[quote]Mick28 wrote:
The Mage wrote:
Uh oh, if makkun is supporting you it can’t be good.
Okay thanks, I’ll skip the post I was going to write.[/quote]
Funny - all I did was make a compliment to forlife, and all you do is trying to slag me off personally. I would argue that says more about you than about me.
Makkun
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
makkun wrote:
[…]
We certainly spend a lot of time discussing ‘gay’ stuff around here.[/quote]
Yup. Seems to be an important topic to many of us.
Either you misunderstand the process of evolution (which in this context I’m alluding to), or the process you describe doesn’t seem to be working very well, as the percentages of people who we define as gay seem to quite stable throughout human populations.
I agree with a lot of that, but I think though that you oversee that in a democratic, free and pluralist society you also have the right to lobby for what you see as conducive to improve it (LGBT rights belong in that category IMO), or avert what you see as a danger (e.g. discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, religion, disability, age and sexual orientation).
Makkun
[quote]makkun wrote:
Funny - all I did was make a compliment to forlife, and all you do is trying to slag me off personally. I would argue that says more about you than about me.
Makkun[/quote]
Can’t take a joke? Didn’t mean to get you all hacked off, or give you a fanny fit.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
makkun wrote:
Funny - all I did was make a compliment to forlife, and all you do is trying to slag me off personally. I would argue that says more about you than about me.
Makkun
Can’t take a joke? Didn’t mean to get you all hacked off, or give you a fanny fit.[/quote]
Sorry, if I misunderstood your joke. I think Mick didn’t either though. No offense where none is taken - I take these gay-related threads too seriously sometimes.
And - ‘fanny fit’? Lol.
Makkun
Did a search for British slang. You can only learn so much from watching Doctor Who and Torchwood.
Anyway Guv, scratch yer bollocks and give yer girl an aussie kiss for me before you go bash the bishop.
Now I have to hit the khazi and spend a penny.
(Did I say that right?)
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Did a search for British slang. You can only learn so much from watching Doctor Who and Torchwood.[/quote]
I think from Torchwood anyone can learn a lot about being more relaxed wrt the gay ‘agenda’ - or do they cut these scenes and references for US audiences?
[quote]Anyway Guv, scratch yer bollocks and give yer girl an aussie kiss for me before you go bash the bishop.
Now I have to hit the khazi and spend a penny.(Did I say that right?)[/quote]
Wouldn’t know, I’m German (which generally renders any attempt at humour futile) - I just live in the UK. But - jolly good attempt I dare say. 
Makkun
[quote]makkun wrote:
I think from Torchwood anyone can learn a lot about being more relaxed wrt the gay ‘agenda’ - or do they cut these scenes and references for US audiences?[/quote]
Actually I wouldn’t know. I am impatient, so I downloaded the shows before they were broadcast here. I do know that John Barrowman was up for the part of Will on Will and Grace. But he “wasn’t gay enough”.
[quote]Wouldn’t know, I’m German (which generally renders any attempt at humour futile) - I just live in the UK. But - jolly good attempt I dare say.
Makkun[/quote]
Oh yeah. I think I remember you mentioning that before actually.
You need this:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Yes. The police man “around the corner” cannot help me at this point.[/quote]
I’m talking about situations where the police step in to protect the innocent, and about situations where the courts hold criminals accountable for their actions. I’m not sure why you’re arguing that law enforcement doesn’t play a role in protecting the life, property, and happiness of others.
Clearly it does, and the same applies to the role of law when it comes to protecting the most fundamental tenets of human relationships. If law didn’t play a role, there would be no laws about relationships in the first place. There would be no marriage.
If you’re going to frame it that way, how would you respond to people that object to marriage in general being recognized by the government? Isn’t that an equal example of “using force to institute law” and “taking away from others to get your privileges”?
I agree with you here. The question is whether or not the discrimination is morally justified. In the case of gay marriage, an increasing number of voters, legislators, and judges believe that it is immoral to discriminate marriage on the basis of sexual orientation.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I am sure there are some who would choose heterosexuality if they could find the same love and acceptance from a member of the opposite sex.[/quote]
The medical and mental health organizations say you are wrong on that point. So do I. If I could have just “chosen heterosexuality”, I would have stayed married to my wife and saved all of us a lot of pain. Unfortunately, no matter how badly I wanted to be straight it wasn’t possible to change who I was. My ex-wife and I realized that and we are still friends to this day.
Why are you equating environmental influences with choice? The environment shapes who people are, often without them having any choice in the matter. You can’t choose your parents, the environment in which you are raised, etc.
Regardless of the respective contributions of genetics and environment in the development of sexual orientation, the universal conclusion by the medical and mental health organizations is that sexual orientation is not a choice. I didn’t choose to be gay any more than you chose to be straight.
[quote]makkun wrote:
Thanks, forlife - you bring your usual focus on a well crafted argument, use of proper and referenced sources and a fair attempt to understand (and respectfully counter) your opponents’ arguments. You’re a credit to T-Nation.
[/quote]
Thanks man. I have to say it’s been nice being able to discuss the issues, for the most part without people on either side resorting to name calling and personal attacks.
I have my views and feel strongly about them, but I respect the right of other people to believe whatever makes sense to them. I may disagree with them, but I try not to question their motivation or intent. For the most part, I think people are sincerely sharing their perspective and that’s all I can ask.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Yes, we do. Perhaps those with an agenda on both sides should just stay the hell out of the research.[/quote]
I agree with you. People on both sides quote tidbits of research, often out of context, and draw conclusions that confirm their original beliefs but don’t represent the scientific facts.
That is why I think it is important to respect the bottom line conclusions of the scientific community. They are the scientists conducting the research, with full knowledge of the variables, experimental design, and proper conclusions that can be reached based on what the data show.
Even then, science is not static. Conclusions can and do evolve over time based on more refined research and new data. In the aggregate, as the research matures, you can have increasing confidence in the correctness of the conclusions that are reached.
After two decades of increasingly mature research, the medical and mental health organizations have reached consensus on a number of facts about sexual orientation. I think these conclusions should be respected and that we are justified in placing a solid amount of confidence in them, given the amount of research that has been done. There is nothing wrong with continuing to question (science actually demands doing so), but with the caveat that these conclusions are the best information we currently have based on what the data show.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
But it must be mentioned that if everyone who was gay was that way because of biology, then the twin studies should be 100%, or close to it. Not just a statistically significant increase.[/quote]
I agree with you, which is one reason I think environment or other influences (hormonal, etc.) have to play a role as well.
Or it could be an interaction of the variables, where both need to be present. If you look at the large majority of human personality characteristics, both genetics and environment play a role in determining their development.
Do you support completely removing the role of government in marriage then? Would you be content for it to be a simple mutual commitment, with no legal responsibilities or benefits?
I agree with you that people should only marry when they truly love each other. However, I think the responsibilities/benefits provided by government help ensure stability in the relationship and in society as a whole. Ideally people would stay together solely because they love each other, but the reality is that every relationship goes through rough periods. The legal infrastructure of marriage provides both sticks and carrots for staying in the relationship.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
being gay is Nature’s way of weeding out those who should NOT reproduce, for whatever reason.[/quote]
And yet Nature continues to perpetuate homosexuality, showing that the trait adds value to the gene pool. If homosexuality were undesirable, it would have been eliminated from the gene pool by now. Nature has apparently gone out of her way not to do so by making the mothers of gay men more fertile, etc.
The “special rights” argument makes no sense to me. Gays are asking for the same rights as straights, not for special rights. It’s not as if mixed race couples were asking for “special rights” to marry, or as if women were asking for “special rights” to vote. Granting those same rights to minority groups doesn’t make them special, it only makes them fair.
[quote]forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I am sure there are some who would choose heterosexuality if they could find the same love and acceptance from a member of the opposite sex.
The medical and mental health organizations say you are wrong on that point. So do I. If I could have just “chosen heterosexuality”, I would have stayed married to my wife and saved all of us a lot of pain. Unfortunately, no matter how badly I wanted to be straight it wasn’t possible to change who I was. My ex-wife and I realized that and we are still friends to this day.[/quote]
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that homosexuality is genetic. Short of that, the medical and mental health organizations positions are based on the exact same thing my opinions as mine and a shit load of others: opinion.
You make it sound as if I am suggesting that making the choice between being gay or straight is as flippant as choosing which brand of chewing gum you feel like buying at the convenience store. If that is how I came across, that is not how I feel about it.
My sister in-law is a lesbian. She was married for 6-7 years, and tried unsuccessfully several times to have a child with her husband. They were never happy, and wound up getting a divorce.
She moved in with a girlfriend and they have been a couple for several years, now. From her own mouth, she told me that if she could find a man that would accept her, and love her the way her partner does, she would go back to being straight without a second thought. I doubt that she meant it the way it came out
I won’t even begin to think what the process is, as I have never come face to face with the sexuality crossroads decision. I can only suppose it is a very difficult decision - regardless of which fork one takes. But as evidenced by your own experience - you made that choice.
Why are you equating environmental influences with genetic hardwiring?
Parents are absolutely genetic, and there is no choice involved.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Homosexuals deserve the benefit of negative rights - the argument is over whether they should receive positive rights.[/quote]
A right is a right. Clearly, gays don’t currently enjoy the same rights that are granted to straights regardless of whether you categorize them into “negative” or “positive” rights.
Current law in most states discriminates against gays. The question is whether or not this discrimination is morally and socially justified.
I believe it is not, on both counts. Morally, it perpetuates inequality based on sexual orientation, a trait which people cannot choose and cannot change. Socially, it denies gay couples, any children they may have, and society in general of the increased stability that ensues from marriage.
[quote]forlife wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Homosexuals deserve the benefit of negative rights - the argument is over whether they should receive positive rights.
A right is a right. Clearly, gays don’t currently enjoy the same rights that are granted to straights regardless of whether you categorize them into “negative” or “positive” rights.
…
[/quote]
This is the core that I disagree with. Gays can do anything straights can do. They can marry, have kids etc. No one is stopping them except themselves. Just because a gay man doesn’t want to marry and impregnate a woman doesn’t mean that society is stripping him of rights.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that homosexuality is genetic.[/quote]
How about we start with the twin studies. Can you explain the fact that identical twins are both more likely to be gay than fraternal twins? And that fraternal twins are both more likely to be gay than siblings?
Nope. Their conclusions are based on hundreds of scientific studies over the course of two decades, which have been published in peer-reviewed journals. That is a far cry from your personal opinion.
Given that, I can see why you might think people choose their orientation. However, it’s possible that she wouldn’t be able to ever find that mystery man because her sexual orientation wouldn’t allow for the situation in the first place.
More importantly, don’t make the mistake of drawing broad conclusions based on one person. Sexual orientation isn’t a black and white thing. People vary on where they are along the sexual continuum. Some are hard wired to be gay or straight, and find it impossible to enjoy intimacy with someone outside of the gender defined by their orientation. Your sister-in-law could be bi, which would provide a lot more flexibility in her options for a mate.
I made what choice? I never chose to be gay. I have always been attracted to men rather than women. I married my wife out of religious convictions, but I never enjoyed true intimacy with her. Getting married didn’t turn me from gay to straight, as much as I wanted otherwise.
[quote]Why are you equating environmental influences with genetic hardwiring?
[/quote]
I’m not. The point is that people often have no choice over their environment (how their parents raise them, concentration camps, etc.) and the influences of this environment are often beyond their control.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This is the core that I disagree with. Gays can do anything straights can do. They can marry, have kids etc. No one is stopping them except themselves. Just because a gay man doesn’t want to marry and impregnate a woman doesn’t mean that society is stripping him of rights.
[/quote]
How about the right to marry the person you love?
Think about it. Back when it was illegal for a mixed race couple to marry, how fair would it be to tell them:
“You can do anything whites can do. You can marry someone of your own race, have kids, etc. No one is stopping you except yourselves.”
It wasn’t “special rights” for mixed race couples to marry the person they love, nor is it “special rights” for gays to marry the person they love.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
This is the core that I disagree with. Gays can do anything straights can do. They can marry, have kids etc. No one is stopping them except themselves. Just because a gay man doesn’t want to marry and impregnate a woman doesn’t mean that society is stripping him of rights.
How about the right to marry the person you love?
[/quote]
Where exactly is that right enumerated?
Let’s just say I am in love with 2 women. Why can’t I be married to both?
[quote]
Think about it. Back when it was illegal for a mixed race couple to marry, how fair would it be to tell them:
“You can do anything whites can do. You can marry someone of your own race, have kids, etc. No one is stopping you except yourselves.”
It wasn’t “special rights” for mixed race couples to marry the person they love, nor is it “special rights” for gays to marry the person they love.[/quote]
Yes, it wasn’t a special right for a man to marry a woman regardless of color.
What does that have to do with a man marrying a man?
[quote]forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that homosexuality is genetic.
How about we start with the twin studies. Can you explain the fact that identical twins are both more likely to be gay than fraternal twins? And that fraternal twins are both more likely to be gay than siblings? [/quote]
Maternal twins do a lot a shit that is not found in fraternal twins. Does that automatically make the differences genetic? I doubt it.
Until you can completely account for the nurturing - you are still left with way more questions than answers.
Furthermore, the burden of proof is not on me to disprove the status quo. It is the gays, and the gay agenda that has the burden of proof to prove homosexuality is not a choice.
[quote]Short of that, the medical and mental health organizations positions are based on the exact same thing my opinions as mine and a shit load of others: opinion.
Nope. Their conclusions are based on hundreds of scientific studies over the course of two decades, which have been published in peer-reviewed journals. That is a far cry from your personal opinion.[/quote]
Not just mine. But absent from hard proof - the only conclusion one can draw is subjective, and that is precisely what opinion is. That is nothing more than a popularity contest. In other words, opinion. And I’m not going to change my stance because a bunch of professional think they are right.
But it is okay for you to tell your story as if it lends credibility to your position? If you are going to play referee, and discount my opinion based on one person - then call it both ways. Your experience is no more valuable than anothers.
If you can’t see the fact that you did make a choice, there is really not much sense in continuing in this vein.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Why are you equating environmental influences with genetic hardwiring?
forlife wrote:
I’m not. The point is that people often have no choice over their environment (how their parents raise them, concentration camps, etc.) and the influences of this environment are often beyond their control.
[/quote]
You most certainly are. Who you are as a human being, excluding genetic hardwiring, is a choice. No, that choice is not made available to you for some time after you mature, but what you do with your life is absolutely a matter of choice. You proved that with your own experience.