[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
It’s been mentioned in these forums previously, but worth mentioning again:
It’s interesting how the cons want to stamp out gays… unless of course we’re talking about lesbians. [/quote]
I didn’t know they allowed cons to use computers to browse the internet? Damn, prison looks better all the time! Not to mention all the gay love you can handle and more!
[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Notice you don’t hear about the “gay gene” in the news anymore.
Actually, there has been a lot of recent research showing strong evidence for a genetic component to sexual orientation.[/quote]
No, there hasn’t. As a matter of evolutionary fitness, homosexuality wouldn’t be a contributing factor because homosexuals produce no offspring. Newer studies are actually showing lower heritability of homosexuality than previous ones.
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/06/biology-of-homosexuality.php
Do read through the comments.
[quote]forlife wrote:
As I said in my earlier post, social security benefits, tax benefits, the ability to grant U.S. citizenship to a partner living in another country, etc. There are over 1,000 federal benefits available to straight couples which are denied to gay couples, many of them significant.
[/quote]
None of these are rights - but many people confuse them as such. A right that must be bestowed by legal force is not a right. It is a privilege afforded to an interested class at the expense of everyone else outside of that class.
On the contrary your life, liberty and property are yours alone to do with what you will. These are the only rights that exist for any individual be they gay, straight, or homophobic neoconservatives.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
I don’t have a problem with homosexuals, nor with their lifestyle. I do have a problem with the whole politics of it all.
When a person says they want the right to marry who they want, ok, fine with me. It’s really none of my business.
But then the idea that I must accept their lifestyle. That everybody must accept it. Again, it’s none of my business, so quit shoving it down my throat.
There are people who did not accept my marriage. Again, none of their business.
If somebody considers it a sin, I do not believe they should be forced to accept it, or support it. And yes that goes for employers.
Then there is the whole idea of what a marriage is. When the hell did the government get to choose what a marriage is? If I were gay, I wouldn’t care what the government thought. Have a freaken ceremony, and call it whatever you want to.
If the government doesn’t recognize it, oh well. Most of the rights they are trying to acquire can be achieved through legal documents.
Want the benefits from an employer? Ask. I think that is a little better then demanding it.[/quote]
Great post. We should all be for tolerance. Acceptance is something different.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
It’s been mentioned in these forums previously, but worth mentioning again:
It’s interesting how the cons want to stamp out gays… unless of course we’re talking about lesbians. [/quote]
It depends on what the lesbians look like.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Iron Dwarf wrote:
It’s interesting how the cons want to stamp out gays… unless of course we’re talking about lesbians.
I’ve noticed that too. Sometimes straight guys feel justified in discriminating against gay men because seeing two men kissing makes them feel “icky”, but they get turned on by two women going at it.
[/quote]
I think there is a clear cut difference between wanting to watch two women make out and hoping they are awarded the same priveleges as the rest of America. The fact that politicians argue for or against gay marriage or the gay agenda has nothing to do with whether or not two women making out is hot or not.
http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/homophobia
I see a trend.
Makavali pulled the exact same stunt on the exact same topic once before.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I thought real conservatives didn’t give a shit what gays did in there own home… and own movies… ect.
Depends - conservatives are generally old liberals, and many conservatives simply believe that the government has no business regulating that behavior.
Conservatives should have no problem with homosexuality in general… right?
Thinking that government shouldn’t regulate/penalize private behavior is not the same thing as thinking it is “fabulous”.
Many conservatives don’t like what gay culture is contributing to in the larger culture - that is, the emasculation of American culture.
The knee jerk reaction is to shriek “homophobia!”, but that would be incorrect on the basis that conservatives disapprove of many other phenomena “effeminizing” American culture, and they damn them all the same for that effect.
The point I raise with that example is this - you can think something silly, frivolous, stupid, downright objectionable, and not want it around as a social matter, but still think that the government has no business outlawing it.[/quote]
Completely understandable. In fact, I feel the same way about plenty of things. Good post, TB, as usual.
(Oh, by the by, I’m currently at Cornell U, and they have a “progressive” paper here that makes me throw up a little in my mouth when I read it. You guys have almost entirely converted me to conservatism, and I owe most of that to your intelligent defense of the right.
You’ve shown me what it means to be a conservative beyond the idiots that make up the christian coalition, and allowed me to come to terms with being much less liberal than my peers. So… thanks.)
On topic: most gay kids I know are embarrassed by the whole crazy-San Francisco thing. They’d rather people just think of them as normal guys who happen to be attracted to men instead of women. They don’t have problems with the occasional parade showing support, but the outright crazy-perverted stuff usually makes them cringe.
In other words, the few who are very visible are speaking for the many, who don’t necessarily support the few.
Similar to how Christians, conservatives, and environmentalists are all portrayed in America.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Notice you don’t hear about the “gay gene” in the news anymore.
Actually, there has been a lot of recent research showing strong evidence for a genetic component to sexual orientation.
More agenda pushing…There has also been plenty of social research done showing strong eveidence that it is more nuture than nature.
But…you don’t want to talk about that because you have an agenda.[/quote]
Does it matter? Whether it is nurture or nature, a gay guy can’t be “converted” back to a straight one. Therefore, how they became gay in the first place is mostly irrelevant.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Notice you don’t hear about the “gay gene” in the news anymore.
Actually, there has been a lot of recent research showing strong evidence for a genetic component to sexual orientation.
More agenda pushing…There has also been plenty of social research done showing strong eveidence that it is more nuture than nature.
But…you don’t want to talk about that because you have an agenda.
Does it matter? Whether it is nurture or nature, a gay guy can’t be “converted” back to a straight one. Therefore, how they became gay in the first place is mostly irrelevant.[/quote]
The technology will soon become available to do so, once they find the cause. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, but it is relevant.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
No, there hasn’t. As a matter of evolutionary fitness, homosexuality wouldn’t be a contributing factor because homosexuals produce no offspring. [/quote]
The link you provided says just the opposite. The twin studies discussed in the article and in the associated comments make it clear that genetics are a contributing factor. The debate is on the relative contribution of genetics vs. other factors like in utero influences and environment, not on the genetic factor itself.
On your point about evolutionary fitness, the article notes:
Furthermore, there is evidence for other evolutionary pathways that don’t require direct procreation (see the studies on mothers of gays being more fertile, for example).
He’s saying that if the mutations rates amongst 100 developmental are high enough, it might explain why homosexuality persists despite the obvious fact that it should have been eliminated from a population relatively quickly because of the lack of offspring. So it’s genetic in the sense that it results from mutations in developmental pathways, not that it’s heritable.
The idea that mothers of gays are more fertile is sort of a zero-sum game from an evolutionary perspective if their kids don’t reproduce, right?
Fine. So it’s not purely genetic, and the relative effect of the genetic component is unknown, and nothing in the article to support the idea that there is just a “gay gene” that you’re born with that makes you one way or the other.
Alan R. Sanders, the guy conducting the study to determine the genetic influence on homosexuality, had this to say:
Some people are more genetically prone to do lots of different things, some of them are bad. We don’t say any of their actions are “good” or “bad” or “normal” because of their genetic predisposition to that particular behavior, especially since gene expression has a variety of non-genetic influences.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Notice you don’t hear about the “gay gene” in the news anymore.
Actually, there has been a lot of recent research showing strong evidence for a genetic component to sexual orientation.
More agenda pushing…There has also been plenty of social research done showing strong eveidence that it is more nuture than nature.
But…you don’t want to talk about that because you have an agenda.
Does it matter? Whether it is nurture or nature, a gay guy can’t be “converted” back to a straight one. Therefore, how they became gay in the first place is mostly irrelevant.
The technology will soon become available to do so, once they find the cause. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, but it is relevant. [/quote]
Cool!
Could they gay-efy me!?!?
Because I´d sure as hell try that.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
You’ve shown me what it means to be a conservative beyond the idiots that make up the christian coalition, and allowed me to come to terms with being much less liberal than my peers. So… thanks.)
[/quote]
TB’s heroes are all in military uniform. That is not a conservative trait – just so you don’t confuse yourself into thinking it is.
Also don’t trap yourself into the idea that change is bad – hence conservatism. The real essence of liberalism is that change is necessary for survival and that people need to be free in order to choose how it should be brought about for themselves.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
On topic: most gay kids I know are embarrassed by the whole crazy-San Francisco thing. They’d rather people just think of them as normal guys who happen to be attracted to men instead of women. They don’t have problems with the occasional parade showing support, but the outright crazy-perverted stuff usually makes them cringe.
[/quote]
At my school most of the gay guys seem to enjoy nothing more then putting straight guys in uncomfortable situations.
Like, you know when on the second week of freshmen year a gay junior I didn’t know asked me out. That was pretty wierd.
around here the ratio of lesbians who act like normal people is much high then that of gay guys. I can think of only one guy out of several that It wouldn’t bother me being around him. That said, I really haven’t met any gay people outside my city, so the various scehens might be different.
I’m pro civil union howerver marriage to me is something sacred between a man and a woman.
scratch that, the govt shouldn’t be involved with marriage to begin with.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
None of these are rights - but many people confuse them as such. A right that must be bestowed by legal force is not a right.[/quote]
Life, liberty, and property are all supported and fostered “by legal force”. Without laws, these fundamental rights would be abused far more than they are now.
The California Supreme Court ruled that all California couples have a “basic civil right” to marry “without regard to their sexual orientation.”
Semantics aside, the point is that gay couples are entitled to the same rights/privileges/benefits/whatever you want to call them as straight couples.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
I think there is a clear cut difference between wanting to watch two women make out and hoping they are awarded the same priveleges as the rest of America. The fact that politicians argue for or against gay marriage or the gay agenda has nothing to do with whether or not two women making out is hot or not.[/quote]
True, but even in this thread people have cited the disgust at gay men kissing as one reason for opposing gay marriage. Not that it is the only reason, but I think it contributes to the opposition.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
On topic: most gay kids I know are embarrassed by the whole crazy-San Francisco thing. They’d rather people just think of them as normal guys who happen to be attracted to men instead of women. They don’t have problems with the occasional parade showing support, but the outright crazy-perverted stuff usually makes them cringe.
In other words, the few who are very visible are speaking for the many, who don’t necessarily support the few.
[/quote]
That has been my experience as well. People resort to stereotypes out of ignorance. The key is to actually get to know people beyond the surface level.