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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
fugu, it is perfectly possible to have read the response, completely disagree with it, and say what Boris said.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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? Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boris, I'm still waiting on any sourcing whatsoever on your claim that homosexuality is a matter of choice.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
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?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
