| 308 posts found | |
|---|---|
Originally posted by Gameloading
The marriage I wish to protect is for a couple capable of naturally producing children. I feel people who do not wish to have children should have the same sort of title that a homosexual couple would. As an atheist, I'm convinced the only real point in life is to reproduce and continue your lineage as it's all that truly lives on after your death. The people who realize this and desire to continue their lineage deserve the sanctity of marriage. |
|
Originally posted by Enkindu
A wise woman once said to me: "Enk, this isn't even psuedo science...it is nonsense. Also you're wasting your time. Trying to tell someone that doesn't even undestand the basics of geology 101 about geology and who is all hung up on God is never going to work. So forget it. Let them live in their version of their world and we'll live in the real one." Switch "core gender identity" with "geology" and I think you have a pretty good match. Sit back and watch the ignorance flow...
Yes but, OMG..you know this hits home with me....you know I am a lesbian and you know that I and my girlfriend may never be able to get married and have the same rights as a heterosexual couple and that is just not fair.
|
|
Originally posted by Teala
I know. Read up and you'll see I've already been arguing your case.
I swear I've never seen anything turn people into hateful dumbasses as quick as homophobia. |
|
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
"Bem also noted that, in a study by the Kinsey Institute of approximately 1000 gay men and lesbians (and a control group of 500 heterosexual men and women), 63% of both gay men and lesbians reported that they were gender nonconforming in childhood (i.e., did not like activities typical of their sex), compared with only 10-15% of heterosexual men and women. Bem also drew from six "prospective" studies, longitudinal studies that began with gender-nonconforming boys around age 7 and followed them into adolescence and adulthood; a majority (63%) of the gender nonconforming boys become gay or bisexual as adults." That's some evidence. The benefit to being gay is that you are happy with being with those people you love. I see happiness as a benefit. If you weren't happy being gay, there really would be no benefit, and there would no reason to chose this . The reason why I think homosexuality is a choice is because I find it absurd and ridiculous that people have an inability to be in control of their lives and have the free will to do things. In a "perfect world" with an absolute monarchy and all that :P I do think homosexuality would be an immoral choice to make, but we don't live in that perfect world. We live in America (I do at least unfortunately). As I've said, I believe that the free-nation of the US is hypocritical to not let the people make it into a total anarchy and therefore I believe people should be able to do whatever they want, such as marrying their mothers or dogs while they are at it. Homosexuality isn't hurting anybody after all, let them do whatever! That's not evidence at all. What it shows is that people who are gay are more likely to dislike stuf typical of their gender at childhood then people who are straigth, not that playing with things not typical of their gender makes them gay. You're again using flawed logic.Being happy with people you love? Gays are gays before they find a partner they love. If they could chose, they would chose to be straigth because being straigth also involves happiness and a lot of other advantages. There is no advantage to chosing to be gay. Well guess what: You do have an inability to be in control of certain sections of your life. That's just the way things are. You can't pick your skin colour, your eye colour, your hair colour, you can only change your looks to a certain extend. You can't pick your talents either. Sexual Orientation is just one more. Again, comparing it to marrying your mother or dog is flawed. There are good reasons why that should not be allowed and none of them apply to gay marriage. If you want to forbid other people from getting married, you better come up with a good reason and thus far you have not come up with a single reason. |
|
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff
The marriage I wish to protect is for a couple capable of naturally producing children. I feel people who do not wish to have children should have the same sort of title that a homosexual couple would. As an atheist, I'm convinced the only real point in life is to reproduce and continue your lineage as it's all that truly lives on after your death. The people who realize this and desire to continue their lineage deserve the sanctity of marriage. What a silly point of view. Marriage is not necessary to naturally produce children thus it would be foolish to only let people who have children have this title. |
|
Originally posted by Gameloading That's not evidence at all. What it shows is that people who are gay are more likely to dislike stuf typical of their gender at childhood then people who are straigth, not that playing with things not typical of their gender makes them gay. You're again using flawed logic.Being happy with people you love? Gays are gays before they find a partner they love. If they could chose, they would chose to be straigth because being straigth also involves happiness and a lot of other advantages. There is no advantage to chosing to be gay. Well guess what: You do have an inability to be in certain sections of your life. That's just the way things are. You can't pick your skin colour, your eye colour, your hair colour, you can only change your looks to a certain extend. You can't pick your talents either. Sexual Orientation is just one more. Again, comparing it to marrying your mother or dog is flawed. There are good reasons why that should not be allowed and none of them apply to gay marriage. If you want to forbid other people from getting married, you better come up with a good reason and thus far you have not come up with a single reason. If that last line be the case then you are a bigot. Many of the things you have said have been wise, as well as I, and I have tried considering your stance, yet I didn't know you were one so the argument has become pointless. |
|
|
Call me a bigot as much as you want, You have yet to provide an actual logical reason why gay marriage should not be allowed. The closest thing you have come up with is trying to argu homosexuality is a choice, which is not only wrong but is not an argument for not letting gays get married either. |
|
Originally posted by Gameloading Just out of curiosity, explain this. The Mustanski study finds no significant relationship between DNA regions and self-reported sexual orientation. Available evidence suggests that genes may be expressed via the interaction of temperament with certain environments. Practically, then, at present, one cannot know with any degree of certainty that a gene or combination of genes will distinguish why one man is homosexual and another is not.
|
|
Originally posted by outfctrl Just out of curiosity, explain this. The Mustanski study finds no significant relationship between DNA regions and self-reported sexual orientation. Available evidence suggests that genes may be expressed via the interaction of temperament with certain environments. Practically, then, at present, one cannot know with any degree of certainty that a gene or combination of genes will distinguish why one man is homosexual and another is not.
All it shows that the specific gene hasn't been found yet. That doesn't mean it isn't there and the vast majority of scientist agree it's there. There are lots of genes and it's a very complicated system, it's no surprise we haven't found it in humans yet. We have found it in other species already. For instance, we already found it in fruitflies. Even if we find out that genetics are not the cause, that doesn't strengthen your stance it is a choice in any way. |
|
|
CactusmanX
 Elite Member
Joined: 5/05/04
Don't mock me my friend. It's a condition of mental divergence. |
Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff For your humor example, I will compare that to British humor. Many Americans don't understand British humor at the outset, but I'm sure if they were given more exposure to it they could learn, through time, to find it funny. So with work they have effectively changed an attraction within themselves with their focus. I was born and raised in an environment that naturally lead me to being attracted to women and believing that that is right, so I am a heterosexual. I see no reason why I should change my mind and work at being attracted to men.
Right humor is an emotional response, unlike other emotional responses it is informed by culture to an extent. But if you look at something more basic like hunger and the desire to eat, something all humans have, how we practice our hunger and specifically what we eat changes between cultures but there are many similarities and certain aspects common among all humans, in that all humans desire to eat. Obviously the desire to eat is beneficial in evolution in terms of survival, if a species did not desire to eat they would die and would not procreate and thus why we don't see any animal like that. Sexual desire is much the same way, automatic, the species better survives when there is an inherent desire to mate. Just like you can't choose to want to eat or not want to eat. You can not eat though just like you can choose to not mate or whatever, but that does not mean you can choose to desire to do it or not, it is instinct. So if you desire to have sex with a certain gender you do not do it because you reasoned it is a good thing to do you do it because it is an inherent desire, well it developes at puberty but it is inherent in the human condition. Maybe you have certain kinks that may be learned but the desire is still there. So the desire to mate is not a choice. When it comes to which gender do you prefer this is not the same as developing a taste for turnips or something. There is a reason why most women prefer men more than women and most men women more than men, it is beneficial to the survival of the species. The difference between men and women is in the hormones, en utero and during puberty. Keep in mind that males are female before they develope into males and females are just a bit of testosterone away from being male. As your gender and brain developes it forms the basis for the hormones and reactions that will lead you to developing sexual attraction at puberty. So given that sexual attraction is not a choice and that what gender you are and are not attracted too is determined by hormones you are exposed to at birth and the already small differences between male and female it makes sense to me to think that any sexual orientation would be due to developement and not choice, environment or upbringing, how you express it is but not what you desire. Granted most everyone is varing degrees of bisexual, people that greatly prefer or almost exclusively prefer the opposite gender we call heterosexual an conversely homosexual, but I don't think these are plastic. Also let me add, nature is not tealogical, it has no desires or motives what happens naturally does not make something good or moral, indeed those are concepts made by man. The arguement that being heterosexual is right because it ensures the survival of the species is an illogical arguement, there is nothing inherently good about procreation and indeed nothing is inherently right or wrong any position or right and wrong is an opinion so any talk of the objective rightness of a specific action is moot. Here I was complainin' about loss of pride and how life had treated me, and now I realized... I never had any pride |
Originally posted by outfctrl Just out of curiosity, explain this. The Mustanski study finds no significant relationship between DNA regions and self-reported sexual orientation. Available evidence suggests that genes may be expressed via the interaction of temperament with certain environments. Practically, then, at present, one cannot know with any degree of certainty that a gene or combination of genes will distinguish why one man is homosexual and another is not.
Simple explanation is they didn't map the gene. Behavioral genetics is INCREDIBLY complicated and may involve multiple loci and other factors affecting expression of phenotype (the actual observed characteristic derived from the gene(s)). From the Human Genome Project: How do genes influence behavior? No single gene determines a particular behavior. Behaviors are complex traits involving multiple genes that are affected by a variety of other factors. This fact often gets overlooked in media reports hyping scientific breakthroughs on gene function, and, unfortunately, this can be very misleading to the public. For example, a study published in 1999 claimed that overexpression of a particular gene in mice led to enhanced learning capacity. The popular press referred to this gene as "the learning gene" or the "smart gene." What the press didn't mention was that the learning enhancements observed in this study were short-term, lasting only a few hours to a few days in some cases. Dubbing a gene as a "smart gene" gives the public a false impression of how much scientists really know about the genetics of a complex trait like intelligence. Once news of the "smart gene" reaches the public, suddenly there is talk about designer babies and the potential of genetically engineering embryos to have intelligence and other desirable traits, when in reality the path from genes to proteins to development of a particular trait is still a mystery. With disorders, behaviors, or any physical trait, genes are just a part of the story, because a variety of genetic and environmental factors are involved in the development of any trait. Having a genetic variant doesn't necessarily mean that a particular trait will develop. The presence of certain genetic factors can enhance or repress other genetic factors. Genes are turned on and off, and other factors may be keeping a gene from being turned "on." In addition, the protein encoded by a gene can be modified in ways that can affect its ability to carry out its normal cellular function. Genetic factors also can influence the role of certain environmental factors in the development of a particular trait. For example, a person may have a genetic variant that is know to increase his or her risk for developing emphysema from smoking, an environmental factor. If that person never smokes, then emphysema will not develop. I can tell you that our current understanding of gene expression is something similar to your dog's understanding of your car. The BEST evidence that homosexuality is an inborn trait is to simply talk to someone who is gay. We will map the genes and understand expression one day. might be 20-30 years from now though. |
|
|
More recent Info:
Such findings would further the debate over whether homosexuality is innate or a choice
Compared to straight men, gay men are more likely to be left-handed, to be the younger siblings of older brothers, and to have hair that whorls in a counterclockwise direction. US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born. Such findings - including a highly anticipated study this winter - would further inform the debate over whether homosexuality is innate or a choice, an undercurrent of California's recent Proposition 8 campaign in which television commercials warned that "schools would begin teaching second-graders that boys could marry boys", suggesting homosexuality would then spread. Some scientists say the political and moral debate over same-sex marriage frequently strayed from established scientific evidence, including comments by Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin that homosexuality is "a choice" and "a decision". Until 2007, CNN polls had found that a majority of Americans believed gay people could change their sexual orientation if they chose to; it was only last year that a majority for the first time said homosexuality was an inborn trait. Christian groups such as Exodus International argue "that homosexuals who desire to change can do so". One prominent psychiatrist, Dr Robert Spitzer of Columbia University, found controversial evidence that therapy can cause some gay people to change to a heterosexual orientation, although the study concluded that a "complete change" was uncommon. While sexual behaviour may be chosen, the preponderance of researchers say attraction is dictated by biology, with no demonstrated contribution from social factors such as parenting or other factors after birth. A host of studies since the mid-1990s have found common biological traits between gay men, including left-handedness and the direction of hair whorls. The likelihood that if one identical twin is gay, the other will be also be gay is much higher than the "concordance" of homosexuality between fraternal twins, indicating that genes play a role in sexual orientation, but are not the entire cause. "In the past decade, I think the pendulum has swung more toward biological theory and biological causes," said Richard Lippa, a psychology professor at California State University-Fullerton, who has studied hair patterns and other biological traits in gay men. Sven Bocklandt, a geneticist at the David Geffen school of medicine at UCLA, is bewildered by the argument that people choose their sexual attraction. He said that virtually every animal species that has been studied - from sheep to fruit flies - has a small minority of individuals who demonstrate homosexual activity. "I really believe the reason most humans are straight is the same reason that most crocodiles are straight, and the same reason most whales are straight," Bocklandt said. "Nature would not leave something so important for reproduction, for the survival of the species, to coincidence." Less understood is the degree to which sexual orientation is determined by genes or environmental factors, such as hormones or immunological factors that may act on a foetus. What scientists call "the fraternal birth order effect", the fact that each successive boy born to the same mother has a greater chance of being gay, may be due to an increasing immunological response by a mother's body to each male foetus in her womb. Long discredited are theories that parenting - one mid-20th century theory held that boys raised by a domineering mother with a distant father were more likely to be gay - has anything to do with sexual orientation. Evidence of that, said Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Northwestern University in Illinois, comes from studies of genetically male infants born with malformed or ambiguous genitals. In many such cases, surgeons would construct a vagina, and instruct parents to raise the child as a girl, with no knowledge of his medical history. As adults, those prenatally male/postnatally female people were virtually all attracted to women, Bailey said. "If you can't make a male attracted to other males by cutting off his penis, castrating him and rearing him as a girl, then how likely is any social explanation of male homosexuality?" he said. Researchers are eagerly awaiting a DNA study of male siblings with at least one gay brother by Bailey and other scientists at Northwestern University due in early 2009, because it may shed light on the role genetics plays in sexual attraction. By researching 800 sets of brothers, by far the largest study of its type, the Northwestern study is searching for the specific genes that influence some brothers to be gay and others to be heterosexual. Women may have more fluidity of sexual expression than men, but that doesn't mean they don't have a specific sexual orientation, said Lisa Diamond, a professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah who studies female sexual orientation. One explanation is that women's sexual behaviour is driven more by relationships. For some women, "your sexual orientation does not provide the last word on the sorts of behaviours and identities you might experience in your lifetime," Diamond said. "Some lesbian women are predominantly attracted to women, but some of them have found themselves becoming incredibly close to their best male friends, sometimes having sex with them. It does not make them straight. It's not, since you had a one-night stand with your male friend, that you can choose to become straight." |
|
|
gnomexxx
 Advanced Member
Joined: 2/26/06
"Every generation needs a new revolution." - Thomas Jefferson |
When there were 47% of the people who voted in support of gay marriage being equal and recognized, I wouldn't exactly say the people of the U.S. reject this. =============================== |
|
gnomexxx
Advanced Member
Joined: 2/26/06
"Every generation needs a new revolution." - Thomas Jefferson |
Originally posted by outfctrl Just out of curiosity, explain this. The Mustanski study finds no significant relationship between DNA regions and self-reported sexual orientation. Available evidence suggests that genes may be expressed via the interaction of temperament with certain environments. Practically, then, at present, one cannot know with any degree of certainty that a gene or combination of genes will distinguish why one man is homosexual and another is not.
But you can sure go ask a bunch of gay people if they chose to be gay or not. And the OVERWHELMING response you're going to get from them is that no, they did not choose to be gay. Why you want to minimize that sort of evidence I don't know. But it's more than compelling to me. I just can't see a whole group of people lying about who they are capable of forming an emotional and sexual attachment to. What would all these people have to gain socially, psychologically, financially, or in any way really the way they are treated in society these days and in the past? =============================== |
|
Still think my plan is the only one that makes sence... If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. |
|
|
Zindaihas
 Elite Member
Joined: 5/07/06
'If you put govt in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 yrs there'd be a shortage of sand'~M. Friedman |
Originally posted by gnomexxx
Whether or not human beings are prediposed towards certain actions and/or lifestyles is open for debate. Are some people predisposed to become alcoholics more than others, etc? But what is not open to debate is that engaging in a sexual act, be it homosexual or heterosexual, is a choice. Unless someone compels you to have sex, which is rape, you make the decision to do so, however strong the urge. The Bible doesn't say that being born with certain predispositions is a sin, it says that commiting such acts which go against God's will are. So from that standpoint, the "being born that way" argument doesn't work. I'm not so sure that homosexuals exchanging maritial vows would qualify as being sinful so long as they never engage in sexual relations. But the moment they do, that's when they've crossed God's line. Now you can go ahead and argue that the state has no business getting involved in matters of faith and you may be right, but I was simply adressing your point of whether the way human beings are born is relevent or not. But I would add that the Constitution only adresses what the federal government can and cannot do. There's nothing that says that individual states cannot decide these matters on a state by state basis. And to adress your point that the overwhelming number of gays say they were born that way, don't you think there's the slightest chance that people are capable of convincing themselves of something in order to justify it? Which is more likely to gain the sympathy of society - saying, "Oh yeah, I'm gay by choice and I want to be able to engage in homosexual acts and I demand that you agree with me." Or sayiing, "I was born this way, I can't help it." "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking." ~ George S Patton |
Originally posted by Zindaihas Yeah, clearly a child wants to go through the terror and agony of being hated and misunderstood and sometimes DISOWNED (by their loving christian families- gimme a fucking break). They make the choice to live this life intentionally. Do you realize how faulty your logic is? I have friends who have LITERALLY been cast out from their families because of this type of psycho-christian hate bullshit. I've seen what it has done to their lives. And you think it is a choice. Pathetic. Tell you what I think. I think you are hateful, homophobic, and WRONG and Jesus would say that to your face. What we need to do is start treating fundamentalist CHRISTIANS like the sinners that they are. We can send you off to indoctrination camps where you learn to be actual humans. |
|
|
Zindaihas
Elite Member
Joined: 5/07/06
'If you put govt in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 yrs there'd be a shortage of sand'~M. Friedman |
Originally posted by Enkindu Yeah, clearly a child wants to go through the terror and agony of being hated and misunderstood and sometimes DISOWNED (by their loving christian families- gimme a fucking break). They make the choice to live this life intentionally. Do you realize how faulty your logic is? I have friends who have LITERALLY been cast out from their families because of this type of psycho-christian hate bullshit. I've seen what it has done to their lives. And you think it is a choice. Pathetic. Tell you what I think. I think you are hateful, homophobic, and WRONG and Jesus would say that to your face. What we need to do is start treating fundamentalist CHRISTIANS like the sinners that they are. We can send you off to indoctrination camps where you learn to be actual humans.
Wow, there's a lot of projection in your post there. I'm surprised that you read what I typed and find hate. It seems that your post is more hateful toward me than mine is toward anyone. Especially since I wasn't addressing anyone in particular, I was simply making an agrument. But hey, if you see hate there, go with it. Whatever gets you through the night. "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking." ~ George S Patton |
Originally posted by Zindaihas I know a couple people that are too gentle and kindhearted to carry hate around toward people with prejudice like yours. My curse is deep empathy. I suppose I carry a lot of anger around on their behalf. If you really can't see how inherently hurtful your words are then I suppose there's no need to discuss it. |
|
|
Biblethumpers are retarded. Thats all I'm going to say here, because theres only so much you can say to a retarded biblethumper before you finally give up on trying to instill some logic into their minds.All the points I would have put out have been made. And I happen to support gay marriage. IMA GOIN' TO HELL! YEAH!
|
|
|
gnomexxx
Advanced Member
Joined: 2/26/06
"Every generation needs a new revolution." - Thomas Jefferson |
Originally posted by Zindaihas
Wow, there's a lot of projection in your post there. I'm surprised that you read what I typed and find hate. It seems that your post is more hateful toward me than mine is toward anyone. Especially since I wasn't addressing anyone in particular, I was simply making an agrument. But hey, if you see hate there, go with it. Whatever gets you through the night. What is hateful is taking your religious beliefs and pushing them on another human being. Especially when you use the government to do so. Whether that government be a state government or a federal government. Look, I agree with a lot of what you write when it comes to economic arguments. I'm a very strong conservative when it comes to the the economy. But when it comes to someone's civil rights, I will fight and die for those in a heartbeat. This is absolutely a civil rights issue. There are people who's religious beliefs say that they are allowed to marry same sex couples. These same people are being told by the government that their religious beliefs and practices are not valid. Whether you agree with their religious beliefs or not is a mute point. The fact of the matter is plain and clear. Think about that. They go to their church and they believe that they have a valid marriage before their God. Then our government is saying that they are wrong. Our government is saying that they're religion is invalid. That is what you want going on in America???? Seriously? =============================== |
|
I find it fascinating that some people care so much which holes 2+ people use for sex that they feel obligated to make specific laws against them |
|
Originally posted by Tymoris
Amen to that. Especially with all the REAL problems in the world we have to deal with. |
|
Originally posted by Tymoris You deserve a reward for stating it that way. *hands you a cookie*
|
|
Originally posted by glord You deserve a reward for stating it that way. *hands you a cookie* Thanks now I have to get some coffee to enjoy it:D |
|
