This is topic Study finds that homophobia is likely a result of repressed homosexuality in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
quote:The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
Disregarding the subject of whether gays deserve marriage or not -- here's a study that considers the other side of the question. In my experience, the most aggressive homophobes have seemed obviously (and barely) closeted.
An unforgettable Daily Show clip from the Republican National Convention:
I must note, however, that however much I disagree on OSC's gay marriage views, there's one thing I agree with: Calling people who don't like gay people homophobic is inaccurate and unfair. Phobias are a specific kind of mental disorder. Just because someone has a belief (however bigoted that belief might be) does not mean they have a mental disorder (and definitely doesn't mean they have a phobia in particular).
Homosexuality used to be considered a mental disorder, and using another mental disorder as a catch all term for a set of beliefs is hypocritical.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Homophobia in its present common usage (i.e., like you'll find in the dictionary) is to homosexuality as racist is to race.
It's kinda stupid that it ended up that way because of how it confounds and abuses the connotation -phobia, yes.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Calling people who don't like gay people homophobic is inaccurate and unfair. Phobias are a specific kind of mental disorder. Just because someone has a belief (however bigoted that belief might be) does not mean they have a mental disorder (and definitely doesn't mean they have a phobia in particular).
I agree, but it's the word that's fallen into use. It's a shame "sexist" is already taken. Are there more accurate alternatives I've missed?
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Orientationist?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
'homonegativity' and 'heterosexism'
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
It's possible it was called a "phobia" because of the reaction, ie disgust. Being repulsed as one might be by an insect or bad food. I can see how repulsion could be misinterpreted as fear. People are often repulsed by things that are perceived as unnatural.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I recall a rather interesting episode of Loveline, when Dr. Drew talked about his experiences in an active MRI machine, doing an experiment to test the nature of arousal and sexualized images and their effect on the brain.
Apparently, when he was in the active MRI, pictures of women and heterosexual sex caused his mind to actively scan and probe the images for information. Sexualized pictures of men and homosexual sex caused a threat reaction, in which his mind stopped scanning the images, and instead registered increased levels of fear and aggression. Apparently, when done with any straight male, sexualized images of men will cause a subconscious feeling of fear and threat, possibly having to do not with the orientation of those men, but rather the fact that sexualized images of other men may threaten one's own chances to reproduce, on a very basic level.
Interesting, yes, but a feeling anyone should be able to overcome at least intellectually. We learn to moderate and control our behavior, even around things that might make us uncomfortable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Eddie, the instant I saw the thread title I knew you'd posted this. Will you please work to keep this one a little less hostile? Moose has already had to lock one thread in part because you were determined to butt heads and call people names.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I agree, but it's the word that's fallen into use
That's about as good an argument as the common usage of the word "gay" to describe bad and/or dumb things.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Eddie, the instant I saw the thread title I knew you'd posted this. Will you please work to keep this one a little less hostile? Moose has already had to lock one thread in part because you were determined to butt heads and call people names.
Tom, read the other thread. I think I was very reasonable -- aside from some snippy trades with Rakeesh, the only really hostile person in the thread was Kat going bananas.
I honestly don't really have time to devote to Hatrack anyway, and I'm not going to waste it trolling.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
Clearly, he has read the other thread.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:I agree, but it's the word that's fallen into use
That's about as good an argument as the common usage of the word "gay" to describe bad and/or dumb things.
No, the two things are not equivalent. Besides, the "common usage" you speak of is not common among educated and aware people.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:I agree, but it's the word that's fallen into use
That's about as good an argument as the common usage of the word "gay" to describe bad and/or dumb things.
Except that there exist other synonyms for bad/dumb things which aren't meant as derogatory insults to a brutalized minority, but no other words for describing anti-homosexual biases.
Please, give me a different word to use. The incorrect Latin application annoys me too.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
On the article: without having read more than the abstract, I'd just point out that the article doesn't show what your title claims it does.
On the terminology: Wikipedia has a section that suggests several alternatives, including heterosexism, homonegativity, and sexual prejudice.
On the implications: I'll await the companion study on militant atheists' spiritual arousal at imagery of Gods and Angels.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: On the implications: I'll await the companion study on militant atheists' spiritual arousal at imagery of Gods and Angels.
Straight guys just don't care about homosexuality. I'm flattered when gay guys hit on me, and walking in on gay roommates is a cause for laughter, not disgust. I don't understand people threatened by it -- OSC in particular speaks of homosexuality almost wistfully, arguing that it's a sinful temptation to be resisted. I've never felt that temptation, but I hate the thought that anyone should be forced to reject and suppress such an important part of themselves. I would hate my life if I were expected to date men and never touch a woman again.
I'd like to see this study followed up again, this time with brain imaging. I wonder how much of the anti-gay movement has been championed by closeted homosexuals?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
A serious question I'm curious about for Lalo. If I'm opposed to homosexual marriage, and consider the act of homosexuality immoral, but take no direct action physically, nor act in an altered way towards someone whose homosexual (snubbing them, patronizing, etc...) am I, in your eyes, homophobic? If all the above is still true but I vote either in favor of, or abstain from voting about homosexual marriage does your answer change? I'm not trying to spring a trap or anything, I'm just honestly curious.
Hobbes Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
You're drawing conclusions that aren't justified from the snippet of the article I've seen. Your anecdotal appeals to prominant politicians aren't particularly persuasive. And you forgot Mark Foley.
My argument is that without information on the strength of response, the number of respondants who experienced arousal, possible selection bias, quantization effects, study methodology, and so forth it's completely unjustifiable to say "homophobia is likely a result of repressed homosexuality." That doesn't even touch on the causal implication of your statement, which is unjustified on the face, and which the study authors were obviously careful to avoid.
But if you have access to the full article I'd be interested in their answers to any or all of those questions. Otherwise, I'll maybe check my school's online holdings when I'm back on campus Monday.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: My argument is that without information on the strength of response, the number of respondants who experienced arousal, possible selection bias, quantization effects, study methodology, and so forth it's completely unjustifiable to say "homophobia is likely a result of repressed homosexuality." That doesn't even touch on the causal implication of your statement, which is unjustified on the face, and which the study authors were obviously careful to avoid.
Most of your questions were answered in the snippet, but here's the study in full:
quote:The results of this study indicate that individuals who score in the homophobic range and admit negative affect toward homosexuality demonstrate significant sexual arousal to male homosexual erotic stimuli. These individuals were selected on the basis of their report of having only heterosexual arousal and experiences. Furthermore, their ratings of erection and arousal to homosexual stimuli were low and not significantly different from nonhomophobic men who demonstrated no significant increase in penile response to homosexual stimuli. These data are consistent with response discordance where verbal judgments are not consistent with physiological reactivity, as in the case of homophobic individuals viewing homosexual stimuli. Lang (1994) has noted that the most dramatic response discordance occurs with reports of feeling and physiologic responses. Another possible explanation is found in various psychoanalytic theories, which have generally explained homophobia as a threat to an individual's own homosexual impulses causing repression, denial, or reaction formation (or all three; West, 1977). Generally, these varied explanations conceive of homophobia as one type of latent homosexuality where persons either are unaware of or deny their homosexual urges. These data are consistent with these notions.
An alternative explanation (80) is that homophobic men suffered anxiety upon seeing homosexual sex, and that helped to increase their penis size. I'm not sure I agree with it -- when I get anxious or frightened, I don't get turned on -- but such things do occur in extremely stressful situations like prison rape, and may not indicate sexuality.
Not all homophobes (or homonegatives?) are closeted, but let's not pretend many of them aren't. The question is how many, and to what extent they make up the radical opposition against homosexuality.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: A serious question I'm curious about for Lalo. If I'm opposed to homosexual marriage, and consider the act of homosexuality immoral, but take no direct action physically, nor act in an altered way towards someone whose homosexual (snubbing them, patronizing, etc...) am I, in your eyes, homophobic? If all the above is still true but I vote either in favor of, or abstain from voting about homosexual marriage does your answer change? I'm not trying to spring a trap or anything, I'm just honestly curious.
Hobbes
If I'm opposed to interracial marriage, and find miscegeny immoral, but take no direct action physically, nor act in an altered way towards someone in an interracial relationship... am I racist?
To answer your question, I'd consider it a significant failing on your part if you truly thought homosexuality was a bad thing. I wouldn't consider you a bad person, though. Just a flawed one.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I fail to understand how being opposed to gay marriage is discriminatory. Gay marriage has never existed and marriage has always been defined as the union between opposite sexes. On the other hand, polygamy has and does exist yet remains illegal in the US. I'm waiting for the LDS activists to come out screaming on this one.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
So...before this devolves into the flame war it seems headed for (welcome to the thread, malanthrop), I'll just point out that the summary you provided also doesn't resolve several of the questions I stated. How were the subjects selected? Why so few? How much of the study's intent or methodology was disclosed beforehand? How uniform was the response? How "significant" was the response (I assume their use of the term "significant" means statistically significant, which can be manipulated in lots of different ways.) How were the homophobic and non-homophobic communities quantized? What was the divergence metric between the communities? and so on. None of these questions are resolved in either the abstract or the summary. Which is not to say they weren't addressed in the paper. Are you aware of whether they were or not?
And, just to again make the point, correlation doesn't imply causation, which is the clear implication of you thread title. The authors speak of "assocation" which is a careful way of stating that the study doesn't make any causal link between unacknowledged homosexuality and homophobia. At a minimum, you should change the title to reflect the true claims of the study. Something along the lines of "study points to association between homophobia and repressed homosexuality."
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I fail to understand how being opposed to gay marriage is discriminatory. Gay marriage has never existed and marriage has always been defined as the union between opposite sexes. On the other hand, polygamy has and does exist yet remains illegal in the US. I'm waiting for the LDS activists to come out screaming on this one.
I'm actually stunned nobody's brought this up yet. To me, the most obvious counter-argument to homosexual equality is polygamy. If two adults should be able to marry one another, why not three or four?
I've offered to write a legal opinion for my law professor defending the Constitutionality of polygamy. It's not a cause I sympathize with, but it'd be fun to play devil's advocate. I might even put it up on Hatrack as I write it, in case anyone wants to contribute opinions.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Gay marriage has never existed
Please don't make up facts. :/
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I intended to post the marriage comment on the Iowa supreme court blog. I apologize for the diversion.
In regard to this particular study, what I find most interesting is the homosexual men were not stimulated in any way by homosexual videos. I would expect slight arousal from any man from almost any input of a sexual nature. Could be a video of a man with a blow up doll, but what does this say apout ones feelings towards plastics?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Gay marriage has never existed
Even your link distinguishes between marriage and unions.
The link has plenty of examples of homosexual relationships. State sanctioned pedophiles and eunichs who were allowed to "marry". I am not opposed to eunichs rights by the way.
State sanctioned is a very new phenomena, even in Europe. Marriage in my context is state sanctioned and legally binding? Greek pedophiles and lesbians in a harem are something different.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You said gay marriage has never existed. Now you're adding the caveat that you're talking about "state sanctioned marriage"
This doesn't make it so that gay marriage never existed. What you said is still wrong.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: State sanctioned is a very new phenomena, even in Europe. Marriage in my context is state sanctioned and legally binding? Greek pedophiles and lesbians in a harem are something different.
It's worth pointing out that there aren't many historical examples of interracial relationships. Does this somehow make them less Constitutional or moral?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Samp,
Sorry I had to define marriage for you. Gays could always "get married". Make vows to one another, have informal unions or make a pact before the devil for all I care. When the subject involves courts and law, we are discussing state sanctioned marriage.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: State sanctioned is a very new phenomena, even in Europe. Marriage in my context is state sanctioned and legally binding? Greek pedophiles and lesbians in a harem are something different.
It's worth pointing out that there aren't many historical examples of interracial relationships. Does this somehow make them less Constitutional or moral?
Um,
Mongolian empire, Byzantine Empire, Roman Empire. French Canadians and the Ojibwe. South American natives and the Spanish. Phillipines and the Spanish. Brazilians -spanish,african and native. Dutch antilles. Interracial marriage is legal, as it should be.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The greeks had something resembling that. And that was thousands of years ago.
Later, there were copious quantities of Persian satrapies established after the rule of Cyrus II which sanctioned marriage very officially between men. Fuijan had it, in China.
And that was thousands of years ago.
If you would read the wikipedia article, it says that state-sanctioned gay marriage is only a relatively new phenomenon in western society. You're saying it never existed. You're wrong.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Mongolian empire, Byzantine Empire, Roman Empire. French Canadians and the Ojibwe. South American natives and the Spanish. Phillipines and the Spanish. Brazilians -spanish,african and native. Dutch antilles. Interracial marriage is legal, as it should be.
Rape and conquest qualify as interracial marriage?
And interracial marriage wasn't legal only sixty years ago. Even if you count the mass rape and murder of native Americans and Filipinos by the Spanish as "interracial marriage," it's barely a few hundred years old. Never mind that how old a practice is doesn't make it any more or less intelligent or Constitutional. The historical argument is inaccurate and irrelevant.
Seriously, are there any arguments against homosexual rights that don't invoke God, history, or grammar?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: A serious question I'm curious about for Lalo. If I'm opposed to homosexual marriage, and consider the act of homosexuality immoral, but take no direct action physically, nor act in an altered way towards someone whose homosexual (snubbing them, patronizing, etc...) am I, in your eyes, homophobic? If all the above is still true but I vote either in favor of, or abstain from voting about homosexual marriage does your answer change? I'm not trying to spring a trap or anything, I'm just honestly curious.
Hobbes, whatever Lalo may think, a large people who are against homosexual marriage would probably not be considered homophobic by the standards of the paper.
Some excerpts:
quote:Hostility and discrimination against homosexual individuals are well-established facts (Berrill, 1990). On occasion, these negative attitudes lead to hostile verbal and physical acts against gay individuals with little apparent motivation except a strong dislike (Herek, 1989) ...Weinberg (1972) labeled these attitudes and behaviors homophobia, which he defined as the dread of being in close quarters with homosexual men and women as well as irrational fear, hatred, and intolerance by heterosexual individuals of homosexual men and women.
Hudson and Ricketts (1980) have indicated that the meaning of the term homophobia has been diluted because of its expansion in the literature to include any negative attitude, belief, or action toward homosexuality ...Furthermore, Hudson and Ricketts criticized studies for not making the distinction between intellectual attitudes toward homosexuality (homonegativism) and personal, affective responses to gay individuals (homophobia).
In other words, negative action toward homosexuality is not homophobia (as defined and used in this study) unless it is driven by strong emotions.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Here's the full paper from 1996. I didn't realize that this wasn't particularly new.
The paper did address most of my points, although I still think there's significant possibility that selection bias and small sample size may be effecting their results.
Unmentioned in the summary or abstract are that, even though the homophobic group's response to the male homosexual video was more than the non-homophobic group, it was still approximately half the response to heterosexual video; also the non-homophobic group did show increased arousal to the homosexual male video, although not to the degree the homophobic group did. Further, the (average) difference of 8 mm is only twice the difference of 3-4 mm shown in the response to the two "control" videos; since the reaction levels are half as much, though, it represents a more significant deviation.
So after reading the paper, I believe the assertions of the authors <edit>with caveats about the framing and the methodology, as mentioned</edit>. Your thread title, and the conclusions you seem to be drawing from this paper, are still unwarranted.
[ April 11, 2009, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
This is sheer propaganda. Nothing more. It reminds me of the history of the status of homosexuality in the official policy of the American Psychiatric Association. For many years, the official position was that homosexuality is a disorder that had long been shown to be successfully treatable by a simple program of desensitizing the patient to innapropriate sexual stimuli, and sensitizing the patient to proper sexual stimuli. This was the prevailing view and practice for decades, until finally a vote was taken by the three-member board of directors, which stated a new position, that homosexuality is not a disorder or illness of any kind. The vote was 2-1. Two of the members of the board were homosexuals.
So much for objectivity in science.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: Seriously, are there any arguments against homosexual rights that don't invoke God, history, or grammar?
Funny that you seek to exclude history from this. Ever hear the phrase "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"?
Honestly, I love how you presented a 13 year old study as news. Particularly one that failed to use proper controls . Not to mention the lack of accuracy attributed to Genital Plethysmography. Though I guess it's nice of you to let everyone know what the study that brought rise to the "If you're homophobic you must be gay" argument that seems to get thrown around so much lately.
That said, it's been established in other threads that individuals and organizations can forfeit rights through their choices. If that is so, choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle would therefor cause one to forfeit their rights to marriage. Suggesting that choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle is not a matter of choice goes contrary to historical evidence and is not supported by scientific evidence. All scientific studies that have suggested that homosexuality is genetic have never been successfully repeated and are not usable as a strong basis of argument.
So there's your argument that isn't based on God, History, or Grammar. Might not be a great one, but there it is.
Now then. I'm going to go play video games, which I think is a much better waste of my time than arguing with such an obviously hostile person on such a loaded subject.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Seriously, are there any arguments against homosexual rights that don't invoke God, history, or grammar?
Wait, so are you now saying that if history were to be brought into the discussion, it wouldn't be a weight in favor of SSM?
-----------
Boris,
quote:That said, it's been established in other threads that individuals and organizations can forfeit rights through their choices. If that is so, choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle would therefor cause one to forfeit their rights to marriage.
I think it was established first somewhere besides other threads;)
However, just because a person or group can forfeit rights through their actions is hardly a conclusive reason homosexuals shouldn't receive equal treatment under the law in our country.
First of all, it assumes that homosexual behavior is wrong. That's not a decision our government is equipped or empowered to make. Second, it assumes that if it is wrong, it's sufficiently wrong to deny equal treatment under the law.
Let's say for the sake of argument we grant the first point, that homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of the law. Is it wrong enough to justify withholding equality?
If so, why don't we withhold equality in other cases that are equally or even more wrong than homosexuality? Pedophiles aren't prohibited from participating in marriage. Nor are serial adulterers, or wife-beaters, or a host of other problems inhibiting people from being good spouses.
If homosexuality is a bad enough behavior to restrict access to civil marriage, why aren't those other things bad enough as well?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Pedophiles are not allowed to marry the person they want to sleep with though. And adultery and wife beating both require being married in order to commit.
The people whose argument I find most convincing are people who believe marriage is for babymaking- provided they are consistent in that. So, like infertility is grounds for marriage, old folks shouldn't marry, etc. Old folks who were married and had babies get to stay married because the woman sacrificed to have the baby and did her duty so now his duty is taking care of her financially. And yes, I do know people who believe that. I disagree with them, but I really don't have a good response to that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Scholarette,
quote:Pedophiles are not allowed to marry the person they want to sleep with though. And adultery and wife beating both require being married in order to commit. [Smile]
The first is granted, but that's not quite the point. Surely a case can be made that a pedophile is so ill as to not be in a condition to get married, even if he or she wanted to, even to a consenting adult. But they are not barred from participating in marriage.
As to adultery and wife beating, yes, you must be married to participate...but if you do participate, you aren't then barred in the future from further marriages, are you? Is homosexuality, if it's bad, so much worse than either of those things?
quote: The people whose argument I find most convincing are people who believe marriage is for babymaking- provided they are consistent in that. So, like infertility is grounds for marriage, old folks shouldn't marry, etc. Old folks who were married and had babies get to stay married because the woman sacrificed to have the baby and did her duty so now his duty is taking care of her financially. And yes, I do know people who believe that. I disagree with them, but I really don't have a good response to that.
Even for people who believe the purpose of marriage is procreation, are there really that many who believe the only purpose of marriage is babymaking? And of course another good response to that would be that 'the purpose of marriage is babymaking' is not, in fact, a fact-it's not grounds for our secular government to take or refrain from taking action.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: Seriously, are there any arguments against homosexual rights that don't invoke God, history, or grammar?
Funny that you seek to exclude history from this. Ever hear the phrase "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"?
Whoops. I totally forgot about that last empire overthrown by gay marriage.
There is no "homosexual lifestyle," and being homosexual doesn't forfeit your rights. It really doesn't matter if homosexuality is a chosen preference or genetic mandate -- homosexuals have the right to equal treatment under the law, period. It's as though my appreciation of brunettes over blondes somehow disqualifies me for equal treatment.
If you're playing video games, that implies you're under thirty. If you're doing it on a Saturday night, that implies you're lonely. And if you really believe what you just said, you're going to be lonely for a very long time.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: The people whose argument I find most convincing are people who believe marriage is for babymaking- provided they are consistent in that. So, like infertility is grounds for marriage, old folks shouldn't marry, etc. Old folks who were married and had babies get to stay married because the woman sacrificed to have the baby and did her duty so now his duty is taking care of her financially. And yes, I do know people who believe that. I disagree with them, but I really don't have a good response to that.
I can't believe you know someone who says infertile people shouldn't be permitted to marry. What religion are they? I'm genuinely curious.
And please, if there's anything worse than invoking grammar, it's invoking pedophilia. Marriage is between consenting adults. Minors can't marry, because they can't consent. The same goes for pets, in case that's their inevitable followup argument.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If you're playing video games, that implies you're under thirty. If you're doing it on a Saturday night, that implies you're lonely. And if you really believe what you just said, you're going to be lonely for a very long time.
This is a highly effective argument and/or insult when used on Internet discussion forums.
quote:And please, if there's anything worse than invoking grammar, it's invoking pedophilia. Marriage is between consenting adults. Minors can't marry, because they can't consent. The same goes for pets, in case that's their inevitable followup argument.
She didn't invoke pedophilia, I did. She was responding to a statement I made.
But as for history, are you now saying that if history were an argument that should be given weight in the debate about homosexual marriage, it wouldn't be in favor?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:For many years, the official position was that homosexuality is a disorder that had long been shown to be successfully treatable
quote:This was the prevailing view and practice for decades, until finally a vote was taken by the three-member board of directors, which stated a new position, that homosexuality is not a disorder or illness of any kind. The vote was 2-1. Two of the members of the board were homosexuals.
Sure, Ron. Give me the source for these claims.
Both of them.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: Minors can't marry, because they can't consent. The same goes for pets, in case that's their inevitable followup argument.
What about Arnold Ziffel? Or Mr. Ed?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: But as for history, are you now saying that if history were an argument that should be given weight in the debate about homosexual marriage, it wouldn't be in favor?
Is that a serious question? I thought I answered it the first five times. No, though homosexuality has existed throughout history, it's simply not an important argument. Yes, we had plenty of homosexual forebears -- we also had plenty of genocidal racist forebears. Trying to bring up history as some sort of condemnation of homosexuality is stupid and inaccurate, but it's also totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
AGAIN I'll draw comparisons to interracial marriage, which you'll happily ignore. Interracial marriage hasn't been around a long time, but that really doesn't legitimize or disqualify it as it applies to today's world. What matters is if two adults today can wed one another without consideration of race or sex.
I'm on my way out, but I'll be back tomorrow. Enjoy your video games, nerd Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:For many years, the official position was that homosexuality is a disorder that had long been shown to be successfully treatable
quote:This was the prevailing view and practice for decades, until finally a vote was taken by the three-member board of directors, which stated a new position, that homosexuality is not a disorder or illness of any kind. The vote was 2-1. Two of the members of the board were homosexuals.
Sure, Ron. Give me the source for these claims.
Both of them.
The first one's correct. Homosexuality was officially seen as a mental disorder well into the 1970's. No idea about the second part, but it's a stupid point anyway -- it's like saying black people were instrumental in bringing about civil rights, so civil rights don't count.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I want him to give me a source that shows that we're wrong to have decided that homosexuality is not 'treatable.'
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I want him to give me a source that shows that we're wrong to have decided that homosexuality is not 'treatable.'
Lalo: My night hasn't started yet.
Sam: Do you have one that shows you were right?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lalo,
quote:Is that a serious question? I thought I answered it the first five times. No, though homosexuality has existed throughout history, it's simply not an important argument. Yes, we had plenty of homosexual forebears -- we also had plenty of genocidal racist forebears. Trying to bring up history as some sort of condemnation of homosexuality is stupid and inaccurate, but it's also totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
It was a serious question, and you have yet to answer it even once much less five times. I am not and haven't asked you if history is an important argument. I'm asking if you're setting aside your past argument that history isn't on the side of marriage being a heterosexual institution.
I can quote you saying just that, if you'd like.
quote:Jenna, I don't think you get it. Your definition of marriage is not the definition of marriage. You have neither history nor logic defending your definition...
&
No, she does not have history on her side.
That's just the two I can recall, there may be more.
Just to be perfectly clear, again, I'm not suggesting history should be an important or relevant argument against SSM. I'm asking, if it was, would it be for or against SSM? I'm asking because in the past you've outright stated that it would not be an argument against it, that people claiming marriage is historically a heterosexual institution 'don't have history on their side'.
Do you stand by that statement, or not? It's a straightforward question.
quote: AGAIN I'll draw comparisons to interracial marriage, which you'll happily ignore. Interracial marriage hasn't been around a long time, but that really doesn't legitimize or disqualify it as it applies to today's world. What matters is if two adults today can wed one another without consideration of race or sex.
Again, you're not listening. I believe the evolution of marriage and accepting interracial marriage is a very good reason why we shouldn't disallow SSM. That's not what I was asking. This particular disagreement between you and me started when I, at some length and with some exasperation, asked that we drop the contention that marriage isn't historically a heterosexual institution, throughout the world and throughout all cultures and times. There have been exceptions, of course, but they've been very few and far between.
---------
quote:Sam: Do you have one that shows you were right?
Boris, why is this a reason SSM should be disallowed?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Sam: Do you have one that shows you were right?
Boris, why is this a reason SSM should be disallowed?
No. But if someone is going to demand proof of a disparate viewpoint or statement, they should be able to back up their own view with facts instead of conjecture. Because simply demanding that someone provide proof for a statement should not invalidate a point if the one who asks for such proof cannot prove their own view in the same manner. It's a rhetorical trick (and a very cheap one) that is merely an attempt to move perception and does nothing to further the conversation.
In this situation, such evidence would not do anything to sway Samprimary's opinion and his request serves nothing more than a rhetorical purpose.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
Disregarding the subject of whether gays deserve marriage or not -- here's a study that considers the other side of the question. In my experience, the most aggressive homophobes have seemed obviously (and barely) closeted.
An unforgettable Daily Show clip from the Republican National Convention:
This is such a load of garbage. It doesn't take into account that an arousal reaction needn't be because of actual sexual feelings. People get such reactions from stress, from embarrassment, from fear.
I'm quite sure that some homophobes are repressing their own feelings. But to suggest that it's the main reason for homophobia is ludicrous. This is bad science.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I must note, however, that however much I disagree on OSC's gay marriage views, there's one thing I agree with: Calling people who don't like gay people homophobic is inaccurate and unfair. Phobias are a specific kind of mental disorder.
That's not the way language works. Whether the word was constructed correctly or not, that's the term. Just like anti-semitism doesn't mean "being against Semites", but rather "Jew-hatred", homophobia doesn't mean "pathological fear of..." I don't even know how you'd translate it. It isn't "homosexualphobia". "Fear of sameness"?
Etymology isn't the point. Words mean what they mean. Xenophobia is prejudice against those who are different. Homophobia was based on that, and the term is understood.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: This is such a load of garbage. It doesn't take into account that an arousal reaction needn't be because of actual sexual feelings. People get such reactions from stress, from embarrassment, from fear.
Or, for instance, having your genitalia swinging in the breeze with a scientific thingamajiggy attached to it (sorry if that's too graphic for anyone).
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
What an interesting discussion. The Catholic Church has observed the fall of many a great nation and continues to say that homosexuality and the weakening of the family structure led to the fall of every one of them that went down that road. (There are other reasons for civilizations to fail.)This same warning has fallen on deaf ears before. But who listens to that 2000 year old witness of history or to history? If it feels good then it must be good?
Oh for crying out loud. For a hetrosexual to say that homosexuality is fundimentally different doesn't mean that they are homophobic. It might just mean that some have more common sense then others.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I fail to understand how being opposed to gay marriage is discriminatory. Gay marriage has never existed and marriage has always been defined as the union between opposite sexes.
Wow... nothing you just said is true. Marriage has not always been defined as the union between opposite sexes. For example, my religion says it has to be between either two Jews or two non-Jews. Of the opposite sex, yes, but that's just one dimension.
For most of the history of the US, marriage has been defined as the union of two members of the opposite sex and same race. Do you have a problem with the fairly recent revision that struck out the "same race" part?
The word marriage means two things. The status granted by a religion which makes people married in the eyes of that religion, and the status recognized by the state, which makes people married in the eyes of the state.
These two things needn't have any overlap whatsoever, and to the extent they do, it certainly isn't necessary. If a Catholic man gets a civil divorce and remarries, he's considered married in the eyes of the state, but not in the eyes of the Catholic Church (if I'm not mistaken). At least not to the new wife. If a Jew marries a non-Jew in a civil ceremony (or even a secular "Jewish" ceremony), they are absolutely not married in the eyes of Judaism.
On the other hand, I was married once, and when we got married, because of a technicality, the marriage wasn't valid according to the state (though it was according to Judaism). So we had to go to a judge and get married according to civil law as well.
State-marriage and religious-marriage are two different things. People should stop conflating them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What an interesting discussion. The Catholic Church has observed the fall of many a great nation and continues to say that homosexuality and the weakening of the family structure led to the fall of every one of them that went down that road.
In how many of those civilizations was the Catholic Church itself a potent force, I wonder? Anyway, longevity does not in itself equate to wisdom. The Catholic church had been around for one and a half millenia or so when a guy by the name of Galileo came along. They were certainly wrong then, but had been around for hundreds of years.
Have they become so much wiser in the past half millenium, Oshki?
England certainly managed alright as a civilization without the Catholic church, didn't it?
quote:If it feels good then it must be good?
As opposed to, 'The Church says it's bad, so make it illegal,' your argument doesn't seem very effective to me.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:What an interesting discussion. The Catholic Church has observed the fall of many a great nation and continues to say that homosexuality and the weakening of the family structure led to the fall of every one of them that went down that road.
In how many of those civilizations was the Catholic Church itself a potent force, I wonder?
Another interesting question would be, well, which nations? I'm scratching my head thinking of great nations that fell due to homosexuality or the weakening of the family structure for that matter. The two seem to be fairly irrelevant compared to the more traditional reasons like resource problems, war and other competition with other civilizations, disease, etc. And we're talking *great* nations too.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: The people whose argument I find most convincing are people who believe marriage is for babymaking- provided they are consistent in that. So, like infertility is grounds for marriage, old folks shouldn't marry, etc. Old folks who were married and had babies get to stay married because the woman sacrificed to have the baby and did her duty so now his duty is taking care of her financially. And yes, I do know people who believe that. I disagree with them, but I really don't have a good response to that.
I can't believe you know someone who says infertile people shouldn't be permitted to marry. What religion are they? I'm genuinely curious.
And please, if there's anything worse than invoking grammar, it's invoking pedophilia. Marriage is between consenting adults. Minors can't marry, because they can't consent. The same goes for pets, in case that's their inevitable followup argument.
Infertile people can marry, but if after a certain number of years no babies have happened,then they should divorce. Cause you don't really know your fertility until you try and you shouldn't try until after marriage. The person was Catholic, but I think it would be wrong to say that represented Catholics or their views.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Rakeesh: [qb]No. But if someone is going to demand proof of a disparate viewpoint or statement, they should be able to back up their own view with facts instead of conjecture. Because simply demanding that someone provide proof for a statement should not invalidate a point if the one who asks for such proof cannot prove their own view in the same manner. It's a rhetorical trick (and a very cheap one) that is merely an attempt to move perception and does nothing to further the conversation.
1. So, exactly what do I have to do, when asking this question, to avoid being accused of cheap rhetorical tricks? Should I pre-empt potential questions in advance, or should I just settle for being accused by you of cheap rhetorical trickery?
Empirical evidence and professional norms do not support the idea that homosexuality is a form of mental illness or is inherently linked to psychopathology.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Try putting your proof in your argument when you use that trick or I'll happily call you on it every time I see it. And thank you for using scientific phrasing in number 2. It does not "support" the idea that homosexuality is a form of mental illness. But it needs qualification. The current scientific idea is that human sexuality has its roots in any combination of genetic, psychological, and societal pressures. It has also shown a habit of changing in many individuals. Were it not for the fact that sexuality *does* change, and the fact that it is entirely possible for individuals to change their sexual preference (assuming they want to, which is an important distinction), I might agree with you. However, in light of historical and scientific evidence that this is not the case, I don't believe constitutional law is being properly applied by stating that bans on homosexual marriages are unconstitutional.
If a person chooses to involve themselves in relationships with members of the same gender, and laws exist that prevent them from being married, then you cannot say that they are not receiving equal representation because they are making a choice that prevents them from meeting the demands of the law that was created through the democratic process. History has *already* shown that homosexuals can and often do live in heterosexual relationships. Whether that is out of societal pressure or not makes no difference. The constitution does not guarantee the right to happiness. Only to the pursuit thereof. Happiness is more a matter of choice than it is circumstance.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have some imaginary pixellated WoW beasts to kill.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: I fail to understand how being opposed to gay marriage is discriminatory. Gay marriage has never existed and marriage has always been defined as the union between opposite sexes.
An even better rebuttal would be, "It doesn't matter what has 'always' been." Even if gay marriage really had never existed (as opposed to being very, very rare), it still wouldn't matter: 'we've done it before so we need to keep doing it the same way' is not persuasive in the least.
As to why it's discrimination, that's obvious: heterosexuals are able to partake of a host of legal rights and responsibilities involved in marriage that homosexuals currently are not.
So I don't really see how you can fail to understand something so obvious.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Boris,
I'm going a bit out of order here, but something you said struck me.
quote:The constitution does not guarantee the right to happiness. Only to the pursuit thereof. Happiness is more a matter of choice than it is circumstance.
No it doesn't. The Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution, speaks of the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. Among other things, the Constitution speaks of rights to life, liberty, and property not being taken without due process. More pertinently it also speaks of equal treatment under the law.
quote:Happiness is more a matter of choice than it is circumstance.
Nonsense. Happiness can be a matter of choice if certain circumstances are met. I'd hazard a guess, for example, that some poor refugee in Africa might not be very happy no matter how hard they try. Or someone who has just lost family recently, for example. Circumstances matter.
quote:However, in light of historical and scientific evidence that this is not the case, I don't believe constitutional law is being properly applied by stating that bans on homosexual marriages are unconstitutional.
In what way is scientific evidence that sexuality can change (I'm not informed enough to speak to the validity of such evidence either way) relevant to the constitutionality of SSM being restricted? It doesn't seem relevant to me at all. Why do you feel differently?
quote: If a person chooses to involve themselves in relationships with members of the same gender, and laws exist that prevent them from being married, then you cannot say that they are not receiving equal representation because they are making a choice that prevents them from meeting the demands of the law that was created through the democratic process.
By this curious reasoning, interracial marriage should never have been legalized in this country. After all, people wanting to marry someone of another race are 'making a choice' (especially since happiness is a choice) that prevented them from meeting the requirements of the law. Furthermore, since history has shown - quite a bit more impressively, I might add - that people can participate in single-race relationships...well, you get the idea.
Boris, it looks to me like a lot of your reasoning on this issue is poorly uninformed. Whether or not people can change their sexuality is irrelevant to whether bans on SSM are constitutional. The Constitution doesn't mention happiness. History has 'shown' lots of things, which also has little if any bearing on something's constitutionality, much less its virtue.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: [QB] Try putting your proof in your argument when you use that trick or I'll happily call you on it every time I see it.
But it's not a trick, boris. I was asking him a question.
The rest of it, you're just inventing and inferring as my motive!
It's nuts :/
quote:It does not "support" the idea that homosexuality is a form of mental illness.
And something is not a mental illness until proven otherwise; case closed?
quote:Were it not for the fact that sexuality *does* change, and the fact that it is entirely possible for individuals to change their sexual preference (assuming they want to, which is an important distinction), I might agree with you. However, in light of historical and scientific evidence that this is not the case
I'd like for you to show your sources on this one.
Show me what groups teach you that homosexuality is a choice.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: If a person chooses to involve themselves in relationships with members of the same gender, and laws exist that prevent them from being married, then you cannot say that they are not receiving equal representation because they are making a choice that prevents them from meeting the demands of the law that was created through the democratic process.
If a person chooses to involve themselves in relationships with members of a different race, and laws exist that prevent them from being married, then you cannot say that they are not receiving equal representation because they are making a choice that prevents them from meeting the demands of the law that was created through the democratic process.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Boris: I've posted the Iowa Supreme Court's response to the "but they can still marry" argument in the other homosexuality thread. I request you read it there. Actually, I request you read the entire Iowa Supreme Court decision. It isn't terribly long, it is well written, and while I doubt it will sway you, it might help you not look silly when you argue with and against caricatures.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*sigh*
fugu, it is perfectly possible to have read the response, completely disagree with it, and say what Boris said.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: ... History has *already* shown that homosexuals can and often do live in heterosexual relationships.
Yeah, but what if the homosexuals in question *don't* want to become senators who spend time in airport bathrooms or disgraced Christian preachers? Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: If a person chooses to involve themselves in relationships with members of the same gender, and laws exist that prevent them from being married, then you cannot say that they are not receiving equal representation because they are making a choice that prevents them from meeting the demands of the law that was created through the democratic process.
If a person chooses to involve themselves in relationships with members of a different race, and laws exist that prevent them from being married, then you cannot say that they are not receiving equal representation because they are making a choice that prevents them from meeting the demands of the law that was created through the democratic process.
Yeah, you know, this comparison is completely idiotic and I'm sick of it. The point of contest in inter-racial marriage is race. Can't choose your race, can you? The point of contest in same sex marriage is sexuality. You cannot say, with any degree of certainty, that even a majority of homosexuals did not make a conscious choice in the way they live. According to the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychologists:
quote: Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse.
Until you can point to a child being born and say "That child will be homosexual" with even 50% accuracy, any comparison is both idiotic and *demeaning* to the struggle of black Americans.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
People used to cite a Kinsey report that claimed that ten percent of the population is homosexual. This probably is not cited quite as much, because it has been pretty well publicized that the report consisted primarily of surveys of prison inmates. But some people do still cite that report, apparently hoping that many people still are not aware of the qualifiers attached to it.
Propaganda passing itself off as science has always annoyed me. That is why I am so disgusted with the totally dishonest promotion of evolution theory. To a lesser extent, the same phenomenon of propaganda posing as science--and enforced by actual persecution of dissenters--can be seen in the hysterical global warming movement, which is based on bad science, is denounced by many (approaching a majority) of qualified scientists in the field, but has been latched onto by political liberals as an excuse to add more taxes ("carbon fines") on business, which will make everything more expensive for all of us, as well as kill more jobs.
A lot of people in this forum also demonstrate a need for being educated in the differences between propaganda and real science. But for many people, "traditional thought" and the "majority opinion" seem to be given weight as if they constituted actual evidence. All people need to appreciate that scientists are no more honest or objective than anyone else. Nearly all of them have their own agendas, and try to dress up their preferred propaganda with the trappings of science.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Boris,
quote:The point of contest in same sex marriage is sexuality. You cannot say, with any degree of certainty, that even a majority of homosexuals did not make a conscious choice in the way they live. According to the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychologists:
Why does this matter?
It's one thing to think, "Homosexuality is a sin," and be critical of homosexuals because they have a choice, if that is your belief. It's quite another thing entirely to say, "Maybe it's a choice and maybe it isn't, but either way, they should not be permitted to marry."
Why does it matter if it's a choice or not?
quote:Until you can point to a child being born and say "That child will be homosexual" with even 50% accuracy, any comparison is both idiotic and *demeaning* to the struggle of black Americans.
You're right, if homosexuality is a choice, comparing their struggle to the struggle of racial minorities is only partially accurate. But even if it's not, there's still a comparison to be made. People living and struggling at the whim of a larger majority always have at least something in common with one another. In that light, the comparison is neither idiotic nor demeaning, though it would certainly serve the anti-SSM cause if the comparison were never made.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: A lot of people in this forum also demonstrate a need for being educated in the differences between propaganda and real science.
Obviously heterosexuality is a choice as well.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Until you can point to a child being born and say "That child will be homosexual" with even 50% accuracy, any comparison is both idiotic and *demeaning* to the struggle of black Americans.
You're right, if homosexuality is a choice, comparing their struggle to the struggle of racial minorities is only partially accurate. But even if it's not, there's still a comparison to be made. People living and struggling at the whim of a larger majority always have at least something in common with one another. In that light, the comparison is neither idiotic nor demeaning, though it would certainly serve the anti-SSM cause if the comparison were never made.
You make a good point. Not that it matters whether homosexuality is a biological mandate or sexual choice, but if it were a hypothetical choice, why isn't it still persecution?
Can I ban Boris from equal rights for being a Christian? After all... it's a choice.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: If a person chooses to involve themselves in relationships with members of the same gender, and laws exist that prevent them from being married, then you cannot say that they are not receiving equal representation because they are making a choice that prevents them from meeting the demands of the law that was created through the democratic process.
If a person chooses to involve themselves in relationships with members of a different race, and laws exist that prevent them from being married, then you cannot say that they are not receiving equal representation because they are making a choice that prevents them from meeting the demands of the law that was created through the democratic process.
Yeah, you know, this comparison is completely idiotic and I'm sick of it. The point of contest in inter-racial marriage is race. Can't choose your race, can you? The point of contest in same sex marriage is sexuality. You cannot say, with any degree of certainty, that even a majority of homosexuals did not make a conscious choice in the way they live.
I can say with 100% certainty that I didn't choose to be gay. And there have been plenty of people of African American descent who had the option to pass as white, so yes, in some cases, you can choose your race.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
How many legs does a horse have, if you call the tail a leg?
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Three?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:How many legs does a horse have, if you call the tail a leg?
Who picks what a leg or a tail is?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Boris, I'm still waiting on any sourcing whatsoever on your claim that homosexuality is a matter of choice.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Just to be clear, I'm not sure Boris has ever said homosexuality is a choice, just that the matter isn't settled scientifically yet.
To be equally clear, though, it appears as though Boris has ignored quite a few direct questions I've asked, so I'm not sure why I'm sticking up for him.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette:
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: The people whose argument I find most convincing are people who believe marriage is for babymaking- provided they are consistent in that. So, like infertility is grounds for marriage, old folks shouldn't marry, etc. Old folks who were married and had babies get to stay married because the woman sacrificed to have the baby and did her duty so now his duty is taking care of her financially. And yes, I do know people who believe that. I disagree with them, but I really don't have a good response to that.
I can't believe you know someone who says infertile people shouldn't be permitted to marry. What religion are they? I'm genuinely curious.
And please, if there's anything worse than invoking grammar, it's invoking pedophilia. Marriage is between consenting adults. Minors can't marry, because they can't consent. The same goes for pets, in case that's their inevitable followup argument.
Infertile people can marry, but if after a certain number of years no babies have happened,then they should divorce. Cause you don't really know your fertility until you try and you shouldn't try until after marriage. The person was Catholic, but I think it would be wrong to say that represented Catholics or their views.
Even the Pope seems to think that eros has purpose beyond making babies.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Just to be clear, I'm not sure Boris has ever said homosexuality is a choice, just that the matter isn't settled scientifically yet.
To be equally clear, though, it appears as though Boris has ignored quite a few direct questions I've asked, so I'm not sure why I'm sticking up for him.
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Were it not for the fact that sexuality *does* change, and the fact that it is entirely possible for individuals to change their sexual preference (assuming they want to, which is an important distinction), I might agree with you. However, in light of historical and scientific evidence that this is not the case
What he's said ain't true in the least. It's not something you get to just claim without a substantive source backing it up.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Samprimary, your questions about the involvement of choice in sexual orientation brings up what I have seen as the real contradiction in arguments offered by gay apologists. When it is suggested that homosexuality is entirely a matter of making immoral choices for which they should be held responsible just like a pedophile, they will loudly assert that they cannot help but be homosexual, because they were "made that way." But then when it is suggested that homosexuality is a disorder or illness which should be treated, then they will loudly proclaim that it is only a lifestyle choice they have made.
I don't think homosexuals themselves have made up their minds whether they are homosexuals because nature made them that way, or because they just freely chose to be that way.
From what I have seen in numerous examples, I would say that sexual orientation can be changed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:When it is suggested that homosexuality is entirely a matter of making immoral choices for which they should be held responsible just like a pedophile
Ah, so homosexuality is equivalent to pedophilia, eh? How should a homosexual be 'held responsible' for being in a consensual relationship with another gay adult the same way a pedophile should be held responsible for engaging in sexual relations with a child?
You go ahead and figure that out for me. I'd like to hear it.
quote:But then when it is suggested that homosexuality is a disorder or illness which should be treated, then they will loudly proclaim that it is only a lifestyle choice they have made.
No they wouldn't. Not in the least, really. You only think you see a contradiction, a point at which the homosexuals haven't 'made up their minds,' because you don't have a realistic understanding of their position.
You're inventing a contradiction for them so that you can lambaste them for it.
You'll never admit this, though.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron Lambert,
quote:Samprimary, your questions about the involvement of choice in sexual orientation brings up what I have seen as the real contradiction in arguments offered by gay apologists.
The first thing you ought to understand is this: there are likely not nearly as many 'gay apologists' as you think there are, at least not if you're using 'apologist' the way it sounds like you're using it. Some folks don't think there is anything to apologize for in being and engaging in homosexual behavior.
quote:When it is suggested that homosexuality is entirely a matter of making immoral choices for which they should be held responsible just like a pedophile, they will loudly assert that they cannot help but be homosexual, because they were "made that way."
The second thing you ought to understand is that this style of defense is not really what happens either. Few people, in my experience, who suggest homosexuals are 'made that way' also assert they're made to behave immorally, that is, that homosexual behavior is immoral.
A third thing to understand is that comparisons of homosexuality to pedophilia are, of course, grossly inaccurate and unfair. Even if we all accept for the sake of argument that homosexual behavior is immoral, deeply and irrevocably immoral, you cannot seriously be suggesting it would then be as terrible a thing as pedophilia.
There is no secular or religious doctrine which claims otherwise. I challenge you to find even one. If you can't or won't, you should withdraw that nasty comparison at once, Ron.
quote:But then when it is suggested that homosexuality is a disorder or illness which should be treated, then they will loudly proclaim that it is only a lifestyle choice they have made.
If homosexuality is an illness which should be treated, then we must of course start treating for all sorts of sexual behaviors that are also considered illnesses by...who, exactly, you? Anyway, adulterers certainly should all be 'treated' and prevented by force of law from engaging in adultery. The same with pre-marital sex. We must also outlaw blasphemy as well, right?
quote:I don't think homosexuals themselves have made up their minds whether they are homosexuals because nature made them that way, or because they just freely chose to be that way.
Now, this I agree with, sort of. Not that I think 'homosexuals' are a group that can be blanket-generalized like you're doing, of course. There are parade-marching homosexuals, ordinary (or as ordinary as anyone ever is) homosexuals, closeted homosexuals, celibate homosexuals, and even homosexuals who claim to have been cured and preach to others that they have been cured.
Homosexuals cannot be so easily categorized as you suggest, Ron.
However, I will agree that it's not clear to me whether every homosexual (or heterosexual, for that matter) has their sexuality irrevocably fixed at birth.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
If the question is "should society make people repress sexual desires, even if they are genetic?" pedophilia is a good example for the yes side (while pedophilia hasn't been shown to be genetic, I don't think it being genetic would change anyone's view point on it). If the question is, should society make homosexual people repress their desires, then pedophilia doesn't make sense as a response.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:However, I will agree that it's not clear to me whether every homosexual (or heterosexual, for that matter) has their sexuality irrevocably fixed at birth.
They don't think so at this point. It's something that possibly catalyzes later.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If the question is "should society make people repress sexual desires, even if they are genetic?" pedophilia is a good example for the yes side (while pedophilia hasn't been shown to be genetic, I don't think it being genetic would change anyone's view point on it). If the question is, should society make homosexual people repress their desires, then pedophilia doesn't make sense as a response.
Except I reject that society - and when I say 'society' here I mean the American secular society which should* be making the rules that our government compels us with - should be asking that question, exactly.
If the question is, "Should society compel people to repress non-consensual sexual desires?" then I believe our answer should be, of course, most emphatically 'Yes!'
But I think that non-consensual qualifier is absolutely crucial when we're talking about what targets to wield the force of government power upon. In my opinion, the instant the power of government is wielded in pursuit of a religious goal**, our freedom of worship is being taken away, and I'm adamantly against that. So adamant in fact that I think every American should also be against it. So much so, actually, that I actually think it's unAmerican (as much as I dislike that term) in spirit to not be against it.
I don't like the idea of the answers to religious questions not being a matter of choice in this country.
*When I say 'should' here I recognize, of course, that one of the founding principles of our government is representation. So I'm not suggesting the right to do so be taken away, I'm saying that using that right in this particular way, that is disallowing SSM, is a bad thing.
**Whatever I think of homosexuality on personal moral grounds should be irrelevant to what I think about homosexuality on societal government grounds, until and unless I can take the matter out of the realm of faith and make it stand entirely on secular feet. The same should go, IMO, for everyone.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Samprimary, your questions about the involvement of choice in sexual orientation brings up what I have seen as the real contradiction in arguments offered by gay apologists. When it is suggested that homosexuality is entirely a matter of making immoral choices for which they should be held responsible just like a pedophile, they will loudly assert that they cannot help but be homosexual, because they were "made that way." But then when it is suggested that homosexuality is a disorder or illness which should be treated, then they will loudly proclaim that it is only a lifestyle choice they have made.
Silly strawman. On the contrary, when someone suggests that it's an illness, we loudly proclaim that is isn't. No more than being left handed, or red haired, or blue eyed.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh, the term "apologist" in any debate setting always refers to the people who advocate a position. It comes from the Greek "apo," which means from or about, and logos," which means word. It has nothing to do with apologizing.
I was permitted to read the personal diary of a homosexual named Roy who finally died of AIDS, by his twin brother who was not a homosexual. Roy stated that he did not have any idea he was homosexual, as an adult, until a man befriended him at a bowling alley, took him home, and them subjected him to homosexual rape. Then the rapist propagandized him, getting him to admit that he had felt some pleasure, and that that proved he was really a homosexual. He fell for it, and began a life of practicing homosexuality. Somewhere along the line he was diagnosed as HIV positive. He stated in his diary that for a long time he was filled with rage, and wanted to contaminate the world with HIV, to force society to come up with a cure, or die with him. He thought the Bible did not really disapprove of homosexuality, until he studied it for himself. He was honest enough to admit finally that the Bible did condemn homosexual behavior as sinful. But he also had hope in the Christian faith, and turned to God, seeking help and healing. He gave up his "homosexual rage," in his words, and claimed that God answered his prayers, and he was no longer homosexual in his desires. But he already was condemned to death. The Warren, Mich., SDA church opened its arms to him, and he had dozens of friends who grew to love him. Once he was taken to the hospital with what seemed like a final, terminal pneumonia, with swelling of the brain and terrible pain. The elders of the church came to his hospital bed and annointed him with oil and prayed for his healing, as directed in James 5:14, 15. He was dramatically healed, and was able to go home the next day. He lived for another year, finding happiness with his church family, living with his brother and his brother's wife and children, before finally he suffered the final fatal onset of AIDS-related disease, which took him quickly. He is gone, but his brother and his family became believing Christians, and are now members of the Warren SDA church.
This was no strawman, Lisa.
[ April 14, 2009, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: This was no strawman, Lisa.
No, it is, especially when you then use that (extreme) example. It's ridiculous to base your conclusions off of that one case.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Back to the original topic.. .Ron... why are you so focused on homosexuals?
You actually spent all that time reading the journal of a guy with AIDS?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron,
I'm aware of the technical definition of the word. That's why I was careful to qualify my post to you. 'Apologist' nowadays - in my experience - is most commonly used to describe someone who is defending something that shouldn't be defended, that's all. Could just be a trick of my experience.
Here's the thing, though: Roy's experience, whatever you may think, is not indicative of the 'homosexual experience'.
And, of course, none of that has anything to do with advocating our government should discriminate against homosexuals, nor does it actually address any point anyone has made to you except the one about your argument being a strawman.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Yes, what I really want to know is something simple.
Is this in any way a representative case? Is the life of most homosexuals like that? Is that how it normally occurs?
Is the diary even necessarily accurate? I won't suggest it isn't, but it's still a question whose answer I can't discern, since I don't know the particulars.
But the key is the previous question. How is it representative?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Pixiest, his brother loaned me Roy's personal journal, asking me to write something about Roy's experience that would benefit others. It was not my idea, but his.
0Megabyte, that I cannot answer, since I have not read such journals by anyone else. But this did give me the thinking of one real person who went through these things, which is probably more than most others can claim.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
You mean, apart from people who actually are homosexual and people who have close friends who are homosexual?
That is to say, why is this one journal written by a man you have never actually met more persuasive to you than all the homosexual or bisexual people on Hatrack? If they wrote a journal each, they would tell quite a different story, but it would be just as persuasive.
Basically, they have written a journal for you. They've said, point blank, "this is who I am." If you whacked them with sticks, they would not change their story, because it's the true story.
Roy's story may be true as well, but it is in the extreme minority of stories about people 'discovering' their sexuality.
[ April 15, 2009, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But this did give me the thinking of one real person who went through these things, which is probably more than most others can claim.
I'm not sure what you mean by this exactly. I also note you're still being, from appearances at least, very selective about which points you respond to.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Boris, I'm still waiting on any sourcing whatsoever on your claim that homosexuality is a matter of choice.
Homosexual activity is a choice just like heterosexual activity is a choice. You can 'just say no'.
But the underlying biological imperative that is driving that choice is not itself a choice. I am who I am, I'm drawn to whom I am drawn, I am attracted to whom I an attracted to.
So, who I am is not what I do.
But what I do is a reflection of and driven by who I am.
You do choose or not choose sex, but you do not choose sexual orientation.
I sexually like who I like, even if I don't socially like them. What I mean by this is that 'ladies love outlaws' even when they don't like them; even if it is definitely not good for them. Who I find sexually attractive is a biological response that precedes getting to know them.
Can people make a choice to change? Yes. But they are changing what they do, not who they are. Regardless of what the church says, Ted Haggard is still a flaming queen, regardless of whether he choses to act on that fact.
Sex is a choice, sexual orientation is not.
Next, if we are going to make this a moral issue, that is, we are going to refuse marriage and equal rights on moral grounds. Doesn't that mean that something like 70% of all people should be refused marriage? I'm pretty sure an easy 70% of all people are not virgins when they apply for a marriage license.
From this perspective, the moral argument breaks down. Or at minimum, we can see how hypocritically selective this moral argument is.
The only underlying question is, purely from a legal, constitutional, and secular perspective, can we select an isolated group of otherwise law abiding citizen, and deny them a legal right that we extend to other people?
I really don't see how we can.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Bluewizard said:
quote:Homosexual activity is a choice just like heterosexual activity is a choice. You can 'just say no'.
But the underlying biological imperative that is driving that choice is not itself a choice. I am who I am, I'm drawn to whom I am drawn, I am attracted to whom I an attracted to.
Here we go again! Do you all see what I mean? On the one hand, its "A choice." On the other hand, "the underlying biological imperative that is driving that choice is not itself a choice."
If there is an "underlying biological imperative driving" then how can there be a choice--at least a meaningful, free choice? It's got to be one or the other.
As far as an "underlying biological imperative" is concerned, I can see how the normal, sexual impulse to reproduce can be a biological imperative. I do not see how a homosexual "biological imperative" can exist, since it is not a part of reproduction. If the entire human race were homosexual, then the human race would become extinct. How can this be just a free lifestyle choice that affects no one else, when it would end the species?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There are plenty of debilitating genetic diseases that prevent reproduction by individuals with them that somehow still exist, and you have a hard time believing homosexuality continues existing?
As you can learn in many high school biology classes, natural selection is among genes. If a portion of individuals do not have children themselves, but greatly enhance the survivability of their niece's and nephew's genes by not doing so and concentrating on them, that can be very advantageous. There are numerous animals where some members of a social group do not pass on genetic material directly, but support the young of their relatives.
And there's always the counterexample approach. I've seen on these forums people link you to numerous examples of animals that engage in homosexual activity, even having long term homosexual matings. Either you're going to have to say those animals have as much ability to make a choice as humans, or admit that there might be some natural reason for it to occur.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
For biology question- sickle cell. Understand that conceptually and apply to homosexuality.
ETA- fugu- are you claiming flies aren't making complex sexual decisions (that just happen to always happen when they have a certain genetic makeup)?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
What do you mean by "making complex sexual decisions"? Obviously there are different possibilities, and the fly only does one out of each mutually exclusive set, but that's not what is generally meant when one says something is a "choice" for humans.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:If there is an "underlying biological imperative driving" then how can there be a choice--at least a meaningful, free choice? It's got to be one or the other.
These underlying biological imperatives do not dictate how we choose to live our lives. Someone could find themselves with feelings towards others of the same sex, and not act on them. The same way someone can feel attracted to a friend's spouse and not act on that.
quote:If the entire human race were homosexual, then the human race would become extinct. How can this be just a free lifestyle choice that affects no one else, when it would end the species?
This is a question one should ask if our species was in danger of dying from underpopulation, and if there was any real belief that 100% of the species was going to be homosexual. Since neither of those two things are the case, the question is silly.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How can this be just a free lifestyle choice that affects no one else, when it would end the species?
If everyone chose to be a doctor, our species would likewise end.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron,
quote:Here we go again! Do you all see what I mean? On the one hand, its "A choice." On the other hand, "the underlying biological imperative that is driving that choice is not itself a choice."
There is not necessarily a contradiction, depending on how you read it.
The decision to have sex (of any kind) is a choice, most of us will agree, I think. For some it may be harder than for others. However, what might not be a choice is the drive to engage in homosexual sex. That could well be what BlueWizard was talking about.
Just because there is a biological imperative to do something does not mean it must in all cases be done.
quote:I do not see how a homosexual "biological imperative" can exist, since it is not a part of reproduction. If the entire human race were homosexual, then the human race would become extinct. How can this be just a free lifestyle choice that affects no one else, when it would end the species?
Fugu's response addresses this objection of yours in its entirety, Ron. You should abandon that particular argument - how can it be genetic if it doesn't breed? - because it just doesn't withstand even mild scrutiny.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ron,
quote:Here we go again! Do you all see what I mean? On the one hand, its "A choice." On the other hand, "the underlying biological imperative that is driving that choice is not itself a choice."
There is not necessarily a contradiction, depending on how you read it.
No contradiction at all; ron just didn't read it correctly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
On the one hand there's 'unavoidable', on the other hand there's 'expressing a command'.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Homosexuality may be a very natural response to population increases. There are too many people so we need less breeders. In an overpopulated situation, I can think of no better way of preventing the genetically deficient from propogating their defective genes. In a way, they are quite naturally homosexual. I suppose it should be equivalent to mental retardation and they should be afforded the same regard as someone with down syndrome. We should be understanding of the fact that they are naturally outside the laws of natural selection, thus a dead end road. Homosexuals deserve our sympathy and support. As a society we should encourage their unions, thus preventing the propagation of their defective genes. Forcing a born homosexual to pretend to be straight due to the heterosexual intolerance of a society only results in the unatural propogation of genes destined to die. Homophobia in a population only increases the homosexual population by forcing the unnatural union of hetero with homo. We should encourage and embrace gay unions to prevent the spread of their genes.
[ April 17, 2009, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Yeah, that's just plain offensive.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
If homosexuality is natural, it is a result of genetics. There must be an inherited gene that quite naturally leads to a homosexual offspring. That offsping was not intended to reproduce. The intolerance of society forcing them into an unatural relationship wich propogates genetics that were not intended to replicate.
Either it is natural and self defeating or a chosen behavior. The law of natural selection would quickly eliminate homosexual genetics. The intolerance of society forcing a born homosexual to live a hetero life would propogate these genes and increase the homosexual population. Either it is a choice or genetic. Either it is natural or unatural. You cannot deny both.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Homosexuality may be a very natural response to population increases. There are too many people so we need less breeders. In an overpopulated situation, I can think of no better way of preventing the genetically deficient from propogating their defective genes. In a way, they are quite naturally homosexual. I suppose it should be equivalent to mental retardation and they should be afforded the same regard as someone with down syndrome. We should be understanding of the fact that they are naturally outside the laws of natural selection, thus a dead end road. Homosexuals deserve our sympathy and support. As a society we should encourage their unions, thus preventing the propagation of their defective genes. Forcing a born homosexual to pretend to be straight due to the heterosexual intolerance of a society only results in the unatural propogation of genes destined to die. Homophobia in a population only increases the homosexual population by forcing the unnatural union of hetero with homo. We should encourage and embrace gay unions to prevent the spread of their genes. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: In an overpopulated situation, I can think of no better way of preventing the genetically deficient from propogating their defective genes.
Because, after all, genetics is the perfect method of humanity dealing with itself and the world, right?
Nonsense.
quote:The law of natural selection would quickly eliminate homosexual genetics.
This is of course equally nonsense. Homosexuality occurs in animals as well. Are you suggesting there's some sort of animal intolerance that directs homosexual animals to breed and thus perpetuates homosexuality?
quote: Either it is a choice or genetic. Either it is natural or unatural.
Who said anything about denying? I'm asking, "So what if it's unnatural?" (Though of course it isn't. What it is is uncommon, which is not at all the same thing.)
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Heh, there's a lovely children's book called The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle that has as one of its themes (God, I hate using that word) the distinction between what is unnatural and what is unusual.
With malanthrop's participation, this thread is rapidly approaching "burn the witch!" standards. All I have to say to that is that she may be a witch, but she's our witch. Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I didn't propose that is was either natural or a choice but one or the other. My sarcasm moy not have translated well. Is homosexuality a choice or are they born that way? If it is genetic it is self defeating. There are many "uncommon" choices but they are not equivalent to the natural ones.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
It has already been satisfactorily demonstrated that homosexuality in animals is not "self-defeating".
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Homosexuality would result in the extinction of a species. You are confusing bisexuality with homosexuality. Bisexuals are deviants while homosexuals are naturally non reproductive. Animal behavior cannot be held up as an example for human beings. I wouldn't kill and eat my girlfreind's children so that she would go into heat sooner for my benefit. Chimpanzees do this. Are we animals, or humans???
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Homosexuality would result in the extinction of a species. You are confusing bisexuality with homosexuality. Bisexuals are deviants while homosexuals are naturally non reproductive. Animal behavior cannot be held up as an example for human beings. I wouldn't kill and eat my girlfreind's children so that she would go into heat sooner for my benefit. Chimpanzees do this. Are we animals, or humans???
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Homosexuality would result in the extinction of a species.
In what sense? What would be the mechanism for such a sudden increase in homosexuality to the extent that heterosexuals effectively cease to exist?
quote:Chimpanzees do this. Are we animals, or humans???
But we do see exclusive homosexual relationships in animals. Fruit flies, for instance. We see even more other sorts of non-breeding individuals perpetuated in species, over and over again. For instance, if all bees were worker bees, there would be no more bees.
But evolution isn't about individuals having offspring, it is about genes perpetuating. So a group of animals where some of them don't breed can (and does) occur in order to increase the chances of some of those genes succeeding.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: malanthrop....
You're only the second person I've known in ten years to catch that. But it has more to do with my perspective in an anthropoligacal sense.......Society is bad.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Mucus: Archaea splitting off later than Bacteria? Isn't that the opposite of the current 'best guess'? It is a very fuzzy field of study, of course, so I don't think there's really a consensus.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Only the second person? I assumed everyone here found it rather obvious. I know I've seen other people bring it up (though not on this forum).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or just the second person who didn't think it was obvious and thus didn't bother to point it out.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
It's also about how genes express differently in the opposite sex.
A gene that, in a male, might make him gay would, in a female, make her more fertile. And indeed, sisters of gay men tend to have more children.
Further, imagine a handsome man, Keifer Southerland for instance. Now imagine his genes expressed in a woman. Oh wait, you don't have to. He has a twin sister.
A gene that is beneficial to reproduction in one sex can be detrimental to another.
In other words, you can't kill us off by giving us what we want. But don't worry. When there's a cheap and easy pre-natal test for homosexuality, I'm sure all you good, god fearing, heterosexuals will abort us.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:You're only the second person I've known in ten years to catch that.
Is this sarcasm?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Further, imagine a handsome man, Keifer Southerland for instance. Now imagine his genes expressed in a woman. Oh wait, you don't have to. He has a twin sister.
Fraternal twins don't have the same genes. They are as related as brother and sister. If that's what you meant, carry on.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Mucus: Archaea splitting off later than Bacteria? Isn't that the opposite of the current 'best guess'? It is a very fuzzy field of study, of course, so I don't think there's really a consensus.
I don't think so, I think its been that way for at least 8 years or so and I don't think its changed.
Of course, I brought it up for the narrower question of are humans animals.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I thought results based on cell structure showed Archaea was very different, and the rRNA result was fuzzy enough people are willing to discount it in light of the other evidence.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:Further, imagine a handsome man, Keifer Southerland for instance. Now imagine his genes expressed in a woman. Oh wait, you don't have to. He has a twin sister.
Fraternal twins don't have the same genes. They are as related as brother and sister. If that's what you meant, carry on.
They are brother and sister. Sharing genes is more complex than that. Maybe they'll both like women or men. Have you watched Little People Big World? Twins, one's a midget, the other isn't but both parent's are. Having two midget parents doesn't guarantee you'll get the midget gene, it's 50/50. Having one midget parent reduces the odds even further. If homosexuals are born that way you must admit it is a consequence of genetic ineheritence. Genetic inheritence is dependent upon hetosexual relationships.
I've suggested that societal discrimination against homosexuality has resulted in an increase in homosexuality. This premise is soley dependant upun it being genetic rather than individual choice. Are homosexuals born that way? Is it a choice? If it isn't a choice I believe in equal rights for them. If not, they are simple deviants. Please, share your opinion, genetic or choice.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:Further, imagine a handsome man, Keifer Southerland for instance. Now imagine his genes expressed in a woman. Oh wait, you don't have to. He has a twin sister.
Fraternal twins don't have the same genes. They are as related as brother and sister. If that's what you meant, carry on.
That is obviously what I was talking about since I mentioned brothers and sisters previously. They are related, not identical. I should have said "Sister" and left out "twin" for clarity's sake.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: malanthrop....
You're only the second person I've known in ten years to catch that. But it has more to do with my perspective in an anthropoligacal sense.......Society is bad.
Did you follow the link? That was kind of the point of me pointing out what your name meant.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Huh, I guess the two current popular accounts do have Eubacteria splitting off earlier: http://tolweb.org/Life_on_Earth/1 Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"If homosexuals are born that way you must admit it is a consequence of genetic ineheritence. Genetic inheritence is dependent upon hetosexual relationships."
Baloney. Useless premise and even granting that, false conclusion.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I wonder if he's yet read my post pointing out there are lots of species with non-breeding individuals.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I'm suggesting complete tolerance. Embrace homosexuals and allow them to realize what they are at a very young age. Instead of chasing girls, the gay leaning junior high boy will openly seek other boys. He'll live in a free society that is accepting of his preference and pair up with an unreproductive partner. Since he is naturally gay due to his genetics and accepted in society, he will freely choose to not replicate his genes into the next generation. I offer tolerance and acceptance as early as possible for the elimination of your kind. Is it a choice or are you born that way??
Give the gays everything they want and they will diminish. I belive they grow in population due to intolerance. Survival of the fittest no longer applies to human beings. We are not animals. The least successful among us reproduce at he highest rate.
[ April 17, 2009, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Mal:
A> I pointed out why that won't work.
B> What do you propose happens when science progresses far enough that men can reproduce with men and women can fertilize other women? It's closer than you think. (ie: They've already made sperm out of stem cells.)
However, I encourage you to continue to stand behind us. Even if you're doing it for you're own misguided reasons.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
If we are going to engineer a society which is completely tolerant of homosexuality, then wouldn't we have to build three locker rooms in each school? You wouldn't want homosexual boys in the boys locker room. I say three locker rooms, because that would be cheaper than building four locker rooms, and presumably homosexual boys would not react adversely to being placed in the same locker room with homosexual girls. Of course, then we would have to watch out for boys (and maybe some girls) who are only claiming to be homosexual.
The only real alternative would be to have one big locker room for all genders. That would probably lead to a great increase in enrollment at parochial schools, as parents react against the hedonism of general society.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ron:
quote:The only real alternative would be to have one big locker room for all genders.
I don't even like being in locker rooms with other heterosexual men, your idea terrifies me.
edit: The idea brought this fabulous clip from Malcolm in the Middle to mind. 0:50ish into the clip is what reminded me.
[ April 17, 2009, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or we could just teach some restraint.
Many cultures seem to manage coed bathing without orgies.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Well, BlackBlade, make sure you stay out of the military.
Kmbboots--restraint? Are you serious? Restraint! Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I hate to break it to you, but there are already homosexuals in the locker rooms of the world, and there have been forever.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Well, BlackBlade, make sure you stay out of the military.
See my edited link. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Kmbboots--restraint? Are you serious? Restraint!
Sooooo tempted to post links to inappropriate pics.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I hate to break it to you, but there are already homosexuals in the locker rooms of the world, and there have been forever.
I think this was directed at me, you've got me all wrong. I don't care about homosexuals in locker rooms because I'm worried they are checking me out. In fact it's more that I am so decidedly squeemish about my own body, I doubt anybody is checking it out much less lusting after it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Give the gays everything they want and they will diminish. I belive they grow in population due to intolerance. Survival of the fittest no longer applies to human beings. We are not animals. The least successful among us reproduce at he highest rate.
Wait, this is just baffling.
On the one hand, natural selection matters-homosexuals will be reduced through natural causes over time if they're allowed to couple and subsequently not reproduce.
On the other hand, natural selection doesn't matter, because apparently right now it's exhibiting itself in the very unnatural growth in the homosexual population due to widespread intolerance at best?
That's just nuts. And, of course, the first point as fugu and others have illustrated repeatedly and in some detail, complete bunk. Homosexuality isn't just a thing that can be naturally selected out of the human race. It occurs entirely on its own.
At some point you'll have to acknowledge that, malanthrop, because I doubt people are just going to forget it.
Just for further clarity: Homosexuality cannot be bred out of the human race via natural selection.
-----
Ron,
quote:That would probably lead to a great increase in enrollment at parochial schools, as parents react against the hedonism of general society.
Seems to me we've had segregated locker rooms for generations in this country, but the spread of hedonism hardly seems much inhibited by it:)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh--quite true. Perhaps that explains the popularity of parochial schools today. If it weren't for the burdensome cost of paying for both public schools and parochial schools, probably most parents would send their children to parochial schools.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron,
quote:Rakeesh--quite true. Perhaps that explains the popularity of parochial schools today. If it weren't for the burdensome cost of paying for both public schools and parochial schools, probably most parents would send their children to parochial schools.
Does today's popularity of parochial schools (though I personally think that has a lot to do with academic standards as well as concerns about morality) seem to be having a substantial impact on the 'spread of hedonism'?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Somehow I doubt it. Some of us have been to parochial schools.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Just for further clarity: Homosexuality cannot be bred out of the human race via natural selection.
I think you probably could, actually, by applying a stringent 'eugenics' program for a few thousand years. Although that's not exactly natural selection, to be sure. But yeah, anyway, evolution does not work the way malanthrop apparently thinks it does.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
*unfriendly epithet*
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: If homosexuality is natural, it is a result of genetics. There must be an inherited gene that quite naturally leads to a homosexual offspring. That offsping was not intended to reproduce. The intolerance of society forcing them into an unatural relationship wich propogates genetics that were not intended to replicate.
Either it is natural and self defeating or a chosen behavior. The law of natural selection would quickly eliminate homosexual genetics. The intolerance of society forcing a born homosexual to live a hetero life would propogate these genes and increase the homosexual population. Either it is a choice or genetic. Either it is natural or unatural. You cannot deny both.
Have you considered the possibility that homosexuality is caused by a sex selected gene on the female line? It is entirely possible that a gene that helps women in some way also causes homosexuality in some of their sons. Such a gene would not breed out of the population and might even become more common over time. Natural selection in not anywhere near as simple as you mistakenly seem to think it is.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Human sexuality isn't a black and white division. It is more of the scale, a matter of degree.
Some people are probably born with the tendencies, some are shaped that way due to positive or negative influences in their lives.
And your argument fals flat because it doesn't address bisexual people.
We have as much chance of breeding homosexuality of out humanity as we do of breeding stupidity out of it. And less of a reason to want to, IMO.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
Not speaking specifically about homosexuality, but:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: If homosexuality is natural, it is a result of genetics. There must be an inherited gene that quite naturally leads to a homosexual offspring...The law of natural selection would quickly eliminate homosexual genetics.
False. This assumes that it is caused by a single gene. If it is genetic, it could be caused by several genes working in concert, which would exponentially increase natural selection's difficulty in eliminating it.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Either it is natural and self defeating or a chosen behavior...Either it is a choice or genetic. Either it is natural or unatural.
Patently false. Few things that are genetic are 100% heritable.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
You can delete posts.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
thx
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Don't delete it. Everything you just said is perfectly correct, no matter what Glue says.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
No, he was referring to the fact that I had accidentally made a double post, which I have since deleted. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
So was Dobbie, he was just being clever.
Hobbes Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Haha
Posted by Terry O'Brien (Member # 12014) on :
Homosexuality is caused by gayness.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: If homosexuality is natural, it is a result of genetics. There must be an inherited gene that quite naturally leads to a homosexual offspring...The law of natural selection would quickly eliminate homosexual genetics.
False. This assumes that it is caused by a single gene. If it is genetic, it could be caused by several genes working in concert, which would exponentially increase natural selection's difficulty in eliminating it.
Another thing. This also assumes that any genes that express homosexuality have no other function. Such genes may provide other benefits that natural selection would consider valuable.
For example, there is circumstantial evidence that the genes that make one susceptible to malaria also make one resistant to sickle-cell anemia. Genetic susceptibility to tuberculosis may confer resistance to osteoperosis. Genetic susceptibility to cholera may confer resistance to cystic fibrosis.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:For example, there is circumstantial evidence that the genes that make one susceptible to malaria also make one resistant to sickle-cell anemia.
I think this is the other way around, sickle-cell anemia makes one resistant to malaria.
"Sickle trait provides a survival advantage over people with normal hemoglobin in regions where malaria is endemic. Sickle cell trait provides neither absolute protection nor invulnerability to the disease. Rather, people (and particularly children) infected with P. falciparum are more likely to survive the acute illness if they have sickle cell trait. When these people with sickle cell trait procreate, both the gene for normal hemoglobin and that for sickle hemoglobin are transmitted into the next generation."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, and the evidence isn't circumstantial, but well-substantiated. Having the trait increases one's ability to survive malaria.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think this is the other way around, sickle-cell anemia makes one resistant to malaria.
Ah yes. Thanks.
I think I also misread my source about CF. Actually, susceptibility to cystic fibrosis may confer resistance to typhoid.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Not to me it doesn't. I have a hard time believing that movie will come anywhere close to objectivity. But perhaps they will have more than just the testimonies of guys willing to sit in front of a camera and say they had sex with those politicians.
Also why does it surprise anybody that if a male politician is willing to have affairs with men outside of his marriage that he would not support marriage for same sex couples? I wouldn't be especially surprised if an adulterer congressman voted against legislation that makes divorce more difficult or more easy, he can be made out to be a hypocrite either way.
I just don't really see this movie adding anything meaningful to the dialogue, it's pretty clear that there are hypocrites in Washington.
edited for grammar.
[ April 27, 2009, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Also why does it surprise anybody that if a male politician is willing to have affairs with men outside of his marriage that he would not support marriage for same sex couples? I wouldn't be especially surprised if an adulterer congressman voted against legislation that makes divorce more difficult or more easy, he's can be made out to be a hypocrite either way.
I just don't really see this movie adding anything meaningful to the dialogue, it's pretty clear that there are hypocrites in Washington.
Seriously? Is there any other field of contention with an equivalent proportion of closeted opponents? It's not even on the same level as Strom Thurmond having black mistresses -- having self-loathing gay men leading the charge against homosexual rights is like the Dave Chappelle skit with a black KKK member.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Also why does it surprise anybody that if a male politician is willing to have affairs with men outside of his marriage that he would not support marriage for same sex couples? I wouldn't be especially surprised if an adulterer congressman voted against legislation that makes divorce more difficult or more easy, he's can be made out to be a hypocrite either way.
I just don't really see this movie adding anything meaningful to the dialogue, it's pretty clear that there are hypocrites in Washington.
Seriously? Is there any other field of contention with an equivalent proportion of closeted opponents? It's not even on the same level as Strom Thurmond having black mistresses -- having self-loathing gay men leading the charge against homosexual rights is like the Dave Chappelle skit with a black KKK member.
Yes, this particular phenomenon is not especially strange IMHO. People railing on divorce while simultaneously being adulterers is one such example. Drug opponents who used when they were younger or even currently, women fighting against modern feminism, slave owners vehemently opposing slavery.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
People tend to rail against the things they hate about themselves.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I would not at all want to be in the position of a person whose natural desires and whose fervent faith lead him in two completely opposite directions. That kind of contradiction has no easy solution, and no matter what you choose, someone in the world whose good opinion you care very much about will think you're a terrible person and a hypocrite.
It's an interesting problem to ponder, but all this gleeful fascination and willingness to throw accusations at people whose opinions you find inconvenient is out of place and ... not admirable.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Puppy, I think that were a person in such a situation only struggling to cope with his or her own natural desires that most people would have only sympathy or perhaps pity for them. It is when that struggle manifests itself as quest to impose one's own will onto others that it is met with contempt.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Only to the degree to which you find that action contemptible with or without the underlying struggle.
In any case, though, I think that the original accusation Lalo attempted in this thread is pretty hilarious, and would be to anyone who knows Card even slightly. I mean, unless you think he's also a closeted Meryl Streep fan and a lover of pretentious literary fiction, I don't think you need accusations of deep-rooted hypocrisy to explain his passionate defense of an opinion.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I mean, unless you think he's also a closeted Meryl Streep fan and a lover of pretentious literary fiction, I don't think you need accusations of deep-rooted hypocrisy to explain his passionate defense of an opinion.
I'm not sure if these statements are joined with your principle argument -- but if they are, I don't think you understand homosexuals at all. It's not a culture. You might as well say that Card doesn't have black ancestry because he doesn't like fried chicken.
In any case, Card is one of the cases where I feel sympathy, not anger. His essays railing against homosexual marriage have a nearly wistful air, describing homosexuality as a temptation we must resist. Whether he's gay or not, I hope he can someday accept homosexuality as okay.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
That said, if he's at all misty-eyed about Bea Arthur, I think you have your answer. My Facebook friends list is filled with mourning homos.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
So a religious person describing something as a "temptation" means they have particular wistful feelings towards that thing. Makes perfect sense. You clearly know exactly what you're talking about Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that we tend to suspect people who spend a lot of time fighting homosexuality of having homosexual tendencies because, otherwise, it is a little odd to be that concerned about other people's sins that don't directly effect you.
We tend to overlook another explanation, of course, which is that they like to focus on sins that they don't share so they can feel smug.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that we tend to suspect people who spend a lot of time fighting homosexuality of having homosexual tendencies because, otherwise, it is a little odd to be that concerned about other people's sins that don't directly effect you.
Another explanation, of course, is that they like to focus on sins that they don't share so they can feel smug.
Or perhaps they have come to the conclusion (whether rightly or wrongly) that homosexuality is something that warrants that much attention, either because they feel uniquely suited for responding to it, or have been persuaded that it requires that much attention.
I have a friend who I've discussed homosexuality with numerous times (to little effect), he still feels convinced that in terms of moral degeneracy, homosexuality is right up there with adultery and premarital sex, just short of murder in terms of revulsion. Were he a politician, I have no doubt he would take a very vocal hard line against SSM and other gay rights issues. He still feels they need to be rehabilitated, to say nothing of granting them equal rights.
I am certain he is not a closet homosexual, he isn't smug so much as certain he is right and that in being right homosexuality is destroying society and bringing God's vengeance closer.
In short, false religiously based conclusions can also cause one to overreact to homosexuality. -----
I've actually got a difficult problem in regards to this topic I've been wracking my brains over. My birthday dinner is this week on Wednesday and I wanted to invite one of my co-workers (who is gay) and his boyfriend to my dinner. This friend of mine (in the interest of full disclosure I'll admit that he my brother) I would also like to bring to the dinner. I spoke previously with my brother and said I was thinking of inviting these two and said that I would not invite them unless he promised not to be condescending, spiteful, critical, or rude to them. He said he could manage that, but that he could not tolerate them showing any public displays of affection. I told them that was an unreasonable request as they are in a committed relationship. After a lot of back and forth he finally agreed that perhaps it would be good for him to see a gay couple (he has never met one in real life) so that he could see if his attitudes are correct and to observe if the two of them are happy in their relationship and finally good people. I confess I have a little difficulty trusting my brother will keep his word as he has difficulty inhibiting what his mind wants to say under certain circumstances, (he has had this problem his entire life) and so I'm worried that if I invite everyone there is a high potential for offense to be given.
Right now I'm leaning to not inviting my co-worker and his boyfriend and instead going on a double date with them and my wife in the very near future. But perhaps I am missing a good opportunity for my brother to lose some of his vitriol towards people who happen to be homosexuals. But then again I might be doing my friend a disservice by putting him in a situation where he has to endure (whether intentioned or not) critical behavior at an event that is supposed to be fun.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Are you comfortable enough with this friend to explain the situation and ask whether he is willing to risk it?
ETA: I am not saying that those are the only possible reasons, but the impulse to activism usually has some kind of an emotional hook. For example, I believe in the correctness of certain environmental issues, but I am not emotionally attached enough to spend the time and effort on them as I am on issues where I am emotionally involved. It is hard to figure out the emotional involvement of people who make anti-gay activism a major focus.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So a religious person describing something as a "temptation" means they have particular wistful feelings towards that thing.
Well, no. I think he's referring to the couple of times Card has written that same-sex marriages must be tempting to young men, since it's easier for men to understand each other and there's not as much responsibility for them to worry about.
--------
quote:I am certain he is not a closet homosexual.
Why?
quote:But then again I might be doing my friend a disservice by putting him in a situation where he has to endure (whether intentioned or not) critical behavior at an event that is supposed to be fun.
I think, at the very least, you should ask your friend if he's willing to potentially be an object lesson.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
What they said. You need to tell your friend what he might be walking into and make sure he's comfortable with it. Nothing less would be acceptable, IMO.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Tough situation, BB.
One way to think of it: If you have two guests in mind, and you're principally worried about the behavior of Guest A, why would you then exclude Guest B?
I know it's not quite that simple. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: So a religious person describing something as a "temptation" means they have particular wistful feelings towards that thing. Makes perfect sense. You clearly know exactly what you're talking about
If someone refers to an act as a temptation, I think the implication is that it is tempting to them. Doesn't make it so, of course, but it's not an illogical jump to make.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Thanks guys, that's good advice. I'll probably speak with my co-worker friend in just alittle bit and see how he feels about the situation, it should also give him time to ask his boyfriend how he feels as well.
scifibum: You're right it's not that simple. Guest A is my brother, who I love dearly and who has alot of difficulty in social situations (please no smirks that his stance on homosexuality is the reason) and hence has few friends. I feel partially responsible to assist him by making sure he feels loved and spends less time sad at home than more.
Guest B is a recent friend that I have met through work who I find I enjoy interacting with immensely. I've met his boyfriend who is also a nice individual, and I am inviting him to my birthday so that our friendship becomes that much more close.
But in any case I'll speak to my co-worker and probably my brother once again depending on what said co-worker says.
---- Tom: Obviously the whole is greater than the sum of its' parts and I recognize that you can never be absolutely certain in regards to somebody elses' life, but here are some reasons. He does not act as if he is sexually attracted to men, he very closely subscribes to our religion and strongly believes that homosexuality is morally wrong. He has only shown an interest in women in regards to dating and commitment. We have a very open relationship with each other, and he has not said anything that raises any red flags in that regard. Again it's all the subtle nuances of his character that come together but I am certain that if you got to know him you would see the likelihood of him being heterosexual would be substantially higher than otherwise.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: So a religious person describing something as a "temptation" means they have particular wistful feelings towards that thing. Makes perfect sense. You clearly know exactly what you're talking about
If someone refers to an act as a temptation, I think the implication is that it is tempting to them. Doesn't make it so, of course, but it's not an illogical jump to make.
I dunno. I think the concept of the "tempter" who would try to persuade anyone to commit any sin is significant. Of course individuals are more prone to some temptations than others... but I think "temptation" has a pretty generic sense in common usage that doesn't really imply proclivity.
Yet as Tom notes OSC HAS asserted that it's easier to get along with people of the same sex, and in context pretty clearly was asserting that SSM would be easier on the participants, all else being equal, than opposite sex marriage. I think this implies that OSC either experiences more trouble with heterosexual relationships than with same sex relationships, or has observed this in others - but really the obvious explanation is that sexual attraction complicates relationships, and would do so no matter the gender combination. (In fact this, to me, would tend toward disproving any suspicion of closeted desire - because it just doesn't make sense that repressed feelings would co-exist with ease of interaction.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Again it's all the subtle nuances of his character that come together but I am certain that if you got to know him you would see the likelihood of him being heterosexual would be substantially higher than otherwise.
Without comment otherwise, notice that 75 is substantially higher than 25. I think you probably wanted your sentence to be a bit stronger than it actually came out.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Again it's all the subtle nuances of his character that come together but I am certain that if you got to know him you would see the likelihood of him being heterosexual would be substantially higher than otherwise.
Without comment otherwise, notice that 75 is substantially higher than 25. I think you probably wanted your sentence to be a bit stronger than it actually came out.
Not really. I subscribe to the idea that most people are not completely homosexual or completely heterosexual, rather, if there is a sliding scale where we make absolute heterosexuality a 1 and absolute homosexuality a 10, that people would mostly be in the 2-8 range. I don't think there is necessarily a neat bell curve or that humanity's mean is a 5 on that scale. I'd put my brother at a 1 or a 2 on that scale. I think at my gayest I'd put myself at a 3.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Oh man.. it's so tempting to pry....
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Oh man.. it's so tempting to pry....
You have my email. Up until my early 20's I would have probably insisted that I was a 1.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I think at my gayest I'd put myself at a 3.
You should put that on a t-shirt.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I had a drama professor explain once, "There are only two reason most people are against gay people. One, they hit on you too often. Two, they don't hit on you enough."
Sure, there are significant religious reasons to be against homosexuality. There are arguably a few civic reasons. However, the above two, possibly extending it to include loved ones, are the only two reasons to be against the people themselves.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Terry O'Brien: Homosexuality is caused by gayness.
I saw this homosexual guy, and I was like, "you're totally gay!"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actually, BB, I might - I'll have to think about what my reaction would be - be more inclined to uninvite the brother and keep the homosexual couple.
Mostly for the simple reason that, if your own brother can't assure you sufficiently that he'll be respectful to you and your family on your birthday, of all days, well...I guess to me that's a pretty serious slight. The doing of it, or the not sincerely promising not to do it, that is.
Your house, your birthday, your table, your bread to be broken. Unless this homosexual couple has done something specifically against your brother, he should be a good guest and not be a jackass to your other invited guests.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:If someone refers to an act as a temptation, I think the implication is that it is tempting to them. Doesn't make it so, of course, but it's not an illogical jump to make.
It is absolutely illogical. Understandable, perhaps, but certainly illogical
My religion forbids the consumption of alcohol. I've never had a drink of it, I hate the smell, and I have a sensitive enough palate that is doubt I could ever start.
When addressing the issue of alcoholism, however, I would naturally very frequently refer to the "temptation to drink". It's a very real temptation for a lot of people, and it's worth discussing, even if I myself don't experience it.
I think it's been well established that homosexual desire is one of those things that only a minority fraction of the population experiences to a life-changing degree. If you belong to a group that considers this desire a "temptation" to be avoided, it's fair to assume that most people talking about this "temptation" will not have actually experienced it in any significant way.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But your dad's argument, specifically, was that young men would marry each other in enough numbers that the tradition of marriage itself would be forgotten or considered outmoded. How do you reconcile that with the idea that he thinks it's a rare temptation?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I have a sensitive enough palate that is doubt I could ever start.
Incidentally, this is what I originally said about both alcohol and coffee.
Both end up entirely palatable and desired for much the same reasons as each other =)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Well I spoke with my co-worker about the whole conundrum and it seems like he and his boyfriend are on board with going. I spoke with my brother and he has to my satisfaction promised not help create an argument on the issue. I think this years birthday dinner is going to be even better than last years, which is all I can really hope for. Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:But your dad's argument, specifically, was that young men would marry each other in enough numbers that the tradition of marriage itself would be forgotten or considered outmoded. How do you reconcile that with the idea that he thinks it's a rare temptation?
He's made a lot of arguments on the subject, and it's fairly common for people to take his weirdest experimental ideas and make them out to be his primary focus. To my memory, the "men will want to marry each other because it's easy" idea was something he explored in a single essay, and which turned out to be pretty unpersuasive. I don't see the kind of "easiness" you're talking about trumping biological imperatives like the desire to mate with whatever your brain says you should try to mate with.
Certainly, that argument doesn't seem to be the one that Lalo is citing with his insinuations.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't see the kind of "easiness" you're talking about trumping biological imperatives like the desire to mate with whatever your brain says you should try to mate with.
Well, neither do I. That was, I suspect, Lalo's point.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QB]I am certain he is not a closet homosexual, he isn't smug so much as certain he is right and that in being right homosexuality is destroying society and bringing God's vengeance closer.
Vengeance? I thought he promised not to do something like again? Either way, it's a scarily irrational view, which, while may not be his opinion...makes me wonder if that fear is what's fanning the flames out there today. "Uh-oh, when Daddy comes home he's gonna be real angry with us." Why else would people take such a personal charge?
God: I said no homosex. Religious: But...WE didn't do it! God: Really? But you stood by and let others engage in it. Religious: Honest! Please, don't spank us, we tried! They wouldn't listen! :sob: God: TOO BAD. *eats everyone*
Either way...in regards to whether he's closeted or not, you won't be able tell. Hiding is what we learn to do from a very early age, out of fear and for survival purposes.
It is incredibly narrow to say "nevermind competition for resources, economies, environmental factors, technological factors, etc etc, societies collapse because of homosexuality. (BB, I'm replying to something written earlier not you )
What's destroying society (if we view it as such) is larger than homosexuality. Fear of the other, ourselves, our bodies, our thoughts, our judgments, others judgments, technology, vengeful deities, love, suffering, diminishing resources, ineffective/outdated ideas, conflicts between groups of those ideas, growing pains of globalization, socio-economic stratification, etc. It's funny, the world is rigged to continuously change while we are rigged to fear change.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
My night hasn't started yet. ![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Up until my early 20's I would have probably insisted that I was a 1.