Marriage, Back door laws and policies, and tolerance issues

Remove all ads!

But that is your CHOICE. All sexual behaviour is a choice. I've been arguing that all along.

How do you explain bisexuals then? I've also heard a gay man claim that other men perform better sexually than a woman. Because they have the same parts, they better understand the act, and thus are more proficient with it.

Correct. Sexuallity is a learned behaviour. It is not genetically hardwired into a person.

But we still form preferences though. Gender is simply another factor to consider in the equation...

 

But who you find attractive is not a choice. Since you never would consent to any type of sexual contact with a sex you are not attracted to, my point still stands.

Bisexuals are much less common than homosexuals - they are probably less than 1% of the population. It was prefectly clear from my comment that I was talking about people in general. By pointing out a small subset of the population that actually do find members of both sexes attractives is disingenuous. Heterosexuals and homosexuals to not switch back and forth, and seeing as how that would make for some very promiscuous people, I'd think you'd be opposed to people switching back and forth anyway. But that's irrelevant to the discussion anyway, as the topic is whether or not gay marriage should be legal. A bisexual has to chose a sex of the person (s)he is going to marry.

Are you kidding? Just because babies and small children are not sexual in nature doesn't mean they learn to be sexual. Babies are not sexual largely because they don't have sex hormones coarsing through their bodies until they hit puberty (at which point they are no longer babies - at least not physically). In other news, I didn't learn how to grow a beard when I was a teenager. I also didn't learn to be into girls.

Now I'm not suggesting that there's any such thing as a "gay gene" that people inherit. So it is possible that it may not be genetically hardwired into a person. However, there is so much we do not understand about human behavior that it is naive to conclude that everything must either be genetically inherited in simple Mendelian fashion or an individual choice.

Now I know you're kidding. Gender is NOT "simply another factor". For everyone except bisexuals gender is the factor that overrides all other factors. I'm never going to be attracted to Russel Crowe, Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, et. al., no matter how cute they may be.

 

I'm gonna regret this, but some statements are so utterly wrong they need addressing.

The act of expressing that attraction is a choice, as anyone can be selibate. The attraction itself is not a choice. You have been wrong about that all along.

This is so incorrect it's not even funny. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

And you keep comparing this "preference" to a superficial attraction, like "I like blondes more." That misses the point entirely, and again, you've had that wrong from the beginning. It's almost as if you don't care what the reality is, you'll just twist any string of logic to fit your argument. But then, if you didn't do that, you wouldn't be the Gnarff we've all come to know.

I wonder if there will ever come a time when you realize that you argue your position so poorly that you're actually doing your own cause far more harm than good. How many people on these boards need to throw up their hands in frustration and leave discussions with you before that gets through? Or is that your goal?

 

DR, I may be oversimplifying things a bit but it would seem to me that you are claiming that sexual behaviour is 100% nature, while Gnarff is arguing that it is 100% nurture. I think my position is that there's a balance. Our environment has an incredibly significant influence on our sexuality.

In any event, back to the back door laws and policies. Chandos mentioned, as did a few others, that gay rights is pretty low on the Democratic agenda. Polls and studies were shared that reflected that. Speaking as a right winger, I am leery of such polls and studies, and I'll tell you why. Politicians of all stripes will say all sorts of things about where their priorities lay, and then as soon as they are elected they start passing legislation that they never mentioned in their campaigns. Legislation like gay marriage entrenchment. Legislation that stifles, ever so slightly, the right of someone to say "I don't think homosexual behaviour is acceptable" by saying that the statement "incites violence against a visible minority." or some other such nonsense.

In other words, the proof is in the pudding, and the Left has been introducing these pieces of legislation instead of leaving tradition alone and focussing on the big ticket items like the environment, economy, public safety, etc. Then they have the nerve to say that the Right is not focussing on the issues when they fight a radical change that the Left instigated in the first place. It reminds me of a roommate I had in Japan -- here's how things would go with him:

ROOMMATE: LKD, you really are selfish about sharing the stuff from your care packages.

LKD: Well, those packages were sent to me by my family and I'll share them with who I want. I really don't see how its any of your business how I disperse my private property.

ROOMMATE: You're being contentious!

Who started the fight? Who is the one who didn't mind his own *&$%^@! business in the first place?

 

Significant, sure. But you are greatly overstating it.

Gay individuals emerge from every community and culture on earth, even the most conservative and straight ones. By Gnarff's logic a person only learns to be gay, but that wouldn't follow if that person would have no environmental or social example for that attraction. By that same token, since everyone is born from straight parents (and considering the percentages, nearly every gay person was raised by straight parents) no one would ever be gay because they only have the example of heterosexuality to follow. Yet gays still emerge from families full of straight people, even in homes where homosexuality is specifically identified by the parents as wrong. How could that be possible if what you and Gnarff are saying made sense?

Your environment also has no effect on what you find attractive physically (body type, breast size, hair style, etc.), though it would certainly effect what you find attractive socially (Christian or not, smoker or not, sports fan, career-minded, etc.). A person's base sexual orientation - gay, straight, or bi-sexual - overrides ALL of these factors. For example - I would never be attracted to a brunette, fit, career-minded, non-smoking, beautiful man, even though these are traits I find attractive in women. I also once briefly dated a chain-smoking, directionless, average-looking girl, though she was far from my type (hint: it only worked because she was a girl). Gnarff is arguing all of these simply fall into the category of "things that turn us on," and that is utterly absurd. And furthermore, these things I'm attracted to have absolutely nothing to do with the environment I grew up in. I also have a thing for Asian women (so much so I'm marrying one in the fall) and I grew up in a community that was over 95% caucasian. To follow his logic I would only find blonde-haired, blue-eyed Mormon girls attractive, since that is all I learned "from my environment," and that's far from the case.

I will say again - Gnarff has no idea what he's talking about here, and I'd venture you haven't given it much serious thought either if you're agreeing with him.

 

I would argue that there is more to environment than meets the eye. Also, the particular acts or traits that a person or culture finds attractive can be greatly influenced by the surrounding society. Women today who most people find "fat" were "Rubenesque" and desirable. The Chinese got off on small feet for a while.

I fully understand, though, that our genes instill in us some very powerful desires. Obviously, a homosexual can be that way because his genes push him -- hard -- in that direction. But I cannot believe that said genes dictate our present behaviour, nor does the fact that a person's genes push them toward a behaviour make that behaviour morally right or socially acceptable. The necessity for all members of society to exercise self control is evident. To me, the whole "my genes made me do it" is a cop out on the order of "the devil made me do it." We are not slaves to a DNA code.

Now lots of people succumb to their genetic predispositions. I'm sure we all know some promiscuous heteros who just say "I can't help it, I just love humping every woman I see, it's the way I am!" Jokes aside, most societies frown on such behaviour and see the perpetrator as a person who does not have the strength to control his (or her!) passions. We may not throw these people into prisons*, but societies don't tend to socially endorse such behaviour, even if it is fuelled by deeply ingrained biological factors.

*nor should we, either with the examples I mentioned or with homosexuals who engage in consensual sexual activity with others.

 

I think you are making are making a faulty assumption - a false choice. You seem to think that the only possibilities are A) our genes make us be hetero or homosexual or B) We chose to be hetero or homosexual. There are entire scientific disciplines devoted to behavioral and developmental biology, not to metion psychology and neuroscience that study why we people think, act and behave the way they do.

It is wrong to assume that because a person was born gay he must have a genetic condition that made him gay. In fact, it is demostrably false that being gay is inherited it the classic Mendelian fashion as it is directly in the case of eye and hair color, or indirectly as is the case with height and intelligence. It is equally faulty to assume that because babies and young children do not express sexuality (and even that is debatable as brain scans of toddlers show there are dramatic differnces in the various developmental areas between girls and boys) that sexual preference is a learned (or at least conditioned) behavior.

I think that the problem here is that you, Gnarff, and others want a simple asnwer to the question. You want to be able to point at something and say, "This is why some people are gay." Chances are there is no simple answer to this question - or at the very least no provable simple answer has been put forward. Instead of expanding your worldview to encompass this as a possibility, you chose to dismiss it - and that's why we have this disconnect on the most basic presmises of the arguement.

 

I never said the issue was easy. But what I object to is the simplification used by some that goes something like this:

"it's all in the DNA, so it can't be changed, it's totally unavoidable and unchangeable and if you disagree, you are the same as a racist who thinks having black skin is wrong -- a Negro can't change his skin color, a gay can't change his actions."

That, to me, is crap, plain and simple. Having black skin is not an action. It's a trait, plain and simple. Engaging in gay sex IS an action, not a trait. Now I'm all for people doing their own thing, but if they want society to endorse that behaviour, they are going to encounter some pretty strong resistance.

And I don't think it's either one or the other -- I would argue that it is a very complicated and intricate combination of both genetics and environment. But it sure as hell isn't predetermined no matter how you slice it.

 

False equivalence, LKD. Now I'm certain you aren't giving this much thought.

You are comparing a trait and an action. This is so obvious that after reading that statement I'm inclined to believe you are being intentionally obtuse.. Same-sex orientation is a trait (as is being black), the sexual activity is an action. You are comparing two things that are not complimentary, and wrapping it in a strawman to do it. Do I really need to explain that to a teacher?

As this applies to society - you are asking gay people seeking marriage rights that everyone else enjoys to either suppress that trait - by either having straight sex or none at all - or to just stop being gay, which, like it or not, is the same as asking a black not to be black. If they encounter strong resistence, it's from people who can't or won't attempt to understand that.

There's not a single homosexual I know or have ever met who would agree with that statement. But then, your unwillingness to see this from their point of view is kind of why we keeping hitting a wall.

 

No, the pro-gay community is. I am well aware of the difference between traits and actions and thought I made that clear in my post. Some people may very well have the orientation trait in their genes. The conclusion that said trait makes their actions justifiable or socially acceptable is what I am arguing against.

In other words, I am not opposed to their trait of being attracted to members of the same sex, I am saying that if they follow through with those desires and engage in a behaviour then I oppose that behaviour.

No, it isn't. Blacks don't DO anything to be black. Gays who actually DO something are the ones who I am opposed to. Assuming it to be genetic, there would be no way for me or anyone to tell if they have homosexual tendencies. And I'm not for one second saying we should set up some sort of bioscan that would tell us so we can persecute them for having certain genes.

But when their actions demonstrate that they have failed to exercise self control and suppress an urge that is not condoned by society, then it is those actions that are what I oppose being ratified by society at large.

Oh, and I have met a single homosexual who would agree with my statement. He was as flaming as they come for over a decade, had a steady lover and everything. He's married with 2 kids now. Now that's not statistically significant, I know that, but it is a single example, and it's my brother to boot, so the insinuation that I don't know any gay people because I'm cloistered or have never tried to see things from their point of view is hereby proved to be false.

 

Then let's explore that, since you seem comfortable with treating them like criminals. "Self control to suppress an urge." "Not condoned by society." Why is what they do in the privacy of their homes such a threat to you? How does their endulging in this "urge" infringe on your rights or freedom in any way? How does their behavior harm you or anyone else in any way? How is society - or just a portion of society - justified in condemning them for this behavior? I'm looking for a legitimate justification here.

As for your brother, I would argue that he was never actually gay. Would that every "gay" could just switch it on and off like your brother has, there would be no such thing as a gay community, no "closet" to come out of, no self-loathing and other emotional problems that come with being made to feel guilty about your sexual preference because of the lack of understanding from the people around you, etc. Conservatives take comfort in a few isolated examples of "ex-gayness" in believing that it is indeed just a chosen perversion. In that sense, I'm with you - I wholeheartedly wish that were the case. And frankly, so do a lot of my gay friends. Their highschool years would have been much, much less miserable. That's just not how it works.

 

I've never said that in today's society we should be going into someone's bedroom and telling them what to do -- I've never once said that we should treat them like criminals. I have said in the past that what they do in the privacy of their own homes is up to them.

But that's not what they want. They want society to validate their behaviour, to say that what they do is desirable and should be entrenched in society. That societal condonement is not going to happen amongst a large majority of the population.

And opposition to homosexuality predates most institutionalized religions, though once those religions get going, they took the pre-existing standards of behaviour and incorporated them into their religious practices.

But to get back to your point, homosexuality is seen by me (and others like me, I believe) as an unacceptable deviation from the norm. I believe that giving in to our desires willy nilly is neither good for the self or the society in general. Now there's a lot of people who don't control their urges, and if they keep their practices behind closed doors then the society turns a blind eye. But when subsequently the practitioners come out and demand that the society change its view, then they can't really be surprised when they are told that their behaviours are not accepted by the society at large. And those practitionaers cannot cry "discrimination" when they were perfectly able to do their thing in peace and quiet and they're the ones who started making a ruckus.

It'd be like me going up to joaquin (sorry, buddy) and saying "joaquin, do you believe in the Mormon faith?" He'd say "no, I think your beliefs and behaviours are idiotic*" and then I'd say "joaquin is oppressing me! Boo hoo, call out the Thought Police!" It's crap. Joaquin may have hurt my feelings but saying his piece and not changing his position does not amount to discrimination or oppression in the slightest.

Now this is not to say that there are not some gay bashers who break the law and assault gays. I've never endorsed that for a second. But I'm not one of them -- not even close -- and I resent being lumped in with them.

 

All those words and you didn't answer any of my questions - you just restated your position. I'll ask again:

How is homosexual behavior harmful to you personally? How does it infringe on your rights or freedoms in any way? How are you justified in condemning their behavior? Is there a legitimate reason why their behavior is not accepted by society at large, the way theft, lying, littering, etc. are not accepted by society at large? Why should anyone care what you deem unacceptable if you can't reasonably prove that it is harmful to you or anyone else?

Take 'em one by one, if you like.

You can say this all you want if it makes you feel stronger in your position, but that doesn't make it true. People used to say the same thing about inter-racial marriage, a woman's right to vote and desegregation. I understand it's comforting, but it is a form of denial. Gays might be accepted universally one day, they might not. But to say it will never happen ignores modern history and current social trends. Do so at your peril.

Speaking of things you may find comforting...

...if you can't make your points without erecting a gigantic straw man, I suggest you just move on.

 

Har!

(I've said all I have to say on this topic already, but I just couldn't resist. )

 

But I wasn't talking about attraction. I was talking about the act of sex there. But I remember from College Psychology classes that bisexuality was the natural state of people, not straight or gay...

I don't know where you get your numbers, but I'd conjecture that it's much higher than that...

But it is a factor of their experiences up to and during that period that play a huge roll in determining what their preferences will be.

But you are saying that it IS hardwired and that they have no choice in the matter and asking me to swallow it without providing science to back it up. I can contradict that with the claim that all humans have freedom to choose for ourselves and provide scriptural references to back it up. In the case of those that label themselves according to sexuality, that becomes the apparent easier solution.

No, I'm not kidding. Sexual orientation is a myth sold by society to let some people off the hook for their immoral desires.

I'd get a good laugh out of some of your criticisms if I didn't think you actually believed them...

Where have I ever said that attraction was a choice? Acting on that attraction IS a choice. I however did claim that attraction is not restricted to one gender and one gender only.

One, it IS the point. Homosexual preference is just another preference. The only thing different is the social stigma that comes with it.

Two, I have yet to see anyone that understands what the reality is. The feeble attempts to justify homosexuals by saying that they have no choice is much more degrading to homosexuals than any comment condemning the practice as sinful.

The only thing I wonder about is why I'm considered to be getting worse when I try to see these people as human beings and hold them to the standards that I would hold ANY other human being to. I try to find a way to care about their rights yet still preserve what my faith and many other faiths consider sacred, I'm branded a hatemonger. I wonder why I should even give a rat's ass about these people anymore.

But then I remember that most--if not all--of the people ripping on me in this thread actually identify themselves as straight. My problem is not with the gays, but with people that are content to see them fight a losing battle only to throw their suffering in my face in an attempt to shame me into their point of view. The logic has so many holes in it you could drive a truck through it. Even I, who can't keep a vehicle in a straight line could drive a truck through it...

People learn as much about sexuality from their own experiences as they do from what others teach them. [gross out warning]I once came across a statistic (albeit from a questionable source) that said that decades ago, approximately 40% of rural teenage boys had had at least one sexual encounter with a farm animal. I somehow doubt that their father ever suggested that they go out behind the barn and gratify themselves with the livestock.[/warning--I told you it was gross] But back to my point about stimulation, the nerves in these areas of the body do not take into account the source of the stimulation. It is far more likely that these boys experimented on their own in such cases. Much the same way, people would experiment to determine what they like sexually. As religious influence wanes, prohibitions that inhibit homosexuality also wane, thus leading to an increase in people with homosexual desires and tendencies. And in today's society, the Media takes on such a role that it models various tendences in sexual behaviours, implanting the idea that various forms of sex can be enjoyable.

Where prohibitions against homosexuality are taught, the idea will come to some that two guys or two girls can find ways to gratify each other...

But it doesn't have to be as complex as others want to make it either. Until you can PROVE that they have absolutely no choice in the matter, then any compulsion to redefine marriage to include them falls short.

Actually, one of my best friends was gay (at least bi). My association with him was ended by a fatal car accident, not by any other factor. It is from the things he said (and him hitting on me) where I gain my understanding of homosexuality. I am convinced that his lifestyle was a choice based on the way he described his experiences to me.

---------- Added 0 hours, 15 minutes and 24 seconds later... ----------

And peopel here think I can't read. He just said on the last page that he does not support criminalizing homosexuality.

What they do in private is no threat as long as it stays private. When they drag their ways into the public view, then we have a problem. They want to redefine what we consider sacred. This is an affront to our beliefs. They insist that we abandon our faith in favour of a more politically correct version of the same thing. This is not good enough.

AS to the condemnation, Society reserves the right to define something as desirable and something else as undesirable. In this case, Heterosexual Marriage is defined as desirable, while Homosexuality is defined as undesirable. Where tolerance comes in to play is in the case of what they do in privacy. It's their bodies, it's their choice, and it's up to them to answer to God for their sins. But just because society no longer criminalizes the practice, it is not defined as good. The segment of society, in this case, religion, seeks to hold people to a higher standard. They believe this to be for the good of society that all conform to this standard.

That's not a straw man, that's an illustration of his point.

Splunge: Had you not pointed out the interesting wording, I would have missed that line...

 

They don't want to redefine it, they just want a part of it. Actually, I would bet that most homosexuals don't want a religious marriage, they just want a marriage. And nobody is forcing you to "abandon your faith." Come to Massachusetts, find a married gay couple, and then tell me they forced you into becoming an atheist.

 

It's not a straw man at all, just substitute "gay" for me in the conversation and "conservative" for Joaquin. My point is that no one is going out and harassing gays these days -- they are for the most part left alone. If they want to cause a fuss, and ask people their opinions, then they'd better be willing to accept the fact that a lot of people do not agree with what they do.

Anyhow, I don't like doing this, but I'll do some rampant cut and paste here:

Directly it isn't, but if that behaviour becomes something that society is pushing on the educational system, then it is harming my right to raise my children and determine what they are taught in the schools. I have just as much right to oppose that sort of curricular alteration as the gays have to push for it.

The behaviour in and of itself does not -- they are welcome to do what they wish in their own homes. But the push to force society to celebrate and condone the behaviour is an alteration of society, and as a member of society conservatives have just as many rights to legally influence that as the gays have to alter it.

Because it is a deviation from the norm that I find unacceptable, just as I find bestiality unacceptable, just as I find rampant hetero promiscuity unacceptable. I respect the fact that others draw the line further along the scale than I do, but I also have a right to draw my lines and legally try to have what I perceive to be the norm protected. Society has always drawn these lines as to what deviations it will accept and what deviations it will not accept, and I acknowledge that different societies have, throughout history, drawn the lines in different places. But members of society have the right to push for the lines to be in conformance with their opinions.

Because they seek to convince others to their cause (social engineering in schools, it's happening already) and what is more frightening is that they are more than willing to pull out the "oppression" card when anyone dares to disagree with them, stifling the free speech of others. In any event, the behaviour is such that were it to become universal, society would be in big trouble. Now that universality is not likely, and in a world that has too much population I can see homosexuality being encouraged by some, but nevertheless, it is not a desirable behaviour.

Well, once people are mired in the morass of "I have no control over my actions, my genes make me do it" thinking, they are not really likely to listen to any argument and tend to say "your argument is not reasonable" to everything.

I am not without compassion -- as I have stated previously I believe that gays should be left alone to do their thing. I also know how difficult it is growing up different in high school -- gays do not have a lock on that particular trial, believe me. But when peaceful opinions are squelched using the "hate speech" argument, and when valuable traditions and institutions are being subjected to radical change, I oppose such measures wholeheartedly.

I have avoided the religious argument, because I believe that many non-religious cultures have limited marriage to one man and one women. Regardless, the fact that an argument is based on religion does not invalidate the right of the holder to voice it, any more than the fact that an argument is NOT religious should be used to squelch the proponent's voice.

Oh, and I won't be doing the quote thing again, it's too long and messy.

 

Gnarff, for the last time, don't. Just...don't. There's so much nonsense in your last post I don't even know where to start. I don't care what you think, you're dead wrong far too often, and I'm done talking to you. Do us both a favor and put me on your ignore list. You really do bring talking out of your ass to astounding heights, repeating the same nonsensical BS over and over...and for what. I can't stop you from reading my posts, but I can no longer bear your absurd responses to them. Seriously - ignore list. Pretty please. It would make my year.

@ LKD,

I'll avoid the cut and paste and just do numbers. You're right, it can get annoying.

1. The educational system would push nothing on anyone. If anything they would simply say gay couples exist, and they legally have the right to wed. It's up to you as a parent to explain to your kids that you think it is wrong. Why on earth do you think there would be some gay education program?

2. If gay marriage is ratified, no one is "forced" to celebrate anything. All they want is to be included in something you take for granted. They don't want to change anything for you. At all.

3. Here come the beastiality comparisons again. Great. I knew this was a waste of time.

Look - in the past, what society could dictate what was acceptable and not was based solely on public opinion. Blacks were deemed inferior, so they were treated differently under the law. As were women. But as our society evolved, legal justification for that lesser treatment became necessary. You have to have a reasonable justification for having a second set of laws for a class of citizens. Your personal dislike of them as people is not enough. I know, "it's not them, it's what they do." That's a non-starter, LKD. What they "do" is merely an extension of who they are, and they aren't going to stop doing it just because you don't find it acceptable, nor do you have any more right to ask them not to do it as they have to ask you not to practice mormonism.

4. Maybe you have a problem with indoctrination in Canada, I don't know. You and Gnarff seem paranoid enough about it that that may be the case. As for society being in big trouble, you really have no way of knowing that. Gays account for about 2% of the population of the world. That's it. You know what will happen if gays are universally accepted? It'll still be 2%. Nothing will change except the bringing of gays out from the shadows and into mainstream society, to live and work and raise families in peace and with pride. That is honestly all they want.

5. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be gay and how they see themselves. The "act" that you object so much to is an extension of their very humanity (yes, I consider sex to be a basic human need). No matter how "peaceful" your opinion is that it is wrong and disgusting and unacceptable, it is going to be viewed by them and those who are friendly to gays as a personal attack (yes, on par with a racial slur). You have no more right to tell them what they do is wrong as other Christians have to tell you as a Mormon that you aren't really a Christian. If you do get the term "hate speech" thrown at you personally (which I doubt, to be honest), instead of getting indignant, maybe you should think about why they are so emotionally charged about the issue that they would deem that term necessary.

Lastly - and yes, it was a strawman. Huge one.

 

Excellent post, DR, I heartily agree.

That about sums it up; LKD and Gnarff, please don't ignore this.

 

I don't ignore posts made in good faith, Sabre.

How they see themselves is important but not the end all and be all of the matter. To me, marriage is societal blessing given to the relationship. It is that societal blessing that I object to, because the behaviour is not accepted by the society, though it is tolerated. But I'm very, very willing to live and let live. I don't expect for one minute that people will ever change to become like me. I am live and let live on personal issues. But not on societal ones.

As an aside, and despite being a big fan of sex, I truly don't buy into the concept that sexual activity is totally uncontrollable, be it hetero or homo in nature. We expect people to control their sexual urges in all societies. I don't see that as unreasonable. If they don't, then I also accept that fact, but I do not accept the idea then that society should then condone or celebrate* that lack of control.

Bottom line, Most people like me are willing to lave them alone as long as they don't try to change tradition.
*celebrate meaning here a marriage, wherein the society in the person of its legal representatives gives societies approval for something.

Final edit: As has been mentioned many times before, the baseline of the argument diverges when the ideas of determinism vs. choice split. It is at that root that the argument lies. No science study will ever convince me that people cannot choose their behaviours, and no argument will ever convince my opponents that urges can or should be controlled. Believe it or not, I respect that, I really do.