Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 5:51 PM
30 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, edge, GDR, JonF, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Tanypteryx (9 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,836 Year: 9,872/19,786 Month: 2,294/2,119 Week: 330/724 Day: 55/114 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
21Next
Author Topic:   Religion in Government
custard
Inactive Member


Message 181 of 303 (115666)
06-16-2004 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by riVeRraT
06-16-2004 8:21 AM


Re: I think you have hit on something here
riverrat writes:

Congradulations, I think you {Rrhain} have made yourself into your own god.

Not that this comes as any surprise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by riVeRraT, posted 06-16-2004 8:21 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 303 (115677)
06-16-2004 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by custard
06-16-2004 8:06 AM


You don't think plenty of heterosexual women haven't forced themselves to perform oral sex on a man when they would rather skipped it altogether?

You don't think they've stopped performing it altogether once it's no longer a requirement?

There are millions of gay people, and they practice homosexuality without coercion, because if they weren't, they'd stop doing it - much like porn actors who are "gay for pay" don't have gay sex in their free time.

There are lots of people who perform all sorts of sexual acts they would never have considered nor ever desired to perform until exposed to the influences I listed above.

But if that was the source of all homosexuality, there would be no persons who would have gay sex once those influences were removed. Since gay people continue to have gay sex without those influences, obviously they must not be the sole explanation of homosexual behavior.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by custard, posted 06-16-2004 8:06 AM custard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by custard, posted 06-16-2004 9:13 AM crashfrog has responded

custard
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 303 (115682)
06-16-2004 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by crashfrog
06-16-2004 8:53 AM


You don't think they've stopped performing it altogether once it's no longer a requirement?

God I hope not.

There are millions of gay people, and they practice homosexuality without coercion, because if they weren't, they'd stop doing it - much like porn actors who are "gay for pay" don't have gay sex in their free time.

Agreed.

crashfrog writes:

But if that was the source of all homosexuality, there would be no persons who would have gay sex once those influences were removed.

True, except you are assuming that gay sex is unlike other sexual activities, and it is something you cannot learn to like.

Physical stimulation is physical stimulation and if you've learned to get off with members of your same sex, it's entirely possible you can learn to like it.

What you are attracted to or enjoy is not simply genetic, but can be learned behavior. You can train yourself to overcome fear of heights to enjoy skydiving. You can train yourself to enjoy pain. You can certainly train yourself to enjoy homosexual sex. To what degree? I think that can depend on the level of exposure you receive before your likes are 'set.' But even then people can train themselves, or be trained, to enjoy things they never did before.

I think this is why so many homosexuality=immorality folks are worried about exposure of their children to homosexuality. Of course if people condone gay behavior young men are more likely to be exposed to and ultimately participate in it. The more who try it, the higher the percentage are likely to enjoy it.

Does that percentage peak? Will some people never be attracted to the same sex despite acceptance and exposure to same sex sexual interaction? Who knows? The data doesn't really exist. The best you can do is look at history to try to get an idea of how people behaved when homosexuality was not considered to be aberrant behavior.

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that individuals in the US will eventually experience more same sex sexual interaction than ever before and not just because 'genetic homosexuals' feel comfortable enough to come out.

Whoa, just realized how long this got. Sorry to get so far off topic, but the subject was drifting there.

This message has been edited by custard, 06-16-2004 08:14 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by crashfrog, posted 06-16-2004 8:53 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by crashfrog, posted 06-16-2004 9:24 AM custard has responded
 Message 226 by Rrhain, posted 06-18-2004 4:54 AM custard has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 303 (115685)
06-16-2004 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by custard
06-16-2004 9:13 AM


True, except you are assuming that gay sex is unlike other sexual activities, and it is something you cannot learn to like.

Well, it's not so much an assumption as a conclusion based on what I know of my own sexuality and what I've found out about others.

Heterosexual sex wasn't something I learned to like - I just liked it, right away. Why would gay sex be different?

When gay people talk about it, they rarely give a narrative of being coerced, pressured, or forced to perform gay acts that they didn't want to and then "learning to like it." Rather they often give a narrative of never liking or feeling entirely comfortable with straight sex, but immediately taking to gay sex, the first time. Presuming, of course, we're talking about people with well-adjusted sexuality and not victims of abuse.

So, I dunno. What you're talking about doesn't seem consistent with the personal testaments of gay people I've heard. Rather, the most consistent explanation is that genetic or early development factors are responsible, not post-puberty acclimation to homosexual acts.

Of course if people condone gay behavior young men are more likely to be exposed to and ultimately participate in it.

Out of curiosity, when did homsexual suddenly come to mean "male"? Try not to conflate the male homosexual experience with the experience of all homosexuals, or confuse male sexual identity with sexual identity in general. There's every possibility that female sexuality is considerably more fluid than male, for instance.

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-16-2004 08:24 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by custard, posted 06-16-2004 9:13 AM custard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by custard, posted 06-17-2004 8:34 PM crashfrog has responded

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4648 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 185 of 303 (115686)
06-16-2004 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by riVeRraT
06-16-2004 8:01 AM


Rrhain
quote:
It is the god the Christians worship. It is distinguished from the Jewish god, the Islamic god, the Hindu gods, and all the other gods that the other religions worship.

riVeRrat responds:

quote:
Last time I checked, they were all the same God.

You really think the Hindu gods are the same as the Christian god? Maybe you should check again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by riVeRraT, posted 06-16-2004 8:01 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by riVeRraT, posted 06-17-2004 6:58 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 303 (115689)
06-16-2004 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by riVeRraT
06-16-2004 8:01 AM


Last time I checked, they were all the same God.

You checked, huh? How many beards did God have when you met him? C'mon, you must have seen. Most of them are right there on his face, right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by riVeRraT, posted 06-16-2004 8:01 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by riVeRraT, posted 06-17-2004 6:58 AM crashfrog has responded

nator
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 187 of 303 (115725)
06-16-2004 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by custard
06-15-2004 2:04 PM


Re: The key point for me
So, perky young breasts ARE sexier?

No wonder so many women get fake tits.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by custard, posted 06-15-2004 2:04 PM custard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Dr Jack, posted 06-16-2004 11:37 AM nator has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 188 of 303 (115732)
06-16-2004 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by riVeRraT
06-16-2004 8:21 AM


Re: I think you have hit on something here
quote:
I've had 2 gay people try to molest me when I was younger, and one straight person. So far the gays are in the lead.

I've only ever had straight men try to molest me, so does my personal history trump yours?

Personal anecdote is useless here. You need statistics from larger groups to see what's going on in general.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by riVeRraT, posted 06-16-2004 8:21 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by riVeRraT, posted 06-17-2004 7:00 AM nator has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 278 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 189 of 303 (115733)
06-16-2004 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by nator
06-16-2004 11:18 AM


Re: The key point for me
So, perky young breasts ARE sexier?

perky, young women are sexier in general.

No wonder so many women get fake tits.

Fake tits are horrible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by nator, posted 06-16-2004 11:18 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by nator, posted 06-17-2004 9:46 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

bob_gray
Member (Idle past 3186 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 190 of 303 (115764)
06-16-2004 1:35 PM


Back to the original question:
In post #1 it was asked

'Should religion be allowed/tolerated in the Governmental and Political process?'

Although all of this discussion of homosexuality in general is interesting I just want to know if we have resolved anything.

This is my summary of 80+ posts on homosexuality. Having reviewed the thread the only "secular" reason for the government to get involved in homosexual marriage seems to be a monetary issue.

Claim: Homosexual marriage is counter to the interest of the state because it will cost more money. There will be more people getting married and hence more benefits being paid out.

Rebuttal: By this same reasoning the state should not be involved in marriage at all because _any_ marriage will cost the state more money.

This seems to end the discussion of “religion in government” as it relates to the monetary issue of homosexuality. If we wish to discuss the ramifications of state sponsored institutions which cost more to some groups (single people) than to others (married people) then that is a different topic.

I have not been able to find another compelling reason for the state to restrict the legal union of two people in this thread.

There has been some discussion of homosexuality being “sin” but it strikes me that this is a strictly religious convention.

There has been discussion of homosexuality being “icky”. Clearly this can’t be a basis for any legal decisions.

There has been some discussion about how homosexual marriage will cause my son to become a homosexual. I’m not sure that there is any evidence to support this claim.

Anyway, as best as I can tell the issue of homosexual marriage being kept illegal can only be argued from a religious stance. If that is the case then we are back to the original question. If you want to live in a Judeo/Christian theocracy then you believe that religion should be allowed in Government and hence same sex marriage could be made illegal, otherwise if you wish to be consistent and regardless of how much you dislike the idea you must admit that the government has no legal footing for restricting marriage to _any_ two people regardless of race/creed/sexual orientation/height/age etc.


  
Zachariah
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 303 (115939)
06-17-2004 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JCPalmer
05-28-2004 9:17 PM


In this country it should. (going back to the 1st entry) Our country was founded by Christians to get away from a State run church. The seperation of church and state was ment to keep that from happening here. Then came along libs......and here we are. All screwed up. If people want a new USA without God then they can go somewhere and start a new one. Say, when California breaks off into the ocean then it can become it's own little country and they can, well, basically do what they are doing now. That should be enough to satisfy all the atheists. Go for it. -Z
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JCPalmer, posted 05-28-2004 9:17 PM JCPalmer has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2004 1:40 AM Zachariah has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 303 (115948)
06-17-2004 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Zachariah
06-17-2004 12:57 AM


Our country was founded by Christians to get away from a State run church.

Well, starting up a church-run state doesn't seem to be a good way to honor that tradition.

Then came along libs......and here we are. All screwed up.

I presume you meant "liberal", and funny thing, most Americans are liberals.

Do you like getting paid a fair wage? Having government services like police and firemen? Public parks and holidays? Do you enjoy your weekend? Thank a liberal.

Yeah, here we are - a prosperous nation and the standardbearer of freedom for the nations of the world. People living longer, more productive lives than ever before. Conquering and eliminating disease and starvation. Yeah, we've got a ways to go. But "all screwed up"? Not from where I'm looking.

If people want a new USA without God then they can go somewhere and start a new one.

Why bother when that's the way this country was started? You're the one who wants to betray American traditions - why don't you move to Italy? Hell, if you want your government and your religion to be the same, move to the Vatican.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Zachariah, posted 06-17-2004 12:57 AM Zachariah has not yet responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 193 of 303 (115981)
06-17-2004 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Mammuthus
06-16-2004 9:26 AM


Prove that its not.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Mammuthus, posted 06-16-2004 9:26 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 194 of 303 (115982)
06-17-2004 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by crashfrog
06-16-2004 9:35 AM


Prove that he doesn't have many beards.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by crashfrog, posted 06-16-2004 9:35 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2004 7:39 AM riVeRraT has responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 195 of 303 (115984)
06-17-2004 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by nator
06-16-2004 11:36 AM


Re: I think you have hit on something here
Thats my point, that what was said about straights being more of a threat is an unknown, because statistics can lie.

Being straight or gay has nothing to do with being sick.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by nator, posted 06-16-2004 11:36 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by nator, posted 06-17-2004 10:01 AM riVeRraT has responded

RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019