueness consists off: complex forms of selfishness and narcissism.
Maybe that is what you see when you look at humans, but it's not what I see. Maybe your hanging around the wrong crowd?
How exactly is it not? It's not a conciuos choice if that's what you were asking for.
And at least I'm trying with various methods to find out. What did you do? Prove me it is a choice! Make it fair for everyone.
I linked tons of things earlier in the thread and I've linked them over and over, and I wont link them all over again. The Kinsey Studies is one of the studies I referred to, although many sexual studies find that sexual orientation fluctuates.
And yet they weren't taught like today's ridicules. Black people those days were raised in that manor, they didn't know it shouldn't be that way, that was how they saw how their life was and more or less accepted it (accepted it just enough as to not commit suicide that is).
WTF, lol. I am not talking about slavery. Black people had it worse than homosexuals in the 50's, and they weren't committing suicide. I imagine that by the 50's they'd figured out that it shouldn't be that way LMAO. You should've just not responded...if you were gonna say they don't commit suicide cause they didn't know any better.
Also: According to the FBI, Black people have it worse than homosexuals now even.http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_01.htm and they still aren't committing suicide.
Sounds vague.
I don't think it was vague at all. For example, go to these bills. Scroll down to Sexual Orientation, and you'll find Gender Identity grouped with it or near it. It's often done this way.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h1102015
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1913
Do you wanna get shot? You really are an idiot just so you know.
Last time I repeat myself: I'm not going to automatically shoot you just cause you dissagree with me (regardless of the pleasure that would bring). I'm only going to kill the tyrants, the dictators who say something, label it as fact and don't allow for debate or discussion. Forcing one's opinion is condemnable. Being a dumbass isn't.
Theirs no one disallowing discussion or debate in the US. Hell, I think you guys are doing better than a lot of people as far as being able to voice your issues. I dare you to go to China and try that.
1) Likely.
2) Possibly.
3) Need a recent study, AIDS education must've changed the numbers.
4) Encouraging? Inability to produce? You make it sound like it's a bad thing. Need I remind our system can't take care of how many we already are?
Since you concede 1 and 2, we'll discuss 3 and 4.
For 3, first I'll link the new staph strain you guys created.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18086925
Now we can talk about Aids. Here is a recent study
Here are the CDC's latest released stats.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/united_states.htm
Can't wait for you to argue that the CDC are bigots or something.
For 4, even if it doesn't bother you, you have to admit that is a justifiable position to want to discourage relationships that bare no offspring. If you don't then you begin to sound like your into eugenics or some weird shit.
NoxieDC
05-17-2009, 10:29 PM
Maybe that is what you see when you look at humans, but it's not what I see. Maybe your hanging around the wrong crowd?
What do you see?
I linked tons of things earlier in the thread
OK, sure, whatever. I'll check them after I get some sleep.
WTF, lol. I am not talking about slavery. Black people had it worse than homosexuals in the 50's, and they weren't committing suicide. I imagine that by the 50's they'd figured out that it shouldn't be that way LMAO. You should've just not responded.
Also: According to the FBI, Black people have it worse that homosexuals now even.http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_01.htm and they still aren't committing suicide.
Irrelevant because of differing points of view in different social groups. You don't have to be begging for scraps to find a reason to commit suicide (see depressed teenager abandoned by girlfriend as a general case).
I don't think it was vague at all. For example, go to these bills. Scroll down to Sexual Orientation, and you'll find Gender Identity grouped with it or near it. It's often done this way.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h1102015
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1913
Your description wasn't. The law appears vague at first glance. Will investigate tomorrow.
Theirs no one disallowing discussion or debate in the US. Hell, I think you guys are doing better than a lot of people as far as being able to voice your issues. I dare you to go to China and try that.
Huh? This is the Internet buddy, not America or China or any other individual country. Oh wait, you must be American...
For 4, even if it doesn't bother you, you have to admit that is a justifiable position to want to discourage a rising trend in relationships that bare no offspring.
*will read through #3 tomorow
Actually, no. Consider this rising trend. Then consider our current rate of population growth (~50% increase in the next 50 years). And on a "slightly important" sidenote consider our global environment issues.
I say homosexuality for the win! (continues to like women)
Remind me again why are we having this conversation? Because you're afraid homosexuality will lead to humanity's annihilation? FEAR FACTOR!!!
SteveW311
05-17-2009, 11:14 PM
@SteveW311: educate the public. Gays adopting children will exist for a long time to come (seeing as they lived in ancient Greece and still are, incompetent Hitler...) so start now and easily get rid of the whole bullshit mentality!
People who discriminate are like macho male assholes who think they're the best and can't live a day without bragging how they win everything. Newsflash if you fit the description: nobody likes you! You're not going to get far in life if your picky about who you work with. It's survival and beggers can't be choosers!
End of story, goodbye, the end!
educate the public? Like racism?! slavery has been dead for how long now and there's still a lot of racism. and the public is pretty educated. People believe what they want, its called free will. unfortunately, the world will never be without hate and stupidity. I wish it was different. and because of that, gays raising children is a bad idea. Ridicule for something they have no control over is really sad. I just think its extremely selfish behavior n the part of the supposed gay parents. Its not about them, its about their "child".
if you really think the world will turn into a giant utopia, you need to step outside and take a long, hard look at life.
reiatsudown
05-17-2009, 11:17 PM
The problem with these gov. links, btill9000, is how you interpret them. Just three months ago I came across this guy who was posting crime stats from the government that showed blacks committing more crimes than whites. Being a racist asshole, he concluded that blacks are more violent than whites.
The actual stats of blacks committing more crimes weren't incorrect. What was wrong, was his interpretation of them. The reason some stats might show blacks committing more crimes than whites is circumstantial, not inherent (as I feel most stats about gay depression/health issues are). Blacks committed more crimes because they were a minority, and minorities are always going to feel more at odds with the majority/public/system/law than the rest. If a bunch of white people were dropped into some civil African country where they were the minority amongst majority blacks, they would be the ones committing more crimes, because they're psychologically uneasy as an minority.
Do you understand what I'm saying? The statistics were right, but the person was interpreting them the wrong way- to somehow suggest that skin color was inherently immoral, just as you seem to be suggesting that sexual preference is inherently damaging to ones mental health.
So while your statistics are right, I think your interpretations of them are wrong. None of these issues as inherent to a "gay lifestyle", except a few sexual risks that should be moot against how many diseases and illnesses heterosexuals face in straight sex as well; lesser of two evils, but evils all the same. The real cause of them is circumstantial. Which I've gone through above in my counter to your argument about gays having poorer mental health.
Me and Feranor already went through this, but at least it proves my point since you also don't see an issue with kids experimenting with multiple sex partners.
Experimenting with multiple sex partners? What?
I'm replying "so what?" to the observation that gay parents might influence their children to be gay. That's it. I'm not thinking about the number of sexual partners a kid has, or their sexual promiscuity. Did you read somewhere that gays have more sex young than heterosexuals, or something? I'm not sure how you segued from one to the other.
There are some other things you've said in reply to Noxie that I want to comment on, but I don't want to get too distracted yet. I'm specifically on the observation that "gay parents would influence adopted kids under their guardianship to also be gay", and whether or not that would be moral. The reasons you gave for this being bad were Health Risks and Issues With Procreation. As far as I know you haven't refuted or much responded to my counters. You linked some government websites as more evidence for unusually poor mental health with gays, but that's still under the umbrella of what I said in my previous post.
But you sound like you're starting to feel that you are repeating yourself (join the club), so tomorrow I'll look back at the thread more thoroughly and make sure I haven't overlooked something you've said. We're not communicating well for some reason. Either you're ignoring points, or I am. So if you're pulling out your hair over there, give me a day or two to look back at the thread and make sure I don't repeat points you've addressed well.
btill9000
05-18-2009, 06:36 AM
skin color was inherently immoral, just as you seem to be suggesting that sexual preference is inherently damaging to ones mental health.
Skin color has absolutely no effect on the person and how they behave, and it's not a choice. Sexual Orientation basically describes a type of behavior, and I happen to believe it a choice.
The problem with these gov. links, btill9000, is how you interpret them. Just three months ago I came across this guy who was posting crime stats from the government that showed blacks committing more crimes than whites. Being a racist asshole, he concluded that blacks are more violent than whites.
So while your statistics are right, I think your interpretations of them are wrong.
This link says that a new strain of highly resistance staph infection is coming from homosexuals. How am I interpreting that wrong?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18086925
This link says that homosexual sex is more likely to result in an HIV/AIDS infection. It also says that homosexuals have more AIDS than anyone else. Again how am I interpreting this wrong.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/survei...ted_states.htm
Among things. This article says that homosexuals have 10 times more hiv/aids than sex workers in china. Whats wrong with my interpretation?
http://current.com/items/89272832_aids-rampant-among-beijing-gays.htm
None of these issues as inherent to a "gay lifestyle", except a few sexual risks
Aww really? Only a few risks? That all?
Experimenting with multiple sex partners? What?
I'm replying "so what?" to the observation that gay parents might influence their children to be gay.
No, don't try to bullshit your way out of it.
This is what I said....
Children in homosexual households are more likely to experiment with with sex both ways.
This is your response....
Right. And my question to that was, so what?
That's it. I'm not thinking about the number of sexual partners a kid has, or their sexual promiscuity. Did you read somewhere that gays have more sex young than heterosexuals, or something? I'm not sure how you segued from one to the other.
It's rather easy to explain. It's unrealistic, but we should encourage kids to have one sex partner. But, By saying it's okay for them to try it both ways, we encourage multiple sex partners because it takes, at least, 2 sex partners to try it both ways.
As far as I know you haven't refuted or much responded to my counters. You linked some government websites as more evidence for unusually poor mental health with gays, but that's still under the umbrella of what I said in my previous post.
I don't recall linking anything that refers to homosexual mental health. You should actually read the stats I link before replying.
Feranor
05-18-2009, 09:20 AM
I'll repeat my statment. Creationism is accepted in this country whether you like it or not. Not saying I agree with it but it is accepted. This is pretty off topic though, so I wont be responding to this line of thought anymore. Should go in the religion thread.
It doesn't matter. Just because a large number of people believes in something completely stupid doesn't make it any more true. Creationism is definitely false.
No I don't think any of that has ever been dismantled.
That is also irrelevant.
Of course it's relevant. Race isn't a choice. Homosexuality is a choice.
Even if this was true, which it is not, it would still be irrelevant.
Therefore it's very relevant.
Non sequitur.
BTW, if your going to respond by asking me for proof that it is a choice, I have three responses for you.
1. Scroll up an read all the stuff I linked that supports it being a choice. Especially the Kinsey studies because they are the best sexual studies ever done.
2. If your still not satisfied, then your must realize that the burden of proof is on you. Find something that refutes the Kinsey studies and the other things I linked, or just concede the point.
I already told you that you didn't understand the Kinsey studies. You have to differ between sexual orientation and behaviour. According to your reasoning, if I were to have sex with a woman tonight, I wouldn't be exclusively homosexual anymore. That is nonsense. My behaviour wouldn't be exclusively homosexual anymore, but my orientation wouldn't change one bit.
Burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim about something. You're making the (positive) claim that homosexuality is a choice, therefore the burdon of proof is on you, which so far you failed to meet.
None of this^ even begins to address whether Homosexuality is a choice or not. If this^ is the best you can do when faced with that question, you guys need to go out and do some studies or something. I hope you don't expect us to take your word for it?
It's obvious that it's not a choice. The only people who think it's a choice are homophobes trying to use this choice-nonsense to "justify" their questionable and destructive goals. Go figure.
Homosexual Suicide does not count as reason that it isn't a choice. People commit suicide all the time over things that are not genetic. I'll use your completely flawed racial comparison, Black people had it much worse than homosexuals and they never started committing suicide in mass.
So killing yourself is an easier choice than to choose not to be homosexual? Go figure #2.
1. Children in homosexual households are more likely to experiment with with sex both ways.
Not in the way you think they'll do.
The actual result is a positive one. They'll be more likely to be accept people that are different from themselves.
2. Health Risks.
Obsolete.
3. Homosexuals a shown to have much shorter life spans.
Obsolete.
4. Encouraging relationships with the inability to reproduce.
Not a bad thing.
reiatsudown
05-18-2009, 10:32 AM
But, By saying it's okay for them to try it both ways, we encourage multiple sex partners because it takes, at least, 2 sex partners to try it both ways.
Then it was my misunderstanding, not yours. That sentence- "Children in homosexual households are more likely to experiment with with sex both ways"- had some typos (with with), so I glazed over your wording and assumed you were just stating that gay parents might encourage gay kids, that's it. But evidently you were rather suggesting that gay parents could encourage bisexuality/sexual experimentation, which would then encourage more sexual partners, since the kid would, by definition, have sex with both boys and girls. My bad, though to be fair I've never before heard anybody mistake bisexuality to mean an increase in sexual partners. It's such an odd conclusion that I never even considered someone might actually make it.
Your pov doesn't have an accurate understanding of sex, or maybe of bisexuality. If gay parents encouraged bisexual kids, or more 'sexually experimental kids', that would have no affect on their number of partners. Sex drives don't work that way. Heterosexual young Billy tries to have sex with girls when he's horny, and bisexual "alternate reality" Billy tries to have sex with both girls and boys when he's horny... but that switch in genders suggests only an increase in the variety of partners, not the amount of partners. It's a subtle but important difference.
Let me explain.
There are billions of possible partners for hormonal teens in every school, community, or society, and because any one person will never exhaust these billions of possibilities for attraction and fucking... we don't have to worry about bisexuals having more sexual partners than heterosexuals or homosexuals. Our sexual compulsion doesn't work that way. If we lived in some Twilight Zone where everyone had but 1 girl and 1 boy in their school/community/society, then your point would make sense because a heterosexual/homosexual choice would be exhausted pretty quickly, whereas a bisexual could go and bang the other One, thereby increasing his number of partners by the sheer fact of his bisexuality. But as is, expanding the playing field with bisexuality increases the variety of partnership, but not the amount of partners themselves.
From this accurate POV, I still don't have a moral problem with encouraging bisexuality.
I don't recall linking anything that refers to homosexual mental health. You should actually read the stats I link before replying.
I know, and I'll try to get on that more thoroughly today. But these links and information you're posting are nothing new. I'm sure everyone in this thread already knows their points. That's why a lot of people seem to be glazing over them.
I kept bringing up mental health because I figured that's what you meant earlier when you referred to "health risks" with homosexuality. And since nobody corrected me, I ran with it. So for the current record, we're not talking about mental health, but physical health? Just to be clear: we're talking specifically about purely physical risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle, such as aids and other sexually transmitted diseases. If so, this means no more referencing depression, suicide-related depression, stress, or any stress-related lifespan/health deterioration consequences when talking about the potential risks and hazards of homosexuality.
This link says that a new strain of highly resistance staph infection is coming from homosexuals. How am I interpreting that wrong?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=18086925
This link says that homosexual sex is more likely to result in an HIV/AIDS infection. It also says that homosexuals have more AIDS than anyone else. Again how am I interpreting this wrong.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/survei...ted_states.htm
When I say "misinterpret", I'm raising point with the conclusions you're drawing from these stats. Yes homosexuals are still more likely to get hiv/aids due to their lifestyle, but your conclusion from that irrefutable information is "...and therefore it would be wrong/immoral/unwanted to encourage homosexuality, since it has these physical risks to it". Am I right? If I am, that's what I'm raising my issue with. IMO the greater risk of AIDS isn't a practical reason to discourage the lifestyle (even to the extent of preventing gay parents from having a large influence on young children). Nor are any variety of sexually transmitted diseases a reason to discourage the lifestyle.
The day I become a father is the day I really start to worry about the dangers of being sexually active, because in no time flat my kids will be teens. But both heterosexuals and homosexuals are in danger, and the differences between aren't as dramatic as they seem. For example, heterosexuals have similarly "created" new sexual diseases, illnesses, and problems in their own communities, and my reaction to that has always been to feel sorry and worried, and hope science can find a way to heal these outbreaks before they kill too many people. I've the exact same reaction when I hear about new diseases, illnesses, and problems in the homosexual community. I know that neither sexual orientation has exclusive rights on sexually transmitted shit.
I don't want government to limit gays' freedom to adopt based off the evidence of potential (not assured) risks you've posted thus far, and I can't quite figure out why you're persuaded in the way you are by them.
btill9000
05-18-2009, 12:39 PM
Then it was my misunderstanding, not yours. That sentence- "Children in homosexual households are more likely to experiment with with sex both ways"- had some typos (with with), so I glazed over your wording and assumed you were just stating that gay parents might encourage gay kids, that's it.
My bad, though to be fair I've never before heard anybody mistake bisexuality to mean an increase in sexual partners. It's such an odd conclusion that I never even considered someone might actually make it.
I never said bisexuality and the study I read never said bisexuality. Stop trying to restate what I said to make yourself feel better. "I said that Children in homosexual households are more likely to experiment with with sex both ways."
You said "So what".
Sex is the operative word in that sentence. Yes their is a typo there, but there is no way that any other meaning can be taken from what I said.
There are billions of possible partners for hormonal teens in every school, community, or society, and because any one person will never exhaust these billions of possibilities for attraction and fucking... we don't have to worry about bisexuals having more sexual partners than heterosexuals or homosexuals. Our sexual compulsion doesn't work that way. If we lived in some Twilight Zone where everyone had but 1 girl and 1 boy in their school/community/society, then your point would make sense because a heterosexual/homosexual choice would be exhausted pretty quickly, whereas a bisexual could go and bang the other One, thereby increasing his number of partners by the sheer fact of his bisexuality. But as is, expanding the playing field with bisexuality increases the variety of partnership, but not the amount of partners themselves.
From this accurate POV, I still don't have a moral problem with encouraging bisexuality.
Again I said that children in bisexual homes are more likely to experiment with sex both ways. IMO, that is promiscuity. Like you said above, kids will be kids. Although, it's all about what we encourage them to do. Like they always say in school, if you aim for a B, well your certainly not going to get an A and probably not the B either.
I know, and I'll try to get on that more thoroughly today. But these links and information you're posting are nothing new. I'm sure everyone in this thread already knows their points. That's why a lot of people seem to be glazing over them.
I am sure everyone in this thread does. Then why does no on in this thread have an answer for any of them. I could sit here and link stuff all day that says homosexual, on average, are less healthy than others. Yet you guys still disagree, but some how you guys never seem to have any refuting evidence. All you have is your opinions.
I kept bringing up mental health because I figured that's what you meant earlier when you referred to "health risks" with homosexuality. And since nobody corrected me, I ran with it. So for the current record, we're not talking about mental health, but physical health? Just to be clear: we're talking specifically about purely physical risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle, such as aids and other sexually transmitted diseases. If so, this means no more referencing depression, suicide-related depression, stress, or any stress-related lifespan/health deterioration consequences when talking about the potential risks and hazards of homosexuality.
No I have no brought up mental health yet, honestly, because I don't feel like listening to you guys blame it on society. I am speaking purely in terms of physical health, thus the article I linked on your guy's new staph infection and aids stats. I linked other articles on hormonal imbalances around page 12-13, you can look those up if you want.
When I say "misinterpret", I'm raising point with the conclusions you're drawing from these stats. Yes homosexuals are still more likely to get hiv/aids due to their lifestyle, but your conclusion from that irrefutable information is "...and therefore it would be wrong/immoral/unwanted to encourage
homosexuality, since it has these physical risks to it". Am I right? If I am, that's what I'm raising my issue with. IMO the greater risk of AIDS isn't a practical reason to discourage the lifestyle (even to the extent of preventing gay parents from having a large influence on young children). Nor are any variety of sexually transmitted diseases a reason to discourage the lifestyle.
Exactly, Homosexual activity is less healthy and homosexuals don't live nearly as long. Why should we want to encourage more kids to join in that kind of activity. Not discouraging it is one thing, but why should we want to encourage it? My personal policy is similar to the military policy. I don't care what people that, "decided" to be gay or somehow arrived at being gay do, but im certainly not going to encourage it. The Beijing CDC says that homosexuals have a whopping 10 times more more HIV/AIDS than sex workers in China. I'll link you the article if you want it.
The day I become a father is the day I really start to worry about the dangers of being sexually active, because in no time flat my kids will be teens. But both heterosexuals and homosexuals are in danger, and the differences between aren't as dramatic as they seem. For example, heterosexuals have similarly "created" new sexual diseases, illnesses, and problems in their own communities, and my reaction to that has always been to feel sorry and worried, and hope science can find a way to heal these outbreaks before they kill too many people. I've the exact same reaction when I hear about new diseases, illnesses, and problems in the homosexual community. I know that neither sexual orientation has exclusive rights on sexually transmitted shit.
1. Really? Well why don't you tell me which diseases and illnesses heterosexuals have more of than homosexuals?
2. I know this is going to get flamed, but heterosexuals have a legit claim that HIV/AIDS started in and is coming from the homosexual/bisexual community. If you look where it first showed up and and where it's most centralized at, you find where it started at and where it's coming from.
It doesn't matter. Just because a large number of people believes in something completely stupid doesn't make it any more true. Creationism is definitely false.
That is also irrelevant.
Even if this was true, which it is not, it would still be irrelevant.
Non sequitur.
I already told you that you didn't understand the Kinsey studies. You have to differ between sexual orientation and behaviour. According to your reasoning, if I were to have sex with a woman tonight, I wouldn't be exclusively homosexual anymore. That is nonsense. My behaviour wouldn't be exclusively homosexual anymore, but my orientation wouldn't change one bit.
Burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim about something. You're making the (positive) claim that homosexuality is a choice, therefore the burdon of proof is on you, which so far you failed to meet.
It's obvious that it's not a choice. The only people who think it's a choice are homophobes trying to use this choice-nonsense to "justify" their questionable and destructive goals. Go figure.
So killing yourself is an easier choice than to choose not to be homosexual? Go figure #2.
Not in the way you think they'll do.
The actual result is a positive one. They'll be more likely to be accept people that are different from themselves.
Obsolete.
Obsolete.
Not a bad thing.
Just so you know I am not even gonna bother responding to your one word and two word responses, or your trying to disprove my factual links with your unjustified/unproven opinions. At least the other people seem to be trying to respond intelligently. I'll respond now to the 3 things that were halfway thought out.
1. They don't do studies of that type yearly, because that type of thing doesn't change yearly. Most organizations do those studies no more than once every 3-5 years. The oldest study I linked is 2003, and that is still very relevant.
2. Also, if your calling yourself homosexual, and your sleeping with women then your no longer homosexual. At best your bisexual. The fact remains that this stuff does change. Gender Identity is almost always included with sexual orientation. Gender Identity is most certainly a choice.
3. As far as suicide goes, suicide rates do not prove anything to your case. Your always so quick to compare homosexuals to blacks and jews on other things, so why not this? They were treated much worse than homosexuals, and they did not commit suicide.
He's a Mentalist
05-18-2009, 02:11 PM
Of course, this is exactly what I meant. However, there are plenty good reasons not to discriminate against homosexuals, whereas there are none at all to justify it.
I don't disagree with this.
Which isn't arbitrary either. Faith is not metaphysics. Faith is people arbitrarily assuming things for no valid reason. Still, what is your point? I'm not suggesting that homosexuality exists because it's nature's means of keeping population under control, nature doesn't do such a thing. Nature doesn't care whether humankind will eradicate itself or not. Unless we blow up the whole planet or something, other species will replace us.
I'm not sure if I should clarify my statement a little further but I just thought you'd get what I was referring to which is the second branch of metaphysics, natural theology. My point of bringing that into this argument was to point out how people go about addressing a subject they have yet to fully understand. If they do not fully understand the subject on whether homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else, then they usually consult what is more familiar to them. This in turn leads them to an answer such as whether there is indication that their beliefs answers the question for them, instead of answering it for themselves because they can't comprehend it yet.
As much as people "think" they understand something it only exemplifies to others that they don't understand it as much as they think they do. Take, "the pursuit of happiness" as an example. John Locke phrased the statement with, "no one ought to harm another in life, health, etc.." but then Thomas Jefferson took some of what John Locke stated and implemented into the declaration of rights which is where the pursuit of happiness comes in.
What I am getting at is, not everyone can indulge in happiness. Many people can't and should not ever find happiness, and there are the few that should. This is how it has to work to be honest. That was the point I was trying to address. It is impossible for everyone to ever be happy because even if there was happiness amongst everyone, that would only be boring. People find meaning in strife such as negating the rights of others. There are two sides arguing over something and both have it ingrained into their minds they are right. None are right in my opinion. That is how I view it which is what I was eluding to.
They both were wrong. People have and should be harmed, babies need to die young, wars need to continue to spark, people need to fight each other, and people need to hate each other. That is what we are accustomed to and what we need. "No one ought to harm another," is rather simplistic and shows how much he didn't understand what he was talking about. :)
To dabble into a bit of theology, even when peace was in the garden of eden, Eve still reached out to the apple. Why would she do such a thing? She had everything she needed and everything she would ever want was given to her by god, this includes the apple. God simply wanted to test her on whether his creation was infallible. So he placed a tantalizing, comely treat which was the apple in the garden at the center. Eve viewed the apple as something that would lead to something, in other words, the apple had some meaning which was one thing she deviated to. As humans we need some sort of meaning and reason to use the minds we have, if not, then what is the purpose of living? No meaning is the same thing as nonexistence.
Formal logic, in my case. Was a (business informatics) math lecture, after all. Still, we didn't start off any syllogism with "God exists." nor did we try to define something into existence by playing semantics games; and I presume you didn't either.
"God exists," would be wrong from the Boolean stand point and Aristotelean stand point. You want to know why? It commits the existential fallacy. So, yeah, you're right, we don't start any syllogism off with "God exists."
Well, that is assuming that natural selection has already "reacted" to the relatively new concept (I suppose) of abortion. It also mostly, if not exclusively, applies to humans.
Hm.
Then why does it exist?
Human manipulation...
reiatsudown
05-18-2009, 02:20 PM
children in bisexual homes are more likely to experiment with sex both ways. IMO, that is promiscuity.
I don’t have any problem with this kind of promiscuity. I don’t see it as irresponsible or anymore dangerous than natural adolescent hormonal sexual behaviors. Right now in my life I don’t care that an already sexually active kid is experimenting with sex both ways, as long as that experimenting only means "somebody sleeping with both genders instead of just one gender".
But it's understandable it you feel otherwise, and nothing for me to give you a hard time over.
Yet you guys still disagree, but some how you guys never seem to have any refuting evidence. All you have is your opinions.
I linked other articles on hormonal imbalances around page 12-13, you can look those up if you want.””
This particular argument is about whether or not gays should be allowed to adopt, and specifically whether or not gay parents influencing their children to experiment sexually in whatever way is immoral, when morality is opinion.
Also, aside from your gov. links, the links I have seen on this page, and the numerous ones on page 12, are opinion pieces. Regarding your collection on page 12, Feranor did refute them because most were bullshit. There's a good chance the lot of us are ignoring your sources not because we're argumentative and don't care about being corrected, but because these sources are opinionated biased propaganda articles.
I'll use the very first one as an example. If you think I'm picking the easiest target, or specifically want other articles deconstructed, I'll oblige.
http://www.seafox.com/lifespan.html
-They use inaccurate data-collecting from "mystery surveys".
-When a site has links to why the Bible hates homosexuals, you're not being dismissive to close it and figure it for bs especially if it's trying to use "scientific" means like statistics and polls (lol).
-Seafox, along with most of the other opinion pieces in your links, use the Family Research Institute in Colorado Springs as their overriding source of evidence. The Colorado Springs FRI is an organization that has offered no scientifically accepted or credible evidence. Its specific purpose is to go after homosexuality. Dr. Cameron's mission is to go after homosexuality, and that's not the right frame of mind for any kind of scientific find, so it's not surprising that Cameron was expelled from the American Psychological Association. Cameron's published article on the medical consequences of homosexuality was riddled with inconsistencies and flaws. Nearly half the references he makes in evidence for his claims came from his own previous writings. Other references he makes are from unrecognized and illegitimate newspapers. Others still are from old and legitimately, factually outdated gay-discrimination "rags". He also inaccurately "interpreted" legitimate studies (in much the same way as my above example of a racist misunderstanding government crime stats to suggest that colored people are inherently immoral- biased misinterpretation).
For god's sake, Cameron actually wrote this passage:
"Homosexuals rode into the dawn of sexual freedom and returned
with a plague that gives indication of destroying most of them."
-Seafox “carefully sifts” through four databases they did not mention, which is poor tabloidesque journalism ("An unnamed source tells me that Britney Spears is pergnant!!") and grounds for dismissing the article as a whole. They further compiled evidence from OBITUARIES, of all things, which is an absurd way of info collecting reliable lifestyle-related mortality info (in this context, that was what they were trying to do). They then referenced data from “two large random sexuality surveys” without specifying what either of those surveys are. That’s another red flag. I can so the same thing ie “I’ve just discovered that eight worldwide sexual orientation surveys show that homosexuals are actually healthier than heterosexuals”.
-They list an unnamed study also done in Colorado that indicated homosexuals and IV drug users (what the fuck?) 10 times more likely to die before age 65. That's absurd enough.
Well why don't you tell me which diseases and illnesses heterosexuals have more of than homosexuals?
Off the top of my head, homosexuals are less likely to get genital warts than heterosexuals. Off the top of a quick search, they're also less likely to have nongonococcal urethritis, herpes genitalis, pediculosis pubis, and scabies, among others, than heterosexuals. And all of these are of course sexually transmitted diseases.
No one has whole blame or fault for sexually transmitted diseases. Heterosexuals have their lot of issues, just as homosexuals do. Imo it's not a call for singling out either one, but a call for science to find a way to keep people from dying. No singling out. No bias. Sexually transmitted diseases are awful and circumstantial damages that people can learn to prevent and cure.
heterosexuals have a legit claim that HIV/AIDS started in and is coming from the homosexual/bisexual community. If you look where it first showed up and and where it's most centralized at, you find where it started at and where it's coming from.
It's not legitimate. Diseases don't spontaneously arise like that. Homosexuals only spread it more readily because their intercourse mixes more bodily fluid than vaginal sex, and that's a call for finding a cure against aids, not for condemning homosexuality. Anal sex is the big culprit, but straight people also do anal sex, so we're both in danger and both in need of a cure.
Overwhelming evidence, rather than suspicions, suggests AIDS/HIV came from monkeys. It spread first throughout Africa from both straight people and gay people.
Btill9000, you have a legitimate moral case for worries that the homosexual lifestyle sexually imperils people, in some ways more than the heterosexual lifestyle does. But you don't have a case for condemning homosexuals because of this horrible disease they suffered.
btill9000
05-18-2009, 05:44 PM
Don't forget to respond to all the other stuff that you dismissed by saying you'll take a look later.
I don’t have any problem with this kind of promiscuity. I don’t see it as irresponsible or anymore dangerous than natural adolescent hormonal sexual behaviors. Right now in my life I don’t care that an already sexually active kid is experimenting with sex both ways, as long as that experimenting only means "somebody sleeping with both genders instead of just one gender".
This is why you should not be able to adopt. This is also why people have the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation, because^ is clearly a moral statement. You must be able to see that you can and should be judge based on statements like^.
This particular argument is about whether or not gays should be allowed to adopt, and specifically whether or not gay parents influencing their children to experiment sexually in whatever way is immoral, when morality is opinion.
Also, aside from your gov. links, the links I have seen on this page, and the numerous ones on page 12, are opinion pieces. Regarding your collection on page 12, Feranor did refute them because most were bullshit. There's a good chance the lot of us are ignoring your sources not because we're argumentative and don't care about being corrected, but because these sources are opinionated biased propaganda articles.
I'll use the very first one as an example. If you think I'm picking the easiest target, or specifically want other articles deconstructed, I'll oblige.
http://www.seafox.com/lifespan.html
-They use inaccurate data-collecting from "mystery surveys".
-When a site has links to why the Bible hates homosexuals, you're not being dismissive to close it and figure it for bs especially if it's trying to use "scientific" means like statistics and polls (lol).
-Seafox, along with most of the other opinion pieces in your links, use the Family Research Institute in Colorado Springs as their overriding source of evidence. The Colorado Springs FRI is an organization that has offered no scientifically accepted or credible evidence. Its specific purpose is to go after homosexuality. Dr. Cameron's mission is to go after homosexuality, and that's not the right frame of mind for any kind of scientific find, so it's not surprising that Cameron was expelled from the American Psychological Association. Cameron's published article on the medical consequences of homosexuality was riddled with inconsistencies and flaws. Nearly half the references he makes in evidence for his claims came from his own previous writings. Other references he makes are from unrecognized and illegitimate newspapers. Others still are from old and legitimately, factually outdated gay-discrimination "rags". He also inaccurately "interpreted" legitimate studies (in much the same way as my above example of a racist misunderstanding government crime stats to suggest that colored people are inherently immoral- biased misinterpretation).
For god's sake, Cameron actually wrote this passage:
"Homosexuals rode into the dawn of sexual freedom and returned
with a plague that gives indication of destroying most of them."
-Seafox “carefully sifts” through four databases they did not mention, which is poor tabloidesque journalism ("An unnamed source tells me that Britney Spears is pergnant!!") and grounds for dismissing the article as a whole. They further compiled evidence from OBITUARIES, of all things, which is an absurd way of info collecting reliable lifestyle-related mortality info (in this context, that was what they were trying to do). They then referenced data from “two large random sexuality surveys” without specifying what either of those surveys are. That’s another red flag. I can so the same thing ie “I’ve just discovered that eight worldwide sexual orientation surveys show that homosexuals are actually healthier than heterosexuals”.
I'll make this easier. Instead of even arguing with you, I'll say that you can skip any websites that openly have an agenda or a bias point of view. That still leaves plenty of information I've linked from government sites, scientific sites, and un-bias newspapers. It's the same thing that all of you have done. You pick out the ones that you can call homophobic, but you refuse to even respond to the ones you can't.
-They list an unnamed study also done in Colorado that indicated homosexuals and IV drug users (what the fuck?) 10 times more likely to die before age 65. That's absurd enough.
I am sorry to tell you this, but you wont find anything that says homosexuals have the same or better lifespan as a heterosexual. Everything I've been able to find on the subject says between 40-45. Obituaries are about the only way to research that topic. No one has to tell if they are homosexual, therefore the only way to research it is to use Obituaries from homosexual papers. Tell me, how would you go about researching the homosexual lifespan?
Off the top of my head, homosexuals are less likely to get genital warts than heterosexuals. Off the top of a quick search, they're also less likely to have nongonococcal urethritis, herpes genitalis, pediculosis pubis, and scabies, among others, than heterosexuals. And all of these are of course sexually transmitted diseases.
Much of the information above is false, I'd like to take a look at your sources. If it happens to be true somehow, none of that stuff compares to HIV/AIDS. None of the stuff above has the potential to wipe out the human race, but HIV/AIDS does.
It's not legitimate. Diseases don't spontaneously arise like that. Homosexuals only spread it more readily because their intercourse mixes more bodily fluid than vaginal sex, and that's a call for finding a cure against aids, not for condemning homosexuality. Anal sex is the big culprit, but straight people also do anal sex, so we're both in danger and both in need of a cure.
Of course its a reason for not encouraging homosexuality. Let me know once you get your hands on that HIV/AIDS cure, then we can talk. Again, I am not a nut job that goes out and tries to make life hard for homosexuals every day. I've never donated to an anti-gay organization, I don't go to anti-gay events, I don't subscribe to anti-gay newsletters. The only reason I say anything here is because this is a discussion forum, so discussion the issues belongs here. That said, I certainly am not in the habit of encouraging that activity though, and no one has given any evidence why I should. The fact the gender identity always comes wrapped up with sexual orientation in legislation is another good reason not to support said legislation, and this is also a reason to be openly against said legislation. It's one thing to be forced to hire a gay guy, but it's a totally different thing to be forced to hire cross dressers.
*BTW encouraging homosexual activity includes, but is not limited to, allowing adoptions, allowing marriage, allowing them to force acceptance through legislation.
Overwhelming evidence, rather than suspicions, suggests AIDS/HIV came from monkeys. It spread first throughout Africa from both straight people and gay people.
AIDS did not come from monkeys. Overwhelming evidence actually points to it being man made, but thats for a whole different thread. The fact remains that is centers itself in the homosexual community. Think about it man. Homosexuals in china, according to the Beijing cdc, have more aids than sex workers. In the US, according to our