Have you researched your hate post? Turns out there have been some studies released in the past few years that imply you may be wrong. You also need to be prepared to explain why it is you feel that Socrates (who invented democracy), Plato, and Aristotle were all defects.[quote]It may be argued--if first proven--that homosexuals are born that way, but it doesn't follow that they therefore must act that way.[/quote]HG You live in the US, where people can act however they want, to a degree. If I don't like Rastafarians... its too damn bad. And my calls for them to ACT DIFFERENTLY would hopefully sound asinine, even to those who may share my opinions, because this is the US. Dreadlocks and homosexuality are green lighted.
robert108
· 2 years ago
Tolerating an unfortunate malady isn't the same as "greenlighting" it. Even though we don't disapprove of many other such disabilities, we still strive to cure them or ameliorate them in some way.
Carlson
· 1 month ago
unfortunate malady? what the hell does that mean? disabilities? do you even understand the vocabulary you are using? try mastering the use of the language before using it to "illuminate" us all on your "opinion." lots of people have freckles too. some cover it up with makeup, some celebrate them and are thankful for them. some people aren't as tall as i am. but does that mean because they aren't very tall, that they have a DISABILITY? hell i hit my head on everything and can't fit in a normal bed... and i don't even know what i'm arguing anymore. see how your ignorant post is dumbing the rest of the world down?
this whole post of mine could have been summed up with "the whole world is now stupider for what you just said."
Marty
· 2 years ago
This of course is the paradox of their propaganda:
On one hand they insist that homosexuality is determined in the womb, via genetic or hormonal factors.
On the other hand, there is not a single test that can determine whether an infant, toddler, teenager, or adult is biologically "gay".
And of course they cannot allow such a test to ever be developed because accurate diagnosis is the first step to finding a cure!
So we all just get to take their word for it that sexual orientation is biologically determined and cannot change. Proof -- assuming they are even correct -- simply will not be allowed.
robert108
· 2 years ago
Marty: Here's yet another paradox: After asserting that being gay is "mainstream", they then assert that it isn't any sort of choice; they are compelled by "nature" to be that way. How can you be proud of something that is forced on you by nature, and isn't even a positive choice?
HG
· 2 years ago
[quote]Have you researched your hate post? [/quote]
Sparkie,
You've taken my comments well beyond their intended context. I'm simply pointing out the gaps in the arguments advanced for homosexuality and homosexual behavior. You see Sparkie, it is said arguments that demand all homosexuals are born so, and that they must behave accordingly. Their is no "hate" tone present in my post whatsoever, nor do I suggest that people shouldn't be free to act upon their legal homosexual preferences.
WOOF
· 2 years ago
Why is it that (hetero/bi/A)sexuality should not be viewed as a birth defect?
If you are going to have sex, please have sex only with your [b]own[/b] shoes.
[quote]In just 7 days I can make you a man[/quote] [URL=http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2004784171384936973][IMG]http://aycu31.webshots.com/image/21070/2004784171384936973_rs.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
HG
· 2 years ago
Hetero is the only sexuality which permits procreation. That alone would make hetero no birth defect.
Bat One
· 2 years ago
If homosexuality is determined to be a genetic predisposition, as liberals argue, can they then object when straight couples decide to arbitrarily abort fetuses that test positive, in favor of having babies who are straight?
After all, its only a fetus, right?
TheTodd
· 1 month ago
Bat One: "If homosexuality is determined to be a genetic predisposition, as liberals argue, can they then object when straight couples decide to arbitrarily abort fetuses that test positive, in favor of having babies who are straight?
After all, its only a fetus, right?"
I would have no problem with that, no.
I'd also have no problem if a woman aborted a fetus who had tested positive for hemophilia, mental retardation, dwarfism, or any other diseases/disabilities.
I'd also have no problem if a woman aborted a fetus because the pregnancy would conflict with a planned summer vacation.
Rob
· 2 years ago
[quote]Why is it that (hetero/bi/A)sexuality should not be viewed as a birth defect?[/quote]
Not that I have anything against homosexuals, but given that the sexual process exists and is pleasurable for all parties involved is for the express purpose of procreation.
Now I'm not one who feels that sex should only be for procreation (my wife maybe feels differently), but it's pretty clear that heterosexuality is pretty much the evolutionary intent of having sex organs in the first place.
Chief RZ
· 2 years ago
Homosexuality is a deviant behavior. It is not genetic. [url=http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/2006/02/heterophobia.html] Here are links to read about the few scientific research on the subject. [/url] "Homosexuals" are merely a political group not much different than "feminists" and "african-americans."
Anna
· 2 years ago
[quote]a bill to prohibit abortions based on the sexual orientation of the unborn baby.[/quote] This bill would prevent abortions but would not prevent the parents from giving the baby up for adoption. Will this cause an over abundance of gay orphans?
Bat One
· 2 years ago
Anna,
Did you intend to include a citation to that bill you mention? I'm curious to see just whose bill this is, and who its co-sponsors might be. I sense a huge attempt at ill-concealed hypocrisy here.
ManofFireandLight
· 2 years ago
[url=http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php?page=all&p=y]Here[/url] is an interesting article about gay (or at least sexually ambiguous) animals.
HG
· 2 years ago
Chief,
From a strictly Christian perspective humanity suffers from deparvity and all are born sinners. If it be concluded that individuals are born with certain sexual imperfections which lead to unnatural sexual tendencies, it could then be concluded they in some sense are born that way, but that doesn't require they act upon it. However, that said, the physical evidence is inconclusive.
Consider this article from [url=http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/06/28/is-homosexuality-genetic-ask-the-ancient-greeks]here[/url]:
[quote][b]Is Homosexuality Genetic? Ask the Ancient Greeks[/b]
by Dinesh D'Souza
A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays cannot change their sexual orientation. This can be read in more than one way. But perhaps the most obvious interpretation is that homosexuality is biological or innate, and therefore a certain percentage of people in every society are genetically programmed to be gay.
This view, I think, is simply wrong.
To figure this out we don't have to dispute the controversial scientific studies, which are inconclusive. We simply have to look at a concrete historical example. Homosexuality was widespread in ancient Greece and Rome. The Greeks even had an educational philosophy based on pederasty. As K.J. Dover describes in his study of the subject, older men would take teenage boys as sex partners, and in return for sexual favors they would supposedly provide wisdom and knowledge. Interestingly one character in Plato's Symposium protests this practice. He thinks it is unfavor to the older men! If these practices are genetic, why aren't homosexuality and pederasty prevalent in Greece and Rome today? Has the gene pool changed that much? These questions can be deepened by noting that for the ancients, there was no question of being either heterosexual or homosexual. The Greeks and Romans were both. In other words, Greek and Roman males typically were married and had families, yet these same married men also had sexual liaisons with younger boys.
I'm sure if someone in those days conducted a poll, the Greeks and Romans would confidently proclaim their sexual practices "natural." If you told the ancient Athenians that other societies weren't into pederasty like they were, chances are they would laugh and say that obviously pederasts in other cultures were concealing their true inclinations. With the same cultural myopia, we think that since there are homosexuals in our society, and since they clearly aren't whimsically "choosing" to be homosexual, therefore homosexuality must be biological and innate. But this is a non-sequitur, and history suggests that it is not so. [/quote]
Robert Perry
· 2 years ago
Actually, Sparkie, Athenian democracy existed well before Socrates came on the scene, and one of its notable accomplishments was to kill Socrates. Athenian democracy also (thus) served the Founding Fathers as an example of what NOT to do in founding a nation. Hence, we are a republic, not a democracy.
Also, as Rob points out, the complete lack of desire to do that which leads to reproduction would be viewed, evolutionarily speaking, as a birth defect, and no amount of research can disprove that.
Put differently, what we consider a birth defect depends not on what science learns, but rather what we value. A society that values spending time on the beach is going to view being a blond as a birth defect. A society that values its own perpetuation is going to view homosexuality as the same.
Anna
· 2 years ago
Sorry Bat, It was so long ago that I figured it was old news for most. I'll go hunt it down.
HG
· 2 years ago
[quote]Here is an interesting article about gay (or at least sexually ambiguous) animals.[/quote]
MOFL,
Interesting if you ignore the intellectual and moral superiority which distinguishes humanity from the animals. Using your logic, since animals don't marry, neither should the homosexuals whose homosexuality is justified by the behavior of animals.
Anna
· 2 years ago
[quote]A Republican lawmaker in Maine has introduced a bill to prohibit abortions based on the sexual orientation of the unborn baby.
State Rep. Brian Duprey wants the Legislature to forbid a woman from ending a pregnancy because the fetus is homosexual.
He said the bill looks into the future in case scientists find what he described as a "homosexual gene." 2/05[/quote] I mentioned it for debate purposes only and I am in no way trying to confirm the gene theory.
HG
· 2 years ago
Anna,
Interesting. I though abortion was the mother's preference. Wouldn't this mean that to abort a child based on sexuality is discrimination? How can one discriminate against a non-life?
Personally, I would support this bill. Not on the basis of a "homosexual gene", but because abortion is the taking of innocent life.
Bat One
· 2 years ago
Man,
I wonder, do those "sexually ambiguous" animals make good house pets? How about houseboys?
Neiman
· 2 years ago
HG: This does set up an interesting situation: 1. Abortion is a matter of choice for the woman and the woman only. 2. Homosexual babies cannot be aborted and thus abortion is no longer a choice for the woman, but for society. 3. If society can regulate abortions to prevent homosexuals from being aborted, doesn't that establish abortion as being a matter of state regulation and doesn't that completely destroy the choice argument? For instance, in Southern California blonde haired, bule eyed potential surfers could not be aborted, in Idaho no child can be aborted and etcetera.
If homosexuality is a matter of a genetic variation, how come in identical twins one can be heterosexual and the other homosexual?
Lastly, I completely agree with you on the Life issue!
Anna
· 2 years ago
I will have to agree with you HG but at the same time it sure opens a flood gate of additional issues. Personally, If it were to be proven, I find it has limited usefulness for research and PREconception testing only.
HG
· 2 years ago
Neiman,
Maybe the Republican who introduced the bill had other motives than to preserve homosexuality?
[quote]If homosexuality is a matter of a genetic variation, how come in identical twins one can be heterosexual and the other homosexual? [/quote]
Because one chose to act on one's genetically defective impulses while the other did not?
WOOF
· 2 years ago
Persons are able to adapt their sexuality to circumstance.
Thomas A Edison said sex is 99% Opportunity. and 1% Inspiration
WOOF
· 2 years ago
Holey Moley Bat One! [quote]How about houseboys?[/quote]
[quote]Thomas A Edison said sex is 99% Opportunity. and 1% Inspiration[/quote] Thomas A Edison invented the gramophone, so that when people say WOOF sounds like a broken record, we would know what they were talking about!
SPARKIE ARBUCKLE
· 2 years ago
Chief wins. Dumbest shit I've heard all year. Political group? What? I know many republican homosexuals and many democrat homosexuals. How do they fit into your simple little world, mr. educator? If you ever get near my kids, I'll sick the ACLU on your ass so fast you won't even know what hit you.
r108 comes in second [quote]Tolerating an unfortunate malady isn't the same as "greenlighting" it. Even though we don't disapprove of many other such disabilities, we still strive to cure them or ameliorate them in some way.[/quote]Homosexuality is only an 'unfortunate malady' to you and yours. Homosexuality IS greenlighted. Its legal. People are gay. Its OK. There's nothing odd or wrong about it - its widespread and has been for milennia. It need not be cured any more than your lifestyle or opinions need to be cured. Thanks for the drivel, r108. Ain't it time to get your emissions checked, again? I think California is having a negative impact on your 'messing with other people's lives' stances. Furthermore, what makes you feel you are correct? What if you are wrong? Its bound to happen. Folk like you, r108, do not aid your party when you open your mouth.
Robert Perry [quote]Actually, Sparkie, Athenian democracy existed well before Socrates came on the scene, and one of its notable accomplishments was to kill Socrates. Athenian democracy also (thus) served the Founding Fathers as an example of what NOT to do in founding a nation. Hence, we are a republic, not a democracy.[/quote]Well, where I'm from we have town meeting, direct/Athenian-style democracy. We still elect douche bags to parent us, ala r108, but we retain some control for ourselves. PS - republic my ass. we are a bit 'top heavy'. your guy in the fancy house that is supposed to be fixing it ain't.
So you hold that Socrates was worthless, apt to be killed? What? Shame on you Robert Perry. Those guys were so smart so early that it blows my mind. I like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes]Zeno[/url] better. Historical philosophy is nowhere near as cool as the contemporary debates though, IMO. Modern metaphysics and epistemology are just plain bitchin'. [url=http://hem.bredband.net/b153434/Index.htm]That's where all the people with the highest IQs hang out, anyway[/url].
likwidshoe
· 2 years ago
Homosexual men are usually unhappy depressed people. I don't know if that is a "birth defect" one is born with, but it definitely isn't an optimal situation. If it is inborn, it could easily be classified as a "birth defect". Just check out the mental health statistics, the suicide statistics, and the crime rate. Gay men, despite their 'gay' moniker, by and large aren't living happy lives.
Incidentally, I can't say the same for gay women. Most of the gay women I have known are well adjusted and successful members of society.
Now granted, these are just my personal observations and they may or may not be correct.
SPARKIE ARBUCKLE
· 2 years ago
[quote]Homosexual men are usually unhappy depressed people.[/quote]Its probably because of all the latent hate people like r108 and HG aren't ashamed to air in public.
IMO, I would say the opposite of what Lik says. I know a lot more unhappy, messed up lesbians than I do homo males. Just what I've seen though. Some of my very very close friends are gay. I don't feel there's anything wrong with them. They feel a certain way and are lucky enough to live in a place where they can act according to their conscience. Go USA!
likwidshoe
· 2 years ago
Its probably because of all the latent hate people like r108 and HG aren't ashamed to air in public.
Doubt it. The gay men I know could care less what others say about them. Their demons come from the inside, rather than external forces.
IMO, I would say the opposite of what Lik says.
Hmmm...interesting.
Just so you know Sparkie Arbuckle, not that it is any of your business but I'll tell you anyways so you can better understand my perspective - I used to live in a house full of gays. Back in 2000, there was a cheap room open for rent and my then girlfriend and I jumped on the opportunity of cheap rent while we looked for something more permanent. There was a depressed gay couple living downstairs, the good-hearted but ultimately depressed gay owner who lived upstairs (he used to run the 'gay pride' parades in Port Huron and Sarnia), along with a straight girl and a crazy-assed lesbian living on my floor. I would sometimes come home to a freaking gay party at the house. 30+ sweaty men drinking champaign out of crystal glasses. They would make the downstairs smell like some nasty locker room. It was definitely a colorful period of my life that I won't ever forget. In addition to this, I had many close gay friends from the rave party scene. If I wasn't with my girl or with one of my cousins, I was usually with one of my gay friends (this brought me the benefit of having all of the attractive girls at the clubs and parties swarming over to my gay friends; not my intention but I'll take it). By and large, the gay friends I've had the pleasure of knowing are unhappy individuals who struggle with some very serious personal demons.
In the end and in my view, medical science would do well to find ways of ending the depression associated with so many homosexual people. If they could make the gays truly gay, then this humanitarian route is the one to take.
HG
· 2 years ago
[quote]Its probably because of all the latent hate people like r108 and HG aren't ashamed to air in public. [/quote]
The homosexuals demand all society view thier behavior as genetic -- without proof -- and that homosexuality is normal -- again, without proof. And according to you those of us who refuse to accept these claims are haters? It would seem to me that those who will not tolerate the majorities disagreement with their claims, and who claim that such dissent is hate, may be suffering additional genetic defects.
Funny you would rather drive the majority of people into the "closet" for our "shameful" public disagreement with the homosexual opinion. I'd personally like to see homosexuals quit flaunting their homosexuality in our faces in an effort to force society to accept it. I thought what goes on in the privacy of one's bedroom is nobody's business. I sure wish the homosexual community would practice what it preaches.
Neiman
· 2 years ago
HG and ChiefRZ: As a society we demand that people having sexual desires for children, even when they have these feeling when they are young, be restrained so that they will not harm children when they act out on these perverse sexual desires. Likewise, we demand that alcoholics and drug addicts get help for their own good and the benefit of those people whose lives they might impact.
The point is, civilized people recognizing that human beings are subject to perverse and dangerous desires either through laws or social condemnation, demand they resist those desires. Yet, it is strangely different when people want to engage in homosexual relations, conduct which at a minimum is a perversion of natural design and I believe a rejection of Divine Creation; and which presents serious health dangers for those directly involved and their heterosexual partners, then we want to call that behavior normative and despite no evidence in its support - a mere genetic aberration.
No matter how the homosexual lobby spins the truth, no rational person can deny that sodomy and the oral exchange of body fluids is a perversion of natural design. Nor can they honestly assert it is not a dangerous activity, presenting real health risks to our society and abnormal financial costs as well.
Why is this single perverse human behavior being accepted and promoted as normal? Out of compassion we don't want to call these people perverted or make them feel unloved and not accepted. Okay, why don't we feel the same way about child molestors, they have urges they say they cannot control, they have had these urges since they were quite young; and so why don't we extend this same compassion and inclusion into society to them as we do homosexuals? What about those desiring mulitple marriages, how dare we pass laws saying polygamy is unlawful and perverse? Don't they deserve compassion and be allowed to love others and have an alternative type of familiy just like homosexuals?
SPARKIE ARBUCKLE
· 2 years ago
lik i have lived with lesbians - for about a year. it was... intolerable. not because they were gay, rather because they were the shittiest roomies ever. i have many homo male friends. that's my angle.
SPARKIE ARBUCKLE
· 2 years ago
[quote]The homosexuals demand all society view thier behavior as genetic--without proof--and that homosexuality is normal--again, without proof.[/quote]you speak in many tongues, i just didn't know you spoke for the gays too. i.e. you are wrong.
SPARKIE ARBUCKLE
· 2 years ago
knee-high-man[quote]No matter how the homosexual lobby spins the truth, no rational person can deny that sodomy and the oral exchange of body fluids is a perversion of natural design.[/quote]did you say 'natural design'?!? damn. what about intelligent design? you are anti-blowjob? does the bible speak out against that too? i don't think its a perversion of natural design. so guys can't do girls in the butt? no blowjobs? i am not a big fan of the former... but the latter...!?!
SPARKIE ARBUCKLE
· 2 years ago
[quote]Why is this single perverse human behavior being accepted and promoted as normal?[/quote]The real question is why is believing in an invisible dude that made the whole universe considered normal? THat is some silly ass shit IMO. People who believe that are apt to believe ANYTHING.
xtempore
· 2 years ago
It is outrageous to refer to sexual orientation as a defect, disability, or any other such term.
Sexual orientation is now widely accepted in the scientific community as being a physiological attribute. It sits on a spectrum. There are people who are profoundly heterosexual, profoundly homosexual, and everything in between. There are also individuals who are asexual.
All of these are naturally occurring parts of the spectrum. The term "normal" simply refers to the most average attribute within the spectrum.
No specific sexual orientation is a defect any more than having green eyes or being left-handed is.
So unless you are of medium height, medium build, with brown skin, brown eyes, dark hair, right-handed, with an IQ of precisely 100 ... you better watch who you call abnormal!
HG
· 2 years ago
[quote]Sexual orientation is now widely accepted in the scientific community as being a physiological attribute.[/quote]
Put that right up their with global warming.
likwidshoe
· 2 years ago
Sparkie Arbuckle - i have lived with lesbians - for about a year. it was... intolerable. not because they were gay, rather because they were the shittiest roomies ever.
Sparkie, I respectfully submit that maybe the reason was because they were women. Women are catty.
Neiman - Yet, it is strangely different when people want to engage in homosexual relations, conduct which at a minimum is a perversion of natural design...
I would argue that it is in line with natural design. After all, we are base creatures a couple of steps away from monkeys. Monkeys, incidentally with a couple of species, that regularly sodomize each other in a show dominance. It might not be "natural design", but it most definitely is natural. There are a lot of animals out there who release their sexual tension with members of the same sex. All arguments aside, this makes it natural!
Does it make it normal? Well, that's another question with a different answer.
...and I believe a rejection of Divine Creation...
To a non-believer such as myself, this begs the question of why GOD made so many animals that are butt-taggingly gay.
What rejection? God loves gays!
HG
· 2 years ago
[quote]THat is some silly ass shit IMO.[/quote]
Hmm...your sarcasm uses these terms to mock natural theism, while at the same time defend those who prefer to sport themselves in the same. Just an observation.
Neiman
· 2 years ago
[b]Spark Plug[/b]: Your atheism and hatred of all things Christian and/or religious has been duly noted on a zillion occasions, you don't need to keep up your mindless attacks on people of faith, it is a waste of time.
[b]xtempore[/b]: So, are sexual desires by adults for small, prepubescent children "naturally occurring parts of the [sexual] spectrum?" How about sexual desires for animals, are they just "naturally occurring parts of the [sexual] spectrum?" Or, how about polygamists, are the desires of these men to have sexual relations with many wives, some of them in their young teens years, "naturally occurring parts of the [sexual] spectrum?" How about women using artificial penises?
Is it or is it not a perversion of natural, anatomical design to stick a penis inside a rectum? Does or does not that regular sodomy stretch the anal orifice and is or is not this conduct the source of transmission of several unpleasant and even life threatening diseases? No matter how you spin it, such sexual conduct is a perversion of natural design and therefore it cannot be considered normal and it should not be approved by society.
You'll notice I did not speak to the spiritual harm which is quite real, but only that when viewed from the stand point of natural anatomical design, sodomy is a perverse use of the penis and the rectum. Further, while heterosexuals love to receive a blow job, the exchange of semen into the oral cavity, the passage of bacteria into the oral and disgestive system was not the naturally designed use for either organ or fluid and thus is a perverse use thereof.
So, you may object to calling homosexual conduct abnormal, and you may think the earth is flat; but the evidence in both cases is overwhelmingly against you!
HG
· 2 years ago
[quote]After all, we are base creatures a couple of steps away from monkeys. [/quote]
Lik, come on. We are light years away from monkeys, intellectually, morally, socially, etc -- without any transitional intelligent form, I might add.
HG
· 2 years ago
[quote]The term "normal" simply refers to the most average attribute within the spectrum.[/quote]
You could call approx. 90% of the population the "average", but it is a gross understatement. More accurately it would be the overwhelming majority. Which lends all the more credibility of the arguments that homosexuality is a birth defect -- if one is born with it.
Neiman
· 2 years ago
I don't like responding to likwidshoe, because he is incapable of civil debate with me, but I shall attempt for others posting here to respond:
It is an old, old, very tired trick to suggest that if God condemns certain behavior then He doesn't love the person. God loves "whosoever" He created - that means every human being, but He does [b]not[/b] love or accept those things He condemns and calls sin; and if any "whosovers" do not accept His Son as their Savior and Lord before they depart this physical life, by their own choice they have rejected His Lordship over their lives and they will suffer eternally by their own choosing, not His. A pardon is not a pardon unless it is accepted, and anyone rejecting God's Divine Pardon will not benefit from any of the provisions thereof.
The genetic difference between monkeys and human beings is much, much greater that a couple of steps as you ignorantly suggest. "We also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas and that doesn't make us half bananas, either from the waist up or the waist down." "Now the genetic difference between a human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; therefore there is no possibility of change. "just a few percentage points can translate into vast, unbridgeable gaps between species."
Lik said: "To a non-believer such as myself, this begs the question of why GOD made so many animals that are butt-taggingly gay." An animal behaving like an animal and forcefully raping another male is not a sign of homosexuality among animals, it is a sign of major difference between the lower order of animals and human beings, human beings reject forceful rape by sodomy, it is a crime and we punish those perverted rapists. Also, when Adam and Eve rejected God, the entire creation was polutted by perverse, sinful desires and when God creates a new heaven and a new earth, no such behavior even in the animal kingdom will be seen.
docdave
· 2 years ago
Natural selection favors hetros since only they can procreate. Anything else is an aberration aince it has no way of extending its life. i.e. if homosexuality waa genetically induced it would be a mule-like mutation that cannot recreate itself and would soon die out. No, homosexuality is more likely just a form of a sexual perversion of which there are many others.
Chief RZ
· 2 years ago
Yes, political group. They demand "equal rights". What they mean is the type of affirmative action and "get out of jail free cards" that other "preferred minorities" have gained politically. Do you not remember that the "(woman's equal right's" amendment was not passed in the USA even after it went into "overtime"? Neiman. Thanks for the comments. For a few: normal is defined as about 66 2/3%. Homosexual behavior is maybe 3%. That puts them at least three or four standard deviations from the norm. In layman's terms that would deviate from the mean. Yes, we are all born sinners and need to repent and not sin again. All this talk about[url=http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/2006/02/heterophobia.html] "homophobia"[/url] is a straw man argument. Just like the Duke Lacross players. Brought out here on SA was the fact from the FBI statistics that 0.0% of black women are raped by white men. Sparkie, do you have the FBI statistics on "homosexuals" being killed by "heterosexuals"? Now, don't leave out the number of "homo on homo" killings! As for a teacher, I will leave my evaluation to those students I taught over 28 years. I taught The Truth. They knew it. Some deviants rejected The Truth. Many were drug users, wound up in jail and were as lik has stated, unhappy, depressed people. They chose their lifestyle, they now live with the consequences of their sin/behavior(s), as we all do.
SPARKIE ARBUCKLE
· 2 years ago
[quote]They demand "equal rights".[/quote]that's a broad generalization. many gay people are happy to not marry as it is a christian-judeaic social institution. they just want the tax break and the end of life rights and all the other spousal type legal things. i don't see that as a problem. what, black people are a political group too because they want equal rights? you are being an intentional simpleton and it ain't advancing your contentions.
Neiman
· 2 years ago
Chief: When people express their honest difference over the homosexual issue, it is an easy tactic to throw out terms like "homophobia" to shut down all criticism.
So, how about those attacking people having negative views of homosexuality from a biblical perspective, perhaps these terms will help: 1. [b]Christophobic[/b], an irrational fear of Christ and the Church. Or, 2. [b]Aletheophobic[/b]: An irrational fear of Divine Truth. So when they accuse us of homophobia we can pull out psychiatric terms to describe their fears!
Chief RZ
· 2 years ago
Sparkie. I did not say black people. I said african-americans. By that I refer to the "special preferred minority" who are elevated to jobs they are not qualified for. Black, is way too generic term. Negro is more specific to race as Caucasian is. You are talking about changing the 1935 Social Security law that provides for "windows and orphans" to benefit from the death of a husband. I am glad that you "cut to the chase." This gay issue is about money. This can be changed (or corrected is I guess your issue) by simply changing the federal laws on Social Security to make "households" any two (or three?) or more? people who live together for? pick a number of years and then collect money when one of them dies. [b]What tax break?[/b] Head of household? A single person can claim that now if they are the parent of a child. What end of life rights? Stop being devious. You missed the "equal rights" quotes. That is a strawman argument. What the feminists wanted was extra rights. They now have the trump card. Homosexuals simply want the same cards that african-americans now have. Soon everyone will have "equal rights", but some will be more equal than others! Simpleton? hardly, just cutting through the fog and stating The Truth.
Neiman
· 2 years ago
Fatty A: Every so-called racial group engages in political activism, [b]not[/b] seeking equal rights, without exception [u]they are demanding special rights[/u].
Why should homosexuals, people who are not legally married be granted the same legal and financial rights of married people? If their sexual and by extension their living arrangements are abnormal, then they should not be granted either the right to marry or the financial an dlegal rights associated with marriage and which were designed to help keep the heterosexual family intact?
likwidshoe
· 2 years ago
HG - Lik, come on. We are light years away from monkeys, intellectually, morally, socially, etc--without any transitional intelligent form, I might add.
We are still creatures that cater to our base needs. Or, in the sexual sense, our base wants.
Neiman - I don't like responding to likwidshoe, because he is incapable of civil debate with me, but I shall attempt for others posting here to respond:
You are describing yourself. Witness the below incivilities.
It is an old, old, very tired trick to suggest that if God condemns certain behavior then He doesn't love the person.
No one ever claimed that. You're building a straw man. But I can see why you're saying it. Maybe I should have said this instead:
GOD LOVES MAKING GAY ANIMALS
If I don't say so myself, that's a much better way of saying what I meant.
The genetic difference between monkeys and human beings is much, much greater that a couple of steps as you ignorantly suggest.
Who spoke of genetics? And how big are these couple of steps? This is another built straw man. It is ignorantly built because it is done with so much bluster. Amateur.
"We also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas and that doesn't make us half bananas, either from the waist up or the waist down."
More genetics. And new talk of being half of something.
Incidentally, if you were measuring a "step" as 25% of shared DNA, you could say that we are a couple of steps away from a banana. That would be a totally accurate statement. Just thinking out loud there and further destroying Neiman's off-topic rant.
"Now the genetic difference between a human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; therefore there is no possibility of change. "just a few percentage points can translate into vast, unbridgeable gaps between species."
More off-topic genetic talk.
Incidentally, if we were measuring "steps" as the things we have in common in the same vein - mammals, walk upright, two arms, legs, hands & feet, ten fingers and ten toes, cries, laughs, likes to fuck, usually monogamous, raises kids, similar family structure - then we're only a couple of steps away.
If you want to get into genetic talk, then it's another story. If you want to compare the intellect, then it's another story.
An animal behaving like an animal and forcefully raping another male is not a sign of homosexuality among animal...
A lot of those monkeys throw their asses into the air. That's not rape. Furthermore, some species CUM and that puts it into the category of sexual. It's not only about dominance when you throw that huge variable in.
Also, when Adam and Eve rejected God, the entire creation was polutted by perverse, sinful desires and when God creates a new heaven and a new earth, no such behavior even in the animal kingdom will be seen.
That's hilarious. A heaven without gays.
Thanks for the laugh Neiman.
xtempore
· 2 years ago
[b]In response to Neiman...[/b]
[b]Sexual Orientation - Nature and Nurture[/b]
I stand by what I said with regards to the spectrum of sexual orientation. "Orientation" in this term means a preference towards, or an inclination to. There is no doubt that environmental factors can play a part, thought these are the exceptions rather than the rule. The same applies to any other physical attribute. I am 6ft tall, but no doubt if my childhood diet had been deficient in protein, or I had been exposed to high levels of toxins I would be shorter.
Similarly a person's sexual orientation can be affected one way or the other by what happens to them during their up-bringing.
As sentient beings we also have a conscious mind that can make a choice about our actions, so that many naturally homosexual people who live in restrictive backwards societies chose to act against their natural inclinations.
[b]Pedophilia etc - Violate rights[/b]
I have not seen any studies that indicate a genetic predisposition towards bestiality nor pedophilia, but I think it reasonable to assume that these are do indeed make up a small part of the spectrum.
The important difference is that these inclinations, for example pedophilia, if acted upon violate the rights of the child, and we apply this equally to homosexual or heterosexual cases.
Consenting homosexual relationships do not violate anyone's rights, and as such it puzzles me greatly as to why we continue to see such hatred and discrimination against people.
[b]Natural design[/b]
Is it natural to... * eat ice-cream * go on a roller coaster * watch television * drive a car
I'm assuming you do at least one of these?
As for anal sex, my understanding (though I can't speak from experience) is that it is pleasurable and very natural to those who are so inclined.
[b]Polygamy[/b]
Actually I think for a male to want to have sex with more than one female is very natural! I find laws against polygamy to be rather laughable. After all there is no law against having a mistress, and huge numbers of Americans do cheat on their husbands/wives. For those that it suits, it seems that being open and honest in ones desire to have multiple partners seems healthier.
Personally it's not for me. I have enough trouble with one wife, and if I had more I fear they'd gang up on me!
You mentioned spirituality in passing. As there is a reasonable chance you have a Christian leaning, then I have some names for you... Abraham, Moses, Solomon.
[b]Disease[/b]
Sexual activity, heterosexual or homosexual, can spread disease. AIDS is rampant in Africa, and most of it's victims are heterosexual. Homosexuality does not cause disease. Viruses, bacteria, amoebas, and fungus cause disease.
[b]Flat earth?[/b]
I'm not sure what it was that I said that gave you the impression that I might think the earth was flat.
[b]What is Normal?[/b]
Can you clarify what you mean by "abnormal"?
Most attributes fall onto something like a skewed bell curve. In the homosexual-heterosexual spectrum, then the fat part of the curve is somewhere around "moderately heterosexual". Perhaps you fit inside that, and so you want to call anyone who doesn't "abnormal". But the same can be applied to many attributes and I doubt you fit into the "norm" for all of them.
For example the male/female ratio for the world is 1.014:1 - That means being male is the norm. I'm sure that most women would object to being called "abnormal"!
Of the worlds population, people of Asian descent make up the largest number. Therefore if you are not Asian you are "abnormal".
Obviously this list could go on, and on and on. The conclusion would result in a person who is... Asian, male, 162cm tall, weighs 70kg, is 27.4 years old, speaks Mandarin, is a Christian, is moderately heterosexual, has 3 children, has an IQ of 100, is right-handed, ...
I'm not sure how many people fit would fit all the criteria, but I guess the rest of us are "abnormal".
Chief RZ
· 2 years ago
Neiman. Those are good ones. Have you added them to the wikipedia "dictionary" like I did with heterophobia? Yes, "they" want special rights. It reminds me of the "special permission" some of my more devious students would try on me while I was teaching! The lie is that they do not want equal rights (notice the absence of quotation marks) they want, no demand carte blanche "special permission" to do whatever they please, break any and all laws, rape, murder, rob, and abuse law abiding citizens. They are a depraved sub-group and actually take down the whole group. The good citizens are scared to confront them just like many in Iraq, but today we saw yet another example of common, ordinary citizens rise up against the depraved Al-Qaeda Muslems.
Chief RZ
· 2 years ago
xtempore. You do not know that much about scientific statistical analysis. There must be a statistical difference between the means. Using the world's population as the population, there would have to be a much larger difference than .014 to approach a difference. There is no doubt that 3-5% is several deviations from the norm. The 5% I used to cover your "moderate" generalized definition (construct). Stop trying to overgeneralize. We are talking about being or not being homosexual. The alternate is heterosexual. Is there a third possibility in your thoughts? Yes. Homosexuality is mostly a learned behavior, just like lying, telling the truth, stealing, working, loving others, developing phobias, and reading and writing English.
WOOF. What are you doing? Special Rights. This picture may even be a group of criminals. I could post numerous picture of millions of people enslaved by communists over the centuries, and some as recent as this year. When was that picture taken? My guess is over a hundred years ago. Certain people continue to play the victim status card long after generations have passed.
HG
· 2 years ago
It makes sense that all should receive the tax benefits of married couples.. not just homosexuals. The tax code is no way to promote lifestyle choices. A flat tax would eliminate this whole ridiculous exercise in behavioral modification through tax incentives. So yeah, give homosexuals the same tax benefits. The current tax code does discriminate against some, but none more that the most successful among us.
Chief RZ
· 2 years ago
HG. How does the present tax code "discriminate" (illegally) against homosexual behavior. Would you also give the same "breaks" to two people of the opposite sex "living in sin"? The way I see it, they get a disproportionate amount of tax money to combat their AIDS/HIV/STDs. Your proposal for the "flat/fair tax" would have nothing to do with Social Security benefits. Yes, tax codes now do promote lifestyle changes. They encourage homeownership, buying "electric" cars, paying state taxes, and numerous other pet projects.
Neiman
· 2 years ago
xtempore: You err greatly when you brought up polygamy and Christianity as if connected. With the New Covenant between God and man, marriage is to be between one man and one woman in holy wedlock. Not many women and one man, or two men or two women. Christianity is associated with the New Testament Church. Abraham, Moses and etcetera were part of the Old Covenant; and with Christ and the Gospel of Grace the Old Covenant was replaced with the new.
Regarding the spreading of disease, I didn't ask about disease generally or what causes disease, nor did I mention sexually transmitted diseases in in other context than the simple question of whether or not sodomy is a source of sexually transmitted diseases. It cannot reasonably be denied that AIDs was first found among the homosexual community in this country, and despite the original source or what happens in other countries, homosexual conduct was the major source of original transmission among homosexuals and through them into the heterosexual community. But, you raised the AIDS question, I was talking about stirring ones penis in the poop shoot of another man and that being a source of harm to the anal orifice and a source of disease transmission. But, you want to obfuscate the issues I raised by bringing up other issues.
Your constant harangue about what is normal and what is abnormal is a silly distraction from the facts. Throughout all human history homosexual attraction and conduct has been among a tiny minority of any population, and it is a clear violation of natural design and thus by any reasonable definition it is abnormal behavior, and acting on those urges is a lifestyle choice, it can be resisted.
You said, "Consenting homosexual relationships do not violate anyone's rights, and as such it puzzles me greatly as to why we continue to see such hatred and discrimination against people." I want to educate you, there is a huge difference between objecting to homosexual [u]conduct[/u], whether from a natural or Christian point of view and hating homosexuals. Discrimination despite the liberal attempt to change the definition, only means to recognize differences in someone or some thing and is not by its nature either good or bad, just a fact of life. Christ and therefore Christians, hate the sin of homosexuality, among many others, viewing it as a rejection of God's Lordship, it being a form of idolatry; but they genuinely love the homosexual more than those saying the support that lifestyle choice, we do so by offering them God's unconditional love. If I tell you that you are dying of cancer, am I expressing hatred towards you or am I acting in true love to hopefully save your life? If I speak out against homosexuality, an act condemned by God, I am not expressing hate for any homosexual but rather in true Love, God's Love, I am seeking to point out the spiritual, temporal and eternal risks of that lifestyle choice and by God's Grace I hope to bring them to Christ and His Salvation, which is the ultimate expression of Love.
You said "I have not seen any studies that indicate a genetic predisposition towards bestiality nor pedophilia." Neither is there any credible, objective scientific studies that prove homosexuality results from a genetic predisposition. Those few studies I have seen have been dishonest in that they do not differentiate between causation and effect; that is, were any spurious physiological changes noted a cause of homosexual desire or did homosexual desire and conduct cause those changes.
likwidshoe: Your constant attack mentality and ridicule of Christ and the Church speaks to something very unhealthy in your emotional makeup, it does not change the Truth nor does it diminish one iota the Love of God for you and every human being. Lastly, remember this truth: A Pardon is not a pardon unless it is accepted, Jesus paid the penalty for every sin of every human being ever born; but that pardon has no value or effect on your eternal fate if you reject it, it is a free, unconditional gift; but if you don't acccept it, it is your loss and your choice.
It is late and my grandson wants my computer for a while, so I probably won't respnd any further tonight!
Neiman
· 2 years ago
RZ: I didn't know definitions could be added to Wikipedia!
I have enjoyed your several well thought out, reasonable and gentlemanly responses to this thread. Unfortunately, because I am more direct I get more attacks, but that is the price I pay for my personality!
WOOF
· 2 years ago
[b]Everybody[/b] in the picture has special rights. Some special rights are more special. Bet on it. Judging by the suit/hat 1930's
[quote]CCI: The State Penitentiary in South Carolina [/quote] 1866 to 1994
Chief RZ
· 2 years ago
Neiman, I too will say goodnight, but will check back to see if any have responded with facts. Good summary to xtempore.
xtempore
· 2 years ago
[b]Chief RZ[/b]
The Normal distribution is well defined, and your statement... "There is no doubt that 3-5% is several deviations from the norm." ... is fundamentally inaccurate. The normal distribution is such that 68% of the population is within 1 standard deviation of the mean, 95% within 2 stddevs and 99.7% within 3. So the percentage within "several deviations" is practically 0.
1.014:1 is a ratio. It means that for every 1000 women there are 1014 men, or that 50.3% of the worlds population is male. Therefore being male is the norm. The alternative analysis is to not split the population in this way and take an average which would mean someone who is half male and half female - a biological impossibility.
The reality, which I was trying to demonstrate, is that there is really no such thing as a normal person when every possible attribute is considered.
Classifying people as being or not being homosexual is inaccurate. It is a spectrum. As I already said some people are profoundly heterosexual, some are moderately, some are only just, some are bisexual with a preference for the opposite gender, some are bisexual with no strong preference, some are bisexual with a preference for the same gender, some are slightly homosexual, moderately homosexual or profoundly homosexual. (There's also asexual, but the strength of sexual drive is on a different axis).
I would rate myself towards the highly heterosexual end of the scale. I have friends from across the spectrum.
One of my best friends I would characterize as profoundly homosexual. To him the thought of sexual relations with a woman is extremely unappealing. From his early teens he has been attracted to other men. He has never felt the slightest attraction to women.
Another friend who was slightly homosexual actually met a woman who he was attracted to. Their married now and have a child.
I have other friends who are bisexual. One male friend is attracted to both genders, but with a slight leaning towards women. Similarly a female friend who is attracted to both genders, but overall prefers women.
The predominant theme I have noticed amongst those who post negative comments about homosexuality, is that they focus most strongly and almost exclusively on homosexual men.
One has to wonder why.
Chief RZ
· 2 years ago
WOOF. Alright, I guessed correctly. Criminals. All, even the policeman have special rights. Everyone has God given rights to life liberty and persuit of happiness unless and until one tries to take them away from another, and lands themselves in jail. Some special rights are more special sounds like the communits' lie: some are more equal than others!
HG
· 2 years ago
[quote]How does the present tax code "discriminate" (illegally) against homosexual behavior. Would you also give the same "breaks" to two people of the opposite sex "living in sin"?[/quote]
The current tax code or rates to be exact, confiscates a lower percentage of income from some than others. A truly fair and equitable tax rate would be a flat rate payed by all regardless of income.
Behavior modification via the tax code isn't the responsibility of government. Government serves one purpose very well... national security. Social security is the responsiblity of individuals not society.
Chief RZ
· 2 years ago
xtempore. 2 to 3 SD is accurate. Your statement, "The reality, which I was trying to demonstrate, is that there is really no such thing as a normal person when every possible attribute is considered." Is a good one. Normal can be identified as one value. In this case, homosexual -- lesbian if you want me to describe women, who constitute less than male homosexuals. Normal height, weight, marriage status, law abiding citizen, whatever one chooses, they are considered one at a time. In this post, we are talking about homosexuals--men and women. Your argument that homosexuals can be "bi" merely makes the argument that "they" are not born that way. Thanks.
Chief RZ
· 2 years ago
HG! I completely agree with you. Government should not be in the income redistribution business. Communists do that. But you did not answer how or what income tax code or rule illegally discriminates against homosexuals.
Yes! Provide for the common defense. Are you a veteran?
xtempore
· 2 years ago
[b]Neiman[/b]
So we come to the crux of your opinion - It is based on the teachings of the "Christian" church. I am not inclined to enter a theological debate. Suffice to say that my theological view differs greatly from yours, and that the two are irreconcilable.
My "constant harangue", as you call it, about what is or is not normal is precisely to the point. The title of this article questioned whether homosexuality was a birth defect, and many of the posts since referred to it as "abnormal". It is therefore completely valid and on-topic to discuss what these terms "normal" or "abnormal" mean.
Your choice to label people as "abnormal" (and it is a choice), is based on your own fears and prejudices, and propped up by your theological beliefs.
Apart from your theological argument all you present as evidence is that homosexual tendencies are a minority of the population. No-one disagrees. We simply believe that minorities should not be discriminated against.
robert108
· 2 years ago
[quote]Therefore being male is the norm.[/quote]
Wrong conclusion. Sexual dimorphism is the norm for human beings.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
xtempore, your description of tendency towards being hetero- versus homosexual is pretty much the way I view it. It is a natural predisposition in a small percentage of humans, and one that has a demonstrable genetic component. For example, there are physiological characteristics that heterosexual women and homosexual men have in common. See for example this.
It also turns out that there is a natural function for homosexuality... it is a natural population control mechanism. As the population density increases, the percentage of gay males increases. See for example J. B. Calhoun, "Population Density and Social Pathology." Scientific American 206, 139-14 (1962).
This pretty much lays to rest a) the meme that homosexuality is entirely by choice, as well as b) that it represents a form of genetic birth defect.
likwidshoe
· 2 years ago
Neiman - likwidshoe: Your constant attack mentality and ridicule of Christ and the Church speaks to something very unhealthy in your emotional makeup...
I don't know what the hell you're talking about here, but I can see that you have once again gone off into the deep end.
For the record Neiman, I have NEVER ridiculed Jesus Christ. By all accounts, Jesus was a very decent man far better than myself. I wish for you to recognize this fact and take back your damning slur.
Also for the record, I never once brought up "the Church". I don't even know what church that is supposed to refer to.
What does LYING say about your emotional makeup Neiman? I'd say that it makes you a disgusting individual.
Now be a man and take back your lying slurs against me. Neiman, STOP LYING.
xtempore
· 2 years ago
I am realizing now how futile it is for me to try to change the minds and hearts of people simply through the presentation of ideas in this blog.
As I am not homosexual, I do not even have the weight of direct personal experience to lend to my arguments.
There are some in this forum whose prejudices span decades, and they will not be easily swayed. Someone once characterized middle-age as a time when "the broad mind and narrow waist change places".
I was raised in a fairly unenlightened town, where negative opinions about homosexuals, Jews and blacks, were commonplace. Needless to say I developed the same bigotries.
As I grew older I started to meet more people of different backgrounds, beliefs, and orientations. I saw that most were good, kind, caring, honest people, and slowly my long held prejudices were eroded.
To those of you who still have an open mind - Maybe you could try laying aside your prejudices, even just for a few minutes, and talking to, rather than judging your fellow man.
robert108
· 2 years ago
[quote]Its probably because of all the latent hate people like r108 and HG aren't ashamed to air in public.[/quote]
I see you're projecting again, Sparkie.
likwidshoe
· 2 years ago
Neiman - you do a swell job of turning people off from Christianity.
This begs the question - whose side are you on? Are you a double agent from Hell sent here to turn people against Jesus Christ? Hmmm...I wonder.
As an agnostic, I will grant the mystical possibility that you are a demon sent here from Hell whose mission is to turn people away from Christ. You are, so far, successful in this mission of yours.
(Oh, and calm down Neiman. I can already see the horns sprouting from your forehead. I'm just joking with you here. After witnessing a "man of the book" lying about me and projecting all of his devilish nonsense onto me, one has to expect this. I'm going to push back against ya, you little deceiving demon!)
robert108
· 2 years ago
[quote]We simply believe that minorities should not be discriminated against.[/quote]
Calling non-normal behavior "non-normal" isn't discrimination; you have your panties in a bunch for your own personal reasons.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
HG:
We are light years away from monkeys, intellectually, morally, socially, etc--without any transitional intelligent form, I might add.
You most have known I couldn't resist responding to this... in addition to having about 99% of our DNA in common with the chimpanzee (which is not a monkey of course), a fact hard to explain for those who claim there is no common ancestor, chimpanzees share some interesting social characteristics with us.
[quote]It also turns out that there is a natural function for homosexuality... it is a natural population control mechanism. As the population density increases, the percentage of gay males increases. See for example J. B. Calhoun, "Population Density and Social Pathology." Scientific American 206, 139-14 (1962).[/quote]
Fascinating. This is the first I've heard of this, but it makes sense. I'll need to look into this further...
I haven't read all the comments in this thread, but there seems to be a lot of irrational dislike (not sure all of it rises to the level of hatred) of homosexuals, and it sort of baffles me.
I know a lot of people who I consider to be "good conservatives" who find homosexuals detestable. On most issues these people are staunch supporters of liberty. They want the government out their lives. They simply want to pursue happiness without a bunch of bureaucrats and busybodies getting in their way.
But then when the subject turns to homosexuals they get all up in arms. They want to outlaw gay marriage and basically get all up in the lives of homosexuals to prevent them from doing a lot of things.
It boggles the mind. What your moral opinion is of homosexuality, is it really in keeping with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to prevent consenting adults from marrying one another? Loving one another? Living harmoniously in communities without being lambasted as sex perverts and worse?
Trust me, gay sex is not my cup of tea, and it took me a long time to separate my personal aversion to it from my opinions of homosexuals as people. But ultimately I like to think that my core conservative principles about people living their lives as they see fit won over.
If two men want to marry one another, good on them. Same with two women. That's what this country is all about. Finding happiness, and if a guy can find that in the arms of another guy who are we to judge?
And yes, I'm aware of concerns of the breakdown of moral codes, but c'mon. For every promiscuous gay man or woman out there slutting it up there's probably at least 10 straight people doing the exact same thing. Just as those promiscuous straights don't represent all of us who lead more responsible sexual lives, the promiscuous gays don't represent all gays in general (nor do the in-your-face caricatures of gays in movies and on TV).
I know this is a hot button issue for a lot of you guys, but I can't help but think that you'd all be a lot easier if you just let it go and learned to be happy for other people who have found happiness.
Rob
· 2 years ago
[quote]Carrick: Yes, but can they blog?[/quote]
Well, since it's finally come up, I guess I should admit that "The Whistler" is actually a trained baboon I keep in a cage in my living room. When I get busy, I put my laptop in there for him to bang out posts to keep you all entertained.
I'm not sure what it says about me that his posts are usually better than mine.
likwidshoe
· 2 years ago
Rob - It boggles the mind. What your moral opinion is of homosexuality, is it really in keeping with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to prevent consenting adults from marrying one another? Loving one another? Living harmoniously in communities without being lambasted as sex perverts and worse?
I don't want to change the definition of marriage. It will forever be one man and one woman in my mind. I'm not about to change the definitions of words just to please a small interest group. Ain't happening.
Chief RZ
· 2 years ago
Exactly. Not wanting to be penetrated from behind is not illegal discrimination. It is merely defending one's personal body space. Sort of like defending one's home from invasion. We still have the right of association. If I choose not to associate with short people for example, I am not "guilty" of (illegal) discrimination. I choose to be friends with law abiding citizens. I also choose to not associate with criminals. They tend to get into trouble with the law, hurt people and drag innocent people into their web of deceit.
The Whistler
· 2 years ago
[quote]I should admit that "The Whistler" is actually a trained baboon I keep in a cage in my living room. [/quote]
Not all that well trained mind you.
Rob
· 2 years ago
[quote]Not wanting to be penetrated from behind is not illegal discrimination.[/quote]
Nobody is saying you have to have gay sex. Just let others have it if they want to.
And lik, why so adamant on the marriage thing? If we call it marriage or civil unions or whatever, what harm does it do to just let these people bond themselves to each other in a legally-sanctioned ceremony?
Of course, I agree that gay marriage should be legal through a vote of the people and not a lawsuit, but that's just details.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Rob:
Fascinating. This is the first I've heard of this, but it makes sense. I'll need to look into this further...
Great. Just be warned that there are web sites on the internet that claim this is a hoax. Which is why I gave a reference to the original research...
likwidshoe
· 2 years ago
Rob - And lik, why so adamant on the marriage thing?
I pose the question right back. Why so adamant on changing the definition of a long standing word?
If we call it marriage or civil unions or whatever, what harm does it do to just let these people bond themselves to each other in a legally-sanctioned ceremony?
That's a different question. I have no problem with some kind of legal union that confers many, if not all, of the same benefits. You just can't demand that I recognize such a union as marriage.
Incidentally, I take the same position with polygamists. They can knock themselves out and live however they want to live. It doesn't matter to me. They can even call their unions "marriage". I don't care. What they can't do is demand that I recognize one man with three women as a "marriage".
robert108
· 2 years ago
[quote]I know a lot of people who I consider to be "good conservatives" who find homosexuals detestable.[/quote]
Shouldn't they be free to do that? Or do you want them to be convicted of thought crime?
Rob
· 2 years ago
[quote]I pose the question right back. Why so adamant on changing the definition of a long standing word?[/quote]
You answer mine, then I'll answer yours.
[quote]That's a different question. I have no problem with some kind of legal union that confers many, if not all, of the same benefits. You just can't demand that I recognize such a union as marriage.[/quote]
Seems like a trivial bit of hair-splitting to me.
Rob
· 2 years ago
[quote]Shouldn't they be free to do that? Or do you want them to be convicted of thought crime?[/quote]
Well of course I think they should be allowed to do that. Don't obfuscate by equating my disagreement with these attitudes about homosexuality to a desire to see people who think that way arrested. That's utter nonsense.
My point was that I don't see how people who cherish individual liberty can oppose homosexual relationships between consenting adults.
likwidshoe
· 2 years ago
Rob - You answer mine, then I'll answer yours.
If I agree to change it for one special interest group, I'll have to agree to change it for another. In pretty quick order, marriage will legally mean whatever the hell you want it to mean.
And when marriage means anything, it will mean nothing.
Seems like a trivial bit of hair-splitting to me.
Not at all. I have no problem with almost any kind of arrangement that adults would want a legal contract for. How that is supposed to carry over to me agreeing to a marriage definition change is beyond me.
docdave
· 2 years ago
[quote]My point was that I don't see how people who cherish individual liberty can oppose homosexual relationships between consenting adults[/quote] Although Chistians (not all) consider homosexual activities a sin, they strongly support free choice. Although there have been laws against sodomy in some states, that is in the past so freedom to puraue homosexual relationship are not an issue today. What is the issue with gays today is their programs to become part of the mainstream hetrosexual world (marriage, adoptions, etc and to do that they have to pervert the traditional meanings of these ancient insitutions. Most ingenious of them.
The Whistler
· 2 years ago
The "problem" where gays are not allowed to have benefits results from government reaching into the marriage market with special tax breaks and regulations.
Take government out of the equation and that problem is solved.
For example married people get to inherit tax free from their spouse. OK fine, take away the death tax and the problem is solved. Bruce can will his property to whomever he wishes.
The one that really gets me is when homosexuals (rightfully) complain their significant other can't visit them in the hospital.
Everyone should be able to designate a personal representative of their choice who would have the right to visit whether or not they are married.
Of course there the problem is because of certain hospitals having bad policies.
HG
· 2 years ago
[quote]I know this is a hot button issue for a lot of you guys, but I can't help but think that you'd all be a lot easier if you just let it go and learned to be happy for other people who have found happiness.[/quote]
Rob,
The majority of Americans would be much happier if the homosexual community would stop trying to force society to accept homosexuality as a normal, moral behavior. Gay pride parades, demanding marriage be redefined, that genetic homosexuality leaves no choice but homosexual behavior, that special minority rights be granted them, etc. If homosexuals would leave thier behavior in the bedroom rather than in the middle of main street, the public restroom, marriage, and morality you'd hear alot less about it from those of us who see the agenda behind their flawed and often offensive (to most Americans) arguments.
HG
· 2 years ago
Whistler,
Exactly. I think this should answer Chief's question.
Anna
· 2 years ago
I agree The Whistler ... The system is not set up for this situation at all. The system can't change for homosexuals without having to change for non-married heterosexual. Sheesh.. the world is making itself so complicated but it is impossible to arrange things to fit all people
and BTW Chief RZ, :P[quote]I choose not to associate with short people[/quote]
Neiman
· 2 years ago
[b]xtempore[/b]: Unless you learn to read more carefully, communication is impossible. I carefully, on more than one occasion debated this issue solely on the grounds of natural design and science; and only in a very brief way mentioned any Christian component, although I am not ashamed or heistant to debate it on those grounds. You said, "Apart from your theological argument all you present as evidence is that homosexual tendencies are a minority of the population." This is false, I argued the scientific and natural anatomical design course in more than a little detail, you have deliberately charged me with only debating this issue on theological grounds because you know that anyone believing in Christ today are defined by all liberals as being narrow minded, bigots and fanatics, and so you believe that makes any such arguments by them irrelevant nonsense. I only objected to your wanting to debate normal versus abnormal ad nauseum and refusing to consider other reasonable definitions or views.
[quote]Garrick said: "You most have known I couldn't resist responding to this... in addition to having about 99% of our DNA in common with the chimpanzee (which is not a monkey of course), a fact hard to explain for those who claim there is no common ancestor, chimpanzees share some interesting social characteristics with us."[/quote]
Scientific Fact: The genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change. Just a few percentage points can translate into vast, unbridgeable gaps between species. But, I realize that scientific fact or facts in general have no bearing on the conversation, as what we feel about the issue is all that matters and facts be damned.
Rob and others: It is absolutely false that people objecting to homosexual conduct hate homosexuals or want to deny them basic human rights such as employment, housing, health care and etcetera. That charge is a pure canard; that is, it a wholly false charge wherein those making it know they are making a false charge and do so anyway in order to inflame the issue and silence those opposing their views.
[quote]My point was that I don't see how people who cherish individual liberty can oppose homosexual relationships between consenting adults.[/quote]
Let us say the issue is sexual relationships between consenting adults and young teen age boys and girls, would you suggest that opposing those relationships is wrong? No, you would not because it is taking sexual advantage of an immature human being. We would all, [u]at least today[/u], agree with that! However, to object to sexual relations between consenting same gender adults, because you personally do not find it objectionable makes those objecting to it into hate mongers and persons against individual liberty. So what it amounts to is whose list of what should be tolerated and not tolerated in a healthy society is acceptable. You decide your list is the only acceptable list and those with a slightly different list are subhuman, bigots and hate mongers? Hardly fair is it? No, I know you did not use those exact words, but that was the clear implication as far as I am concerned.
We can debate whether or not homosexual partners should be allowed to inherit an estate or visit someone in the hospital, but it is a wholly false debate. Any human being can enter into a legal contract with another human being and leave their estate to a damn rapid dog if they want or approve hospital visitations by a female pope, it is perfectly legal. If these morons do not make such relationships a matter of a legal agreement before these things happen, they are guilty of gross stupidity and whatever results is their fault.
As to marriage, I cannot add to how DocDave expressed the matter:
[quote]What is the issue with gays today is their programs to become part of the mainstream hetrosexual world (marriage, adoptions, etc and to do that they have to pervert the traditional meanings of these ancient insitutions[/quote].
This debate does not have to be emotional and charged with anger, it can be reasonably discussed on a rational, logical, theological and scientific basis; but for those of you on the Left or those atheist and agnostics among you, it often [u]appears[/u] by your words that anyone having a Christian viewpoint are automatically labelled bigots, hate mongers and unable to discuss this issue on your level. Is it then any wonder that this issue is so divisive, one side refuses to allow the other side to hold any beliefs contrary to their own.
HG
· 2 years ago
Rob,
What seems to be missing from this debate is an accurate characterization of the attitude coming from the homosexual community toward society's discomfort morally and physically with homosexuality. Those of us who disagree with the arguments to mainstream homosexuality are characterized as hateful. What about the other side? Their approach has been anything but civil. It is an in your face attitude coupled with an assult on institutions and morality dear to many Americans and therefor highly offensive. There is no regard for the majority's cultural, moral, social, or religious norms. That is not constructive behavior, in fact, it is downright rude.
Neiman
· 2 years ago
Anna: Please tell me how homosexuals are prevented from entering into legal contracts with a partner to permit most if not all of these things Whistler demands them granted? Why do they need to highjack the sacred marriage covenant to get these legal rights? They don't, the fact is they want society to say homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality and the best way to do that is demand the same formal marriage ritual and certificate for homosexual couples.
[quote]I know this is a hot button issue for a lot of you guys, but I can't help but think that you'd all be a lot easier if you just let it go and learned to be happy for other people who have found happiness. [/quote]
And I guess we should be happy that joe found love and sexual fulfillment and happiness with his female dog Roxie? Or, we should be overjoyed that John found love, sexual fulfillment and happiness with a nine year old boy? On that basis we should be happy for the rapist that found happiness and sexual fulfillment for a few brief moments with his rape victim. Let us all hold hands and sing koombyya and be happy for every perverse relationship, because atleast one of the people involved found happiness, love and sexual gratification. Great social policy!
Sexual lust for another human being or even deep physical affection is not Love and it should not be a cause for celebration. Love to be real is totally selfless, not based on lust or shifting emotions of the moment, it is completely self sacrificing and seeks nothing for itself. Happiness is an illusion, it is transitory and all too often is based on something less than reality.
HG
· 2 years ago
Just like to highlight some of the more reasoned comments regarding homosexuality and the possibility of it being a birth defect.
Rob said: [quote]Now I'm not one who feels that sex should only be for procreation (my wife maybe feels differently), but it's pretty clear that heterosexuality is pretty much the evolutionary intent of having sex organs in the first place. [/quote] Last time I checked the rectum is not scientifically classified as a sex organ.
Robert Perry: [quote]Also, as Rob points out, the complete lack of desire to do that which leads to reproduction would be viewed, evolutionarily speaking, as a birth defect, and no amount of research can disprove that. [/quote]
Bingo!
DocDave: [quote]Natural selection favors hetros since only they can procreate. Anything else is an aberration aince it has no way of extending its life. i.e. if homosexuality waa genetically induced it would be a mule-like mutation that cannot recreate itself and would soon die out. No, homosexuality is more likely just a form of a sexual perversion of which there are many others. [/quote]
Carrick said: [quote]It also turns out that there is a natural function for homosexuality... it is a natural population control mechanism. [/quote]
Carrick you knew I couldn't pass this up. The same argument could be made for pedophilia, beastiality, and other forms of sexual perversion. Of course then we could offset the population control of these behaviors with polygamy, and teen pregnancy. Oh, yes we can't forget the population control argument for abortion. Population control does not make homosexuality normal.
Robert Perry
· 2 years ago
For the edification of those who apparently can't read a simple sentence, code named "Sparkie", my comments about Athenian democracy were simply to point out that
1. Sparkie was dead wrong about who invented the idea.
2. Democracy ended up killing his hero.
3. I tend to share the opinion of the Founders, who uniformly believed that the killing of innocents via mob rule is a bad thing.
So I will have to suggest that if he wishes to name someone for honorary residency in Rio Linda, he'd do best to simply look in the mirror.
likwidshoe
· 2 years ago
Neiman - Rob and others: It is absolutely false that people objecting to homosexual conduct hate homosexuals or want to deny them basic human rights such as employment, housing, health care and etcetera.
The things you listed aren't basic human rights. Nobody has a right to a job, house or health care. You only have the right to pursue those things.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
HG:
Carrick you knew I couldn't pass this up. The same argument could be made for pedophilia, beastiality, and other forms of sexual perversion.
You could make that argument. But unlike homosexuality, there is no scientific basis for it.
Rob
· 2 years ago
I don't think I accused anyone here of wanting to deny gays any basic human rights (or access to jobs, housing, etc.). But I do think there's a lot of very irrational dislike of homosexuals.
Personally, I judge each person individually. I've met cool gay people and gay people who were real jerks. But it really had nothing to do with who they have sex with.
And for all the blather about gay marriage destroying our society, and digging-in-the-heels stands about not changing the "definition" of marriage, I'm just not seeing it. Sounds like a lot of alarmist pap and obstinance in the absence of any really good arguments to me.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
HG:
Carrick you knew I couldn't pass this up. The same argument could be made for pedophilia, beastiality, and other forms of sexual perversion.
You could make that argument. But unlike homosexuality, there is no scientific basis for it. In fact, there are probably arguments against these others as adaptive behaviors under any circumstances...
likwidshoe
· 2 years ago
Rob - And for all the blather about gay marriage destroying our society, and digging-in-the-heels stands about not changing the "definition" of marriage, I'm just not seeing it.
Hey, why is the word definition wrapped with scare quotes? Make no mistake, to say that marriage equals two guys or two women or one man and three women is to fundamentally change the definition of the word.
Here's the way I see it: most "gay marriage" supporters bring up the various associated benefits attributed to the institution. If this is the driving force, then why can't two brothers get married? Or a sister and a brother?
What the hell does marriage mean? What are the proposed requirements? Anybody and everybody as long as you're an adult? That's the path that many "gay marriage" proponents want to head down and I say 'no' to that kind of chicanery.
HG
· 2 years ago
[quote]But unlike homosexuality, there is no scientific basis for it. [/quote]
I'm no scientist, but from what I have read the science is inconclusive. I have heard quoted other scientific evidence that suggest the differences, like those noted in your link, are relative and not determinative. So that in those whose sexual behavior changes, so does the evidence.
Using animal behavior as justification, as the homosexual argues, cross-species sex is justifiable, as well as sex with young members of a species. The reason the arguments fail is because there is a huge difference morally and intellectually betweeen humans and animals.
Robert Perry
· 2 years ago
There actually is a big thing that mis-defining marriage would do; it would obscure the fact that the government gets into family law in general, and marriage law in particular, because the process of bringing children into the world and raising them creates "dependents." In other words, people who need the protection of their husband/father to get their daily bread.
Since a father can abandon his responsibilities rather easily in this regard, all societies have decided to enact laws that (if enforced) hold a father to his responsibilities.
However, if we mis-define marriage as merely a contract of love, we completely eliminate the historical reason for all of those protections and benefits. In doing so, we undermine the interests of about 40 million mothers and twice that number of children in this country.
No harm done? Hardly. As our gracious host has noted, there are certainly flaws in family law, especially regarding custody after divorce. However, there are certain changes that would help, and certain others that would eviscerate the power of family law. Mis-defining marriage has the strong potential of eviscerating it.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
HG:
I'm no scientist, but from what I have read the science is inconclusive. I have heard quoted other scientific evidence that suggest the differences, like those noted in your link, are relative and not determinative. So that in those whose sexual behavior changes, so does the evidence.
Got a link? I'm not claiming it's slam-dunk, but there is a solid body of work on it.
Yes there are people who dispute it, mostly based on ethical rather than behavioral arguments, but that doesn't make it per se "inconclusive".
docdave
· 2 years ago
[quote]marriage definition: 1)The state of being husband and wife wedlock; 2) The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.[/quote] That is the largely accepted definition that homos want to change. Whereas the overwhelming majority are quite satisfied with that definition, the gay minority want to impose a new definition on the majority. They have complete license to create a different legal definition for their unions without perverting the marriage definition but that doesn't seem to be their goal.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
HG:
The reason the arguments fail is because there is a huge difference morally and intellectually betweeen humans and animals.
You're arguing on moral grounds. Impossible to argue with that, because you get to define what you think is moral, but that is hardly a scientific argument.
As to intelligence... we're discussing predispositions here. Intelligence affectsh how we act on our predispositions, but our predispositions are to a large degree hardwired. Hence the comparison of animals and humans on this level is entirely relevant.
Neiman
· 2 years ago
[quote]The things you listed aren't basic human rights. Nobody has a right to a job, house or health care. You only have the right to pursue those things. [/quote]
That is what a actually meant to say, although not made clear. I don't want them denied a right to qualify for a job because of their sexual orientation, or to qualify to buy a house or get health care because of that sexual orientation. I regret that was not made clear.
[quote]I do think there's a lot of very irrational dislike of homosexuals.[/quote]
You have right to that opinion, but it is not in my experience the attitude of most Christians. We can dislike what they do and not dislike them, we can hate sin and honestly love a sinner. You are confusing objection to behavior with feelings about the person and they are not automatically the same thing. You just don't like anyone goring your cow and so you project your own feelings against them.
likwidshoe
· 2 years ago
That is what a actually meant to say, although not made clear.
I knew you meant otherwise. I've seen you comment before on rights versus privileges and know that you recognize the difference.
The comment was made for the benefit of others who actually do believe that they have a right to a job, health care, and etcetera.
Rob
· 2 years ago
[quote]Hey, why is the word definition wrapped with scare quotes? Make no mistake, to say that marriage equals two guys or two women or one man and three women is to fundamentally change the definition of the word.[/quote]
Only because, as Carrick points out, you use the term "marriage" as a moral term. If your morals define marriage as only between a man and a woman, then fine. Not much I can do about that.
But "marriage" can be used to describe many couplings both between humans, organizations, etc. Look it up in the dictionary.
I understand if gay marriage is against your personal morals. And in a lot of instances imposing morals on society is ok. Like saying that murder or stealing is wrong. But in this instance, what does keeping gay marriage illegal actually accomplish for our society? All hyperbole about declining moral values (which is something not specific to the homosexual community) aside?
Neiman
· 2 years ago
1. In my opinion, it isn't a matter of each person defining what and what is not marriage or whether homosexual behavior is normal, for themselves. We have a definition of marriage that does not include homosexuals that goes as far back as recorded human history, and that definition applied despite time, social setting or geography, which to my mind indicates it is truth imprinted upon the conscience of all human beings by our Creator. The same rule applies to homosexuality.
2. I don't know of any objective scientific studies that prove with any degree of reliabilty that homosexuality is the result of a genetic predisposition. Even in those few studies where some possible minor physiologic changes were noted, it was never asked or determined if those changes were a matter of causation or the affect of homosexual conduct. Lastly, having been involved in medical research for more than thirty years, I can tell you that very little medical research is free from various prejudices of the investigators, sometimes in favor a a manufacturer of a medical product or medicine investing large sums of money in the university medical center, sometimes it is political and I believe those scientists trying to force a genetic predisposition for homosexuality into their research are doing so because they are mostly liberals and have a political agenda to advance; and I assure you that if they produced scientfic data that pointed away from any genetic cause, those papers would not get peer reviewed or published and the author's careers in medical research at any major medical school university would be cut short.
Robert Perry
· 2 years ago
Actually, Carrick, the science IS conclusive when you read it correctly. The LaVey study of identical twins that grew up together found something like 50% of identical twins of 34 homosexual men were also homosexual.
In other words, we must attribute the vast majority of the effect not to nature, but rather to other effects like nurture, personal experiences, and so on.
Which is to say that science is speaking rather clearly; there is no birth defect going on here that one could screen for.
likwidshoe
· 2 years ago
Rob - Only because, as Carrick points out, you use the term "marriage" as a moral term.
No, actually I don't. I've never looked at it from that angle and believe that the moral argument is a loser.
I've always maintained that I'm not going to start changing the definition of words to suit some special interest. I might one day be forced to accept the definition change as I have in the past with other words. Other words such as liberal, progressive, gay, choice, tolerance, and diversity that all now mean something totally different than what the dictionary tells us. I'm not going to encourage the same thing with marriage.
But "marriage" can be used to describe many couplings both between humans, organizations, etc. Look it up in the dictionary.
True that. The word "marriage" can be used in many different ways, but the institution of marriage is pretty specific.
But in this instance, what does keeping gay marriage illegal actually accomplish for our society?
I don't look at it as "keeping gay marriage illegal". I take the view that I am defending marriage. I voted in affirmation of marriage in Ohio in 2004. It had nothing to do with the gays.
By the way Rob, you once mentioned on the blog that your wife had opposed polygamist marriage even though she supported gay marriage. You had told us that you asked her the question of if there was any substantial difference between the pro arguments. You opened her eyes with a couple of questions. Out of curiosity, does she now agree that one can't logically support "gay marriage" without also supporting the right of polygamist marriage?
Just wondering if she, as well as others, realize the path we're going down if we decide that marriage means a union of anybody who loves each other.
Rob
· 2 years ago
[quote]No, actually I don't. I've never looked at it from that angle and believe that the moral argument is a loser.[/quote]
So you don't have a moral objection to homosexuality. Just some semantical objection to using "marriage" to describe a union between two men or two women?
What if we called if "huffypuffy." As in "Jack and Steve got huffypuffied yesterday." Would that be ok then? Would you set aside your objections?
[quote]By the way Rob, you once mentioned on the blog that your wife had opposed polygamist marriage even though she supported gay marriage. You had told us that you asked her the question of if there was any substantial difference between the pro arguments. You opened her eyes with a couple of questions. Out of curiosity, does she now agree that one can't logically support "gay marriage" without also supporting the right of polygamist marriage?[/quote]
You'll have to ask her.
HG
· 2 years ago
[quote]You're arguing on moral grounds. [/quote]
Carrick, The law states that pedophelia is illegal in part because of the effects upon the psyche of the minor. No such effects are accounted for in the animal. Hence, just because animals do it doesn't make it normal or healthy for humans to do it.
Another point: The vast majority of people are absolutely disgusted and turned off by incest. Is this another fear we must overcome? Must society not frown upon this behavior simply because it sickens most? Inherent disdain for certain sexual behavior is clearly natural and normal.
likwidshoe
· 2 years ago
Rob - So you don't have a moral objection to homosexuality.
Just some semantical objection to using "marriage" to describe a union between two men or two women?
What if we called if "huffypuffy." As in "Jack and Steve got huffypuffied yesterday." Would that be ok then? Would you set aside your objections?
Well,..when you put it that way, my objections sound petty. And truth be told, I was waiting for someone to finally get around to using this line of reasoning. It's clever.
But yeah, Jack and Steve got huffypuffied. They hope that one day society will accept their union as a "marriage", but until then they'll have to be content with unholy matrimony.
Speaking of "matrimony" - the beginning of "matr" is an old Latin root word that means mother. How two MEN can be joined in a union that describes a woman's involvement and role is beyond me. I guess we'll just have to change the couple millennia old definition of matr as well.
HG
· 2 years ago
Just a thought.
It seems we are all to quick to dismiss morality from our discussions and debate. Think about it. Morality is a reality a sense of which is clearly inherent in all humanity. Therefore it plays an important part in our actions. That is to say we are influenced greatly by morality. To dismiss morality from any discussion is to pretend it has no bearing on the arguments. To admit that no argument can be one on moral grounds is to play ignorant of the fact that our actions are largely based upon them. To pretend that only facts, scientific or otherwise, are relevant to any discussion of issues is to fail to consider all that goes into the decision making process. This is not to say the opposite, that an argument can be one solely on moral grounds, but that all the evidence should be considered.
Rob
· 2 years ago
I haven't dismissed morality from my argument. It's just that I don't find homosexuality to be immoral.
Promiscuous homosexuality is another matter, of course. But loving people of the same sex? I don't see what the big deal is.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Robert Perry:
The LaVey study of identical twins that grew up together found something like 50% of identical twins of 34 homosexual men were also homosexual.
In other words, we must attribute the vast majority of the effect not to nature, but rather to other effects like nurture, personal experiences, and so on.
You have a reference to that study?
The work of (Simon) LaVey that I know best is his study of the difference in the structure of the hypothalamus between heterosexual and homosexual men. This of course tends to point to a genetic component due to classifiable physiological differences between hetero- and homosexual men.
In any case, I think you're probably mixing him up with the well-known study of Bailey and Pickard, "A genetic study of male sexual orientation," Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.
The full comparison is 50% of identical twins with a homosexual father were homosexual versus about 20% for non-indentical twins.
In other words, we must attribute the vast majority of the effect not to nature, but rather to other effects like nurture, personal experiences, and so on.
You're mistaking "predisposition" with "predetermined". Just because a person has a predisposition to be gay doesn't mean that person inevitably will be one.
Quite obviously, personal experience plays a role in addition to genetic predisposition.
Robert Perry
· 2 years ago
Carrick, probably right on the source--the hypothalamus study was also one that was (gently put) statistically unimpressive, no? Something about difficult hypothalamus measurements, a researcher wanting to honor his dead lover by proving homosexuality was innate, low sample sizes, and a sample drawn from those who had died from a degenerative disease (AIDS) versus those whose cause of death was not known, right?
I'd turn your conclusion around; quite obviously, nurture plays a very significant role, and the role, if any, of nature is uncertain. Sorry, but I've known enough identical twins to know that looking "exactly the same" leads to some uncanny similarities in nurture.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Robert, there are also studies where the identical twins were separated at birth, but still had the same observable predispositions. So clearly not all behaviors between twins are entirely environment.
At least one of your criticisms approach the threshold of an ad hominem attack rather than an addressing of substantive issues.Who his partner is, is irrelevant to the veracity of his conclusions. It is only meaningful as an explanation in the event that his research were found to be flawed. In any case, LaVey is neither the only one nor the first to perform this study. The original idea traces back to Swaab, 1990.
In any case, there are studies that are very difficult to assail by claims of sample bias, etc. The McFadden spontaneous otoacoustic emissions prevalence study I linked above is such an example.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
HG:
Carrick, The law states that pedophelia is illegal in part because of the effects upon the psyche of the minor. No such effects are accounted for in the animal. Hence, just because animals do it doesn't make it normal or healthy for humans to do it.
Nonetheless, animals don't engage in pedophelia or bestiality in general. Consequently, what you have is a hypothetical argument, not one rooted in empirical science.
he vast majority of people are absolutely disgusted and turned off by incest. Is this another fear we must overcome? Must society not frown upon this behavior simply because it sickens most? Inherent disdain for certain sexual behavior is clearly natural and normal.
What you originally raised was the question of whether homosexuality is a "birth defect," by which I presume you to have meant a) is inheritable and b) is maladaptive.
I've simply pointed out that both of these assumptions are false.
The question of the practice of incest is irrelevant to your original question. Nonetheless, from an adaptive perspective, one could certainly argue that inbreeding in general is harmful to the gene pool of the species, and therefore is a phenomenon for which there is no naturalistic predisposition, nor one for which an adaptive role can be found.
Neiman
· 2 years ago
The hypothalmus study, even if reliabale which I don't believe it is, it still did not, indeed it could not address whether any changes noted were the cause of homosexual desire or whether such changes were the result of homosexual activity and/or disease state. At this juncture I am unaware of the existence of any credible, objective scientfic studies that in any manner, shape or form objectively support a genetic predisposition to homosexualality; nor am I aware of any studies conducted that were not designed (bias) to prove such predisposition and that would not have rejected any data that would tend to disprove any such linkage.
Let us suppose even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them. For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable "lifestyle" any more than homosexuality is.
In the late '90s, a team of researchers at the University of Western Ontario in Canada found no trace or evidence of the "gay" gene in homosexual men. (The original study was found to be highly flawed and the chief investigator was charged with fraud) The study found that the region of the X chromosome known as "Xq28" has nothing to do with the sexual "orientation" of a person. Neurologist George Rice studied the DNA of 52 pairs of homosexual brothers and found that their Xq28 sequences were no more similar than what might happen from sheer chance. Despite the debunking of evidence to back the "gay"-gene theory, homosexual advocates continue to use the out-dated evidence to promote the existence of a homosexual genetic trait.
"Natural Law: People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal. The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality--that it is wrong because it is unnatural. Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.
If intuitively we know that homosexuality is wrong, being a clear violation of natural Law, then on what logical basis would we justify homosexual marriage and homosexuals being able to access those special economic and other benefits available to heterosexual couples?
The Whistler
· 2 years ago
How would a "gay gene" get passed along?
Carrick
· 2 years ago
The Whistler:
How would a "gay gene" get passed along?
It's predispositional. I keep using that word....
In this case, it means that not everybody who gets the hereditary predisposition becomes homosexual, just that they are somewhat more likely than the general population.
I've glossed over a bit on the mechanism, but it needs a trigger in order to initiate the behavior. This is thought to be hormonal levels of the fetus while still in the womb (which in turn can be related to stress levels and other factors in the mother). Note that even in children who have a predisposition, a maximum of 1/2 actually act on this predisposition. That leaves ample room for the continuation of the genetic predisposition via whatever hereditary mechanism is responsible for it. (Probably NOT as simple as a "gay gene" though.)
Robert Perry
· 2 years ago
Well said, Whistler. It's probably passed down the same way that the suicide gene is passed down. Yes, somebody came up with that one.
Reality is that when you search something like 100MB of genetic information among a sample size of 40, as is typical in the studies Carrick is referring to, you are going to get a lot of correlations just by accident. Sorry, friend, but it doesn't prove anything.
As Neiman notes, correlation isn't causation, and the reality is that before we accept the hypothesis that it's innate, we need to find some very good reasons to exclude "just an accident" and "it's the effect, not the cause" from the list of hypotheses.
So far, I don't see it at all; the health ramifications of putting one's body parts in raw sewage are well known and often severe. To envision this having some effects on tinnitus and other functions of the body is not untenable.
Bat One
· 2 years ago
[quote]How would a "gay gene" get passed along?[/quote]
A velvet gift box wrapped with silver foil paper with a pink lace bow and ribbon, a card in a matching silver foil envelope, and a glass bowl with a half dozen blooming paper whites is always appreciated.
Neiman
· 2 years ago
[quote]"This is thought to be hormonal levels of the fetus while still in the womb."[/quote]
That is not science! [i]Thought[/i] to be is another way of saying, we are guessing. Unfortunately, I have seen it happen more times than I can count or recall that such guesses sooner or later are repeated as absolute fact and then undeniable fact, and all the time there was no new information added to the original guess. Then after a lot of harm is done, new information comes to light to prove the guess completely wrong.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Dennis McFadden has probably one of the most interesting lines of work studying heritability of sexual orientation as well as physiological differences between the straight, bisexual and homosexual populations (both male and female). He uses otoacoustic emissions (OAEs), which are sounds generated by the ear, to characterize differences between normal and abnormal male and female populations. OAEs are recorded using a microphone and processed using standard signal-processing techniques. This means that they are entirely objective and are less prone to manipulation by experimenter bias.
The findings from these studies are standard population measures based on different characteristics of OAEs in different population groups. Statistically significant differences between groups measured in this way are almost impossible to assail, other than to argue e.g. fraud on the part of the investigator(s).
One of the results is an observed asymmetry between the left and right ears (the so-called auditory periphery asymmetry) of male and female subjects for spontaneous OAEs (which are tones generated by the ear in the absence of an external stimulation). This result has been duplicated by at least four different groups, and has been demonstrated by one group (Burns et al) to be present at birth. Finally, for many groups, the data are in the public domain and their results can be easily replicated by anybody with a spectral analysis program (and the time to analyze 100s of subjects). At least for this question of male-female asymmetry with respect to hearing, the answer is that one exists well beyond any reasonable doubt.
The extension of this result to gay males (done first by McFadden) is that homosexual males turn out to have an asymmetry in the prevalence of SOAEs in their ears more similar to that of heterosexual women than heterosexual men. Thus we may conclude on objective grounds that gay men are physiologically different than heterosexual men, and that the differences between the two groups cannot entirely be explained by behavior (i.e., "choice") alone.
Bat One
· 2 years ago
I don't know enough about the science of genetics to comment on the possibility of a genetic link to homosexuality, but oddly enough, roughly the same percent of the population is left-handed (7-10%) as is thought to be gay or lesbian. In fairness, there is no precise accounting for the number of homosexual persons in the US, but the best estimates are roughly equivalent.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Nieman:
That is not science! Thought to be is another way of saying, we are guessing.
"Thought to be" is another manner of saying "hypothesized."
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Robert Perry:
Well said, Whistler. It's probably passed down the same way that the suicide gene is passed down. Yes, somebody came up with that one.
The fundamental problem is you have a fixation on "genes," as if all behavioral characteristics can be explained by a simple gene.
In the case of suicidal tendencies, there is a very strong link between suicide and bipolar, and in turn a very strong link between bipolar illness and genetics. I suppose you'll be arguing now that bipolar disorder is not an inheritable disease???
Robert Perry
· 2 years ago
Actually, Bat One, the best estimates of the % of homosexuals are in the 2-3% range, not 7-10%. It actually turns out that even Kinsey didn't claim that 10% were homosexual, but rather that that proportion had more or less exclusive homosexual behavior in one period of their adult life.
And even Kinsey was only able to come up with that number by interviewing prisoners, whose opportunities for heterosexual relations are obviously miniscule.
And no, Carrick, what McFadden has demonstrated is not causality, but rather correlation. Again, the kinds of things that homosexuals do are well known to have many physiological effects, so to argue without proof that a difference equals causality is just untenable.
Robert Perry
· 2 years ago
No, Carrick, that's not the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is that some scientists apparently cannot figure out that behaviors that more or less take a person out of the breeding population are unlikely to be genetically linked.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Bat One:
In fairness, there is no precise accounting for the number of homosexual persons in the US, but the best estimates are roughly equivalent.
This is in part because a person's assumed sexual orientation can change over time. You could ask the question more properly, "what fraction of the population is currently engaged in hetero, bi, versus homo- sexual practices. The percentages might remain nearly the same, even if the individual "actors" switch roles over time...
Of course this is a fact that is resisted by the homosexual community, who insist that choice plays no role in their assumed sexual orientation, but the fact is that most gay people at least know other gay people who didn't become "gay" until later than life, or who "lost" friends who left the gay community and returned to the straight community....
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Robert Perry:
And no, Carrick, what McFadden has demonstrated is not causality, but rather correlation. Again, the kinds of things that homosexuals do are well known to have many physiological effects, so to argue without proof that a difference equals causality is just untenable.
Whatever you say Robert.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Robert Perry:
The fundamental problem is that some scientists apparently cannot figure out that behaviors that more or less take a person out of the breeding population are unlikely to be genetically linked.
More proof that Robert doesn't understand what the word "tendency" means or he wouldn't have said this.
Nor apparently does he know very much about the gay community for that matter. Many gays have children (of their own).
So not only is it a tendency which means that not all people with the predisposition act on it but for even those that do, many still end up reproducing.
Time to toss that meme in the garbage can, guys.
Neiman
· 2 years ago
[quote]"Thought to be" is another manner of saying "hypothesized." [/quote]
Which is another word for guessing! Yes, it is educated guessing, but guessing nonetheless and as often as not these guesses are proven wrong.
Robert Perry: This is very hard to get people to come to grips with - there is a difference between a physiological difference that causes certain behavior and behavior that results in or causes physiological variations.
Considering McFadden's work: "Even the researchers themselves did not draw definitive conclusions. In the published study, they pointed out that exposure to "intense sounds, certain drugs, and other manipulations" can lower the level of these auditory waveforms. Thus, it may be that something in the lifestyles of homosexual and bisexual females leads them to be exposed to one or more agents that have reduced the [waveforms], either temporarily or permanently. Moreover, even if the hearing differences were caused by an increased exposure to androgen in the womb, scientists would still be far from proving that this exposure is a cause of homosexuality-especially since the difference was not apparent in the male homosexual sample.
While a genetic predisposition is possible in explaining homosexuality, as noted elsewhere that does not mean we should act on these desires, the example given was a genetic predisposition to alcoholism and it was suggested we don't encourage people to act on that tendency.
For every study, most of them being biased in favor of a genetic predisposition, none of them are conclusive and to point to them is often an act of desperation.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Nieman:
Which is another word for guessing! Yes, it is educated guessing, but guessing nonetheless and as often as not these guesses are proven wrong.
There's a difference between a guess and a hypothesis. See this.
While a genetic predisposition is possible in explaining homosexuality, as noted elsewhere that does not mean we should act on these desires, the example given was a genetic predisposition to alcoholism and it was suggested we don't encourage people to act on that tendency.
I actually agree with you on this, in that I wasn't arguing on whether it was moral or not, the same as science does say there is an innate component to this, just as science says there is an innate component to most or all behavior. And naturalistically, that there even is an adaptive component to this behavior.
Humans have the ability to chose, so we need not resort to homosexual activity to reduce our population, when it becomes over crowded. Nor do we need to act on every urge that we feel.
For every study, most of them being biased in favor of a genetic predisposition, none of them are conclusive and to point to them is often an act of desperation.
What the science says is there is a tendency, not a mandate. People can still choose to be straight or gay, just that the urge is stronger in some than in others. Why is that so threatening that you have to essentially resort to closing your eyes on what the data actually say? They say what they say, and most are well enough designed that bias plays no role in the outcome.
HG
· 2 years ago
[quote]Nonetheless, animals don't engage in pedophelia or bestiality in general. Consequently, what you have is a hypothetical argument, not one rooted in empirical science. [/quote]
Carrick, There is a real world outside of science. I made no claim to a scientific argument, just a common sense observation. I don't know if science has addressed these things observed in nature, nor will I wait for science to do so before forming an opinion. I guess I don't put quite as much faith in science as some do.
[quote]What you originally raised was the question of whether homosexuality is a "birth defect," by which I presume you to have meant a) is inheritable and b) is maladaptive. I've simply pointed out that both of these assumptions are false.[/quote]
Actually, my opinion would fall in line with what you are explaining as predisposition if I am understanding you correctly. This post also asked 2 other questions. The point of this post is to point out that even if their is a genetic homosexuality, that it doesn't automatically mean it is normal, that it must be acted upon, is unchangeable, and must therefore be acceptable to society.
Chief RZ
· 2 years ago
I saw no response to my question about "what tax breaks" that homosexuals miss out on. In fact, homosexuals living together (in sin) got a better deal on federal income tax than married people. Remember the marriage penalty. I noted it. It amounted to a heavier tax on married than living separately. It has just about been leveled. It did not impact my family because I itemized.
HG
· 2 years ago
[quote]What the science says is there is a tendency, not a mandate. People can still choose to be straight or gay, just that the urge is stronger in some than in others. [/quote]
This is definately not what the homosexual community is saying. This is however what I understand to be taught in the bible.
HG
· 2 years ago
Chief,
I believe Whistler answered your question on the previous page.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
HG, my point about your "commonsense observation" is that it isn't so much an observation as an unrealized hypothetical. That rather limits its scope, don't you think?
The point of this post is to point out that even if their is a genetic homosexuality, that it doesn't automatically mean it is normal, that it must be acted upon, is unchangeable, and must therefore be acceptable to society.
When you use the word "birth defect" it implies neither of these, but rather the two statements that I used earlier.
Your other questions are valid, but they have nothing to do with the question of whether homosexuality is a "birth defect" (i.e., an inheritable trait and a nonadaptive one viewing things naturalistically).
Chief RZ
· 2 years ago
HG, Carrick. Yes, animals do engage in unusual behavior including anal intercourse. I learned this in Graduate psychology lab. When animals are forced into unusual cramped living situations, they begin to engage in diverse behaviors.
Chief RZ
· 2 years ago
HG. Thanks, I didn't see the second page choice. I'll go look now.
The Whistler
· 2 years ago
I think homosexuals are more interested in picking up free health care benefits from the employer of the healthy partner.
Now it makes some sense for "family" coverage to cover the non-working child raising spouse. But it would make no sense at all for a homosexual couple with no children.
Gay marriage isn't very popular where it's legal. I recently saw an article where in Toronto this year there's only been one license for residents.
However I'm sure that if one "partner" needs medical coverage they'll get married and bingo the employer is on the hook for unlimited health care payments.
HG
· 2 years ago
[quote]That rather limits its scope, don't you think? [/quote]
An unrealized hypothetical? How so? The behavior of animals with other species is observed. I've seen it in farm and domesticated animals. The behavior of adult animals with young animals has been observed as well. None of this means that the behavior is normal and therefore ought to be copied by human beings. To do so is a violation of the law as I pointed out earlier.
[quote]When you use the word "birth defect" it implies neither of these, but rather the two statements that I used earlier.[/quote]
It was intended to imply that genetic homosexuality is not necessarily normal or healthy behavior.
To be more exact: [i]A congenital disorder is any medical condition that is present at birth. The term congenital does not imply or exclude a genetic cause.[1] A congenital disorder can be recognized before birth (prenatally), at birth, or many years later. Congenital disorders can be a result of genetic abnormalities, the intrauterine environment, a mixture of both, or unknown factors.
Congenital conditions can be referred to as diseases, defects, disorders, anomalies, or simply genetic differences. The usage overlaps, but also involves a value judgement as to the harmfulness of the condition. In particular, people may disagree as to whether a specific physical anomaly should be considered a birth defect or a minor congenital anomaly.[/i]Wikipedia
Carrick
· 2 years ago
HG:
however what I understand to be taught in the bible.
A lot of people are turned off by the idea that there might be an innate component to behavior, because they feel that this removes free will. This is the classic Skinner behaviorism that many of us were exposed to in school...
What we know nowadays is that we all have a constellation of natural desires and tendencies, some of these are passed to us by our genes, others by the environment and behavior of the mother while we were in the womb. (E.g., a mother who drinks alcohol or smokes while pregnant could dramatically affect our life choices.)
What we are finding out is that the human is a marvelously complex thing, and there is (not surprising to me at all) a fair amount of beauty in our inner workings.
And, yes HG, I have faith in science. But I see science as means to discover the Truth, and one that is assessable to all reasoning men, and not one that is in anyway incompatible with my belief in God. Indeed, I find affirmation of my faith through the discovery and appreciation of the beauty that is the world we live in. If you want to see things through my eyes, read God and the Astronomers.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Chief:
HG, Carrick. Yes, animals do engage in unusual behavior including anal intercourse. I learned this in Graduate psychology lab. When animals are forced into unusual cramped living situations, they begin to engage in diverse behaviors.
I agree with this. The behavior that is mostly observed is homosexual behavior on the part of some of the animals, as I pointed out on a previous page.
HG:
The behavior of adult animals with young animals has been observed as well.
Are you suggesting that animals engage in pedophiliac behavior? I somehow doubt that. Adult males may kill the young, but I've never seen the claim that they rape them.
Of course, and this is a point I agree with you on, just because it happens in nature is no defense for humans to engage in the same practice... adult males of many species will kill the young especially from other males in order to increase their own contribution to the gene pool at the cost of the other male's. Hardly a behavior we should emulate!
Chief RZ
· 2 years ago
I looked and did not find any reference to the present day federal income tax structure that (illegally) discriminates against homosexuals. To the contrary, normal, married people are illegally discriminated against by what was called the marriage penalty.
To the attempts at scientific analysis, [url=http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2Rekers.PDF#search='14_2Rekers.pdf']here is a more thorough and less biased study (including lesbians[/url]) that comes close to proving (in this case disproving the hypothesis that there is no significant difference or predisposition toward homosexual behavior.
Rob
· 2 years ago
[quote]Gay marriage isn't very popular where it's legal. I recently saw an article where in Toronto this year there's only been one license for residents.
However I'm sure that if one "partner" needs medical coverage they'll get married and bingo the employer is on the hook for unlimited health care payments. [/quote]
But really that's more of an argument against the health care system than letting gays marry, isn't it?
Chief RZ
· 2 years ago
Carrick. I am with you on that; that just because some lower animal(s) engage in a certain behavior is not a justification for humans engagins in similar behavior. Yes, animals do kill other animals for reasons besides eating. I hope no one brings up sea horses either! The one study cited did not specify the confidence level and was an observation about present day, practicing lesbians. A study would need to be double blind and hypothesize before birth, or at birth a certain characteristic and then follow those individuals for 20 or 30 years.
HG
· 2 years ago
[quote]A lot of people are turned off by the idea that there might be an innate component to behavior, because they feel that this removes free will. [/quote]
This innate tendency or disposition, when aligned with immoral behavior, is what the bible teaches to be a sin nature or moral depravity of all humanity.
[quote]Hardly a behavior we should emulate! [/quote]
Yeah, you get my point. A better example of animal behavior on a scale larger than homosexual behavior would be promicuous behavior. Clearly such behavior has proven very dangerous and even deadly, as well as evidence of an unstable mind when practiced by us humans.
Neiman
· 2 years ago
[quote]Why is that so threatening that you have to essentially resort to closing your eyes on what the data actually say? They say what they say, and most are well enough designed that bias plays no role in the outcome.[/quote]
In every study you have mentioned, I have provided strong reasons in previous posts above why these studies are flawed and based on a highly biased design. I didn't rant and rave and toss about wildly as if threatened, I gave sound reasons which are supported by others why these studies were faulty.
I had the unusual opportunity of working for several years with a top internationally recognized cardiologist at Stanford University Medical Center. He taught me how to design a medical research study which seriously reduced the chances of error in the outcome. The studies you have mentioned and almost all I have read on this subject, were not so designed as I have clearly pointed out, because the researcher had a bias they were out to prove. So your contention they were well designed is clearly erroneous. In every case there were no mention of whether those things noted caused homosexuality or were caused by homosexual conduct, they failed to rule out other causes for the differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals they noted and that is the worst error, failing to consider such variables.
You see I was involved in the design of an emergency medical device and I saw that device destroyed by flawed studies. The researchers used one device, the one they preferred, in a controlled hospital setting in ideal conditions; then they tested our device in the emergency setting outside the hospital, where there were many variables that affected the results. But a few of these studies, all designed the same way, denied emergency workers a safe and reliable medical device because of flawed, biased studies. So, I know what it takes to design a reliable study. The studies you mentioned were not reliable, tightly designed studies and while the researchers were cautious in their conclusions, people not unlike you made sweeping conclusions that were not warranted by their work.
Lastly, I have conceded there might be a genetic cause for the predisposition to homosexuality, I simply refuse to accept the flawed data you are promoting for the reasons I have mentioned as being proof of anything.
The Whistler
· 2 years ago
[quote]I looked and did not find any reference to the present day federal income tax structure that (illegally) discriminates against homosexuals. To the contrary, normal, married people are illegally discriminated against by what was called the marriage penalty. [/quote]
I think you could say that the death tax "discriminates" as the spouse can inherit without the death tax.
I believe the federal government did away with the marriage penalty. (unbelievable) But if I'm not mistaken some states (such as North Dakota) still have it enshrined in their tax code. Of course that was really important to keep in there so that the state bureaucrats can spend more and more money.
[quote]But really that's more of an argument against the health care system than letting gays marry, isn't it?[/quote]
Well I would somewhat agree, but really I don't know how you get around it. I need to be able to buy my family health insurance. That's what marriage is about it taking care of your family. We've decided to not have the wife work full time while our kids are young.
Now my risk pool shouldn't include "families" that will never raise children. Both parties should be working. What we'll have with this system is what they call adverse selection. Homosexuals will wait until their friend gets sick, "marry" him and the rest of the risk pool will subsidize them. Meanwhile the healthy homosexuals won't need the coverage and won't buy it.
I suppose you could fix it by not making me join the risk pool with homosexual couples. I don't exactly know how that will work.
I'm willing to enter in a risk pool with people in the same situation as I, married with children. I shouldn't be forced to subsidize people outside of that risk pool.
Did that make sense?
SPARKIE ARBUCKLE
· 2 years ago
r108[quote]Calling non-normal behavior "non-normal" isn't discrimination; you have your panties in a bunch for your own personal reasons.[/quote]First, assume 90% of the people in your 'society' (loosely for the thought experiment) were democrat/socialist. That would make you non-normal by all standards. The brunt of your blither seems to derive from the idea that non-normal = bad. Can you clarify for me? Where have I gone wrong. You seem to expect 'normality' by your personal standards alone. Do you see how that is pointless to blither about?
Robert Perry Invoking Rush... there must be some hot air mixed in your porridge then. Ridiculing Athenian democracy as mob rule grants entry to 'Rio Linda'. That's like calling your great granddaddy ugly and stupid. IMO, electing officials to make all the rules FOR US is much less virtuous than making the rules ourselves. It might be louder, more tumultuous, and slower; but more options would be aired and more variety means more better. People would not be silenced or lumped into groups based on who they dislike the least. You are confusing virtue in the result with virtue in the process. We can rationalize socialism in that manner also if you would like. If Socrates wasn't killed, we wouldn't have [i]the Crito[/i]. Read it sometime. He is the real 'Jesus' of civilized society. The man died so that democratic authority might be grounded. Laws do apply. We do well by that. Nice deflection, but [i]no cigar[/i] (formerly nicotine stained... blah blah blah)...
The Whistler
· 2 years ago
[quote]If Socrates wasn't killed, we wouldn't have the Crito. Read it sometime. He is the real 'Jesus' of civilized society. The man died sothat democratic authority might be grounded. Laws do apply.[/quote]
The Democracy of ancient Greece was not something to be proud of. Socrates was killed because a person didn't have rights in that Democracy.
The beauty of our system is that we have rights that the will of the majority cannot overrule.
The Whistler
· 2 years ago
Oops I forgot. So-Krates didn't sacrifice himself. He was ordered killed. Hardly on par with God coming down on Earth to die for us.
xtempore
· 2 years ago
The typical argument of the prejudiced individual is characterized by double-standards and inconsistencies.
[b]My own prejudices[/b]
I have seen too many hateful, narrow-minded Christians, and I will admit that I sometimes unfairly expect those with a Christian viewpoint to be narrow-minded bigots. I am sometimes wrong, and do find it very refreshing when I do meet one who is not.
[b]Christians who rail against homosexuality and in doing so "bear false witness"[/b]
The oft espoused "we love homosexuals, it is their sin we hate" line is far too often a lie. Whilst I am certain that some of those who say this genuinely mean it, many others show through their spiteful language that this a pure and simple lie.
Depending on your interpretation, the Bible speaks against homosexual acts either zero times or up to three. It also speaks of many other things which modern Christians now ignore or refer to as "Old Covenant", and it no doubt speaks of other sins such as lying many more times over.
Many Christians must still rail against homosexuality as if it were one of the greatest sins, yet unlike lying it does not even rate a mention in the 10 Commandments.
Hence the inconsistency of their lie-filled moral outrage.
[b]Using the natural design argument - But only when it suits[/b]
HG puts forward arguments that if sex has no reproductive advantage (eg. homosexual) then it is unnatural, but then in the same post condemns polygamy which has a clear reproductive advantage.
If you want to use an argument then you need to apply it consistently.
[b]My own arguments[/b]
Please feel free to look for inconsistencies in my arguments. If they are there I need to rethink. The crux of my arguments is founded in the following beliefs (It's hard to get it exactly right, and certainly some must override others at times. This is a shortened list only covering those elements I feel are germane to this debate)...
* People have rights of life, liberty, happiness, equal opportunity and social benefits, freedom of thought, speech, and action - so long as these do not violate the rights of another individual. * Animals should not be unnecessarily submitted to abuse (I do not consider humane killing for food an abuse, nor valid medical experimentation). * Children and adults with limited mental faculties need to be protected. Generally speaking children under 16 years of age are not emotionally mature enough to form a consenting sexual relationship.
From this I believe that homosexuals should have all the same rights as heterosexual people, and should not be subjected to abuse or discrimination of any kind. I see no inconsistency in this. I see no instance where this violates the rights of any other individual.
Those who disagree are welcome to think whatever they wish about homosexuals.
If their actions interfere with the rights of homosexuals then they are in the wrong.
If their speech abuses homosexuals, or incites violence or discrimination against homosexuals then they are in the wrong.
If gay people wish to march to demand equality, they should be allowed to do so - this does not violate anyone's rights.
If anti-gay people wish to march to demand suppression of gay people's rights, they should not be allowed - this violates the rights of gay people to equality.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Nieman:
In every study you have mentioned, I have provided strong reasons in previous posts above why these studies are flawed and based on a highly biased design. I didn't rant and rave and toss about wildly as if threatened, I gave sound reasons which are supported by others why these studies were faulty.
Nieman, with all respect, all you did was assert that they were faulty. You didn't really offer any proof.
But whatever.
Neiman
· 2 years ago
xtempore: A lot of information to deal with in one post.
1. The Bible tells us that truth is established in the mouth of two or three witnesses, and in Holy Scripture we have homosexuality condemned three times directly, and many more indirectly. That alone is just cause for Christians to speak out against homosexual behavior as being condemned by God, but as you suggest it is hardly the only sin condemned by God even in Romans, and all sin is hated by God. Nonetheless, in Romans no person capable of reading can miss the fact that the Holy Spirit highlights homosexuality as a particularly hateful sin to God, it is a form of idolatry and it is a clear rejection of God's Human Creation (design). If you don't like that fact, your debate is with God not man! By the way since the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, if you reject His condemnation of homosexual conduct and the other sins mentioned, then it is an asinine position to call Him a good man and a good philosopher, isn't it?
2. I don't quite get your false witness charge against Christians, but God declares universal, Divine, unconditional Love for all His human creation and at the same time His Divine Judgment against all sin. If God thus truly loves the sinner and hates sin, why is it that His children would not have similar feelings about the matter? If unrepented homosexual behavior, like others sins, would cause anyone to enter into eternity lost and in everlasting punishing, is it an act of true Love to be silent and allow people to enter into hell in ignorance of the Truth, or would true Love demand that we warn homosexuals and all sinners of their pending fate and thereby hopefully save some from it?
3. You mention your objection to the Natural Design argument based on reproduction of the species; but I and others raise the Natural Design argument in that sodomy and oral exchange of body fluids is a violation of natural design with sometimes fatal consequences and quite often terrible health consequences. So, would you deny someone the right to argue that such a violation of Natural Design presents a health risk to homosexuals and others engaging in the same acts?
4. Homosexuals are not looking for equal rights, they are demanding special rights (hate crimes legislation for instance)and their desire to gain marital status is for many in the homosexual rights movement solely designed to undermine marriage by changing its historical definition. It is anti-marriage, anti-heterosexuality and anti-Christian in nature!
5. So homosexuals have a Free Speech Rights and free access to the Public Square to fight for these special rights and flaunt their extreme lifestyle choices even in front of children; but those opposed to homosexual marriage and special rights for homosexuals in your world are denied Free Speech rights to oppose the homosexual agenda and have the same access to the public square? It seems the First Amendment as it regards free political speech and access to the public square in your world applies to everyone but Christians, and I have to wonder whose definition of what constitutes [b]abuse[/b] will apply - yours? Hardly fair or Constitutional, but I think you have a right under our Constitution to express your extreme agenda in the Public Square.
Within the Church of Jesus Christ, with some regretable exceptions, Christians have no hatred or even dislike of homosexuals as fellow human beings and creations of God, we have no desire to see violence of any kind committed against them, or to see their rights denied them; but besides the Biblical injunctions against homosexual conduct, most of us have seen the destruction homosexual conduct can cause a family, a community and a nation, and facing that truth we are honor bound to resist their extreme, anti-family and anti-Christian agenda.
HG
· 2 years ago
[quote]HG puts forward arguments that if sex has no reproductive advantage (eg. homosexual) then it is unnatural, but then in the same post condemns polygamy which has a clear reproductive advantage.[/quote]
Extempore,
If that was true I would only have sex with my wife to make babies. What I actually said was that the reproductive advantage of heterosexuality is evidence that heterosexuality is normal. You're twisting my words.
Please help me out here, I'm looking for the part where I condemned polygamy. Just in case I didn't, I'll do it now: Polygamy is against the law. Polygamy brings more to the table than a reproductive advantage and for the negative is illegal.
But hey, nice try.
Neiman
· 2 years ago
Garick said: [quote]all you did was assert that they were faulty. You didn't really offer any proof[/quote]
Here is one example, I offered others:
[quote]"Even the researchers themselves did not draw definitive conclusions. In the published study, they pointed out that [u]exposure to "intense sounds, certain drugs, and other manipulations" can lower the level of these auditory waveforms[/u]. Thus, it may be that [u]something in the lifestyles of homosexual and bisexual females leads them to be exposed to one or more agents that have reduced the [waveforms], either temporarily or permanently[/u]. Moreover, [u]even if the hearing differences were caused by an increased exposure to androgen in the womb, scientists would still be far from proving that this exposure is a cause of homosexuality-especially since the difference was not apparent in the male homosexual sample[/u][/quote].
Are you saying that the faults of the study pointed out by the researchers themselves are not evidence of a faulty study design? By the way I never said I offered proof, just reasons why they were faulty. In this case, I referred to the words of the authors of the study! So, you'll excuse me if I reject your reproof of my comments!
HG
· 2 years ago
Xtempore,
I generally agree with you.. except for the age of consent, I'll stick with the law--18. I see no inconsistency in your opinions.
xtempore
· 2 years ago
[b]HG[/b] - Please accept my apologies. I somehow misread which statement came from whom.
Age of consent varies across the US and around the world. I used 16 as indicative, but personally think that a standard anywhere from 16 to 18 is reasonable.
Polygamy is illegal. I don't think it should be. Laws should be followed and upheld, but unjust laws also need to be challenged.
Neiman
· 2 years ago
Well it is late and I doubt I have any more to offer than vain regurgitations of my previous views and at least we end on a high note, xtempore won a convert in HG so at least for xtempore this was not a vain exercise!
Good night all!
HG
· 2 years ago
Xtempore,
Thanks for the correction and the apology.
HG
· 2 years ago
Neiman,
You are kidding right? How and where was I converted? Where did I change my opinion or position on this subject? The things which Xtempore pointed out were, in general, just being decent... even with those we disagree with or whose actions we don't approve of.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Nieman, the data I've focused on is the auditory periphery asymmetry data. This does not suffer from questions of noise exposure history of the one that you quoted from. But in the end, all data have some "warts" associated with them (the best very few).
I missed the quote earlier, but to split nits, you showed reasons why they might be faulty, rather than, in fact, demonstrated that they were faulty.
At an earlier point, you claimed
The studies you have mentioned and almost all I have read on this subject, were not so designed as I have clearly pointed out, because the researcher had a bias they were out to prove
Being as I know McFadden personally, I can assure you that he is a good man and a solid researcher, and one not prone to spinning his data. If he had not been so, you would never have found the cautionary notes on his own data!
robert108
· 2 years ago
[quote]From this I believe that homosexuals should have all the same rights as heterosexual people...[/quote]
They already do, if they are Americans, but the real agenda of the homosexual lobby is for them to have special "rights"(entitlements), one of which is to redefine the definition of marriage to suit their special interest group, a small minority, at the expense of the overwhelming majority.
robert108
· 2 years ago
[quote]The brunt of your blither seems to derive from the idea that non-normal = bad. Can you clarify for me? [/quote]
No, it isn't. I made a simple observation; it is the "brunt" of your blather to make things up to garner attention. Grow up.
To repeat: "Non-normal" is not normal. Duh.
xtempore
· 2 years ago
Large parts of this thread have recently disappeared!
Also some parts that had previously dropped off seem to have come back.
All very strange!
2Hotel9
· 2 years ago
Long threads have multiple pages.
Chief RZ
· 2 years ago
Whistler. I just read a little on the "death (or estate) tax". Nothing was mentioned about being married: "What is the applicable lifetime exclusion amount? The applicable lifetime exclusion amount is $625,000 in 1998 --- scheduled to increase in uneven increments to $1 million in 2006. It is the amount that an individual can pass, free of gift tax during life or estate tax at death to anyone they choose."
It appears that here is yet another false assertion by homosexual political activists.
The Whistler
· 2 years ago
Well I don't know where to reference it, but my attorney has told me and I've read it in other places that spouses can inherit an unlimited amount.
That wouldn't count as part of their lifetime exclusion.
(So you could will out your exclusion to your kids, will the rest to your spouse. Than the spouse can will out their exclusion without taxes.
The Whistler
· 2 years ago
The bottom line is that there should be no death tax.
Chief RZ
· 2 years ago
xtempore. Just think? "Those who disagree are welcome to think whatever they wish about homosexuals." I am so glad that (for now) you will allow people in the USA to think freely. <sarcasm> "Homosexuals" is a behavior. You now have advocated limiting first amendment speech. The trump card is: if their feelings are hurt, or some equal rights are questioned. Even the NAZIs were allowed to march in Illinois. Even the KKK is allowed to march. You are elevating a behavior to "special protected permission"
Homosexuality is not a birth defect. It is a behavior, not much different that womanizing or manizing if you will. ...now if cads could just create a political group...
Chief RZ
· 2 years ago
There is reference later to a family business inheritance, but family could be two brothers (or two sisters) who may or may not be homosexual. By the way, people, would that (or you) consider that incest? Come on now, lets have a real honest discussion. NOT being sarcastic.
Robert Perry
· 2 years ago
No, Carrick, I understand "tendencies" quite well. If a person tends to have an aversion to heterosexual intercourse, they are going to be less likely to pass on their genes to the next generation, and the succeeding generation is going to have a smaller proportion of individuals with that trait. Hence, that trait will tend to die out without some significant "help" from corrolated issues--such as the malaria susceptibility issue with sickle cell anemia. Citing that some homosexuals have children does not provide evidence that this trait is passed down at a similar rate to the lack of this trait.
And again, no, Carrick; Nieman does not have to offer "proof" of the methodological difficulties of Dr. McFadden beyond a quick enumeration of likely biases in his work. Chief among them, again, is that this correlation is not equal to causation. Just because he hasn't figured out what would change these signatures doesn't necessarily mean that nothing does.
Chief RZ
· 2 years ago
Whistler: "The one that really gets me is when homosexuals (rightfully) complain their significant other can't visit them in the hospital." They (and any other designated significant other CAN right now visit in the hospital! I just went to one recently in one of the most conservative counties in my state. I will be glad to copy and type exactly what the rules are there.
Now, xtempore and anyone else: What equal rights are "homosexual behaving" individuals deprived of? I would again say that anyone involved with spreading lethal communicable diseases would have some of their movements restricted. We still do this with TB patients, certain other STD individuals as well as other crimes and misdemeanors.
What "equal rights" are homesexuals marching for? So far on this thread, many people have hinted that "homosexual acting" people are somehow deprived of something or the other, but nothing specific has been raised.
Neiman
· 2 years ago
HG: Lighten up, you said generally you agreed with xtempore, so had I not known your previous positions on this topic, by those brief words I would have thought you and he/she were completely in sinc and so I thought I'd make joke!
Garrick said: [quote]Being as I know McFadden personally, I can assure you that he is a good man and a solid researcher, and one not prone to spinning his data. If he had not been so, you would never have found the cautionary notes on his own data! [/quote]
This will come as a shock to you, but even good and nice people have prejudices and inject bias into their work product. Further, I have known many reputable, internatonally recognized researchers and almost without exception their study designs are flawed in various, mostly minor ways, frequently by not considering all the variables that can skew their data, and in a rush to publish they often ignore those factors in their conclusions. Why? Most of them had their minds made up about what they wanted to prove long before they started their research and nothing would prevent them from reaching that conclusion.
I am sorry but I don't think you are able to look at this matter honestly as you think that certain data and the analysis of the data is always conclusive, especially if you agree with the outcome. Any researcher worth a damn is hypercritical of their own work and that of other researchers because they are only seeking the truth, but those kinds of researchers are incredibly rare. Most researchers, including your good friend McFadden are human beings, they have prejudices and even if they try and do a credible job that is able to stand up to the scrutiny of solid peer review, their bias to varying degrees will impact their work and they will fail to account for all the possible variables in order to produce a top quality product.
That being said, I can only account for the flaws in the study design to the degree I examined it and I am not in a position to replicate his work and 'prove' his work is wrong. There may be some serious value to this work which further study by McFadden and other scientists can better establish, but whether it upsets you are not this study proves nothing whatsoever about any predisposition to homosexual conduct.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Robert Perry:
No, Carrick, I understand "tendencies" quite well. If a person tends to have an aversion to heterosexual intercourse, they are going to be less likely to pass on their genes to the next generation, and the succeeding generation is going to have a smaller proportion of individuals with that trait.
This might be a valid argument if it were a simple mechanism for inheritance, such as a "gay gene", and if being "gay" were really a life-long life choice. It is neither.
By the way, the "correlation isn't causation" argument is a useful argument, when one is trying to argue causation from correlation. That isn't what is going on in this case. The auditory periphery asymmetry argument is more of a "women have breasts" correlation, that is, it is used as a metric for physiological sex differences.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Neiman:
This will come as a shock to you, but even good and nice people have prejudices and inject bias into their work product.
No shock of course. Bias is an inherent property in all people. We get that drummed into our heads in science all of the time, of course.
This is why I get so annoyed by the ignoramuses in the press trying to claim that when they have their journalism hats on they are somehow immune from the effects of personal bias. What utter hubris.
What I was objecting to in your comment was more an indication on your part that you thought that these people were constructing the experiments ab initio to predetermine their outcome. McFadden's measurements (and mine for that matter, which have to do with a gender-based auditory asymmetry but not the question of homosexual vs normal populations) are entirely objective in nature. The outcome of the experiment is a table that displays some objective measure from the data (in my case, spontaneous emission prevalence) for each group being studied.
All steps from the data collection through the analysis of the statistical significance of the results are immune to observer bias, short of some form of deliberate experimental fraud. That doesn't mean there aren't issues with the data, as I said before. There are always issues such as the ones that you pointed out. But if the prevailing conclusion across many studies using many different methodologies all point to the same conclusion, personally I'm satisfied that this conclusion has been adequately demonstrated.
Of course, you can decide otherwise. Free country after all...
Neiman
· 2 years ago
Garrick: I am in general agreement with you except, no matter how many studies are conducted and no matter how many of them come to the same conclusion, unless those variables and alternative explanations of certain phenomina are addressed, surely you would agree that the results cannot be considered conclusive (that what is specified was proved beyond a matter of doubt)? That is why I would object to any conclusions about homosexuality in Mcfadden's study, as such determinations would be open to reasonable question. That does not mean his data is not important or that I question his professionalism, honor or ethics!
Robert Perry
· 2 years ago
Carrick, it doesn't matter whether the trait is simple or complex, or whether it's temporary or permanent. If you reduce the opportunities for breeding by even a small amount, you will tend to reduce the prevalence of that trait, end of story. It's a statistical certainty.
And no, it's still just correlation. Until you show a cause, you do not have causality, but rather correlation. It's really that simple.
(and it's one of the most common errors made in medical research, too)
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Nieman, the idea behind it is this:
If a series of experiments with similar "warts" are conducted, this might be considered a replication of the original work. If a series of experiments using different protocols are used, and they find the same conclusions, in spite of the lack of overlap in their potential problems, as more data gets added to the total data set, it requires more and more of an extraordinary conspiracy of nature for them to all be wrong in their conclusions.
This is how the burden of proof for an hypothesis is usually viewed. It may not be how it is taught in school, but it is the reality. In a few cases, somebody comes along and does the "gold standard" experiment that all future experiments get measured against, where all of these warts have been excised. But in most cases, after enough repetition using different measures, the hypothesis gets accepted and becomes a cornerstone of future work, where it is implicitly accepted as true.
Unless the experiment is extremely solid, it is dangerous to accept the results of one or a few measurements as having established something as a fact....
In this case, we have approaching 100 published studies on physiological differences between homosexuals and normal populations. I believe that simple conclusion is pretty close to gold plated at this point. What that means in practice is an interpretive question, and therefore much more prone to error. Does it mean that the physiological differences are inheritable? Some studies say yes, a few others (one?) say no. Does it mean that the differences are present at birth? Limited data, but the suggestion is "yes". This could point to predisposition, to conditions in the womb, or both....
Personally, I think both are implicated, because that's what the preponderance of data suggest. Beyond that, I accept that environment plays a role, and believe (mostly on personal observation) that people can and do change their sexual orientation over time. This might explain, for example, how a hereditary component to homosexuality could have survived.
I have made no attempt here, of course, to represent all of the data on this subject. I"d recommend as usual the Wikipedia entry.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Robert Perry:
If you reduce the opportunities for breeding by even a small amount, you will tend to reduce the prevalence of that trait, end of story. It's a statistical certainty.
You're welcome to your opinion, but I believe you are wrong in this case.
And no, it's still just correlation. Until you show a cause, you do not have causality, but rather correlation. It's really that simple.
We're discussing a metric for measuring the physiological differences between genders. Proving causation is irrelevant in this case. Believe as you wish though, it's irrelevant to me.
Robert Perry
· 2 years ago
Carrick, go back to your math: lim (a^n) = 0 when n--> infinity and |a| < 1. Define a as the likelihood of breeding successfully vs. the population as a whole. So if the likelihood of anyone with the trait is less than those without, the trait will be eliminated. I know you're wrong, Carrick, on this one.
And yes, whether it's correlation or causality is immaterial to you, as it is with too many people pretending to do science in the medical realm. Learn the difference and apply it.
Carrick
· 2 years ago
Robert, your analysis is based on the assumption of a simple dominant gene for the inheritable trait.
Recessive genes don't obey this simple math. What happens in the case of a recessive maladaptive gene is that you end up with an upper limit on what percentage of the population will have the trait on average. But the t->infinity limit is still nonzero, since a single copy of the recessive gene is inheritable but not maladaptive. (This of course explains the existence of maladaptive traits that persist in the gene pool, such as the predisposition for alcoholism or bipolar disorder).
In any case, we are discussing a complex trait, that likely depends on inheritance (likely through a complex of genes), conditions prior to birth in the womb, and environment post birth. The old Mandelian viewpoint probably doesn't even apply, because likely we're dealing with switches that are getting thrown (the genetic toolbox perspective) rather than something as simple as a fixed trait such as whether or not you have blue eyes...
Regarding the causation versus correlation, I'm not sure it's worth the bother, but I'll try it again: If you can establish a relationship between gender and e.g. auditory periphery asymmetry, then it is not necessary to explain the causation of the relationship in order to exploit this relationship as a measure of gender-related physiological differences.
As an example, if we know that there is a correlation between blue eyes and a certain family history, it is certainly unnecessary to understand which gene(s) are responsible for the eye color, or to go into the physics of how Rayleigh scattering makes a blue-eyed person's eyes blue, in order to exploit that relationship.
In essence, the correlation is not causation canard simply doesn't apply here.
SPARKIE ARBUCKLE
· 2 years ago
toot[quote]So-Krates didn't sacrifice himself. He was ordered killed.[/quote]He had a chance to flee. Read the Crito. Like I said. I think its something to be proud of. What is it that grounds your consent to our laws? The Crito. So-Krates explains why he will not flee to one of his boy-lovers in the text. Ah, but they all must have been defects anyhow, the people that provided the foundations of our current, bitchin' society. Just think, now So-Krates would just be a wacknip pedophile. Or was he? Hmmmm. considering he probably has more influence (direct and indirect) than any one other person, other than maybe Locke, on our founders, i suspect he wasn't a defect.
xtempore [quote]Generally speaking children under 16 years of age are not emotionally mature enough to form a consenting sexual relationship.[/quote]Who doth gauge the 'emotional maturity' and thinketh it correlate to a certain age. On your criteria, some people could consent much younger than 16 and some never. Emotional maturity? Sounds like brainwash/commie-speak. What does it have to do with consent? It seems that an appreciation for cause and effect and the ability to under the connections between the future and present acts, in addition to the absence of coercion, would be primary for valid consent. 'Emotional maturity' sounds sketchy to me.
The Whistler
· 2 years ago
[quote]I think its something to be proud of.[/quote]
Submitting to a gross injustice is nothing to be proud of.
I really don't get you at all Sparkless.
Neiman
· 2 years ago
Garrick: You appear to be quite serious and I don't question your, honesty or sincerity. I think the points below, along with my previous posts questioning study designs and the conclusions of the researchers advancing a genetic predisposition to homosexual desire, represent pretty much all I have to say on the medical research part of this question.
"As Dr. Satinover emphasizes, correlation does not mean something is causative. Basketball players are tall, so height correlates with playing basketball, he notes. But there is no "basketball-playing gene." [u]Efforts to turn some interesting correlations into causal factors have not been successful and yet have been misused to advance a political agenda[/u]. Perhaps the best way to describe the situation is this, as paraphrased from Dr. Satinover: Some people may be predisposed because of genetic, prenatal hormonal influences or other physical or brain differences to have personalities that make them vulnerable to the environmental factors that can elicit homosexual desires. So is homosexuality biological? Not in the way that popular media and homosexual activists have presented it."
"Extremely shy and artistic young boys, for instance, who are not affirmed in their masculinity by a caring father, might be at risk for homosexuality. It's not because of a homosexual "gene," but because of an interrupted process of achieving secure gender identity. This can make some boys who crave male affirmation an easy mark for seduction into homosexuality. A similar pattern can be seen in girls who don't fit classic gender profiles, need feminine affirmation, and are targeted by lesbians who play upon the girls' emotional needs."
My only point is all of this is to say that this statement of yours is probably more correct than any other: [i]"In any case, we are discussing a complex trait, that likely depends on inheritance (likely through a complex of genes), conditions prior to birth in the womb, and environment post birth."[/i] Given the limits of that statement, I would say we are in general agreement; however, if there is any suggestion in your research, McFadden's or others that people are born gay, we would not be in much agreement at all.
Lastly to this point, I believe homosexual desires are within the control of the person, and like many other negative human traits they should be resisted, as that lifestyle is dangerous to the emotion, physical and spiritual health of the people involved and it creates many costs to society as whole.
HG
· 2 years ago
Rob,
Can't find a link to the second page. Using this to get there.
Rob
· 2 years ago
Sorry, when I was doing some template tweaks the other day I whacked pagination.
Should be fixed now.
kayla
· 1 year ago
Hi my name is kayla and i have a 10 month old son was born with esophageal atresia and tracheomalacia bronchomalcia larangomalacia and also down syndrome and atalectsis of the lungs. I am looking for anyone that knows anythingabout or has children of esophageala atresia. Thank you so much for taking the time to read my post. I also have a personal site at kaylapearson.com. I'm try in to make this site work for him he is our miricle. I would apreciate any support towards the site given thanks again so much and god bless
robert108
· 1 month ago
It's a lifestyle choice; get over yourself.
Rob
· 1 month ago
I think the "choice" vs. "born with it" debate is pretty stupid.
What does it matter either way? If they're gay because they were born that way or because they just like it, they should be free to be gay.
All Comments
baseball of switch hitters.
[URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/4326/popeyeyamspinmf6.gif[/IMG][/URL]
You live in the US, where people can act however they want, to a degree. If I don't like Rastafarians... its too damn bad. And my calls for them to ACT DIFFERENTLY would hopefully sound asinine, even to those who may share my opinions, because this is the US. Dreadlocks and homosexuality are green lighted.
this whole post of mine could have been summed up with "the whole world is now stupider for what you just said."
On one hand they insist that homosexuality is determined in the womb, via genetic or hormonal factors.
On the other hand, there is not a single test that can determine whether an infant, toddler, teenager, or adult is biologically "gay".
And of course they cannot allow such a test to ever be developed because accurate diagnosis is the first step to finding a cure!
So we all just get to take their word for it that sexual orientation is biologically determined and cannot change. Proof -- assuming they are even correct -- simply will not be allowed.
Sparkie,
You've taken my comments well beyond their intended context. I'm simply pointing out the gaps in the arguments advanced for homosexuality and homosexual behavior. You see Sparkie, it is said arguments that demand all homosexuals are born so, and that they must behave accordingly. Their is no "hate" tone present in my post whatsoever, nor do I suggest that people shouldn't be free to act upon their legal homosexual preferences.
If you are going to have sex, please have sex only with your [b]own[/b]
shoes.
[quote]In just 7 days I can make you a man[/quote]
[URL=http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2004784171384936973][IMG]http://aycu31.webshots.com/image/21070/2004784171384936973_rs.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
After all, its only a fetus, right?
After all, its only a fetus, right?"
I would have no problem with that, no.
I'd also have no problem if a woman aborted a fetus who had tested positive for hemophilia, mental retardation, dwarfism, or any other diseases/disabilities.
I'd also have no problem if a woman aborted a fetus because the pregnancy would conflict with a planned summer vacation.
Not that I have anything against homosexuals, but given that the sexual process exists and is pleasurable for all parties involved is for the express purpose of procreation.
Now I'm not one who feels that sex should only be for procreation (my wife maybe feels differently), but it's pretty clear that heterosexuality is pretty much the evolutionary intent of having sex organs in the first place.
This bill would prevent abortions but would not prevent the parents from giving the baby up for adoption. Will this cause an over abundance of gay orphans?
Did you intend to include a citation to that bill you mention? I'm curious to see just whose bill this is, and who its co-sponsors might be. I sense a huge attempt at ill-concealed hypocrisy here.
From a strictly Christian perspective humanity suffers from deparvity and all are born sinners. If it be concluded that individuals are born with certain sexual imperfections which lead to unnatural sexual tendencies, it could then be concluded they in some sense are born that way, but that doesn't require they act upon it. However, that said, the physical evidence is inconclusive.
Consider this article from [url=http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/06/28/is-homosexuality-genetic-ask-the-ancient-greeks]here[/url]:
[quote][b]Is Homosexuality Genetic? Ask the Ancient Greeks[/b]
by Dinesh D'Souza
A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays cannot change their sexual orientation. This can be read in more than one way. But perhaps the most obvious interpretation is that homosexuality is biological or innate, and therefore a certain percentage of people in every society are genetically programmed to be gay.
This view, I think, is simply wrong.
To figure this out we don't have to dispute the controversial scientific studies, which are inconclusive. We simply have to look at a concrete historical example. Homosexuality was widespread in ancient Greece and Rome. The Greeks even had an educational philosophy based on pederasty. As K.J. Dover describes in his study of the subject, older men would take teenage boys as sex partners, and in return for sexual favors they would supposedly provide wisdom and knowledge. Interestingly one character in Plato's Symposium protests this practice. He thinks it is unfavor to the older men!
If these practices are genetic, why aren't homosexuality and pederasty prevalent in Greece and Rome today? Has the gene pool changed that much? These questions can be deepened by noting that for the ancients, there was no question of being either heterosexual or homosexual. The Greeks and Romans were both. In other words, Greek and Roman males typically were married and had families, yet these same married men also had sexual liaisons with younger boys.
I'm sure if someone in those days conducted a poll, the Greeks and Romans would confidently proclaim their sexual practices "natural." If you told the ancient Athenians that other societies weren't into pederasty like they were, chances are they would laugh and say that obviously pederasts in other cultures were concealing their true inclinations. With the same cultural myopia, we think that since there are homosexuals in our society, and since they clearly aren't whimsically "choosing" to be homosexual, therefore homosexuality must be biological and innate. But this is a non-sequitur, and history suggests that it is not so. [/quote]
Also, as Rob points out, the complete lack of desire to do that which leads to reproduction would be viewed, evolutionarily speaking, as a birth defect, and no amount of research can disprove that.
Put differently, what we consider a birth defect depends not on what science learns, but rather what we value. A society that values spending time on the beach is going to view being a blond as a birth defect. A society that values its own perpetuation is going to view homosexuality as the same.
MOFL,
Interesting if you ignore the intellectual and moral superiority which distinguishes humanity from the animals. Using your logic, since animals don't marry, neither should the homosexuals whose homosexuality is justified by the behavior of animals.
State Rep. Brian Duprey wants the Legislature to forbid a woman from ending a pregnancy because the fetus is homosexual.
He said the bill looks into the future in case scientists find what he described as a "homosexual gene."
2/05[/quote]
I mentioned it for debate purposes only and I am in no way trying to confirm the gene theory.
Interesting. I though abortion was the mother's preference. Wouldn't this mean that to abort a child based on sexuality is discrimination? How can one discriminate against a non-life?
Personally, I would support this bill. Not on the basis of a "homosexual gene", but because abortion is the taking of innocent life.
I wonder, do those "sexually ambiguous" animals make good house pets? How about houseboys?
If homosexuality is a matter of a genetic variation, how come in identical twins one can be heterosexual and the other homosexual?
Lastly, I completely agree with you on the Life issue!
Maybe the Republican who introduced the bill had other motives than to preserve homosexuality?
[quote]If homosexuality is a matter of a genetic variation, how come in identical twins one can be heterosexual and the other homosexual? [/quote]
Because one chose to act on one's genetically defective impulses while the other did not?
Thomas A Edison said sex
is 99% Opportunity.
and 1% Inspiration
[quote]How about houseboys?[/quote]
Does this mean the end of Robin?
[URL=http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2001126973057645513][IMG]http://aycu13.webshots.com/image/21852/2001126973057645513_rs.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
and 1% Inspiration[/quote] Thomas A Edison invented the gramophone, so that when people say WOOF sounds like a broken record, we would know what they were talking about!
r108 comes in second
[quote]Tolerating an unfortunate malady isn't the same as "greenlighting" it. Even though we don't disapprove of many other such disabilities, we still strive to cure them or ameliorate them in some way.[/quote]Homosexuality is only an 'unfortunate malady' to you and yours. Homosexuality IS greenlighted. Its legal. People are gay. Its OK. There's nothing odd or wrong about it - its widespread and has been for milennia. It need not be cured any more than your lifestyle or opinions need to be cured. Thanks for the drivel, r108. Ain't it time to get your emissions checked, again? I think California is having a negative impact on your 'messing with other people's lives' stances. Furthermore, what makes you feel you are correct? What if you are wrong? Its bound to happen. Folk like you, r108, do not aid your party when you open your mouth.
Robert Perry
[quote]Actually, Sparkie, Athenian democracy existed well before Socrates came on the scene, and one of its notable accomplishments was to kill Socrates. Athenian democracy also (thus) served the Founding Fathers as an example of what NOT to do in founding a nation. Hence, we are a republic, not a democracy.[/quote]Well, where I'm from we have town meeting, direct/Athenian-style democracy. We still elect douche bags to parent us, ala r108, but we retain some control for ourselves. PS - republic my ass. we are a bit 'top heavy'. your guy in the fancy house that is supposed to be fixing it ain't.
So you hold that Socrates was worthless, apt to be killed? What? Shame on you Robert Perry. Those guys were so smart so early that it blows my mind. I like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes]Zeno[/url] better. Historical philosophy is nowhere near as cool as the contemporary debates though, IMO. Modern metaphysics and epistemology are just plain bitchin'. [url=http://hem.bredband.net/b153434/Index.htm]That's where all the people with the highest IQs hang out, anyway[/url].
Incidentally, I can't say the same for gay women. Most of the gay women I have known are well adjusted and successful members of society.
Now granted, these are just my personal observations and they may or may not be correct.
IMO, I would say the opposite of what Lik says. I know a lot more unhappy, messed up lesbians than I do homo males. Just what I've seen though. Some of my very very close friends are gay. I don't feel there's anything wrong with them. They feel a certain way and are lucky enough to live in a place where they can act according to their conscience. Go USA!
Doubt it. The gay men I know could care less what others say about them. Their demons come from the inside, rather than external forces.
IMO, I would say the opposite of what Lik says.
Hmmm...interesting.
Just so you know Sparkie Arbuckle, not that it is any of your business but I'll tell you anyways so you can better understand my perspective - I used to live in a house full of gays. Back in 2000, there was a cheap room open for rent and my then girlfriend and I jumped on the opportunity of cheap rent while we looked for something more permanent. There was a depressed gay couple living downstairs, the good-hearted but ultimately depressed gay owner who lived upstairs (he used to run the 'gay pride' parades in Port Huron and Sarnia), along with a straight girl and a crazy-assed lesbian living on my floor. I would sometimes come home to a freaking gay party at the house. 30+ sweaty men drinking champaign out of crystal glasses. They would make the downstairs smell like some nasty locker room. It was definitely a colorful period of my life that I won't ever forget. In addition to this, I had many close gay friends from the rave party scene. If I wasn't with my girl or with one of my cousins, I was usually with one of my gay friends (this brought me the benefit of having all of the attractive girls at the clubs and parties swarming over to my gay friends; not my intention but I'll take it). By and large, the gay friends I've had the pleasure of knowing are unhappy individuals who struggle with some very serious personal demons.
In the end and in my view, medical science would do well to find ways of ending the depression associated with so many homosexual people. If they could make the gays truly gay, then this humanitarian route is the one to take.
The homosexuals demand all society view thier behavior as genetic -- without proof -- and that homosexuality is normal -- again, without proof. And according to you those of us who refuse to accept these claims are haters? It would seem to me that those who will not tolerate the majorities disagreement with their claims, and who claim that such dissent is hate, may be suffering additional genetic defects.
Funny you would rather drive the majority of people into the "closet" for our "shameful" public disagreement with the homosexual opinion. I'd personally like to see homosexuals quit flaunting their homosexuality in our faces in an effort to force society to accept it. I thought what goes on in the privacy of one's bedroom is nobody's business. I sure wish the homosexual community would practice what it preaches.
The point is, civilized people recognizing that human beings are subject to perverse and dangerous desires either through laws or social condemnation, demand they resist those desires. Yet, it is strangely different when people want to engage in homosexual relations, conduct which at a minimum is a perversion of natural design and I believe a rejection of Divine Creation; and which presents serious health dangers for those directly involved and their heterosexual partners, then we want to call that behavior normative and despite no evidence in its support - a mere genetic aberration.
No matter how the homosexual lobby spins the truth, no rational person can deny that sodomy and the oral exchange of body fluids is a perversion of natural design. Nor can they honestly assert it is not a dangerous activity, presenting real health risks to our society and abnormal financial costs as well.
Why is this single perverse human behavior being accepted and promoted as normal? Out of compassion we don't want to call these people perverted or make them feel unloved and not accepted. Okay, why don't we feel the same way about child molestors, they have urges they say they cannot control, they have had these urges since they were quite young; and so why don't we extend this same compassion and inclusion into society to them as we do homosexuals? What about those desiring mulitple marriages, how dare we pass laws saying polygamy is unlawful and perverse? Don't they deserve compassion and be allowed to love others and have an alternative type of familiy just like homosexuals?
i have lived with lesbians - for about a year. it was... intolerable. not because they were gay, rather because they were the shittiest roomies ever. i have many homo male friends. that's my angle.
Sexual orientation is now widely accepted in the scientific community as being a physiological attribute. It sits on a spectrum. There are people who are profoundly heterosexual, profoundly homosexual, and everything in between. There are also individuals who are asexual.
All of these are naturally occurring parts of the spectrum. The term "normal" simply refers to the most average attribute within the spectrum.
No specific sexual orientation is a defect any more than having green eyes or being left-handed is.
So unless you are of medium height, medium build, with brown skin, brown eyes, dark hair, right-handed, with an IQ of precisely 100 ... you better watch who you call abnormal!
Put that right up their with global warming.
Sparkie, I respectfully submit that maybe the reason was because they were women. Women are catty.
Neiman - Yet, it is strangely different when people want to engage in homosexual relations, conduct which at a minimum is a perversion of natural design...
I would argue that it is in line with natural design. After all, we are base creatures a couple of steps away from monkeys. Monkeys, incidentally with a couple of species, that regularly sodomize each other in a show dominance. It might not be "natural design", but it most definitely is natural. There are a lot of animals out there who release their sexual tension with members of the same sex. All arguments aside, this makes it natural!
Does it make it normal? Well, that's another question with a different answer.
...and I believe a rejection of Divine Creation...
To a non-believer such as myself, this begs the question of why GOD made so many animals that are butt-taggingly gay.
What rejection? God loves gays!
Hmm...your sarcasm uses these terms to mock natural theism, while at the same time defend those who prefer to sport themselves in the same. Just an observation.
[b]xtempore[/b]: So, are sexual desires by adults for small, prepubescent children "naturally occurring parts of the [sexual] spectrum?" How about sexual desires for animals, are they just "naturally occurring parts of the [sexual] spectrum?" Or, how about polygamists, are the desires of these men to have sexual relations with many wives, some of them in their young teens years, "naturally occurring parts of the [sexual] spectrum?" How about women using artificial penises?
Is it or is it not a perversion of natural, anatomical design to stick a penis inside a rectum? Does or does not that regular sodomy stretch the anal orifice and is or is not this conduct the source of transmission of several unpleasant and even life threatening diseases? No matter how you spin it, such sexual conduct is a perversion of natural design and therefore it cannot be considered normal and it should not be approved by society.
You'll notice I did not speak to the spiritual harm which is quite real, but only that when viewed from the stand point of natural anatomical design, sodomy is a perverse use of the penis and the rectum. Further, while heterosexuals love to receive a blow job, the exchange of semen into the oral cavity, the passage of bacteria into the oral and disgestive system was not the naturally designed use for either organ or fluid and thus is a perverse use thereof.
So, you may object to calling homosexual conduct abnormal, and you may think the earth is flat; but the evidence in both cases is overwhelmingly against you!
Lik, come on. We are light years away from monkeys, intellectually, morally, socially, etc -- without any transitional intelligent form, I might add.
You could call approx. 90% of the population the "average", but it is a gross understatement. More accurately it would be the overwhelming majority. Which lends all the more credibility of the arguments that homosexuality is a birth defect -- if one is born with it.
It is an old, old, very tired trick to suggest that if God condemns certain behavior then He doesn't love the person. God loves "whosoever" He created - that means every human being, but He does [b]not[/b] love or accept those things He condemns and calls sin; and if any "whosovers" do not accept His Son as their Savior and Lord before they depart this physical life, by their own choice they have rejected His Lordship over their lives and they will suffer eternally by their own choosing, not His. A pardon is not a pardon unless it is accepted, and anyone rejecting God's Divine Pardon will not benefit from any of the provisions thereof.
The genetic difference between monkeys and human beings is much, much greater that a couple of steps as you ignorantly suggest. "We also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas and that doesn't make us half bananas, either from the waist up or the waist down." "Now the genetic difference between a human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; therefore there is no possibility of change. "just a few percentage points can translate into vast, unbridgeable gaps between species."
Lik said: "To a non-believer such as myself, this begs the question of why GOD made so many animals that are butt-taggingly gay." An animal behaving like an animal and forcefully raping another male is not a sign of homosexuality among animals, it is a sign of major difference between the lower order of animals and human beings, human beings reject forceful rape by sodomy, it is a crime and we punish those perverted rapists. Also, when Adam and Eve rejected God, the entire creation was polutted by perverse, sinful desires and when God creates a new heaven and a new earth, no such behavior even in the animal kingdom will be seen.
So, how about those attacking people having negative views of homosexuality from a biblical perspective, perhaps these terms will help: 1. [b]Christophobic[/b], an irrational fear of Christ and the Church. Or, 2. [b]Aletheophobic[/b]: An irrational fear of Divine Truth. So when they accuse us of homophobia we can pull out psychiatric terms to describe their fears!
Why should homosexuals, people who are not legally married be granted the same legal and financial rights of married people? If their sexual and by extension their living arrangements are abnormal, then they should not be granted either the right to marry or the financial an dlegal rights associated with marriage and which were designed to help keep the heterosexual family intact?
We are still creatures that cater to our base needs. Or, in the sexual sense, our base wants.
Neiman - I don't like responding to likwidshoe, because he is incapable of civil debate with me, but I shall attempt for others posting here to respond:
You are describing yourself. Witness the below incivilities.
It is an old, old, very tired trick to suggest that if God condemns certain behavior then He doesn't love the person.
No one ever claimed that. You're building a straw man. But I can see why you're saying it. Maybe I should have said this instead:
If I don't say so myself, that's a much better way of saying what I meant.
The genetic difference between monkeys and human beings is much, much greater that a couple of steps as you ignorantly suggest.
Who spoke of genetics? And how big are these couple of steps? This is another built straw man. It is ignorantly built because it is done with so much bluster. Amateur.
"We also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas and that doesn't make us half bananas, either from the waist up or the waist down."
More genetics. And new talk of being half of something.
Incidentally, if you were measuring a "step" as 25% of shared DNA, you could say that we are a couple of steps away from a banana. That would be a totally accurate statement. Just thinking out loud there and further destroying Neiman's off-topic rant.
"Now the genetic difference between a human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; therefore there is no possibility of change. "just a few percentage points can translate into vast, unbridgeable gaps between species."
More off-topic genetic talk.
Incidentally, if we were measuring "steps" as the things we have in common in the same vein - mammals, walk upright, two arms, legs, hands & feet, ten fingers and ten toes, cries, laughs, likes to fuck, usually monogamous, raises kids, similar family structure - then we're only a couple of steps away.
If you want to get into genetic talk, then it's another story. If you want to compare the intellect, then it's another story.
An animal behaving like an animal and forcefully raping another male is not a sign of homosexuality among animal...
A lot of those monkeys throw their asses into the air. That's not rape. Furthermore, some species CUM and that puts it into the category of sexual. It's not only about dominance when you throw that huge variable in.
Also, when Adam and Eve rejected God, the entire creation was polutted by perverse, sinful desires and when God creates a new heaven and a new earth, no such behavior even in the animal kingdom will be seen.
That's hilarious. A heaven without gays.
Thanks for the laugh Neiman.
[b]Sexual Orientation - Nature and Nurture[/b]
I stand by what I said with regards to the spectrum of sexual orientation. "Orientation" in this term means a preference towards, or an inclination to. There is no doubt that environmental factors can play a part, thought these are the exceptions rather than the rule. The same applies to any other physical attribute. I am 6ft tall, but no doubt if my childhood diet had been deficient in protein, or I had been exposed to high levels of toxins I would be shorter.
Similarly a person's sexual orientation can be affected one way or the other by what happens to them during their up-bringing.
As sentient beings we also have a conscious mind that can make a choice about our actions, so that many naturally homosexual people who live in restrictive backwards societies chose to act against their natural inclinations.
[b]Pedophilia etc - Violate rights[/b]
I have not seen any studies that indicate a genetic predisposition towards bestiality nor pedophilia, but I think it reasonable to assume that these are do indeed make up a small part of the spectrum.
The important difference is that these inclinations, for example pedophilia, if acted upon violate the rights of the child, and we apply this equally to homosexual or heterosexual cases.
Consenting homosexual relationships do not violate anyone's rights, and as such it puzzles me greatly as to why we continue to see such hatred and discrimination against people.
[b]Natural design[/b]
Is it natural to...
* eat ice-cream
* go on a roller coaster
* watch television
* drive a car
I'm assuming you do at least one of these?
As for anal sex, my understanding (though I can't speak from experience) is that it is pleasurable and very natural to those who are so inclined.
[b]Polygamy[/b]
Actually I think for a male to want to have sex with more than one female is very natural! I find laws against polygamy to be rather laughable. After all there is no law against having a mistress, and huge numbers of Americans do cheat on their husbands/wives. For those that it suits, it seems that being open and honest in ones desire to have multiple partners seems healthier.
Personally it's not for me. I have enough trouble with one wife, and if I had more I fear they'd gang up on me!
You mentioned spirituality in passing. As there is a reasonable chance you have a Christian leaning, then I have some names for you... Abraham, Moses, Solomon.
[b]Disease[/b]
Sexual activity, heterosexual or homosexual, can spread disease. AIDS is rampant in Africa, and most of it's victims are heterosexual. Homosexuality does not cause disease. Viruses, bacteria, amoebas, and fungus cause disease.
[b]Flat earth?[/b]
I'm not sure what it was that I said that gave you the impression that I might think the earth was flat.
[b]What is Normal?[/b]
Can you clarify what you mean by "abnormal"?
Most attributes fall onto something like a skewed bell curve. In the homosexual-heterosexual spectrum, then the fat part of the curve is somewhere around "moderately heterosexual". Perhaps you fit inside that, and so you want to call anyone who doesn't "abnormal". But the same can be applied to many attributes and I doubt you fit into the "norm" for all of them.
For example the male/female ratio for the world is 1.014:1 - That means being male is the norm. I'm sure that most women would object to being called "abnormal"!
Of the worlds population, people of Asian descent make up the largest number. Therefore if you are not Asian you are "abnormal".
Obviously this list could go on, and on and on. The conclusion would result in a person who is...
Asian, male, 162cm tall, weighs 70kg, is 27.4 years old, speaks Mandarin, is a Christian, is moderately heterosexual, has 3 children, has an IQ of 100, is right-handed, ...
I'm not sure how many people fit would fit all the criteria, but I guess the rest of us are "abnormal".
[URL=http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2002146613264607383][IMG]http://aycu16.webshots.com/image/22095/2002146613264607383_rs.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
Regarding the spreading of disease, I didn't ask about disease generally or what causes disease, nor did I mention sexually transmitted diseases in in other context than the simple question of whether or not sodomy is a source of sexually transmitted diseases. It cannot reasonably be denied that AIDs was first found among the homosexual community in this country, and despite the original source or what happens in other countries, homosexual conduct was the major source of original transmission among homosexuals and through them into the heterosexual community. But, you raised the AIDS question, I was talking about stirring ones penis in the poop shoot of another man and that being a source of harm to the anal orifice and a source of disease transmission. But, you want to obfuscate the issues I raised by bringing up other issues.
Your constant harangue about what is normal and what is abnormal is a silly distraction from the facts. Throughout all human history homosexual attraction and conduct has been among a tiny minority of any population, and it is a clear violation of natural design and thus by any reasonable definition it is abnormal behavior, and acting on those urges is a lifestyle choice, it can be resisted.
You said, "Consenting homosexual relationships do not violate anyone's rights, and as such it puzzles me greatly as to why we continue to see such hatred and discrimination against people." I want to educate you, there is a huge difference between objecting to homosexual [u]conduct[/u], whether from a natural or Christian point of view and hating homosexuals. Discrimination despite the liberal attempt to change the definition, only means to recognize differences in someone or some thing and is not by its nature either good or bad, just a fact of life. Christ and therefore Christians, hate the sin of homosexuality, among many others, viewing it as a rejection of God's Lordship, it being a form of idolatry; but they genuinely love the homosexual more than those saying the support that lifestyle choice, we do so by offering them God's unconditional love. If I tell you that you are dying of cancer, am I expressing hatred towards you or am I acting in true love to hopefully save your life? If I speak out against homosexuality, an act condemned by God, I am not expressing hate for any homosexual but rather in true Love, God's Love, I am seeking to point out the spiritual, temporal and eternal risks of that lifestyle choice and by God's Grace I hope to bring them to Christ and His Salvation, which is the ultimate expression of Love.
You said "I have not seen any studies that indicate a genetic predisposition towards bestiality nor pedophilia." Neither is there any credible, objective scientific studies that prove homosexuality results from a genetic predisposition. Those few studies I have seen have been dishonest in that they do not differentiate between causation and effect; that is, were any spurious physiological changes noted a cause of homosexual desire or did homosexual desire and conduct cause those changes.
likwidshoe: Your constant attack mentality and ridicule of Christ and the Church speaks to something very unhealthy in your emotional makeup, it does not change the Truth nor does it diminish one iota the Love of God for you and every human being. Lastly, remember this truth: A Pardon is not a pardon unless it is accepted, Jesus paid the penalty for every sin of every human being ever born; but that pardon has no value or effect on your eternal fate if you reject it, it is a free, unconditional gift; but if you don't acccept it, it is your loss and your choice.
It is late and my grandson wants my computer for a while, so I probably won't respnd any further tonight!
I have enjoyed your several well thought out, reasonable and gentlemanly responses to this thread. Unfortunately, because I am more direct I get more attacks, but that is the price I pay for my personality!
Judging by the suit/hat 1930's
[quote]CCI: The State Penitentiary in
South Carolina [/quote]
1866 to 1994
The Normal distribution is well defined, and your statement...
"There is no doubt that 3-5% is several deviations from the norm."
... is fundamentally inaccurate. The normal distribution is such that 68% of the population is within 1 standard deviation of the mean, 95% within 2 stddevs and 99.7% within 3. So the percentage within "several deviations" is practically 0.
1.014:1 is a ratio. It means that for every 1000 women there are 1014 men, or that 50.3% of the worlds population is male. Therefore being male is the norm. The alternative analysis is to not split the population in this way and take an average which would mean someone who is half male and half female - a biological impossibility.
The reality, which I was trying to demonstrate, is that there is really no such thing as a normal person when every possible attribute is considered.
Classifying people as being or not being homosexual is inaccurate. It is a spectrum. As I already said some people are profoundly heterosexual, some are moderately, some are only just, some are bisexual with a preference for the opposite gender, some are bisexual with no strong preference, some are bisexual with a preference for the same gender, some are slightly homosexual, moderately homosexual or profoundly homosexual. (There's also asexual, but the strength of sexual drive is on a different axis).
I would rate myself towards the highly heterosexual end of the scale. I have friends from across the spectrum.
One of my best friends I would characterize as profoundly homosexual. To him the thought of sexual relations with a woman is extremely unappealing. From his early teens he has been attracted to other men. He has never felt the slightest attraction to women.
Another friend who was slightly homosexual actually met a woman who he was attracted to. Their married now and have a child.
I have other friends who are bisexual. One male friend is attracted to both genders, but with a slight leaning towards women. Similarly a female friend who is attracted to both genders, but overall prefers women.
The predominant theme I have noticed amongst those who post negative comments about homosexuality, is that they focus most strongly and almost exclusively on homosexual men.
One has to wonder why.
The current tax code or rates to be exact, confiscates a lower percentage of income from some than others. A truly fair and equitable tax rate would be a flat rate payed by all regardless of income.
Behavior modification via the tax code isn't the responsibility of government. Government serves one purpose very well... national security. Social security is the responsiblity of individuals not society.
Yes! Provide for the common defense. Are you a veteran?
So we come to the crux of your opinion - It is based on the teachings of the "Christian" church. I am not inclined to enter a theological debate. Suffice to say that my theological view differs greatly from yours, and that the two are irreconcilable.
My "constant harangue", as you call it, about what is or is not normal is precisely to the point. The title of this article questioned whether homosexuality was a birth defect, and many of the posts since referred to it as "abnormal". It is therefore completely valid and on-topic to discuss what these terms "normal" or "abnormal" mean.
Your choice to label people as "abnormal" (and it is a choice), is based on your own fears and prejudices, and propped up by your theological beliefs.
Apart from your theological argument all you present as evidence is that homosexual tendencies are a minority of the population. No-one disagrees. We simply believe that minorities should not be discriminated against.
Wrong conclusion. Sexual dimorphism is the norm for human beings.
It also turns out that there is a natural function for homosexuality... it is a natural population control mechanism. As the population density increases, the percentage of gay males increases. See for example J. B. Calhoun, "Population Density and Social Pathology." Scientific American 206, 139-14 (1962).
This pretty much lays to rest a) the meme that homosexuality is entirely by choice, as well as b) that it represents a form of genetic birth defect.
I don't know what the hell you're talking about here, but I can see that you have once again gone off into the deep end.
For the record Neiman, I have NEVER ridiculed Jesus Christ. By all accounts, Jesus was a very decent man far better than myself. I wish for you to recognize this fact and take back your damning slur.
Also for the record, I never once brought up "the Church". I don't even know what church that is supposed to refer to.
What does LYING say about your emotional makeup Neiman? I'd say that it makes you a disgusting individual.
Now be a man and take back your lying slurs against me. Neiman, STOP LYING.
As I am not homosexual, I do not even have the weight of direct personal experience to lend to my arguments.
There are some in this forum whose prejudices span decades, and they will not be easily swayed. Someone once characterized middle-age as a time when "the broad mind and narrow waist change places".
I was raised in a fairly unenlightened town, where negative opinions about homosexuals, Jews and blacks, were commonplace. Needless to say I developed the same bigotries.
As I grew older I started to meet more people of different backgrounds, beliefs, and orientations. I saw that most were good, kind, caring, honest people, and slowly my long held prejudices were eroded.
To those of you who still have an open mind - Maybe you could try laying aside your prejudices, even just for a few minutes, and talking to, rather than judging your fellow man.
I see you're projecting again, Sparkie.
This begs the question - whose side are you on? Are you a double agent from Hell sent here to turn people against Jesus Christ? Hmmm...I wonder.
As an agnostic, I will grant the mystical possibility that you are a demon sent here from Hell whose mission is to turn people away from Christ. You are, so far, successful in this mission of yours.
(Oh, and calm down Neiman. I can already see the horns sprouting from your forehead. I'm just joking with you here. After witnessing a "man of the book" lying about me and projecting all of his devilish nonsense onto me, one has to expect this. I'm going to push back against ya, you little deceiving demon!)
Calling non-normal behavior "non-normal" isn't discrimination; you have your panties in a bunch for your own personal reasons.
For example they use tools, craft and use weapons (primitive spears that they sharpen with their teeth) to hunt animals and so forth. And they can pass this knowledge on via teaching to their offspring. BTW, they use their spears to jab into tree stumps to spear and eat pygmy bush babies...
<img src="http://aycu30.webshots.com/image/21309/2005140491561851915.jpg">
[quote]It also turns out that there is a natural function for homosexuality... it is a natural population control mechanism. As the population density increases, the percentage of gay males increases. See for example J. B. Calhoun, "Population Density and Social Pathology." Scientific American 206, 139-14 (1962).[/quote]
Fascinating. This is the first I've heard of this, but it makes sense. I'll need to look into this further...
I haven't read all the comments in this thread, but there seems to be a lot of irrational dislike (not sure all of it rises to the level of hatred) of homosexuals, and it sort of baffles me.
I know a lot of people who I consider to be "good conservatives" who find homosexuals detestable. On most issues these people are staunch supporters of liberty. They want the government out their lives. They simply want to pursue happiness without a bunch of bureaucrats and busybodies getting in their way.
But then when the subject turns to homosexuals they get all up in arms. They want to outlaw gay marriage and basically get all up in the lives of homosexuals to prevent them from doing a lot of things.
It boggles the mind. What your moral opinion is of homosexuality, is it really in keeping with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to prevent consenting adults from marrying one another? Loving one another? Living harmoniously in communities without being lambasted as sex perverts and worse?
Trust me, gay sex is not my cup of tea, and it took me a long time to separate my personal aversion to it from my opinions of homosexuals as people. But ultimately I like to think that my core conservative principles about people living their lives as they see fit won over.
If two men want to marry one another, good on them. Same with two women. That's what this country is all about. Finding happiness, and if a guy can find that in the arms of another guy who are we to judge?
And yes, I'm aware of concerns of the breakdown of moral codes, but c'mon. For every promiscuous gay man or woman out there slutting it up there's probably at least 10 straight people doing the exact same thing. Just as those promiscuous straights don't represent all of us who lead more responsible sexual lives, the promiscuous gays don't represent all gays in general (nor do the in-your-face caricatures of gays in movies and on TV).
I know this is a hot button issue for a lot of you guys, but I can't help but think that you'd all be a lot easier if you just let it go and learned to be happy for other people who have found happiness.
Well, since it's finally come up, I guess I should admit that "The Whistler" is actually a trained baboon I keep in a cage in my living room. When I get busy, I put my laptop in there for him to bang out posts to keep you all entertained.
I'm not sure what it says about me that his posts are usually better than mine.
I don't want to change the definition of marriage. It will forever be one man and one woman in my mind. I'm not about to change the definitions of words just to please a small interest group. Ain't happening.
Not all that well trained mind you.
Nobody is saying you have to have gay sex. Just let others have it if they want to.
And lik, why so adamant on the marriage thing? If we call it marriage or civil unions or whatever, what harm does it do to just let these people bond themselves to each other in a legally-sanctioned ceremony?
Of course, I agree that gay marriage should be legal through a vote of the people and not a lawsuit, but that's just details.
I pose the question right back. Why so adamant on changing the definition of a long standing word?
If we call it marriage or civil unions or whatever, what harm does it do to just let these people bond themselves to each other in a legally-sanctioned ceremony?
That's a different question. I have no problem with some kind of legal union that confers many, if not all, of the same benefits. You just can't demand that I recognize such a union as marriage.
Incidentally, I take the same position with polygamists. They can knock themselves out and live however they want to live. It doesn't matter to me. They can even call their unions "marriage". I don't care. What they can't do is demand that I recognize one man with three women as a "marriage".
Shouldn't they be free to do that? Or do you want them to be convicted of thought crime?
You answer mine, then I'll answer yours.
[quote]That's a different question. I have no problem with some kind of legal union that confers many, if not all, of the same benefits. You just can't demand that I recognize such a union as marriage.[/quote]
Seems like a trivial bit of hair-splitting to me.
Well of course I think they should be allowed to do that. Don't obfuscate by equating my disagreement with these attitudes about homosexuality to a desire to see people who think that way arrested. That's utter nonsense.
My point was that I don't see how people who cherish individual liberty can oppose homosexual relationships between consenting adults.
If I agree to change it for one special interest group, I'll have to agree to change it for another. In pretty quick order, marriage will legally mean whatever the hell you want it to mean.
And when marriage means anything, it will mean nothing.
Seems like a trivial bit of hair-splitting to me.
Not at all. I have no problem with almost any kind of arrangement that adults would want a legal contract for. How that is supposed to carry over to me agreeing to a marriage definition change is beyond me.
Although Chistians (not all) consider homosexual activities a sin, they strongly support free choice. Although there have been laws against sodomy in some states, that is in the past so freedom to puraue homosexual relationship are not an issue today. What is the issue with gays today is their programs to become part of the mainstream hetrosexual world (marriage, adoptions, etc and to do that they have to pervert the traditional meanings of these ancient insitutions. Most ingenious of them.
Take government out of the equation and that problem is solved.
For example married people get to inherit tax free from their spouse. OK fine, take away the death tax and the problem is solved. Bruce can will his property to whomever he wishes.
The one that really gets me is when homosexuals (rightfully) complain their significant other can't visit them in the hospital.
Everyone should be able to designate a personal representative of their choice who would have the right to visit whether or not they are married.
Of course there the problem is because of certain hospitals having bad policies.
Rob,
The majority of Americans would be much happier if the homosexual community would stop trying to force society to accept homosexuality as a normal, moral behavior. Gay pride parades, demanding marriage be redefined, that genetic homosexuality leaves no choice but homosexual behavior, that special minority rights be granted them, etc. If homosexuals would leave thier behavior in the bedroom rather than in the middle of main street, the public restroom, marriage, and morality you'd hear alot less about it from those of us who see the agenda behind their flawed and often offensive (to most Americans) arguments.
Exactly. I think this should answer Chief's question.
and BTW Chief RZ, :P[quote]I choose not to associate with short people[/quote]
[quote]Garrick said: "You most have known I couldn't resist responding to this... in addition to having about 99% of our DNA in common with the chimpanzee (which is not a monkey of course), a fact hard to explain for those who claim there is no common ancestor, chimpanzees share some interesting social characteristics with us."[/quote]
Scientific Fact: The genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change. Just a few percentage points can translate into vast, unbridgeable gaps between species. But, I realize that scientific fact or facts in general have no bearing on the conversation, as what we feel about the issue is all that matters and facts be damned.
Rob and others: It is absolutely false that people objecting to homosexual conduct hate homosexuals or want to deny them basic human rights such as employment, housing, health care and etcetera. That charge is a pure canard; that is, it a wholly false charge wherein those making it know they are making a false charge and do so anyway in order to inflame the issue and silence those opposing their views.
[quote]My point was that I don't see how people who cherish individual liberty can oppose homosexual relationships between consenting adults.[/quote]
Let us say the issue is sexual relationships between consenting adults and young teen age boys and girls, would you suggest that opposing those relationships is wrong? No, you would not because it is taking sexual advantage of an immature human being. We would all, [u]at least today[/u], agree with that! However, to object to sexual relations between consenting same gender adults, because you personally do not find it objectionable makes those objecting to it into hate mongers and persons against individual liberty. So what it amounts to is whose list of what should be tolerated and not tolerated in a healthy society is acceptable. You decide your list is the only acceptable list and those with a slightly different list are subhuman, bigots and hate mongers? Hardly fair is it? No, I know you did not use those exact words, but that was the clear implication as far as I am concerned.
We can debate whether or not homosexual partners should be allowed to inherit an estate or visit someone in the hospital, but it is a wholly false debate. Any human being can enter into a legal contract with another human being and leave their estate to a damn rapid dog if they want or approve hospital visitations by a female pope, it is perfectly legal. If these morons do not make such relationships a matter of a legal agreement before these things happen, they are guilty of gross stupidity and whatever results is their fault.
As to marriage, I cannot add to how DocDave expressed the matter:
[quote]What is the issue with gays today is their programs to become part of the mainstream hetrosexual world (marriage, adoptions, etc and to do that they have to pervert the traditional meanings of these ancient insitutions[/quote].
This debate does not have to be emotional and charged with anger, it can be reasonably discussed on a rational, logical, theological and scientific basis; but for those of you on the Left or those atheist and agnostics among you, it often [u]appears[/u] by your words that anyone having a Christian viewpoint are automatically labelled bigots, hate mongers and unable to discuss this issue on your level. Is it then any wonder that this issue is so divisive, one side refuses to allow the other side to hold any beliefs contrary to their own.
What seems to be missing from this debate is an accurate characterization of the attitude coming from the homosexual community toward society's discomfort morally and physically with homosexuality. Those of us who disagree with the arguments to mainstream homosexuality are characterized as hateful. What about the other side? Their approach has been anything but civil. It is an in your face attitude coupled with an assult on institutions and morality dear to many Americans and therefor highly offensive. There is no regard for the majority's cultural, moral, social, or religious norms. That is not constructive behavior, in fact, it is downright rude.
[quote]I know this is a hot button issue for a lot of you guys, but I can't help but think that you'd all be a lot easier if you just let it go and learned to be happy for other people who have found happiness. [/quote]
And I guess we should be happy that joe found love and sexual fulfillment and happiness with his female dog Roxie? Or, we should be overjoyed that John found love, sexual fulfillment and happiness with a nine year old boy? On that basis we should be happy for the rapist that found happiness and sexual fulfillment for a few brief moments with his rape victim. Let us all hold hands and sing koombyya and be happy for every perverse relationship, because atleast one of the people involved found happiness, love and sexual gratification. Great social policy!
Sexual lust for another human being or even deep physical affection is not Love and it should not be a cause for celebration. Love to be real is totally selfless, not based on lust or shifting emotions of the moment, it is completely self sacrificing and seeks nothing for itself. Happiness is an illusion, it is transitory and all too often is based on something less than reality.
Rob said:
[quote]Now I'm not one who feels that sex should only be for procreation (my wife maybe feels differently), but it's pretty clear that heterosexuality is pretty much the evolutionary intent of having sex organs in the first place. [/quote]
Last time I checked the rectum is not scientifically classified as a sex organ.
Robert Perry:
[quote]Also, as Rob points out, the complete lack of desire to do that which leads to reproduction would be viewed, evolutionarily speaking, as a birth defect, and no amount of research can disprove that. [/quote]
Bingo!
DocDave:
[quote]Natural selection favors hetros since only they can procreate. Anything else is an aberration aince it has no way of extending its life. i.e. if homosexuality waa genetically induced it would be a mule-like mutation that cannot recreate itself and would soon die out. No, homosexuality is more likely just a form of a sexual perversion of which there are many others. [/quote]
Carrick said:
[quote]It also turns out that there is a natural function for homosexuality... it is a natural population control mechanism. [/quote]
Carrick you knew I couldn't pass this up. The same argument could be made for pedophilia, beastiality, and other forms of sexual perversion. Of course then we could offset the population control of these behaviors with polygamy, and teen pregnancy. Oh, yes we can't forget the population control argument for abortion. Population control does not make homosexuality normal.
1. Sparkie was dead wrong about who invented the idea.
2. Democracy ended up killing his hero.
3. I tend to share the opinion of the Founders, who uniformly believed that the killing of innocents via mob rule is a bad thing.
So I will have to suggest that if he wishes to name someone for honorary residency in Rio Linda, he'd do best to simply look in the mirror.
The things you listed aren't basic human rights. Nobody has a right to a job, house or health care. You only have the right to pursue those things.
Personally, I judge each person individually. I've met cool gay people and gay people who were real jerks. But it really had nothing to do with who they have sex with.
And for all the blather about gay marriage destroying our society, and digging-in-the-heels stands about not changing the "definition" of marriage, I'm just not seeing it. Sounds like a lot of alarmist pap and obstinance in the absence of any really good arguments to me.
Hey, why is the word definition wrapped with scare quotes? Make no mistake, to say that marriage equals two guys or two women or one man and three women is to fundamentally change the definition of the word.
Here's the way I see it: most "gay marriage" supporters bring up the various associated benefits attributed to the institution. If this is the driving force, then why can't two brothers get married? Or a sister and a brother?
What the hell does marriage mean? What are the proposed requirements? Anybody and everybody as long as you're an adult? That's the path that many "gay marriage" proponents want to head down and I say 'no' to that kind of chicanery.
I'm no scientist, but from what I have read the science is inconclusive. I have heard quoted other scientific evidence that suggest the differences, like those noted in your link, are relative and not determinative. So that in those whose sexual behavior changes, so does the evidence.
Using animal behavior as justification, as the homosexual argues, cross-species sex is justifiable, as well as sex with young members of a species. The reason the arguments fail is because there is a huge difference morally and intellectually betweeen humans and animals.
Since a father can abandon his responsibilities rather easily in this regard, all societies have decided to enact laws that (if enforced) hold a father to his responsibilities.
However, if we mis-define marriage as merely a contract of love, we completely eliminate the historical reason for all of those protections and benefits. In doing so, we undermine the interests of about 40 million mothers and twice that number of children in this country.
No harm done? Hardly. As our gracious host has noted, there are certainly flaws in family law, especially regarding custody after divorce. However, there are certain changes that would help, and certain others that would eviscerate the power of family law. Mis-defining marriage has the strong potential of eviscerating it.
Yes there are people who dispute it, mostly based on ethical rather than behavioral arguments, but that doesn't make it per se "inconclusive".
As to intelligence... we're discussing predispositions here. Intelligence affectsh how we act on our predispositions, but our predispositions are to a large degree hardwired. Hence the comparison of animals and humans on this level is entirely relevant.
That is what a actually meant to say, although not made clear. I don't want them denied a right to qualify for a job because of their sexual orientation, or to qualify to buy a house or get health care because of that sexual orientation. I regret that was not made clear.
[quote]I do think there's a lot of very irrational dislike of homosexuals.[/quote]
You have right to that opinion, but it is not in my experience the attitude of most Christians. We can dislike what they do and not dislike them, we can hate sin and honestly love a sinner. You are confusing objection to behavior with feelings about the person and they are not automatically the same thing. You just don't like anyone goring your cow and so you project your own feelings against them.
I knew you meant otherwise. I've seen you comment before on rights versus privileges and know that you recognize the difference.
The comment was made for the benefit of others who actually do believe that they have a right to a job, health care, and etcetera.
Only because, as Carrick points out, you use the term "marriage" as a moral term. If your morals define marriage as only between a man and a woman, then fine. Not much I can do about that.
But "marriage" can be used to describe many couplings both between humans, organizations, etc. Look it up in the dictionary.
I understand if gay marriage is against your personal morals. And in a lot of instances imposing morals on society is ok. Like saying that murder or stealing is wrong. But in this instance, what does keeping gay marriage illegal actually accomplish for our society? All hyperbole about declining moral values (which is something not specific to the homosexual community) aside?
2. I don't know of any objective scientific studies that prove with any degree of reliabilty that homosexuality is the result of a genetic predisposition. Even in those few studies where some possible minor physiologic changes were noted, it was never asked or determined if those changes were a matter of causation or the affect of homosexual conduct. Lastly, having been involved in medical research for more than thirty years, I can tell you that very little medical research is free from various prejudices of the investigators, sometimes in favor a a manufacturer of a medical product or medicine investing large sums of money in the university medical center, sometimes it is political and I believe those scientists trying to force a genetic predisposition for homosexuality into their research are doing so because they are mostly liberals and have a political agenda to advance; and I assure you that if they produced scientfic data that pointed away from any genetic cause, those papers would not get peer reviewed or published and the author's careers in medical research at any major medical school university would be cut short.
In other words, we must attribute the vast majority of the effect not to nature, but rather to other effects like nurture, personal experiences, and so on.
Which is to say that science is speaking rather clearly; there is no birth defect going on here that one could screen for.
No, actually I don't. I've never looked at it from that angle and believe that the moral argument is a loser.
I've always maintained that I'm not going to start changing the definition of words to suit some special interest. I might one day be forced to accept the definition change as I have in the past with other words. Other words such as liberal, progressive, gay, choice, tolerance, and diversity that all now mean something totally different than what the dictionary tells us. I'm not going to encourage the same thing with marriage.
But "marriage" can be used to describe many couplings both between humans, organizations, etc. Look it up in the dictionary.
True that. The word "marriage" can be used in many different ways, but the institution of marriage is pretty specific.
But in this instance, what does keeping gay marriage illegal actually accomplish for our society?
I don't look at it as "keeping gay marriage illegal". I take the view that I am defending marriage. I voted in affirmation of marriage in Ohio in 2004. It had nothing to do with the gays.
By the way Rob, you once mentioned on the blog that your wife had opposed polygamist marriage even though she supported gay marriage. You had told us that you asked her the question of if there was any substantial difference between the pro arguments. You opened her eyes with a couple of questions. Out of curiosity, does she now agree that one can't logically support "gay marriage" without also supporting the right of polygamist marriage?
Just wondering if she, as well as others, realize the path we're going down if we decide that marriage means a union of anybody who loves each other.
So you don't have a moral objection to homosexuality. Just some semantical objection to using "marriage" to describe a union between two men or two women?
What if we called if "huffypuffy." As in "Jack and Steve got huffypuffied yesterday." Would that be ok then? Would you set aside your objections?
[quote]By the way Rob, you once mentioned on the blog that your wife had opposed polygamist marriage even though she supported gay marriage. You had told us that you asked her the question of if there was any substantial difference between the pro arguments. You opened her eyes with a couple of questions. Out of curiosity, does she now agree that one can't logically support "gay marriage" without also supporting the right of polygamist marriage?[/quote]
You'll have to ask her.
Carrick, The law states that pedophelia is illegal in part because of the effects upon the psyche of the minor. No such effects are accounted for in the animal. Hence, just because animals do it doesn't make it normal or healthy for humans to do it.
Another point: The vast majority of people are absolutely disgusted and turned off by incest. Is this another fear we must overcome? Must society not frown upon this behavior simply because it sickens most? Inherent disdain for certain sexual behavior is clearly natural and normal.
No! I could really care less. I don't believe that homosexuality is healthy for most people, but I don't have any moral qualms about it.
Just some semantical objection to using "marriage" to describe a union between two men or two women?
What if we called if "huffypuffy." As in "Jack and Steve got huffypuffied yesterday." Would that be ok then? Would you set aside your objections?
Well,..when you put it that way, my objections sound petty. And truth be told, I was waiting for someone to finally get around to using this line of reasoning. It's clever.
But yeah, Jack and Steve got huffypuffied. They hope that one day society will accept their union as a "marriage", but until then they'll have to be content with unholy matrimony.
Speaking of "matrimony" - the beginning of "matr" is an old Latin root word that means mother. How two MEN can be joined in a union that describes a woman's involvement and role is beyond me. I guess we'll just have to change the couple millennia old definition of matr as well.
It seems we are all to quick to dismiss morality from our discussions and debate. Think about it. Morality is a reality a sense of which is clearly inherent in all humanity. Therefore it plays an important part in our actions. That is to say we are influenced greatly by morality. To dismiss morality from any discussion is to pretend it has no bearing on the arguments. To admit that no argument can be one on moral grounds is to play ignorant of the fact that our actions are largely based upon them. To pretend that only facts, scientific or otherwise, are relevant to any discussion of issues is to fail to consider all that goes into the decision making process. This is not to say the opposite, that an argument can be one solely on moral grounds, but that all the evidence should be considered.
Promiscuous homosexuality is another matter, of course. But loving people of the same sex? I don't see what the big deal is.
The work of (Simon) LaVey that I know best is his study of the difference in the structure of the hypothalamus between heterosexual and homosexual men. This of course tends to point to a genetic component due to classifiable physiological differences between hetero- and homosexual men.
In any case, I think you're probably mixing him up with the well-known study of Bailey and Pickard, "A genetic study of male sexual orientation," Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.
The full comparison is 50% of identical twins with a homosexual father were homosexual versus about 20% for non-indentical twins.
You're mistaking "predisposition" with "predetermined". Just because a person has a predisposition to be gay doesn't mean that person inevitably will be one.
Quite obviously, personal experience plays a role in addition to genetic predisposition.
I'd turn your conclusion around; quite obviously, nurture plays a very significant role, and the role, if any, of nature is uncertain. Sorry, but I've known enough identical twins to know that looking "exactly the same" leads to some uncanny similarities in nurture.
At least one of your criticisms approach the threshold of an ad hominem attack rather than an addressing of substantive issues.Who his partner is, is irrelevant to the veracity of his conclusions. It is only meaningful as an explanation in the event that his research were found to be flawed. In any case, LaVey is neither the only one nor the first to perform this study. The original idea traces back to Swaab, 1990.
In any case, there are studies that are very difficult to assail by claims of sample bias, etc. The McFadden spontaneous otoacoustic emissions prevalence study I linked above is such an example.
What you originally raised was the question of whether homosexuality is a "birth defect," by which I presume you to have meant a) is inheritable and b) is maladaptive.
I've simply pointed out that both of these assumptions are false.
The question of the practice of incest is irrelevant to your original question. Nonetheless, from an adaptive perspective, one could certainly argue that inbreeding in general is harmful to the gene pool of the species, and therefore is a phenomenon for which there is no naturalistic predisposition, nor one for which an adaptive role can be found.
Let us suppose even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them. For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable "lifestyle" any more than homosexuality is.
In the late '90s, a team of researchers at the University of Western Ontario in Canada found no trace or evidence of the "gay" gene in homosexual men. (The original study was found to be highly flawed and the chief investigator was charged with fraud) The study found that the region of the X chromosome known as "Xq28" has nothing to do with the sexual "orientation" of a person. Neurologist George Rice studied the DNA of 52 pairs of homosexual brothers and found that their Xq28 sequences were no more similar than what might happen from sheer chance. Despite the debunking of evidence to back the "gay"-gene theory, homosexual advocates continue to use the out-dated evidence to promote the existence of a homosexual genetic trait.
"Natural Law: People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal. The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality--that it is wrong because it is unnatural. Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.
If intuitively we know that homosexuality is wrong, being a clear violation of natural Law, then on what logical basis would we justify homosexual marriage and homosexuals being able to access those special economic and other benefits available to heterosexual couples?
In this case, it means that not everybody who gets the hereditary predisposition becomes homosexual, just that they are somewhat more likely than the general population.
I've glossed over a bit on the mechanism, but it needs a trigger in order to initiate the behavior. This is thought to be hormonal levels of the fetus while still in the womb (which in turn can be related to stress levels and other factors in the mother). Note that even in children who have a predisposition, a maximum of 1/2 actually act on this predisposition. That leaves ample room for the continuation of the genetic predisposition via whatever hereditary mechanism is responsible for it. (Probably NOT as simple as a "gay gene" though.)
Reality is that when you search something like 100MB of genetic information among a sample size of 40, as is typical in the studies Carrick is referring to, you are going to get a lot of correlations just by accident. Sorry, friend, but it doesn't prove anything.
As Neiman notes, correlation isn't causation, and the reality is that before we accept the hypothesis that it's innate, we need to find some very good reasons to exclude "just an accident" and "it's the effect, not the cause" from the list of hypotheses.
So far, I don't see it at all; the health ramifications of putting one's body parts in raw sewage are well known and often severe. To envision this having some effects on tinnitus and other functions of the body is not untenable.
A velvet gift box wrapped with silver foil paper with a pink lace bow and ribbon, a card in a matching silver foil envelope, and a glass bowl with a half dozen blooming paper whites is always appreciated.
That is not science! [i]Thought[/i] to be is another way of saying, we are guessing. Unfortunately, I have seen it happen more times than I can count or recall that such guesses sooner or later are repeated as absolute fact and then undeniable fact, and all the time there was no new information added to the original guess. Then after a lot of harm is done, new information comes to light to prove the guess completely wrong.
The findings from these studies are standard population measures based on different characteristics of OAEs in different population groups. Statistically significant differences between groups measured in this way are almost impossible to assail, other than to argue e.g. fraud on the part of the investigator(s).
One of the results is an observed asymmetry between the left and right ears (the so-called auditory periphery asymmetry) of male and female subjects for spontaneous OAEs (which are tones generated by the ear in the absence of an external stimulation). This result has been duplicated by at least four different groups, and has been demonstrated by one group (Burns et al) to be present at birth. Finally, for many groups, the data are in the public domain and their results can be easily replicated by anybody with a spectral analysis program (and the time to analyze 100s of subjects). At least for this question of male-female asymmetry with respect to hearing, the answer is that one exists well beyond any reasonable doubt.
The extension of this result to gay males (done first by McFadden) is that homosexual males turn out to have an asymmetry in the prevalence of SOAEs in their ears more similar to that of heterosexual women than heterosexual men. Thus we may conclude on objective grounds that gay men are physiologically different than heterosexual men, and that the differences between the two groups cannot entirely be explained by behavior (i.e., "choice") alone.
The fundamental problem is you have a fixation on "genes," as if all behavioral characteristics can be explained by a simple gene.
In the case of suicidal tendencies, there is a very strong link between suicide and bipolar, and in turn a very strong link between bipolar illness and genetics. I suppose you'll be arguing now that bipolar disorder is not an inheritable disease???
And even Kinsey was only able to come up with that number by interviewing prisoners, whose opportunities for heterosexual relations are obviously miniscule.
And no, Carrick, what McFadden has demonstrated is not causality, but rather correlation. Again, the kinds of things that homosexuals do are well known to have many physiological effects, so to argue without proof that a difference equals causality is just untenable.
Of course this is a fact that is resisted by the homosexual community, who insist that choice plays no role in their assumed sexual orientation, but the fact is that most gay people at least know other gay people who didn't become "gay" until later than life, or who "lost" friends who left the gay community and returned to the straight community....
More proof that Robert doesn't understand what the word "tendency" means or he wouldn't have said this.
Nor apparently does he know very much about the gay community for that matter. Many gays have children (of their own).
So not only is it a tendency which means that not all people with the predisposition act on it but for even those that do, many still end up reproducing.
Time to toss that meme in the garbage can, guys.
Which is another word for guessing! Yes, it is educated guessing, but guessing nonetheless and as often as not these guesses are proven wrong.
Robert Perry: This is very hard to get people to come to grips with - there is a difference between a physiological difference that causes certain behavior and behavior that results in or causes physiological variations.
Considering McFadden's work: "Even the researchers themselves did not draw definitive conclusions. In the published study, they pointed out that exposure to "intense sounds, certain drugs, and other manipulations" can lower the level of these auditory waveforms. Thus, it may be that something in the lifestyles of homosexual and bisexual females leads them to be exposed to one or more agents that have reduced the [waveforms], either temporarily or permanently. Moreover, even if the hearing differences were caused by an increased exposure to androgen in the womb, scientists would still be far from proving that this exposure is a cause of homosexuality-especially since the difference was not apparent in the male homosexual sample.
While a genetic predisposition is possible in explaining homosexuality, as noted elsewhere that does not mean we should act on these desires, the example given was a genetic predisposition to alcoholism and it was suggested we don't encourage people to act on that tendency.
For every study, most of them being biased in favor of a genetic predisposition, none of them are conclusive and to point to them is often an act of desperation.
There's a difference between a guess and a hypothesis. See this.
I actually agree with you on this, in that I wasn't arguing on whether it was moral or not, the same as science does say there is an innate component to this, just as science says there is an innate component to most or all behavior. And naturalistically, that there even is an adaptive component to this behavior.
Humans have the ability to chose, so we need not resort to homosexual activity to reduce our population, when it becomes over crowded. Nor do we need to act on every urge that we feel.
What the science says is there is a tendency, not a mandate. People can still choose to be straight or gay, just that the urge is stronger in some than in others. Why is that so threatening that you have to essentially resort to closing your eyes on what the data actually say? They say what they say, and most are well enough designed that bias plays no role in the outcome.
Carrick, There is a real world outside of science. I made no claim to a scientific argument, just a common sense observation. I don't know if science has addressed these things observed in nature, nor will I wait for science to do so before forming an opinion. I guess I don't put quite as much faith in science as some do.
[quote]What you originally raised was the question of whether homosexuality is a "birth defect," by which I presume you to have meant a) is inheritable and b) is maladaptive. I've simply pointed out that both of these assumptions are false.[/quote]
Actually, my opinion would fall in line with what you are explaining as predisposition if I am understanding you correctly. This post also asked 2 other questions. The point of this post is to point out that even if their is a genetic homosexuality, that it doesn't automatically mean it is normal, that it must be acted upon, is unchangeable, and must therefore be acceptable to society.
This is definately not what the homosexual community is saying. This is however what I understand to be taught in the bible.
I believe Whistler answered your question on the previous page.
When you use the word "birth defect" it implies neither of these, but rather the two statements that I used earlier.
Your other questions are valid, but they have nothing to do with the question of whether homosexuality is a "birth defect" (i.e., an inheritable trait and a nonadaptive one viewing things naturalistically).
Now it makes some sense for "family" coverage to cover the non-working child raising spouse. But it would make no sense at all for a homosexual couple with no children.
Gay marriage isn't very popular where it's legal. I recently saw an article where in Toronto this year there's only been one license for residents.
However I'm sure that if one "partner" needs medical coverage they'll get married and bingo the employer is on the hook for unlimited health care payments.
An unrealized hypothetical? How so? The behavior of animals with other species is observed. I've seen it in farm and domesticated animals. The behavior of adult animals with young animals has been observed as well. None of this means that the behavior is normal and therefore ought to be copied by human beings. To do so is a violation of the law as I pointed out earlier.
[quote]When you use the word "birth defect" it implies neither of these, but rather the two statements that I used earlier.[/quote]
It was intended to imply that genetic homosexuality is not necessarily normal or healthy behavior.
To be more exact: [i]A congenital disorder is any medical condition that is present at birth. The term congenital does not imply or exclude a genetic cause.[1] A congenital disorder can be recognized before birth (prenatally), at birth, or many years later. Congenital disorders can be a result of genetic abnormalities, the intrauterine environment, a mixture of both, or unknown factors.
Congenital conditions can be referred to as diseases, defects, disorders, anomalies, or simply genetic differences. The usage overlaps, but also involves a value judgement as to the harmfulness of the condition. In particular, people may disagree as to whether a specific physical anomaly should be considered a birth defect or a minor congenital anomaly.[/i]Wikipedia
What we know nowadays is that we all have a constellation of natural desires and tendencies, some of these are passed to us by our genes, others by the environment and behavior of the mother while we were in the womb. (E.g., a mother who drinks alcohol or smokes while pregnant could dramatically affect our life choices.)
What we are finding out is that the human is a marvelously complex thing, and there is (not surprising to me at all) a fair amount of beauty in our inner workings.
And, yes HG, I have faith in science. But I see science as means to discover the Truth, and one that is assessable to all reasoning men, and not one that is in anyway incompatible with my belief in God. Indeed, I find affirmation of my faith through the discovery and appreciation of the beauty that is the world we live in. If you want to see things through my eyes, read God and the Astronomers.
HG: Are you suggesting that animals engage in pedophiliac behavior? I somehow doubt that. Adult males may kill the young, but I've never seen the claim that they rape them.
Of course, and this is a point I agree with you on, just because it happens in nature is no defense for humans to engage in the same practice... adult males of many species will kill the young especially from other males in order to increase their own contribution to the gene pool at the cost of the other male's. Hardly a behavior we should emulate!
To the attempts at scientific analysis, [url=http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2Rekers.PDF#search='14_2Rekers.pdf']here is a more thorough and less biased study (including lesbians[/url]) that comes close to proving (in this case disproving the hypothesis that there is no significant difference or predisposition toward homosexual behavior.
However I'm sure that if one "partner" needs medical coverage they'll get married and bingo the employer is on the hook for unlimited health care payments. [/quote]
But really that's more of an argument against the health care system than letting gays marry, isn't it?
This innate tendency or disposition, when aligned with immoral behavior, is what the bible teaches to be a sin nature or moral depravity of all humanity.
[quote]Hardly a behavior we should emulate! [/quote]
Yeah, you get my point.
A better example of animal behavior on a scale larger than homosexual behavior would be promicuous behavior. Clearly such behavior has proven very dangerous and even deadly, as well as evidence of an unstable mind when practiced by us humans.
In every study you have mentioned, I have provided strong reasons in previous posts above why these studies are flawed and based on a highly biased design. I didn't rant and rave and toss about wildly as if threatened, I gave sound reasons which are supported by others why these studies were faulty.
I had the unusual opportunity of working for several years with a top internationally recognized cardiologist at Stanford University Medical Center. He taught me how to design a medical research study which seriously reduced the chances of error in the outcome. The studies you have mentioned and almost all I have read on this subject, were not so designed as I have clearly pointed out, because the researcher had a bias they were out to prove. So your contention they were well designed is clearly erroneous. In every case there were no mention of whether those things noted caused homosexuality or were caused by homosexual conduct, they failed to rule out other causes for the differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals they noted and that is the worst error, failing to consider such variables.
You see I was involved in the design of an emergency medical device and I saw that device destroyed by flawed studies. The researchers used one device, the one they preferred, in a controlled hospital setting in ideal conditions; then they tested our device in the emergency setting outside the hospital, where there were many variables that affected the results. But a few of these studies, all designed the same way, denied emergency workers a safe and reliable medical device because of flawed, biased studies. So, I know what it takes to design a reliable study. The studies you mentioned were not reliable, tightly designed studies and while the researchers were cautious in their conclusions, people not unlike you made sweeping conclusions that were not warranted by their work.
Lastly, I have conceded there might be a genetic cause for the predisposition to homosexuality, I simply refuse to accept the flawed data you are promoting for the reasons I have mentioned as being proof of anything.
I think you could say that the death tax "discriminates" as the spouse can inherit without the death tax.
I believe the federal government did away with the marriage penalty. (unbelievable) But if I'm not mistaken some states (such as North Dakota) still have it enshrined in their tax code. Of course that was really important to keep in there so that the state bureaucrats can spend more and more money.
[quote]But really that's more of an argument against the health care system than letting gays marry, isn't it?[/quote]
Well I would somewhat agree, but really I don't know how you get around it. I need to be able to buy my family health insurance. That's what marriage is about it taking care of your family. We've decided to not have the wife work full time while our kids are young.
Now my risk pool shouldn't include "families" that will never raise children. Both parties should be working. What we'll have with this system is what they call adverse selection. Homosexuals will wait until their friend gets sick, "marry" him and the rest of the risk pool will subsidize them. Meanwhile the healthy homosexuals won't need the coverage and won't buy it.
I suppose you could fix it by not making me join the risk pool with homosexual couples. I don't exactly know how that will work.
I'm willing to enter in a risk pool with people in the same situation as I, married with children. I shouldn't be forced to subsidize people outside of that risk pool.
Did that make sense?
Robert Perry
Invoking Rush... there must be some hot air mixed in your porridge then. Ridiculing Athenian democracy as mob rule grants entry to 'Rio Linda'. That's like calling your great granddaddy ugly and stupid. IMO, electing officials to make all the rules FOR US is much less virtuous than making the rules ourselves. It might be louder, more tumultuous, and slower; but more options would be aired and more variety means more better. People would not be silenced or lumped into groups based on who they dislike the least. You are confusing virtue in the result with virtue in the process. We can rationalize socialism in that manner also if you would like. If Socrates wasn't killed, we wouldn't have [i]the Crito[/i]. Read it sometime. He is the real 'Jesus' of civilized society. The man died so that democratic authority might be grounded. Laws do apply. We do well by that. Nice deflection, but [i]no cigar[/i] (formerly nicotine stained... blah blah blah)...
The Democracy of ancient Greece was not something to be proud of. Socrates was killed because a person didn't have rights in that Democracy.
The beauty of our system is that we have rights that the will of the majority cannot overrule.
[b]My own prejudices[/b]
I have seen too many hateful, narrow-minded Christians, and I will admit that I sometimes unfairly expect those with a Christian viewpoint to be narrow-minded bigots. I am sometimes wrong, and do find it very refreshing when I do meet one who is not.
[b]Christians who rail against homosexuality and in doing so "bear false witness"[/b]
The oft espoused "we love homosexuals, it is their sin we hate" line is far too often a lie. Whilst I am certain that some of those who say this genuinely mean it, many others show through their spiteful language that this a pure and simple lie.
Depending on your interpretation, the Bible speaks against homosexual acts either zero times or up to three. It also speaks of many other things which modern Christians now ignore or refer to as "Old Covenant", and it no doubt speaks of other sins such as lying many more times over.
Many Christians must still rail against homosexuality as if it were one of the greatest sins, yet unlike lying it does not even rate a mention in the 10 Commandments.
Hence the inconsistency of their lie-filled moral outrage.
[b]Using the natural design argument - But only when it suits[/b]
HG puts forward arguments that if sex has no reproductive advantage (eg. homosexual) then it is unnatural, but then in the same post condemns polygamy which has a clear reproductive advantage.
If you want to use an argument then you need to apply it consistently.
[b]My own arguments[/b]
Please feel free to look for inconsistencies in my arguments. If they are there I need to rethink. The crux of my arguments is founded in the following beliefs (It's hard to get it exactly right, and certainly some must override others at times. This is a shortened list only covering those elements I feel are germane to this debate)...
* People have rights of life, liberty, happiness, equal opportunity and social benefits, freedom of thought, speech, and action - so long as these do not violate the rights of another individual.
* Animals should not be unnecessarily submitted to abuse (I do not consider humane killing for food an abuse, nor valid medical experimentation).
* Children and adults with limited mental faculties need to be protected. Generally speaking children under 16 years of age are not emotionally mature enough to form a consenting sexual relationship.
From this I believe that homosexuals should have all the same rights as heterosexual people, and should not be subjected to abuse or discrimination of any kind. I see no inconsistency in this. I see no instance where this violates the rights of any other individual.
Those who disagree are welcome to think whatever they wish about homosexuals.
If their actions interfere with the rights of homosexuals then they are in the wrong.
If their speech abuses homosexuals, or incites violence or discrimination against homosexuals then they are in the wrong.
If gay people wish to march to demand equality, they should be allowed to do so - this does not violate anyone's rights.
If anti-gay people wish to march to demand suppression of gay people's rights, they should not be allowed - this violates the rights of gay people to equality.
But whatever.
1. The Bible tells us that truth is established in the mouth of two or three witnesses, and in Holy Scripture we have homosexuality condemned three times directly, and many more indirectly. That alone is just cause for Christians to speak out against homosexual behavior as being condemned by God, but as you suggest it is hardly the only sin condemned by God even in Romans, and all sin is hated by God. Nonetheless, in Romans no person capable of reading can miss the fact that the Holy Spirit highlights homosexuality as a particularly hateful sin to God, it is a form of idolatry and it is a clear rejection of God's Human Creation (design). If you don't like that fact, your debate is with God not man! By the way since the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, if you reject His condemnation of homosexual conduct and the other sins mentioned, then it is an asinine position to call Him a good man and a good philosopher, isn't it?
2. I don't quite get your false witness charge against Christians, but God declares universal, Divine, unconditional Love for all His human creation and at the same time His Divine Judgment against all sin. If God thus truly loves the sinner and hates sin, why is it that His children would not have similar feelings about the matter? If unrepented homosexual behavior, like others sins, would cause anyone to enter into eternity lost and in everlasting punishing, is it an act of true Love to be silent and allow people to enter into hell in ignorance of the Truth, or would true Love demand that we warn homosexuals and all sinners of their pending fate and thereby hopefully save some from it?
3. You mention your objection to the Natural Design argument based on reproduction of the species; but I and others raise the Natural Design argument in that sodomy and oral exchange of body fluids is a violation of natural design with sometimes fatal consequences and quite often terrible health consequences. So, would you deny someone the right to argue that such a violation of Natural Design presents a health risk to homosexuals and others engaging in the same acts?
4. Homosexuals are not looking for equal rights, they are demanding special rights (hate crimes legislation for instance)and their desire to gain marital status is for many in the homosexual rights movement solely designed to undermine marriage by changing its historical definition. It is anti-marriage, anti-heterosexuality and anti-Christian in nature!
5. So homosexuals have a Free Speech Rights and free access to the Public Square to fight for these special rights and flaunt their extreme lifestyle choices even in front of children; but those opposed to homosexual marriage and special rights for homosexuals in your world are denied Free Speech rights to oppose the homosexual agenda and have the same access to the public square? It seems the First Amendment as it regards free political speech and access to the public square in your world applies to everyone but Christians, and I have to wonder whose definition of what constitutes [b]abuse[/b] will apply - yours? Hardly fair or Constitutional, but I think you have a right under our Constitution to express your extreme agenda in the Public Square.
Within the Church of Jesus Christ, with some regretable exceptions, Christians have no hatred or even dislike of homosexuals as fellow human beings and creations of God, we have no desire to see violence of any kind committed against them, or to see their rights denied them; but besides the Biblical injunctions against homosexual conduct, most of us have seen the destruction homosexual conduct can cause a family, a community and a nation, and facing that truth we are honor bound to resist their extreme, anti-family and anti-Christian agenda.
Extempore,
If that was true I would only have sex with my wife to make babies. What I actually said was that the reproductive advantage of heterosexuality is evidence that heterosexuality is normal. You're twisting my words.
Please help me out here, I'm looking for the part where I condemned polygamy. Just in case I didn't, I'll do it now: Polygamy is against the law. Polygamy brings more to the table than a reproductive advantage and for the negative is illegal.
But hey, nice try.
[quote]all you did was assert that they were faulty. You didn't really offer any proof[/quote]
Here is one example, I offered others:
[quote]"Even the researchers themselves did not draw definitive conclusions. In the published study, they pointed out that [u]exposure to "intense sounds, certain drugs, and other manipulations" can lower the level of these auditory waveforms[/u]. Thus, it may be that [u]something in the lifestyles of homosexual and bisexual females leads them to be exposed to one or more agents that have reduced the [waveforms], either temporarily or permanently[/u]. Moreover, [u]even if the hearing differences were caused by an increased exposure to androgen in the womb, scientists would still be far from proving that this exposure is a cause of homosexuality-especially since the difference was not apparent in the male homosexual sample[/u][/quote].
Are you saying that the faults of the study pointed out by the researchers themselves are not evidence of a faulty study design? By the way I never said I offered proof, just reasons why they were faulty. In this case, I referred to the words of the authors of the study! So, you'll excuse me if I reject your reproof of my comments!
I generally agree with you.. except for the age of consent, I'll stick with the law--18. I see no inconsistency in your opinions.
Age of consent varies across the US and around the world. I used 16 as indicative, but personally think that a standard anywhere from 16 to 18 is reasonable.
Polygamy is illegal. I don't think it should be. Laws should be followed and upheld, but unjust laws also need to be challenged.
Good night all!
Thanks for the correction and the apology.
You are kidding right? How and where was I converted? Where did I change my opinion or position on this subject? The things which Xtempore pointed out were, in general, just being decent... even with those we disagree with or whose actions we don't approve of.
I missed the quote earlier, but to split nits, you showed reasons why they might be faulty, rather than, in fact, demonstrated that they were faulty.
At an earlier point, you claimed Being as I know McFadden personally, I can assure you that he is a good man and a solid researcher, and one not prone to spinning his data. If he had not been so, you would never have found the cautionary notes on his own data!
They already do, if they are Americans, but the real agenda of the homosexual lobby is for them to have special "rights"(entitlements), one of which is to redefine the definition of marriage to suit their special interest group, a small minority, at the expense of the overwhelming majority.
derive from the idea that non-normal = bad. Can you clarify for me? [/quote]
No, it isn't. I made a simple observation; it is the "brunt" of your blather to make things up to garner attention. Grow up.
To repeat: "Non-normal" is not normal. Duh.
Also some parts that had previously dropped off seem to have come back.
All very strange!
"What is the applicable lifetime exclusion amount?
The applicable lifetime exclusion amount is $625,000 in 1998 --- scheduled to increase in uneven increments to $1 million in 2006. It is the amount that an individual can pass, free of gift tax during life or estate tax at death to anyone they choose."
Reference: http://www.deathtax.com/deathtax/faq.html
It appears that here is yet another false assertion by homosexual political activists.
That wouldn't count as part of their lifetime exclusion.
(So you could will out your exclusion to your kids, will the rest to your spouse. Than the spouse can will out their exclusion without taxes.
I am so glad that (for now) you will allow people in the USA to think freely. <sarcasm>
"Homosexuals" is a behavior. You now have advocated limiting first amendment speech. The trump card is: if their feelings are hurt, or some equal rights are questioned.
Even the NAZIs were allowed to march in Illinois. Even the KKK is allowed to march. You are elevating a behavior to "special protected permission"
Homosexuality is not a birth defect. It is a behavior, not much different that womanizing or manizing if you will. ...now if cads could just create a political group...
And again, no, Carrick; Nieman does not have to offer "proof" of the methodological difficulties of Dr. McFadden beyond a quick enumeration of likely biases in his work. Chief among them, again, is that this correlation is not equal to causation. Just because he hasn't figured out what would change these signatures doesn't necessarily mean that nothing does.
Now, xtempore and anyone else: What equal rights are "homosexual behaving" individuals deprived of? I would again say that anyone involved with spreading lethal communicable diseases would have some of their movements restricted. We still do this with TB patients, certain other STD individuals as well as other crimes and misdemeanors.
What "equal rights" are homesexuals marching for? So far on this thread, many people have hinted that "homosexual acting" people are somehow deprived of something or the other, but nothing specific has been raised.
Garrick said:
[quote]Being as I know McFadden personally, I can assure you that he is a good man and a solid researcher, and one not prone to spinning his data. If he had not been so, you would never have found the cautionary notes on his own data! [/quote]
This will come as a shock to you, but even good and nice people have prejudices and inject bias into their work product. Further, I have known many reputable, internatonally recognized researchers and almost without exception their study designs are flawed in various, mostly minor ways, frequently by not considering all the variables that can skew their data, and in a rush to publish they often ignore those factors in their conclusions. Why? Most of them had their minds made up about what they wanted to prove long before they started their research and nothing would prevent them from reaching that conclusion.
I am sorry but I don't think you are able to look at this matter honestly as you think that certain data and the analysis of the data is always conclusive, especially if you agree with the outcome. Any researcher worth a damn is hypercritical of their own work and that of other researchers because they are only seeking the truth, but those kinds of researchers are incredibly rare. Most researchers, including your good friend McFadden are human beings, they have prejudices and even if they try and do a credible job that is able to stand up to the scrutiny of solid peer review, their bias to varying degrees will impact their work and they will fail to account for all the possible variables in order to produce a top quality product.
That being said, I can only account for the flaws in the study design to the degree I examined it and I am not in a position to replicate his work and 'prove' his work is wrong. There may be some serious value to this work which further study by McFadden and other scientists can better establish, but whether it upsets you are not this study proves nothing whatsoever about any predisposition to homosexual conduct.
By the way, the "correlation isn't causation" argument is a useful argument, when one is trying to argue causation from correlation. That isn't what is going on in this case. The auditory periphery asymmetry argument is more of a "women have breasts" correlation, that is, it is used as a metric for physiological sex differences.
This is why I get so annoyed by the ignoramuses in the press trying to claim that when they have their journalism hats on they are somehow immune from the effects of personal bias. What utter hubris.
What I was objecting to in your comment was more an indication on your part that you thought that these people were constructing the experiments ab initio to predetermine their outcome. McFadden's measurements (and mine for that matter, which have to do with a gender-based auditory asymmetry but not the question of homosexual vs normal populations) are entirely objective in nature. The outcome of the experiment is a table that displays some objective measure from the data (in my case, spontaneous emission prevalence) for each group being studied.
All steps from the data collection through the analysis of the statistical significance of the results are immune to observer bias, short of some form of deliberate experimental fraud. That doesn't mean there aren't issues with the data, as I said before. There are always issues such as the ones that you pointed out. But if the prevailing conclusion across many studies using many different methodologies all point to the same conclusion, personally I'm satisfied that this conclusion has been adequately demonstrated.
Of course, you can decide otherwise. Free country after all...
And no, it's still just correlation. Until you show a cause, you do not have causality, but rather correlation. It's really that simple.
(and it's one of the most common errors made in medical research, too)
If a series of experiments with similar "warts" are conducted, this might be considered a replication of the original work. If a series of experiments using different protocols are used, and they find the same conclusions, in spite of the lack of overlap in their potential problems, as more data gets added to the total data set, it requires more and more of an extraordinary conspiracy of nature for them to all be wrong in their conclusions.
This is how the burden of proof for an hypothesis is usually viewed. It may not be how it is taught in school, but it is the reality. In a few cases, somebody comes along and does the "gold standard" experiment that all future experiments get measured against, where all of these warts have been excised. But in most cases, after enough repetition using different measures, the hypothesis gets accepted and becomes a cornerstone of future work, where it is implicitly accepted as true.
Unless the experiment is extremely solid, it is dangerous to accept the results of one or a few measurements as having established something as a fact....
In this case, we have approaching 100 published studies on physiological differences between homosexuals and normal populations. I believe that simple conclusion is pretty close to gold plated at this point. What that means in practice is an interpretive question, and therefore much more prone to error. Does it mean that the physiological differences are inheritable? Some studies say yes, a few others (one?) say no. Does it mean that the differences are present at birth? Limited data, but the suggestion is "yes". This could point to predisposition, to conditions in the womb, or both....
Personally, I think both are implicated, because that's what the preponderance of data suggest. Beyond that, I accept that environment plays a role, and believe (mostly on personal observation) that people can and do change their sexual orientation over time. This might explain, for example, how a hereditary component to homosexuality could have survived.
I have made no attempt here, of course, to represent all of the data on this subject. I"d recommend as usual the Wikipedia entry.
We're discussing a metric for measuring the physiological differences between genders. Proving causation is irrelevant in this case. Believe as you wish though, it's irrelevant to me.
And yes, whether it's correlation or causality is immaterial to you, as it is with too many people pretending to do science in the medical realm. Learn the difference and apply it.
Recessive genes don't obey this simple math. What happens in the case of a recessive maladaptive gene is that you end up with an upper limit on what percentage of the population will have the trait on average. But the t->infinity limit is still nonzero, since a single copy of the recessive gene is inheritable but not maladaptive. (This of course explains the existence of maladaptive traits that persist in the gene pool, such as the predisposition for alcoholism or bipolar disorder).
In any case, we are discussing a complex trait, that likely depends on inheritance (likely through a complex of genes), conditions prior to birth in the womb, and environment post birth. The old Mandelian viewpoint probably doesn't even apply, because likely we're dealing with switches that are getting thrown (the genetic toolbox perspective) rather than something as simple as a fixed trait such as whether or not you have blue eyes...
Regarding the causation versus correlation, I'm not sure it's worth the bother, but I'll try it again: If you can establish a relationship between gender and e.g. auditory periphery asymmetry, then it is not necessary to explain the causation of the relationship in order to exploit this relationship as a measure of gender-related physiological differences.
As an example, if we know that there is a correlation between blue eyes and a certain family history, it is certainly unnecessary to understand which gene(s) are responsible for the eye color, or to go into the physics of how Rayleigh scattering makes a blue-eyed person's eyes blue, in order to exploit that relationship.
In essence, the correlation is not causation canard simply doesn't apply here.
xtempore
[quote]Generally speaking children under 16 years of age are not emotionally mature enough to form a consenting sexual relationship.[/quote]Who doth gauge the 'emotional maturity' and thinketh it correlate to a certain age. On your criteria, some people could consent much younger than 16 and some never. Emotional maturity? Sounds like brainwash/commie-speak. What does it have to do with consent? It seems that an appreciation for cause and effect and the ability to under the connections between the future and present acts, in addition to the absence of coercion, would be primary for valid consent. 'Emotional maturity' sounds sketchy to me.
Submitting to a gross injustice is nothing to be proud of.
I really don't get you at all Sparkless.
"As Dr. Satinover emphasizes, correlation does not mean something is causative. Basketball players are tall, so height correlates with playing basketball, he notes. But there is no "basketball-playing gene." [u]Efforts to turn some interesting correlations into causal factors have not been successful and yet have been misused to advance a political agenda[/u]. Perhaps the best way to describe the situation is this, as paraphrased from Dr. Satinover: Some people may be predisposed because of genetic, prenatal hormonal influences or other physical or brain differences to have personalities that make them vulnerable to the environmental factors that can elicit homosexual desires. So is homosexuality biological? Not in the way that popular media and homosexual activists have presented it."
"Extremely shy and artistic young boys, for instance, who are not affirmed in their masculinity by a caring father, might be at risk for homosexuality. It's not because of a homosexual "gene," but because of an interrupted process of achieving secure gender identity. This can make some boys who crave male affirmation an easy mark for seduction into homosexuality. A similar pattern can be seen in girls who don't fit classic gender profiles, need feminine affirmation, and are targeted by lesbians who play upon the girls' emotional needs."
My only point is all of this is to say that this statement of yours is probably more correct than any other: [i]"In any case, we are discussing a complex trait, that likely depends on inheritance (likely through a complex of genes), conditions prior to birth in the womb, and environment post birth."[/i] Given the limits of that statement, I would say we are in general agreement; however, if there is any suggestion in your research, McFadden's or others that people are born gay, we would not be in much agreement at all.
Lastly to this point, I believe homosexual desires are within the control of the person, and like many other negative human traits they should be resisted, as that lifestyle is dangerous to the emotion, physical and spiritual health of the people involved and it creates many costs to society as whole.
Can't find a link to the second page. Using this to get there.
Should be fixed now.
What does it matter either way? If they're gay because they were born that way or because they just like it, they should be free to be gay.