If homosexuality is not a choice and nothing can change it, how do you justify someone who is gay in April and three months later, straight? I speak of a specific incident that actually happened.
Then again, how do you justify someone who is so naturally attracted to the opposite gender that she gets pregnant, and later tells me that "that is why she is lesbian now". Again, I speak of a specific incident.
Already two people and I know less than .0000002% of the world's population... hard to believe it is isolated.
Lauded science is not a substitution for common sense.
It kills me that so many people are lobbying for special rights and privileges for a minority group with voluntary membership. I guess the squeaky broken wheel is the one that gets the oil...
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
While I don't agree that homosexuality is a choice, I think that it's stupid for them to complain about being "equal" and trying to get "gay-rights" legislation passed. Fuck gay rights. How about more Human Rights?
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I am not opposed to the idea that cultural and perhaps even biological factors may be in the equation... I simply believe that the biggest and deciding factor is a decision.
It's not. And besides, who cares about the why? Can you help who you fall in love with? And while you may argue that it's not "love" that homosexuals are in, who cares? I like girls because I lack the ability to connect with males. I've never had any guy friends...never really been big on sports. But it wasn't a choice, it wasn't a cultural factor, it wasn't a biological factor. It was what it was. There was no decision involved.
On the other hand, I also think that having a dick shoved into my rectum would cause great discomfort and be semi-painful. Having taken a shit about as big as a dick on multiple occasions, I can safely assume that having it work in reverse would be just as painful.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Yes, you can help who you fall in love with. You can rarely force yourself to love someone, and you can fall in love with anyone, but you can definitely help who you fall in love with. I have done it. I have watched others do it. It is possible.
---------
"Smart" is definitely a relative term. I know a great many intelligent people who do a great many unintelligent things.
Love, if you've done it, it ain't love. Love is something that is so completely subjective, to you, it might be love. To me, love is a connection so deep that you know it the moment you touch. To you it may just be whomever you wake up next to. At any rate, you cannot truely love someone just because you feel like it.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Why is it stupid for them to complain about being "equal" and trying to get "gay-rights" legislation passed when they don't get treated the same way heterosexuals treat themselves? Are gay people not human too?
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mylot.com/?ref=truelife
You're missing the point: I want HUMAN RIGHTS. If you've got 23 pairs of chromosomes and walk on 2 legs, as far as I'm concerned, you're human and entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Now, if you lack the 2 legs, that's understandable, but at least have a good story as to where your legs have gone. If you're missing the 23rd chromosome, sorry, but you're not human.
I'm just sick and tired of people singling themselves out for special treatment. If gay people want to get married, let them. If they want to work, let them. If they want to be in the army, LET THEM (for god's sake, let them so I won't have to be drafted or ever be in the army...). I'm all for "gay-rights," but they need to apply to all humans, not just go towards ensuring the rights for homosexuals.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I'm guessing then that would imply to polygamy and incests as well, right?
lol Wouldn't the world be a better place if they agree with you?
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mylot.com/?ref=truelife
I have no real problem with polygamy...Shit, if you want to deal with multiple women who, possibly, could all menstruate at the same time, more power to you? Not a choice I would make, but hey, why not? Aside from humans, aren't ducks the only animals that naturally mate for life?
Also, incest is just wrong, but like I care? Darwin predicts, and J.C's (Julius Caesar) family confirms, that incest will kill you. If you've ever seen the X-Files episode "Home," you know how bad it has the potential to get. Inbreeding it not a great choice, but if your sister is that into it? >.< So not a choice I'd make.
But honestly, why not let anyone that wants to be married be married? What could it hurt? So long as we keep the same general restrictions (marriage under 18 only with parental consent), I see no harm.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I already answered your questions about your two acquaintances in the other thread where you cut and pasted exactly the same thing.
``It kills me that so many people are lobbying for special rights and privileges for a minority group with voluntary membership.``
We don`t want anything ``special`` that you don`t have. In fact, I just want the ``special`` discriminatory treatment that we now receive to end so that we can be treated equally, as every other citizen is treated. It`s hard to even imagine what special ``privileges`` you are imagining that we want and that you think we don`t want you to have.
Definitely agreeing with this.
To the original poster:
I am a bisexual transman, and unless you've lived my life, you can have no idea of the privileges you experience every day that I have to fight for or work around. Want to know some of the things on my wishlist?
The right to not be fired for my sexuality/gender: You probably read this as a special privilege. After all, why should the queers get to keep their jobs and not you? Because right now we don't keep out jobs for reasons that have nothing to do with capability and everything to do with factors beyond our control. A top-notch middle school music teacher in my city resigned when he transitioned rather than face being sacked. That is, in my opinion, sick, and I don't want to go through it. You probably wouldn't either.
The right to fill out a college application/any other important document: That one looks a little funny to you, but think about it for a minute. Every application has a section where you must check male or female, and when applying online it's mandatory. I have not finished my applications largely because I can't force myself to click either one. The right I'm looking for here is an "opt-out" on all official documents so I can avoid getting in trouble with the police when my gender on an ID doesn't match my outward presentation.
The right to marry: This shouldn't even be disputed, since it's fairly obvious you have that right already and I don't. Getting it would put us on equal grounds, nothing more.
Along with those big ones I want some other trans-specific rights such as decent medical care during transitioning and the right to use a bathroom without being stared at or verbally harrassed. Since you're talking about gays, I won't go into any depth.
If you can name on thing that I want that you don't already have, I'd be happy to talk about it. One...two...three...GO!
T.k.
I think you should check off the sex you were born as. If you did indeed have an operation. If you didn't, check off your appearance.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/infinitymachine
It's more complicated than just "what you look like." My ability to pass varies from day to day and I don't look particularly male.
T.k.
In another debate, I once told a story:
"While walking through the mountains, I come across a bridge. The bridge is rigid and strong. I decide it is easier to cross then climbing down. Once I get to the middle of the bridge, I jump off the bridge.
This is an example of free will. Yet it is a flaw of free will. A sex apart of a species that reproduces sexually is supposed to be heterosexual. Animals demonstrate homosexual activities too but to fulfill gut feelings. In other words, to them, it is no different than emotional masturbation or just masturbation for that matter. The term, "Homosexuality" and other labels is a result of our ability to consciously decipher our environment. In simple language, the terms are there because we can comment on it."
I think your troubles, manly those that cause people to see you as different are based on your choice.
I.e.: I decide to climb down a mountain and climb up again despite a strong bridge being a few feet away.
I think you want the public to view you as normal despite the weird chioice you made. This is a hard thing to achieve. Gay rights already exist. It's just that people can't take you seriously.
The post and more can be from at:
http://www.progressiveu.org/180016-deconstructing-sexuality-im-here-im-q...
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/infinitymachine
By "special privileges" I refer to affirmative action and hate-crime legislation. The current laws that protect people from abuse are sufficient to curb and punish hate crimes.
Affirmative action was designed to help minority groups that were being discriminated against regain lost ground in by giving them special consideration employment, school admissions, etc, and rewarding those that fawn over the emotional wounds of the apparently disadvantaged.
My opinion of affirmative action is that unless you are handicapped, mentally or physically, you don't deserve it. The constitution spells out no right for special attention for the incensed.
---------
"I always knew I wanted to be somebody. I guess I should have been more specific."
~Unknown
``By "special privileges" I refer to affirmative action and hate-crime legislation.``
In that case, the problem may be that you are just confused about what legislation exists or is proposed.
Affirmative action ~ If you are under the impression that this exists in any political jurisdiction or is even under consideration anywhere for gay people, I think you have been getting the information from faulty sources. No large gay rights organization in the world that I have ever heard of has asked for this.
Hate Crime Legislation ~ The ``special treatment`` that we get in this case is NOT being protected. If you are attacked because you are white (or black}, federal resources will aid in prosecuting the case. If you are attacked because you are a Christian (or Jew, or Baptist, etc.}, again the feds will come to aid in getting the attacker behind bars.
But if I am attacked in a hate crime by someone who is targeting gays, do you know what happens.... The FBI just records it in its stats and then ignores it.
Every other major type of hate crime is prosecuted EXCEPT attacks against ``GLBT`` and the disabled. There has been a proposal to include sexual orientation, gender identity and disability, just as every other major category is included. And by the way, heterosexuals are equally protected under the proposal so there is nothing we get that you don`t get.
I don`t see anything special about that, and if hate crimes protections are so ``special,`` (and if you want to be consistent} shouldn`t you be arguing that we should STOP protecting everyone who is protected now (whites, Southern Baptists, Christians, Japanese Americans, etc.} instead of only jumping on a group that doesn`t even get the same protection as everyone else
Whether or not any organization has specifically asked for it, people are asking for it, and colleges, companies and other organizations have picked up on the cry and started offering special consideration and benefits for gays. (read up on Middlebury College and Walmart, for example).
I do agree with your last statement. I honestly don't care what the motive of crime was... I feel that everyone should all be dealt with on the same level and punished for the crime committed.
BTW, the posting as a comment in your thread was an accident. I started to post there but changed my mind after pressing the button. I stopped the page but apparently the programming request went through... =P and unfortunately, we don't have the happy power of deleting our own stuff.
Your first problem is that you assume every single gay person is going to flip-flop in sexuality.
Your second problem is that you provide little concrete evidence other than "I know a guy that knows a guy." Why should I believe this actually happened?
Third, when you "decide to be gay," as you likely believe I have, then maybe you'll have the knowledge necessary to deciding what rights we should and should not have.
I bet you support Bush. Or maybe you're really off-the-wall and supported Ross Perot the second time around.
I did not assume that. I simply pointed out two situations where sexual orientation was inconsistent, one of which the lesbian actually shared her "reasons" for being gay.
It's not third-hand information.
I will never be gay, I can assure you. I don't need to be homosexual in order to study and understand what is really going on anymore than I need to try pot to know it is bad for you. In fact, being independent to the situation, I am in a better position to be able to understand what is going on. Yes, I will still have personal bias (it's unavoidable), but I don't have lots of little hormones raging in my body and interfering with my thought processes.
Your final point is a fallacy. You are attacking me, not my argument. It's called "ad hominem"
---------
"I always knew I wanted to be somebody. I guess I should have been more specific."
~Unknown
You should have added " why does it seem as if most Homosexual guys lungs automatically shrink after they make their choice or decide that they've been that way all along".
I don't hate Homosexuals for the record, I do how ever think Homosexuality is a choice, and in my opinion a sin.
``You should have added " why does it seem as if most Homosexual guys lungs automatically shrink after they make their choice or decide that they've been that way all along".``
What?? Our lungs shrink?? I`ve taken fitness tests and been told I had very strong VO2max (lung caacity}. Your comment is nonsensical.
``I don't hate Homosexuals for the record, I do how ever think Homosexuality is a choice, and in my opinion a sin.``
I can 1OO% guarantee you that in my case you are wrong about it being a choice, and my experience in that area seems to be the pattern for nearly everyone. As far as it being a sin, you can believe anything you want is a sin whether it`s being gay or being black or mowing the lawn on the Sabbath, but as long as you realize you don`t have the right to expect others to follow your idea of ``sin,`` that`s fine.
Haha you know what man, I'm fully aware that I can believe what ever I want to, how ever I choose to look and decide for myself.
As for your lungs, I can't speak for you but I have met many men that decided they were Homosexual and they gradually changed the pitch of their voice from pretty masculine low to Mickey Mouse high.
THAT'S MY OPINION, I KNOW I'M ENTITLED TO IT JUST AS YOU ARE.
You are entitled to your opinion but that goes without saying. The fact that you felt the need to inform us of this does not say good things about your debating prowess.
Could you show me a medical study of gay men's lungs? I would be greatly interested if you could prove this as fact rather than biased observation.
T.k.
The size of someone's lungs has nothing to do with the pitch of their voice. I have a fairly low voice, and very low lung capacity (everybody I know smokes like a chimney, and I'm allergic). Rather, it is the length of the vocal cords that determines the pitch of the voice, though many people can speak at different pitches, just as they can sing at different pitches. Men have lower voices than women, not because their lungs are bigger, but because their vocal cords are longer.
I don't need drugs - I have genetics.
Lol thank you for by being confuzed proving my point.
My point is that Homosexual mens lungs do not change in size, yet for most their voice for some reason gets higher.
Huum you don't think maybe that's a choice, do you?
Who said I was confused? I was merely pointing out the fact that lung capacity has nothing at all to do with voice pitch, so your analogy was a little off.
I don't need drugs - I have genetics.
Okay in my sarcastic comment I should I have said, why does it seems as if most homosexuals guys vocal cords shrink once they decide they're that way, and I know guys that have sworn they never thought they were before they made the choice.
``As for your lungs, I can't speak for you but I have met many men that decided they were Homosexual and they gradually changed the pitch of their voice from pretty masculine low to Mickey Mouse high.``t
Okay, now that you`ve clarified what you meant, maybe I can give a possible answer to your question.
I`ve seen that, not often but occasionally, too, and have wondered why. I think the answer usually lies in one of two issues.
There are some who have always heard stereotypes and, not knowing many others who are gay, they come to believe in stereotypes and believe that they are supposed to act a certain way or say things a certain way. Teenagers tend to ``try on`` different personalities before they become adults.
Just like, for example, some blacks from mainly white neighborhoods may adopt ``black ghetto`` speech that they`ve heard in the media and from rap music in an attempt to solidify a black identity, some gays stereotype themselves that same way by using expressions or inflections, and that may include a different tone or pitch or inflection.
The second reason you may have seen such a change would be that some men have a naturally higher pitched voice. If they are deeply in the closet, they may attempt to do everything to fool others into thinking they`re straight, including altering their voice or constantly talking about how hot the girls are, or even choosing hobbies that are stereotypically macho. Once they finally decide to just be themselves and stop pretending, they may not be afraid to be themselves anymore and that can include using their natural voice.
I`ve seen lots of straight guys who use an obviously fake ``macho`` voice too, usually at around age 13 when they may be extra insecure about being ``manly``, but sometimes later on, too.
So in the one case I think it`s kind of an affected thing and in the other case he`s finally being who he really is.
I`d say that`s not typical among gay men but it exists. I know lots of gay guys with a natural voice more deep than Vin Diesel, and others that range right u to Mickey Mouse... and some straight guys in both categories too, of course.
I was gonna write what you just wrote. When i was younger i used to try to speak in a higher pitch cause that's how all the straight girls talked, but when I became more comfortable with myself I spoke in my natural deeper voice.
____________________________________________________________________-
It Changes
I Dance Naked Around A Tree At Midnight
______________________________
The Opposite of Equality is Equality
I obviously agree with you some what.
I have known men that didn't seem to have a very low voice or a very high voice but seemed to have a pretty nice voice actually, but once they decided they were homosexual went to squeaky high, as if they were giving it everything they had to have a high voice.
I respect your opinion that homosexuality isn't a choice though I think it is, I guess we'll find out once we die, or if science can come up with 100% fact based evidence.
Wait... How, exactly, would we find out whether homosexuality is a choice when we die? After death you don't find out much of anything.
T.k.
That's your belief, my belief is that we'll find out a whole lot.
I love how your God likes to keep people in the dark all their lives then pull aside the curtains when they die. What's the point?
T.k.
How do you learn anything in this life?
You either have to look for it, or be shown.
Just because you were unaware of something doesn't mean that something doesn't exist.
What do you have to say to the people who haven't heard the theory of evolution?
Although they wouldn't really need to hear about it would they? Because if we're here by evolution, that means we're mistakes, from a mistake, from nothing and nothing happens when you die, so maybe I should plunder the world for its riches and gold and not be concerned that it's wrong or that I will be punished because after all if we just die well than there are no consequences.
"How do you learn anything in this life?
You either have to look for it, or be shown.
Just because you were unaware of something doesn't mean that something doesn't exist."
And this has what to do with what you think we learn after death...?
"What do you have to say to the people who haven't heard the theory of evolution?"
Wait, what? When did evolution get involved? As to what I'd say, I wouldn't say anything to them, but I would inform their school systems of my disappointment.
"Although they wouldn't really need to hear about it would they? Because if we're here by evolution, that means we're mistakes, from a mistake, from nothing and nothing happens when you die, so maybe I should plunder the world for its riches and gold and not be concerned that it's wrong or that I will be punished because after all if we just die well than there are no consequences."
Put the slippery slope away before someone gets hurt. Just because I don't believe that some celestial being is going to reveal all after death (and that I think that would be morally reprehensible anyways) does not mean that I feel that life has no consequences and I can act as I please. It also doesn't mean that people who do believe in all-enlightening celestial beings don't plunder the earth, since a great many theists have done just that. Immoral actions are performed by people of all faiths.
Oh, and evolution isn't a "mistake." Mistake carries the negative connotation that what happened was not only unintentional but harmful. You weren't a "mistake" - you were a not-quite-random event.
T.k.
You said, "I like how your God keeps us in the dark and then pulls the veil after we die", which sounds to me like your saying God gave us no information as to why we are here and how to live while we are.
lol it doesn't really matter who has or has not heard about Evolution, so why is there such a need for schools to teach a "theory".
If Evolution was the reason we're alive, than we don't need to know it, because nothing depends on it, we simply die, we forget everything we learn when we die.
Theists can believe in God, or a God but that doesn't mean they obey him.
And if evolution is false and everything you say about God is true, you have no more reason to learn anything than if I'm right.
Am I going to have to stress, as countless others have done before me, that a "theory" in science speech is a very firm positive statement about accuracy? We have this connotation in spoken English that implies a lack of certainty, but it's just not true in a technical sense.
Listen, I don't want to argue religion with you. That's not what your thread is about. Nothing good can come of this. You can post one more response and I promise to leave it at that so no one really gets the last word.
T.k.
How the hell did you make it from homosexuals to evolution?
Also, gravity is still just a theory. Just throwing it out there.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
...when you consider that the primary subset of our population that opposes full equality for LGBT people is the same subet that opposes the idea of evolution (and for the same reason...religious fundamentalism).
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
I suppose...But I still want them to deny gravity before they deny evolution.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
You know actually I have many friends that are naturalists and they hate homosexual people.
I don't hate homosexuals and I think you have the right to make the choices you want as long as you don't threaten any ones lives our their freedom, I'm not exactly sure how I feel about homosexual marriage though.
I do think Homosexuality is wrong just like as I assume you don't believe in God, it's a choice we each have the right to make and in a democracy the majority wins, so if more people are for it, go get married, but if not, too bad.
Haha, I don't waste my time with immature petty games like getting in the last word.
I understand that you guys feel this way and I have no right to threaten it, nor do I try, I'm simply telling you how I feel.
Also my point was not so much on evolution being a theory, I was saying in evolution there is no reason for me to be here, so why should I act like there is if that was true?
If we die and we don't need to hear about evolution to be saved from something?
Than why is there so much stress over trying to get people to believe it?
I agree if you will say that religion causes violence or something of that nature, although in most cases I will say that usually comes from people perverting the truth or from a violent religion.
I mean to harm no one, my simple goal is to show people what I believe is the truth and you can or cannot except that.
I simply don't believe that homosexuality is natural nor do I believe it's right, that's my belief and I have no reason to believe otherwise, I think even if you believe in evolution it's obvious that our bodies aren't meant to have something rammed up our butts.
Sex is meant for procreation, a man and a man cannot procreate.
That's simply my belief and my argument, except it or don't.
I choose to do the same with yours.
> I was saying in evolution there is no
> reason for me to be here, so why should
> I act like there is if that was true?
The problem I have with this statement is that it ascribes a rather catastrophic lack of imagination to people who accept the basic scientific foundation of evolutionary theory. Evolution is a demontrably effective theory that describes the way that biological organisms develop over time, not a system that offers you a "reason" for living. The search for purpose is a philosophical endeavor, that has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific study of biological systems and organisms.
> Than why is there so much stress
> over trying to get people to believe it?
Aside from the fact that debate is a central aspect of the blogging experience, some people's "reason for living" is the search for objective truth. In order to discover the objective truth, claims must be tested and judged in an objective framework, so that the "good" ideas can be separated from the "bad" ones.
I think you just contradicted yourself. Here, you say...
> ...my simple goal is to show people what
> I believe is the truth
...but just above you said...
> I'm simply telling you how I feel.
If you want to just tell us what you feel and move on, that's fine. But if you want to convince us that what you say is "the truth," then it is reasonable, I think, to ask you to support your beliefs with something a little more substantial than simple assertions.
> I simply don't believe that homosexuality
> is natural
No offense, but if you think this then you aren't very well infomed.
> nor do I believe it's right,
Whether or not homosexuality is "right" or not is a purely subjective question. Fortunately, our laws (assuming you are living in the U.S.) protect the rights of people to make this kind of decision for themselves. As our Supreme Court has stated (specfically in regards to homosexual conduct), "Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct." (Lawrence v. Texas)
> I think even if you believe in evolution
> it's obvious that our bodies aren't meant
> to have something rammed up our butts.
I think that is a very childish statement that says a lot about the level of intellect involved in your opinion.
> Sex is meant for procreation, a man and
> a man cannot procreate.
Sex is not just for procreation. That is a presumption that is easily dispelled by studying the phenomenon of human (and animal) sexuality and behavior. Biologically speaking there are a number of reason that higher order animals (which include humans) have sex. For example, sex is pleasureable (if you're good at it, anyway). Sex is also a useful strategy for conflict resolution and helps to build closer emotional bonds in close populations. Sex can be used to alleviate stress. The simple (and obvious) fact is that MOST humans do not intend to make a baby every time they have sex.
> That's simply my belief
> and my argument, except it or don't.
> I choose to do the same with yours.
Ultimately, I think that your beliefs are your own...and I really don't have anything to say about them as such. But your argument in support of those beliefs seems rather weak and poorly reasoned. There doesn't seem to be any objective basis for it, and simply saying "this is what I believe" really doesn't qualify as an "argument" in the usual sense of the word, anyway.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
My friend, Ryan, has a very high voice [I'd say he sounds more feminine then most girls I know] but he's straight. Of course, he is made fun of by all of his team mates for this & was voted "Most Likely to Come Out of the Closet" so who knows?
However, I don't think you can pick who you love. Bisexuality as a life-long orientation, however, is complete bull to me but that's an argument for another day.
I have a high voice to, not amazingly high but it matured over time I've never really changed myself to try and make others like me I know some have but that's not my point.
``I respect your opinion that homosexuality isn't a choice though I think it is, I guess we'll find out once we die, or if science can come up with 100% fact based evidence.``
YOU might find out after you die, but as I told you, it`s not something that I have to find out later.
You`re talking about my life and I know 1OO% that you are wrong about that. What you`re saying would be like me trying to tell you that I believe that you can write better with your left hand than with your right, and, rather than hearing your experience from the one who knows it (you}, I tell you that ``well have to find out after we die.``
If you want to learn about what gay people experience while you`re here on earth, the information is already available, but you don`t seem to want to question your assumptions about us.
Here's a good argument related to this matter!
http://www.progressiveu.org/180016-deconstructing-sexuality-im-here-im-q...
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/infinitymachine
"It kills me that so many people are lobbying for special rights and privileges for a minority group with voluntary membership."- Can you elaborate how exactly do gay people ask for special rights? If you're talking about a right to get married, how is that a special right? Don't straight people get married all the time? Gay people want to get married too. If anything, it's the heterosexuals who get the special rights, leaving everything else like homosexuality and polygamy out.
Whether or not homosexuality is a choice, it depends on the individuals. You cannot assume every little thing about every other gay people. It's like you're stereotyping them already without knowing them. Sexuality is not something that's definite, as of now there are no proofs of such. Even scientists mislead us in their gay research. You should ask sexologists about sexuality, not scientists or psychologists. Sexuality is out of their field. I don't know why they care so much.
Sexuality is how one would identify oneself. If you say you're straight, who's going to stop you? Perhaps you want to test the water...so you switch your sexual preferences, does that mean you're straight or gay...maybe bi? It's how YOU would define yourself. Why would you give people the rights to label you as such. They don't know a damn thing about you and I bet they don't even understand what you're going through.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mylot.com/?ref=truelife
You have just reiterated my point for me. Thanks.
"Whether or not homosexuality is a choice, it depends on the individuals. "
"Perhaps you want to test the water...so you switch your sexual preferences,"
You mean chose to be gay, right? And in "depending on the individual," at least some of the LGBTs have chosen that road... therefore the LGBT group is one with voluntary membership... anyone who wants special consideration can get it.
The government is responsible for making choices that will be the best for our country. Gay marriage is not a good thing for our country. If you look at other countries who have adopted gay marriage and civil unions and otherwise protected and fostered homosexuality, you can see the impact it is having. Marriage is becoming obsolete in Scandinavia. The majority of the children born in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. It's true that divorce rates are better now than they were in the nineties... but that is because almost no one in those countries gets married anymore. You have to have a spouse before you can divorce them. The percentage of marriages that end with divorce, however, is rising.
Other studies have made it obvious what the effects of divorced and broken homes are on the children. They do worse in school, are more likely to abuse drugs and/or engage in criminal activities, more likely to engage in premarital sex, and more likely to be divorced themselves later in life (which will further perpetuate the problem). Poor physical and mental health and poverty are also common concerns.
All of these create problems in our society. We spend hoards of money keeping kids in school, out of jail, out of each other's beds, and generally out of trouble, and even so, these programs are mostly ineffective. These kids are the next generation of breadwinners and economical definers... and as a general rule, they don't do nearly as well as children who grew up in whole families, and the economy is collectively the worse for it.
This is the impact on society: the society is collectively less intelligent, less able to perform competitively in economy, less self-motivated and self-disciplined, and perpetually more broken.
This is the end effect of gay marriage. All other reasons aside, this is why we cannot afford to give that privilege to you.
(BTW: I am not saying that if you are a victim of divorce you are automatically a crack-head loser... I am just pointing out the statistics. If you escaped clean from a divorce, more power to you.)
Say it with me now! "Correlation does not equal causation." Think about it.
If x = gay marriage and y = lack of marriage, you have not provided me with conclusive proof that x led to y. Couldn't x be independant from y? Couldn't z (where z is an unknown factor) have caused both? Did you ever stop to think that changing ideas about marriage caused gay marriage to become legal and the statistics to drop at the same time? They could just be symptoms of a larger cause or completely unrelated.
Oh, and can I point to Mass., which has the lowest divorce rate in the country? Conservatives love to say that that has nothing to do with its permissiveness towards gay marriage.
T.k.
It is quite possible that there are outstanding factors, but the permissiveness toward homosexuality for sure does not help. It places a stamp of approval on the deterioration of the family and says, "oh, you know what? Family and marriage is really not that important." Hence the problems I shared above....
I do not believe for a second that allowing gay marriage strengthens traditional family relationships. It doesn't make sense. You show me concrete evidence of cause and effect on that one.
---------
"I always knew I wanted to be somebody. I guess I should have been more specific."
~Unknown
Here is your line of reasoning:
Gay people are getting married + (Marriage is good + Marriage is not happening)=> The destruction of the family => (implied) Very Bad Things.
Huh?
I'm no mathematics professor, but there's something distinctly wonky about that equation. It's almost like the "Gay people are getting married" and the "Marriage is good + Marriage is not happing" are cancelling each other out...
T.k.
Marriage between a man and a woman is good. Any other kind of marriage is against God's law and contributes to the decay of the most basic unit of society--the family. (meaning the traditional family).
With this clarification, the equation holds just fine.
God's law? Which God? Saying stuff like this puts you on shakey ground because there is no empirical evidence that God exists. There also happens to be no place in the bible where it says Gay marriage is wrong, only gay sex.
The decay of society? Why can't a family be two moms and a son or two dads and a son, or a daughter for either? Adoption will increase once someone takes the time to define marriage as 2 people coming together in the eyes of the law. Fuck the church, they don't belong in this equation.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
There is plenty of empirical evidence that God exists if you are willing to see it.
For sure the church belongs in this equation. The big reason there is uncertainty on gay marriage lies in the question of whether or not homosexuality is morally wrong. If it is, gay marriage is supporting what is wrong. The church is one side of the debate, the LGBT community is the other side. Sorry, I know you'd really love to get it your way without a fight, but it's not going to happen.
---------
"Smart" is definitely a relative term. I know a great many intelligent people who do a great many unintelligent things.
There is no EMPIRICAL evidence. There cannot be, or else your god would cease to exist. I say "your" because I don't believe in god, therefore, he isn't mine.
Also, who's morals are you going to base this decision on? Yours? Mine? You cannot legislate morality. The LGBT community does not constitute the entireity of the "other side" and I do get my way without a fight because I don't want to debate it.
In the end, the chuch can mandate that it will not recognize gay marriage, but who gives a shit? This is not an theocracy, this is a mock-democracy. And in mock-democracy, we don't believe in religion.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Under the idea that something ceases to exist if there is evidence of it, reality is a scam. That's a total logical fallacy, and it's bad science.
And here is my empirical evidence: http://progressiveu.org/105603-the-other-theological-tidbit-proof
What are murder, rape, bribery, etc all legislated on? You can call it Utopian ideals or morality at whim... it doesn't change what it is.
Whether or not a church recognizes the marriage is not the issue right now. It is whether or not the society and government can/should 1) permit it to happen, and 2) protect it.
---------
"Smart" is definitely a relative term. I know a great many intelligent people who do a great many unintelligent things.
Rape and murder are concepts defined by society as a whole, not because of some moral standards. These stem from ancient laws that work out to be "don't die" and "protect your women, you need them to be remembered in the world." Don't try and tell me that there are universal morals. They're survival instincts.
I already disproved your empirical evidence. By the way, empirical evidence typically uses repeatable, calculable, experimental evidence. Personal experience is subjective. I requested objective.
Government should not be involved in anything we do. Period. Also, who is society to permit itself to be happy? Who does society think they are trying to keep the people who do it "right" above those whose pieces and parts don't fit together too well. Just because gay sex is anatomically wrong does not mean that it is "morally" wrong.
And where does gay marriage hurt straight marriage? Can white folks marry black folks? It's the same argument used by many, to be sure, but the logic is applicable.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I posted this on another thread and found it to be salient to the authors post. Note that this study is of actual people & not a biological study into the innateness of homosexuality.Rather it is a sociological study into homosexuality as actually practiced. In that it confirms the original post on this blog
These findings are from The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States by Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael and Stuart Michaels, Chicago: University of Chicago.
http://sociology.uchicago.edu/faculty/laumann.html
http://www.amazon.com/Social-Organization-Sexuality-Sexual-Practices/dp/...
The Laumann study, was based on a survey of a statistically representative sample of American adults between the ages of 18 and 60, and conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. Laumann is universally recognized as definitive. Since its publication, numerous large-scale epidemiologic surveys, conducted in all the English-speaking and many other industrialized nations, have repeatedly confirmed and strengthened its findings.
One of the major points of the Laumann study, which the authors themselves did not expect, is that “homosexuality” as a fixed trait scarcely even seems to exist” stating that “[E]stimating a single number for the prevalence of homosexuality is a futile exercise,”
Laumann declares in the first paragraph of an entire chapter devoted to the subject. It is futile not because of bias, underreporting, methodological difficulties, or complexities of behavior, but “because it presupposes assumptions that are patently false: that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, that it is stable over time, and that it can be easily measured.”
The reality is that since 1994—for ten years—there has existed solid epidemiologic evidence, now extensively confirmed and reconfirmed, that “the most common natural course for a young person who develops a “homosexual identity” is for it to spontaneously disappear unless that process is discouraged or interfered with by extraneous factors.
We may now say with increasing confidence that those “extraneous” factors are primarily the “social milieu” in which the person finds himself.
Laumann, provides the most careful and extensive database ever obtained on the childhood experiences of matched homosexual and heterosexual populations. All the evidence points to the fact that homosexuality is not a “stable trait.”
Furthermore, as was already evident in the data concerning prevalence of homosexuality—however measured, whether by action, feeling, or identity—before age eighteen and after age eighteen, Laumann et al., found to their surprise that its instability over the course of life was one-directional: declining, and very significantly so.
“Sexual orientation wasn’t just not a stable trait, homosexuality tended spontaneously to “convert” into heterosexuality as a cohort of individuals aged, and this was true for both men and women”
(See Laumann, chapters eight and nine.)
The pull of the normative, as it were.
NICE.... I appreciate this information. Thanks for sharing.
---------
"I always knew I wanted to be somebody. I guess I should have been more specific."
~Unknown
> I posted this on another thread...
I would like to invite everyone in this tread to actually visit that other thread (linked below), so that they can see how you have GROSSLY and intentionally misrepresented the findings of the Laumann study. After you posted this crap in response to my blog, I went out and actually read the study, and discovered that the researchers actually present a very different picture than the one you attempt to paint with your disingenuous and out-of-context quote mining. The comments you lifted were specifically in response to sexual preference self-identification, and in no way, shape or form were intended to address homosexuality as a sexual orientation and biological trait.
The data being misrepresented by Fitz was obtained as part of a survey that asked people if they considered themselves to be homosexual, and then compared that self-identification to reports of actual sexual activity. Very few people identified themselves as gay, and the number of people who were having sex with people of the same sex was significantly higher than the number of people who thought of themselves as gay. The authors specifically noted that homsexual self-identity was under-reported, and that many people did not openly think of themselves as homosexual due to concerns about judgement and discrimination. And, the study never even touched the biological question, which was outside the scope of a survey-driven study.
It really bugs me to have to confront people who can't deal honestly with the extant research. If you have to manipulate the data and lie to make your case, then there's probably something inherently wrong with your opinion.
percivale
Here is the blog: What Most Doctors Say About Homosexuality: A Collection of Policy Statements by the Major Professional Associations
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
I have a question do we live in a society that embraces heterosexuaity? I'm sure you will agree that we do. Therefore most homosexuals are less likely to come out without having a relationship with the opposite sex and there are some people who are actually trying to define theirselves and part of who they are may deal with sexuaity....You would never know someone's sexual preference....There are straight men and women who are married that perfer there own sex but are afraid to openly express this but does so in the dark.... And why are you looking for someone's actions to be justified....Do you actually know their reason behind their actions?????
Truly Beautiful Truth