Is homosexuality a choice, a mental illness or something simply inherent?

[Mad_Cabbie]

He was trying to draw a paralell bewenn sexual taboos in linking homosexuality to incest - while I agree the two are not the same - his point would have been better served had he used pedophilia or beastiality as an example.

I was drawing a parallel about 'rights', which Luddly Neddite introduced into the conversation.
Pedophilia or bestiality are not comparable as neither involves adult humans of the age of consent whilst my example did. Yer just trying to stir up shit.

So then you are supporting the "rights" of homosexuals to fornicate with children and hamsters ?

He never said that. He never said that at all - just stop already.

I think you're looking for the FZ.

 

[kaz]

In extreme cases of trauma, people can have all sorts of reactions to it. I would agree with that. I think you're talking about a pretty miniscule percent of gays though here.

Yes, and gays are a small % of the population (estimated 4%?)
and yet public policy, marriage and business laws are all being debated
on how to accommodate gays without imposing on people's beliefs either way.

Obviously size doesn't matter over principle.
If it affects a small % it still must be accounted for to be fair.

Or else we wouldn't even be discussing this
if that small % didn't matter because it's so minor.

Note: even if it's just a small % the same PROCESS that helps
them also helps all people

I'm not saying that because it's a small percentage that it's irrelevant. I am just saying that I wasn't taking the thread discussion to mean in every case but in general. I'm not saying this as a rebuttal because I think you implied otherwise, just clarifying.

 

[kaz]

In extreme cases of trauma, people can have all sorts of reactions to it. I would agree with that. I think you're talking about a pretty miniscule percent of gays though here.

Yes, and gays are a small % of the population (estimated 4%?)
and yet public policy, marriage and business laws are all being debated
on how to accommodate gays without imposing on people's beliefs either way.

Obviously size doesn't matter over principle.
If it affects a small % it still must be accounted for to be fair.

Or else we wouldn't even be discussing this
if that small % didn't matter because it's so minor.

Note: even if it's just a small % the same PROCESS that helps
them also helps all people

BS. On the issue of gay marriage, they are not asking for accommodation, they are asking for the bigoted laws against gay marriages to be stricken.

Be honest, validation by the collective is a big part of it as well. That's where I disagree with them. I don't think validation at the point of a gun is acceptance and validation should be gained by vote, not criminal judicial decrees.

 

[kaz]

You said I was attacking Christianity, I was not.

No, I said you don't understand Christians, so you shouldn't say what they think when you clearly don't know. Just like I said they should not speak for you as they obviously don't know.

Nobody knows how anybody thinks. To suggest Christians think a certain way and that they all think that way, you are just as guilty as I am.

You said conformity was the primary reason for religion. My disagreeing with your sweeping statement makes me as guilty as you are because I am suggesting they think a certain way? That I disagreed with your sweeping statement?

You are a word parser, and a poor one at that. I'll take your posts for what they are worth until I get more quality in response.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Something that always occurs to me about this subject is 'who's it benefitting?' Why ask the question in the first place? If it's genetic, then homosexuals and heterosexuals are blameless right? If it's a choice then they're both culpable. But who's that benefit? All the people against homosexuals probably WANT it to not be genetic since if it is then they can't condemn homosexuals for being homosexual - God made them that way. If it's a choice, they can. But until we have a scientificly sound answer one way or the other debating it is pointless. Might go wither way, we simply don't have adequate evidence yet to make a conclusion.

 

[RKMBrown]

They are asking for government involvement in their marriages. Probably not wise of them considering past government involvement in personal affairs.
If I was homosexual, I'd be fighting against government involvement. I'm trying to warn them, but they don't listen.
They'll get what they ask for, then regret it.

That is a really lame idea - to not want the government to have a say, because they muck stuff up.

The Government has failed us before, so we don't need them? Do you refuse legal council for a lawsuit, because lawyers are crooked?

Not if you have any sense.

History has shown that government tends to fuck most things up when it comes to social affairs, not the same for lawyers and law. Your comparison is idiotic.

Nonsense. The main reason govco is in the marriage business is because the marriage license is a legally binding contract between two individuals, thus a matter of law, thus a matter for lawyers should there be an issue with the contract.

Do you want to end contractual law entirely, or just the ones between two people.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, and gays are a small % of the population (estimated 4%?)
and yet public policy, marriage and business laws are all being debated
on how to accommodate gays without imposing on people's beliefs either way.

Obviously size doesn't matter over principle.
If it affects a small % it still must be accounted for to be fair.

Or else we wouldn't even be discussing this
if that small % didn't matter because it's so minor.

Note: even if it's just a small % the same PROCESS that helps
them also helps all people

BS. On the issue of gay marriage, they are not asking for accommodation, they are asking for the bigoted laws against gay marriages to be stricken.

Be honest, validation by the collective is a big part of it as well. That's where I disagree with them. I don't think validation at the point of a gun is acceptance and validation should be gained by vote, not criminal judicial decrees.

While I would agree with you that everyone wants to be loved, and no one really wants to be an outcast in their society, I am being honest when I say .... many (all that I know) do not want to to force you to validate them. What they want is to force the government to stop restricting their liberty on the basis of sexual orientation.

 

[RKMBrown]

If the drive to procreate is so strong, how do you explain homosexuality at all? The fact that people, and animals, actually engage in sex when procreation is impossible proves that you are wrong about this. That might lead you to consider he possibility that you are wrong about other things.

I doubt it, but it might.

Glad you asked that. Genes or gene expression.

Your genes have no understanding of if procreation is possible. Thanks for pointing that out. That should let you know its hardwired into humans.

Actually, a number of different animals know when procreation is possible, humans among them. The human body, like many animals, emits signals when women are fertile, and men can detect them.

Men Can Smell Fertility, Study Says - ABC News

I actually knew the exact time when my ex wife became pregnant. She never believed me, and I know you won't, but I did. I also knew an ex girlfriend was lying to me when she told me she was pregnant.

The funny thing is, even though I knew when to procreate, it never once stopped from having sex, because, ultimately, we aren't programmed to procreate. Despite Dawkins claims to the contrary, genes do not control behavior in any species on Earth.

So, even though we are quite capable of knowing when to procreate.

Interesting, and believable.

I can make the hair stand up on my arms in 2 sec on command by commanding my body to generation Adrenalin.

I can also tell north from south with my eyes closed in a strange location with very good accuracy.

 

[kaz]

Nobody knows how anybody thinks. To suggest Christians think a certain way and that they all think that way, you are just as guilty as I am.

Kaz did not suggest that, you did. You might not be aware of the suggestion, but you can't claim kaz is not the only person that saw it.

You make no sense.

Um...

When I said you said Christianity was primarily social, you said no you didn't, you said Religion! As if that you said religion means you weren't talking about Christianity? And you said nothing about social! I found the quote and you used the word "conformity," which is clearly social, it has no other meaning. Conformity is conforming to social customs.

Then you are a Christian, but you don't go to church, and you think people go their primarily for conformity.

Then when I said your sweeping statement is ridiculous, you said that for me to challenge your sweeping statement was me telling you what Christians think.

And you're telling someone else they "make no sense?"

LOL, you sound like a good guy. But an effective debater you are not.

 

[kaz]

BS. On the issue of gay marriage, they are not asking for accommodation, they are asking for the bigoted laws against gay marriages to be stricken.

Be honest, validation by the collective is a big part of it as well. That's where I disagree with them. I don't think validation at the point of a gun is acceptance and validation should be gained by vote, not criminal judicial decrees.

While I would agree with you that everyone wants to be loved, and no one really wants to be an outcast in their society, I am being honest when I say .... many (all that I know) do not want to to force you to validate them. What they want is to force the government to stop restricting their liberty on the basis of sexual orientation.

That is not what liberty means. Liberty is the right to be left alone to live your own life. It is not the right to demand anything of anyone else, including government. But that someone else gets it doesn't change that.

 

[RKMBrown]

Be honest, validation by the collective is a big part of it as well. That's where I disagree with them. I don't think validation at the point of a gun is acceptance and validation should be gained by vote, not criminal judicial decrees.

While I would agree with you that everyone wants to be loved, and no one really wants to be an outcast in their society, I am being honest when I say .... many (all that I know) do not want to to force you to validate them. What they want is to force the government to stop restricting their liberty on the basis of sexual orientation.

That is not what liberty means. Liberty is the right to be left alone to live your own life. It is not the right to demand anything of anyone else, including government. But that someone else gets it doesn't change that.

Huh? Liberty does not include the right to demand liberty from government oppression? HUH? So if the government takes away all of your liberties you have no right to demand they be returned to you? No redress of grievances? Huh?

Which liberties are you willing to forgo to this government? Which of your liberties are you willing to not demand?

 

[RKMBrown]

Liberty - the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice

Websters.

 

[RKMBrown]

Arbitrary despotic control, such as is being done to gays on the issue of gay marriage, is a restriction on the "positive enjoyment of various social, political, and economic rights and privileges" that heterosexual couples enjoy today. It is a set of discriminatory laws punishing American citizens based on their sexual preference, as if their sexual preference is a harm on society, not unlike a felony charge. What did they do to be punished? Where is the harm on society that befits this punishment? We're basing this punishment on an ancient text that said it is a sin. Really? It's a sin, therefore they don't deserve the same level of liberty everyone else gets? Really?

 

[kaz]

While I would agree with you that everyone wants to be loved, and no one really wants to be an outcast in their society, I am being honest when I say .... many (all that I know) do not want to to force you to validate them. What they want is to force the government to stop restricting their liberty on the basis of sexual orientation.

That is not what liberty means. Liberty is the right to be left alone to live your own life. It is not the right to demand anything of anyone else, including government. But that someone else gets it doesn't change that.

Huh? Liberty does not include the right to demand liberty from government oppression? HUH? So if the government takes away all of your liberties you have no right to demand they be returned to you? No redress of grievances? Huh?

Which liberties are you willing to forgo to this government? Which of your liberties are you willing to not demand?

Not giving someone a marriage license is "oppression" and taking "away all of your liberties?" That's just stupid.

 

[kaz]

Liberty - the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice

Websters.

LOL, not giving a marriage license is "despotic control." You've lost it.

 

[kaz]

Arbitrary despotic control, such as is being done to gays on the issue of gay marriage, is a restriction on the "positive enjoyment of various social, political, and economic rights and privileges" that heterosexual couples enjoy today. It is a set of discriminatory laws punishing American citizens based on their sexual preference, as if their sexual preference is a harm on society, not unlike a felony charge. What did they do to be punished? Where is the harm on society that befits this punishment? We're basing this punishment on an ancient text that said it is a sin. Really? It's a sin, therefore they don't deserve the same level of liberty everyone else gets? Really?

Now not giving a marriage license is "arbitrary" despotic control being done "to" gays. LOL, you're being a complete moon bat.

I want government to leave me alone. If I got that, I would be in heaven. The idea they need to give me shit to be happy is inconceivable to me.

 

[RKMBrown]

Arbitrary despotic control, such as is being done to gays on the issue of gay marriage, is a restriction on the "positive enjoyment of various social, political, and economic rights and privileges" that heterosexual couples enjoy today. It is a set of discriminatory laws punishing American citizens based on their sexual preference, as if their sexual preference is a harm on society, not unlike a felony charge. What did they do to be punished? Where is the harm on society that befits this punishment? We're basing this punishment on an ancient text that said it is a sin. Really? It's a sin, therefore they don't deserve the same level of liberty everyone else gets? Really?

Now not giving a marriage license is "arbitrary" despotic control being done "to" gays. LOL, you're being a complete moon bat.

I want government to leave me alone. If I got that, I would be in heaven. The idea they need to give me shit to be happy is inconceivable to me.

So do you want to end all contract law or just marriage contracts?

Who's the moon bat?

 

[RKMBrown]

Arbitrary despotic control, such as is being done to gays on the issue of gay marriage, is a restriction on the "positive enjoyment of various social, political, and economic rights and privileges" that heterosexual couples enjoy today. It is a set of discriminatory laws punishing American citizens based on their sexual preference, as if their sexual preference is a harm on society, not unlike a felony charge. What did they do to be punished? Where is the harm on society that befits this punishment? We're basing this punishment on an ancient text that said it is a sin. Really? It's a sin, therefore they don't deserve the same level of liberty everyone else gets? Really?

Now not giving a marriage license is "arbitrary" despotic control being done "to" gays. LOL, you're being a complete moon bat.

I want government to leave me alone. If I got that, I would be in heaven. The idea they need to give me shit to be happy is inconceivable to me.

So you'd be good with government banning all marriages? Yes or no?

 

[kaz]

Arbitrary despotic control, such as is being done to gays on the issue of gay marriage, is a restriction on the "positive enjoyment of various social, political, and economic rights and privileges" that heterosexual couples enjoy today. It is a set of discriminatory laws punishing American citizens based on their sexual preference, as if their sexual preference is a harm on society, not unlike a felony charge. What did they do to be punished? Where is the harm on society that befits this punishment? We're basing this punishment on an ancient text that said it is a sin. Really? It's a sin, therefore they don't deserve the same level of liberty everyone else gets? Really?

Now not giving a marriage license is "arbitrary" despotic control being done "to" gays. LOL, you're being a complete moon bat.

I want government to leave me alone. If I got that, I would be in heaven. The idea they need to give me shit to be happy is inconceivable to me.

So do you want to end all contract law or just marriage contracts?

Who's the moon bat?

You're losing it. Is that supposed to be a serious question? Do you want me to talk to you like a 12 year old as the questions you are asking me? That logic is like I'm talking to a liberal.

Marriage is not a "contract." It is a government function, which involves government regulations, taxes, court cases as determined by government not the participants and government can change at any time for any reason because they feel like it, which again is not how a contract works. The couple is bound by whatever government decides, whether they agree or not.

To compare that to a voluntary contract is the level of a liberal. In fact, that's what marriage should be, if a couple wants a contract behind their marriage, they should work it out and have a contract. If they want a Catholic marriage, they should work it out with each other and their church. Government should not treat it's citizens differently, like any other contract, they should just provide a venue for remediation.

To call what government does a "contract" is ridiculous, and to suggest that my wanting to end that means I want to end all actual voluntary contracts because of that government bastardization is something I expect from rdean or rightwinger, not you.

 

[kaz]

Arbitrary despotic control, such as is being done to gays on the issue of gay marriage, is a restriction on the "positive enjoyment of various social, political, and economic rights and privileges" that heterosexual couples enjoy today. It is a set of discriminatory laws punishing American citizens based on their sexual preference, as if their sexual preference is a harm on society, not unlike a felony charge. What did they do to be punished? Where is the harm on society that befits this punishment? We're basing this punishment on an ancient text that said it is a sin. Really? It's a sin, therefore they don't deserve the same level of liberty everyone else gets? Really?

Now not giving a marriage license is "arbitrary" despotic control being done "to" gays. LOL, you're being a complete moon bat.

I want government to leave me alone. If I got that, I would be in heaven. The idea they need to give me shit to be happy is inconceivable to me.

So you'd be good with government banning all marriages? Yes or no?

No. Government should not have a function called marriage. They have no power to "ban" what citizens do between themselves. Not recognizing something is not "banning" it. Government should treat all it's citizens the same. Government marriage is discriminatory whether or not gays can get in on the discrimination or not.

That was a "have you stopped beating your wife" question.