Choices

Remove all ads!

Hey guys, I know you are being funny (I hope). Besides not all religion is bad just, and this is strictly my personal opinion, the ones which insist that the only way is their way.

The problem as I see it is that these religions are so fixated on their "mission" they fail to see how it actual turns people against them.

We have been through this before and it is definitely

 

@NOG:

Yes, but how many people actually desire to voluntarily sleep with someone who they only consider visually attractive? After standing close to him/her?

You can't cheat your nose. You can only act against it's opinion.

 

@Nakia, Bruno, Aldeth, Ab, Daie, and Drew:
Ok, I guess I stepped in that one, but I never said we should make it illegal on such flimsy possibilities. I just said that we can't really concider what possible harm it may or may not have. That's just a big ? and can't answer any of our questions. If you've read any of my other posts on this topic, you may remember that my stance is to get government out of marriage all together.

Anyway, this is the choices thread, not the gay rights thread, so I won't get into that here.

As for Freud, umm, Nakia, Freud was a wacko. Most psychologists today look at his theories as telling more about himself than about humanity in general. I wouldn't go about quoting him in public.

@Fabius:
Why does sex sell over the TV and internet? I don't think we have pherimones in our VCR's or moniters yet. Why is the porn industry so massive if it is the pherimones that make us want to breed? In animals, pherimones have a major impact on breeding, but they're rather secondary in human breeding.

 

True, but it was strongly implied in your response.

Which is another reason why it would be difficult, and probably uncostitutional, to legislate against it.

OK, but there was no way to discern that point based on your last message.

Regardless, I'd argue that the government is already out of the marriage business, at least as it concerns religious weddings. This point has been brought up before, but I think it bears repeating. Even if your state passes a law that states gay marriages are legal, that in no way forces any given church into performing gay marriages. There are many reasons why a certain church would refuse to marry two individuals, and it certainly isn't limited to the people being the same sex. For example, it is quite likely that a rabbi would have refused to marry my wife and I. There are a variety of reasons for this, but probably the most important one would be that neither of us are Jewish.

The easiest resolution might be to make all state marriages called "civil unions". So anyone married by the state - whether they are the same sex or not - would be legally married in this way. That way there, we don't have to get the religous right in an uproar against "gays devaluing marriages", and yet they wouldn't be discriminated against, as their unions would be the equivalent to all state sponsored heterosexual unions as well. And I think that's the main point. I don't think homosexuals really care about what the heck we decide to call it - they just want the same rights as heterosexual couples.

 

Fine then we can have a civil ceremony which would give people the rights granted by civil law and for the religious a religious ceremony granting them whatever rights the church grants. Two ceremonies. I believe there are countries that do this.

Right on, Aldeth!

 

I'm glad we can agree on that, but the fact remains that many people in America don't want to see it happen at all. What legislation the government passes on this issue entirely depends on how many of which camp are actually out there and how vocal they are. To this end, I still support a proposed constitutional ammendment one way or the other that goes to the people.

 

Bad idea. While I support democracy all the way, I think, that at this point in time, a direct amendment to the constitution would spell disaster. It is EXTREMELY difficult to reverse amendments, and I think that right now any amendment would result in oppressing homosexul rights. There is just (still) too much hatred out there for people to think clearly and examine the issue logically.

 

Fortunately getting an amendment to the Constitution through is a difficult process. Just figuring out the correct wording is will be a difficult process. I'm assuming we are talking about an amendment regarding marriage.

If you are talking about an amendment to make Homosexuality a federal crime then expect to see me among the many protestors.

 

My whole amendment rant was in response to NOG's last post, which seemed to call for an amendment that decides the issue of gay marriage, one way or another, once and for all. I think thats a bad idea, because I believe that if that particular issue were forced right now, there is enough gay oposition that the amendment would end up barring gay marriage.

@NOG: please correct me if I misinterpreted your last post.

 

That's one of the key problems in this debate. The idea that some are taking a more deterministic view than others.

Because God is a factor in such decisions for some people. Recently I tried to start my own thread and Gay rights highjacked it. Should I dislike Gays because of that?

If that would shut the gay rights crowd up then that's what we have to do then, Huh? What about Judge not, lest ye be judged? AS in you keep your sins out of my face and I won't condemn you for them, but put it in my face I'm going to sound off, and you may not like it...

That's the basis for my choice arguement. That's not in the Bible anywhere...

Even I fall to this. Does it mean I should shut up? No. The problem is that as wickedness increases int he world, the more complacent people become with it, and that, ultimately is our biggest problem...

I didn't think it was funny. I know no harm was meant, but the joke just wasn't funny. I'd be shocked if every joke I've ever cracked was as funny as it seemed at the time...

That's what Christianity asks. If the natrural man, with temptation to sin is problematic, then we ought to seek to subjugate our base desires to be better than that.

 

So, are you going to keep all those sins you are commiting according to other religions out of people faces as well?

 

NOG:

Does watching porn make you have sex with each of the "actors"? In reality?

Me neither.

Porn movies are about (male) fantasy, sexy commercials are about (male) fantasy. They get you aroused, but don't make you want to sleep with the actual people, only with the image you see.


And I have some news for you: Humans are animals. Albeit very intelligent ones.

 

Fabius, while I do not doubt that pheremomes have an impact on our attraction to others, I believe that you are blowing it out of proportion. After all, how do pheremones work their magic through phone sex? Through internet relationships? Furthermore, it just does not make sense that all our physical desire and emotional connection between ourselves and those we find attractive and perhaps eventually love stems from one sense, least of all one of our weaker ones.

 

But that's the point of Pornography. To make you want to have sex.

So you're suggesting that there is a psychological component to attraction. It makes sence. I've tried to talk to some beautiful women (supposedly, it was over an LDS singles site, so hopefully they were honest...) over the Net, adn just felt no spark, but other women I found it easier to talk to.

 

I don't consider internet relations relations on sexual level. How successful is finding a partner over internet sites?

Phone sex is fantasy, not selecting an actual partner.


Yes, there is always a psychological component in choosing sex partners, but the ultimate decision is made by your nose.

Gay people's noses just react different.

 

Fabius, you're fighting a losing fight. In the psychologicl level, on which pherimones act, there is little difference between fantasy and reality. Porn, phone sex, etc, these are just as valid sex actions for the arguement on attraction as actual sex. And I know of plenty of internet realtions that have led to sex, both pre-(cyber) and post-meeting. No doubt you'll deem the cyber component as fantasy as well, but it is still real. How your body reacts is the same.

 

Pheromones, in context

Pheromones: Potential participants in your sex life

And a most interesting line out of the Wikipedia piece:

Wiki

 

I wasn't saying that pherimones don't have an effect, nor was I saying that homosexual and heterosexual men respond the same to everything. What I'm saying is that pherimones are not the be-all and end-all of our sexual experience and selection process, as you seem to be claiming. There is MUCH more to it.
As for the Wiki bit, they're saying that homosexual men respond to scents that may be pherimones the way women do. I would expect that. The question is are they homosexual because of how they respond (nature) or do they respond that way because they are homosexual (nurture). How the brain reacts to a lot of things is a learned behavior and we are still learning a lot about what kind of brain responses mean what.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using a brain imaging technique, Swedish researchers have shown that homosexual and heterosexual men respond differently to two odors that may be involved in sexual arousal, and that the gay men respond in the same way as women. This researchs suggests a possible role for human pheromones in the biological basis of sexual orientation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Homosexuality is a brain defect? I'm sorry, I'm not buying it. Mankind has the freedom of choice, and while some wrong choices may be more tempting than other wrong choices, or even the appropriate right choice, we are not automatically condemned to paths of sin. Part of our struggle through life is to learn to overcome sin, not justify the sins we want to commit...

 

Neither am I; it's certainly not a defect.

And I have a hard time seeing how you can't reconcile this with your beliefs. If God made Adam and Eve and everyone else, wouldn't it be simpler to just implant something (likely in the decision making center of the brain) making them more susceptible to particular "sins"? Have you not made exactly that argument in the past? Or am I confusing you with NOG again? Will I stop asking questions any time soon?