Religion in Government

Ascribing your conclusion based on a tiny, biased sample set (your own sexual development and acquaintences) to an entire population is an assumption. What does it mean 'you liked it right away?' Does that mean you liked it the first time you tried it? So what. If you had been raised in an environment that was welcoming and, in fact, promoted homosexual encounters how do you know you wouldn't have liked being with a boy just as much? (And I am assuming that you were not raised in such an environment based on your previous statements about being a fundie.)But even if you didn't like it, there is no way to know what percentage of the male population wouldn't have liked it and to what degree they liked it. The data just isn't there. Gets back to our sample set problem. For example, in my experience has been such that I have observed that more gay men (and lets stick with men for the sake of simplicity) I know were either abused by another male or had their first sexual encounter with another male more than hetero men. So either case is an invalid sample set.But I have also observed that in this country homosexuality has only recently been considered acceptable behavior. Even now, people have ingrained biases depending on their upbringing.You state you knew right away that you knew you liked heterosexual sex. You ask 'Why would gay sex be any different?' How do you know you wouldn't like homosexual sex? If you were blindfolded and someone gave you oral sex would you still enjoy it? If you later discovered you had received it from a man would that disgust you? Why? Why would it matter? (Perhaps you have tried it and you do know; I'm not asking you to bare your chest here and tell us if you don't want to - this is primarily rhetorical).It's been demonstrated, though I have no evidence on hand, that the concept of what is beautiful or erotic has strong roots in one's cultural upbringing. So you can say you know you aren't gay because you get aroused by thinking of/looking at women and not men, but that doesn't demonstrate your concepts weren't completely dependent on your upbringing.If an individual was raised in an environment where sex and physical love between members of the same gender was considered natural and 'cute,' do you really believe more people wouldn't try it? And having tried it, do you really believe more people wouldn't continue to participate in it, at some level, than they do now?Additionally, I submit you, I, and most heterosexuals have been too indoctrinated at an early age to be able to objectively claim that we are heteros merely because that's the way we were born, and not because of the way they were raised.I think more men would have sexual encounters of varying degrees with other man much more frequently than they do now if we were raised in such a manner that this activity was acceptable or encouraged. That doesn't mean heteros just 'go away,' it just means that men would have more sexual encounters with men. Some men would prefer only to have sex with men, some wouldn't have a preference, and some would prefer women. But I think the incidence of gay sex would definitely increase; and that is exactly what I think frightens many people who find this activity immoral or distasteful. I dissected the genetic question in another thread, and I was unable to find any compelling evidence in the studies published thus far to show that sexual attraction is genetic. So far, everything still seems to point to development factors such as environment, culture, experience.And you should notice I am not talking about pos-puberty acclimation. It's speculated, that your preferences (not just sexual), in fact a great deal of your personality, is formed before you are ten years old. No, I am not conflating anything. I am restricting my point to gay men because it is too confusing to continue to include both men and women in the same argument. {*BLINK*)Excuse me? Seriously, what possible evidence do you have to back up that statement? What makes you think women would be more 'fluid,' whatever that means, than men? If anything, as the gender most driven by sex, I would expect men to be more open to homosexual sex than women; and when you look at the statistics(http://EvC Forum: Is homosexuality a natural response to large populations?), there actually is a higher percentage of men who have had sex with other men (gay and bi) than women (gay and bi).This message has been edited by custard, 06-17-2004 07:42 PM

What you say is possible, I guess, but again, if it's true, then all the gay people I know are unique, apparently.I dunno. Like I said, your position is radically different from my experience with gay people, and like you say, the data isn't there. But, what you say could be true. It's a prediction from natural selection: as long as men are larger, stronger, and more violent than women, the woman's individual sexual preference is fairly irrelevant to impregnating her under certain circumstances.On the other hand, if a man isn't aroused by a woman's body, wouldn't it be rather hard to impregnate the woman? Ergo I would predict that there would be a selection pressure against gay men, but not so much a pressure against gay women. That to me would lead to more fluid sexual preferences in women, as born out by studies such as this one:

quote:

---

Gendered (s)explorations among same-sex attracted young people in Australia.

​

Dempsey D, Hillier L, Harrison L.

​

Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. d.dempsey@latrobe.edu.au

​

This paper seeks to import a more complex understanding of gendered subjectivity into discussions of young people and homosexuality, and is based on an Australian national survey (n=749) of same-sex attracted youth (SSAY) aged between 14 and 21. Results revealed significant gender differences with regard to patterns of sexual attraction, behaviour and identity labels among participants. For the young men in the study, there was more congruence between feelings of gender a-typicality, same-sex attractions and same-sex behaviours. Overall, young women displayed more fluidity with regard to their sexual feelings, behaviours and identities. Young women were more likely to be engaged in private explorations of lesbianism, concurrent with participation in heterosexual sex and relationships. Young women were also grappling with more limited and emotionally risky opportunities for sex with other girls who were already known to them as friends. The invisibility of lesbianism as an identity or practice led to confusion about what feelings meant for the future in the arena of lived experience. The paper concludes that more research is needed into the impact of gender on the development of young people's experiences of homosexuality, particularly the manner in which invisibility and lack of social acceptance of a full spectrum of sexual diversity may disadvantage young women's emotional health and well-being. Copyright 2001 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents.

---

or this one:

quote:

---

Sex in Australia: sexual identity, sexual attraction and sexual experience among a representative sample of adults.

​

Smith AM, Rissel CE, Richters J, Grulich AE, de Visser RO.

​

Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria. anthony.smith@latrobe.edu.au

​

OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence of same-sex and opposite-sex attraction and experience in Australia and the prevalence of different sexual identities. METHOD: Computer-assisted telephone interviews were completed by a representative sample of 10,173 men and 9,134 women aged 16-59 years from all States and Territories of Australia. The overall response rate was 73.1% (men, 69.4%; women, 77.6%). Men and women were asked about their experience of same-sex and opposite-sex attraction and experience along with their sexual identity. The agreement and disagreement between sexual attraction and sexual experience were explored. RESULTS: Among men, 97.4% identified as heterosexual, 1.6% as gay or homosexual and 0.9% as bisexual. Among women, 97.7% identified as heterosexual, 0.8% as lesbian or homosexual and 1.4% as bisexual. Among men, 91.4% reported only opposite-sex attraction and experience, as did 84.9% of women. Thus, some same-sex attraction or experience was reported by 8.60% of men and 15.1% of women. Of men, 4.2% reported sexual attraction and sexual experience that was inconsistent, as did 8.2% of women. Factors associated with this agreement or disagreement included age group, non-English-speaking background, education and socio-economic status. CONCLUSION: Relatively few Australians reported a sexual identity other than heterosexual. However, both same-sex attraction and homosexual experience are more common than homosexual or bisexual identity would suggest. Reporting same-sex attraction or experience was associated with poorer mental health and is likely to reflect responses to homophobia in Australian society.

---

In other words, one would expect a higher incidence of homosexual experience among women who identified as heterosexual, and that's apparently what we find. That's what I meant by "fluid"; that women are more likely than men to view their sexuality in such a way as to experiment with the opposite orientation as the one they self-identify as.

Mr Jack responds to me:

quote:

---

The man/woman pairs cost extra because of the right to inherit the pension income - as compared to the man/man, woman/woman and singles.

---

But nobody seems to be claiming that if the gay people turned straight and got married, there'd be any extra cost.In other words, if we have 16 mixed-sex couples, a male-male couple, and a female-female couple, nobody seems to ever complain should the male-male and female-female couple split up and form two male-female couples. Despite the fact that they are now part of the married group, nobody considers this to be an additional expense.And thus, that is the lie to the claim that allowing same-sex marriage ends up "costing more." If they wouldn't call it "costing more" to have these exact same people forming mixed-sex relationships, then it cannot "cost more" for them to form same-sex relationships.You are harping on the literal and missing the bigger picture.Obviously, having to pay for the benefits of two couples will cost more than having to pay for the benefits of one couple. But people don't seem to consider it "paying more" when those couples are mixed-sex instead of same-sex.Thus, my conclusion: If riVeRraT is truly concerned about having to pay more taxes in order to support same-sex couples, he should be fighting to abolish marriage altogether, not simply keeping it away from heterosexuals. At the very least, he should be fighting to reverse the scenario: With fewer gay people than straight people, there would be fewer same-sex couples than mixed-sex couples and thus, you'd reduce the tax burden from supporting married couples.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Ahhh... this is extremely interesting. I wonder if there are any studies comparing the attitudes or reactions of men towards other men who engage in homosexual sex vs. women towards women who have engaged in homosexual sex.To put it simply, I wonder if there is more peer pressure among men to be straight than among women. I only postulate this since homosexuality has so often been linked to effiminacy (e.g. the thought if you are gay you are a wimp and vice versa), and effiminacy among men is the ultimate taboo.So again, I wonder how much if this is ultimately due to social/cultural upbringing and experience. Extremely interesting stuff. Yeah you definitely have a point here. I guess what I would say is that perhaps sexually attractive features are not limited to women (full lips, smooth skin, youthful features, eyes, body symmetry, etc)
so that humans might be predisposed arousal by these features regardless of whether they appear on men or women.This might explain why we see so much literature that refers to 'beautiful,' almost feminine boys when describing homosexual relationships among older cultures where bi-sexuality was not uncommon (Romans, Greeks, Persians, etc).I'm not sure how this argument, 'people are so horny they'll sleep with both men and women,' is a genetic advantage yet I wonder if there really needs to be one. Perhaps humans are willing to pursue sexual pleasure, in its various forms, merely as a by product of our tremendous sex drives.Think about it, why do people masturbate? Obvious answer: because it feels good. But do people just look at their hand one day and say 'wow, that turns me on,' or do they teach themselves that this action provides pleasure?Why dont people masturbate? One answer: because they are told it is wrong and have so much guilt involved with it that it is no longer pleasurable.Certainly there is no genetic advantage for a species to masturbate, is there? If not, why does there need to be a genetic advantage to engage in any sexual activity that does not lead to reproduction? Maybe we just do it because it feels good.And maybe we don't engage in certain types of sex because we don't feel comfortable enough to do so. For example, getting oral sex from another man might physically feel great, but our psychological stress might be such for some of us that it makes the experience less pleasurable and we prefer not to engage in that activity.This message has been edited by custard, 06-18-2004 01:29 AM

Yeah. If you wanted to, you could go to pubmed.org and search around. I found those abstracts that way, and I think I saw a few headers describing what you were talking about. Oh, I'm sure that's the case. Moreover, humans pursue sexual pleasure because the existence of sexual pleasure is an evolutionary adaptation. Arguably that's true of pleasure in general; pleasure is just the body's way of influencing behavior. Well, I certainly agree with you, largely, though I wonder if you're not making too big a deal about the difference between sexual function of the genitals and the sexual motivations of the mind. We don't really understand how sexual response works in the body, and we don't really understand how to tell the difference between a person's sexual motivations and the sexual response of their genitals, if there even is a difference.Are people gay or straight because they're programmed to not want sex with certain individuals, even though that sex could be pleasurable? Or do people only consider sex pleasurable when it's with certain individuals? I don't think we know enough about sex and the brain to be sure.AbE: Christ, how confusing. No wonder Kinsey put human sexuality on a scale.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-18-2004 01:35 AM

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Indulge me:

​

If there were a law presented to you right now seeking to deny equal access to the legal contract of marriage to same-sex couples, would you vote for it or against it, knowing that the Constitution expressly forbids denying equal access?

​

Are you going to vote for the Constitution or for the popular opinion?

---

​

I answered this already

---

By contradicting yourself.Therefore, you didn't answer it.Let's try again, shall we? Indulge me:If there were a law presented to you right now seeking to deny equal access to the legal contract of marriage to same-sex couples, would you vote for it or against it, knowing that the Constitution expressly forbids denying equal access?Are you going to vote for the Constitution or for the popular opinion?

quote:

---

I never said, ever, that majority rules over constitution.

---

I never said that you did.Instead, I said that you directly stated that you would vote for a law prohibiting equal access to the legal contract of marriage despite the fact that the Constitution expressly requires equal access.So the question to you is: If you were president, sworn to uphold the Constitution, would you push for denying equal access to the legal contract of marriage or would you vote for what you think your god tells you and what seems to be the popular opinion that would seek to deny equal access?The majority wants to violate the Constitution. Do you support them or do you support the Constitution? Say it explicitly. Say something like, "I support the right of all citizens to have equal access to the legal contract of marriage as required by the Constitution and would fight any attempt to deny that right."It doesn't matter how many times you belatedly say, "Constitution first, majority second." The fact remains that such a statement blatantly and directly contradicts your earlier statement that you would fight any action that would try to provide equal access to the legal contract of marriage. The only way anybody could take your later claims seriously is for you to directly and explicitly retract your earlier claim.Say it. Say, "I would fight to ensure that all citizens have equal access to the legal contract of marriage and I retract any claims I may have made previously that indicated that I would actually seek to deny such access."Why is that so difficult?

quote:

---

There are thing that majority wants, that do not interfer with constitution.

---

But denial of equal access to the legal contract of marriage isn't one of them. The majority of people want to violate the Constitution.Are you one of them? Would you fight against them? Would you tell them that you are not in favor of same-sex marriage but rather are in favor of equal treatment under the law? That just because people have the right to do something you disapprove of doesn't mean you actually approve of it? That your life is yours to control and you will show your disapproval of same-sex marriage by refusing to participate in any such marriage?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Your whine about taxes is specious. You don't pay taxes for same-sex marriage. You pay taxes for marriage

---

​

It really comes down to what I think marriage really is.

---

What does that have to do with taxes?If marriage means a certain type of legal contract between two people without regard for the sex of the people involved, how does that result in more taxes being paid?Why would you have to pay more taxes if you had a boy/boy, girl/girl pair of marriages rather than a boy/girl, boy/girl pair?You're the one that brought up taxes. You said that if we allowed same-sex marriage, you'd have to pay more taxes. But you didn't really mean that. If those same-sex couples had paired off as mixed-sex couples, you wouldn't have complained about supporting their marriages with your tax dollars. You wouldn't have complained about having to pay more money for the mixed-sex marriages. So for you to make a fuss about having to pay more to support same-sex marriages is the epitome of whining.If you really cared about having to pay to support married couples, you'd fight to abolish marriage altogether.

quote:

---

You mentioned animal kingdom before, are there any "gay" animals that mate for life?

---

Yes. The same ones where the straight ones mate for life.

quote:

---

Not that it would make a difference.

---

Then why did you ask?Oh, it couldn't possibly be because you weren't being completely honest and truthful in your claim that it wouldn't make a difference? You were trying to get me to say that gay animals don't remain mates for life so you could then claim that their sexual proclivities are simply transitory and driven by lustful urges...that they're really straight and are simply making do in a world where there isn't an opposite-sex partner for them.If it truly didn't matter, why did you ask? What would you have said if I answered no, there are no species where same-sex couples remain that way for life?Be specific.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

...if a man isn't aroused by a woman's body, wouldn't it be rather hard to impregnate the woman?

---

Actually it's not so hard. I did it myself as a teenager (had sex with girls, that is, I didn't actually get anyone pregnant so far as I know) in order to throw off any suspicions about my sexuality. It requires intense concentration, but it can be done.In fact, it happens all the time. Homosexuality is so very taboo in fundamentalist circles that, here in the South, many gay men get married to women and have kids for the sole purpose of hiding their true sexuality. It's a sick situation, and I put the blame almost entirely on the fundamentalist Christian community.

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

My entire point was that religion is a choice.

---

​

How could religion be a choice according to your way of thinking.

---

Because nobody becomes a Christian, Jew, Buddhist, etc. without being expressly taught how to be one.Because we actually have documented cases of people changing their religion and remaining in the new one for the long term.Compare this to sexuality where people turn out to be gay despite nobody showing them how and, in fact, being expressly taught constantly that they are supposed to be straight.How despite numerous attempts to change gay people into straight people, there has never been a successful conversion in any long-term sense. The sexual desire for those of the same sex always remains.

quote:

---

quote:

---

God has no hand in our freedoms.

---

​

He most certainly does, whether you belive that by faith or not.

---

When was the last time a legal case got appealed to god? Have you ever found someone saying that they were going to appeal a SCOTUS decision to god? And have anybody within any body of legislature actually take them seriously?Our freedoms are determined by the government. The government derives its powers from the people.God simply doesn't enter into it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you have the honesty and integrity to treat me as a person and not a stereotype?

---

​

Yes, and you have stated that you are an athiest. I guess you forgot.

---

Where?Where have I ever said I'm an atheist?I want a direct quotation. You show me the precise post and the exact words where I ever hinted that I was an atheist.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You didn't choose to like chocolate, did you?

---

​

Sometimes if you try something enough, you get used to it, then could start to like it.

---

Like kissing somebody you viscerally despise?How many men did you kiss before you decided that you were getting to like it too much?

quote:

---

Tell me how many of us liked broccoli when we were young.

---

I loved it. Still do. Good plate of steamed broccoli with butter and garlic, maybe some Parmesan and Romano cheese? Mmmmmm.Perhaps you just had a bad cook.And perhaps you just need a good gay lover.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why would anybody choose to engage in sexual activity they find disgusting? Come on, riVeRraT: Would you engage in sex with me? Could you ever consider a scenario in which you would find yourself willingly, actively, and enthusiastically performing fellatio upon my person and later wishing you could do it again?

---

​

this is what I am talking about, That statement is sexual harrassment.

---

Oh, please! You're the one saying that it's a choice. That a person could willingly, actively, and enthusiastically engage in sexual activity they find repulsive and despite this bodily reaction, they would eagerly attempt to do it again and again and again. So the obvious response is to test that claim on the person making the claim.If you don't have the guts to put your money where your mouth is, don't blame me.Have you ever considered the possibility that the problem is not with me but rather with you? That if you find the logical conclusion of your statements to be harrassment when applied to you, it just might be harrassment when applied to others?You're the one saying that gay people are really horrendously deluded straight people who have fallen into a trap where they repeatedly engage in sex that they find repulsive. So if you find it harrassment to have that attitude applied to you, what makes you think it isn't harrassment when you apply it to others?

quote:

---

quote:

---

If it is that repugnant to you, what on earth could make you change your mind? Why on earth would millions of people engage in sexual activity they don't like over and over and over again? Especially when it comes with such social ostracism and political disenfranchisement?

---

​

If you don't know the answer to that one, then you are the one with an un-education opinion.

---

So enlighten me.Just how many times would you have to fellate me before the both of us would begin to like it?

quote:

---

You know what, how could you even fight for gay people(not gay people, the act of being gay), when you yourself are not gay, and have no idea what it is to be gay.

---

Because I, as an adult who has mastered post-operative logic, am capable of understanding that I wouldn't want such discrimination to happen to me, therefore I should ensure that it doesn't happen to others.I don't have to be gay to combat homophobia. I don't have to be a woman to combat sexism. I don't have to be something other than white to combat racism. I don't have to be an atheist to combat religious discrimination.I simply have to realize that unequal treatment before the law is reprehensible and needs to be fought whereever it is found. To do anything less opens up the possibility that someday I will be the one who is considered a stranger to the law.After all, isn't that one of the directives mentioned in your holy book? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'm sure your dog loves you. Entering into a legal contract, however, requires the ability to give consent. Your dog cannot consent.

---

​

Licking my face is not consent

---

No, it is not. It's a sign of submission.

quote:

---

quote:

---

We don't currently do so but by your logic, he should be denied marriage because he is incapable of having children

---

​

I never said that gay people should be denied the right to marry because they could possibly be incapable of not having children.

---

Yes, you did. You said that same-sex couples are inherently different from mixed-sex couples because gay couples can't produce offspring.Well, neither can sterile mixed-sex couples. And yet, you don't consider their marriages to be anything other than legitimate.So if a sterile mixed-sex couple can have a legitimate marriage despite their being inherently incapable of producing offspring, why can't same-sex couples have a legitimate marriage despite their being inherently incapable of producing offspring?

quote:

---

No matter what gay people cannot produce a baby on their own, thats the difference.

---

Neither can sterile mixed-sex couples.So what's the difference? If a sterile mixed-sex couple can have a legitimate marriage, why can't a same-sex couple?It can't be because of the impossibility of having children. A man who's had an orchiectomy cannot produce sperm as he doesn't have the organs that produce them. A woman who has had a hysterectomy cannot bear children as she doesn't have the organ to allow passage of sperm to the eggs. There are plenty of people who, by their natural physical makeup, are sterile.If all of these people who are inherently incapable of having children can enter into a legitimate marriage, what's the difference in a same-sex couple?It obviously has nothing to do with the ability to reproduce, so what's the real reason? That you think god doesn't like it is perfectly fine, but the question is why the government shouldn't allow equal access to the legal contract of marriage, especially when the Constitution expressly requires it.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Wow. You know, I didn't have sex until I was 22, and it took quite a bit of searching to find a willing woman - at college, no less. I'm not an unattractive man, but honestly, it chaps my ass that guys like you - who didn't even really want it in the first place - were able to score years before I could. Women!No offense, of course. And you raise a good point; thanks for weighing in.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-18-2004 02:26 AM

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Therefore how can you claim any harm?

---

​

I am registered with the forum using my real name and e-mail.

---

The only ones who can see it are the high-level administrators of the list. I don't know what your name or address is and cannot find out. The only way I can find out information about you is to peruse your profile and there is no information in there about you. Profile for riVeRraTNow you tell me: Where do I find any personal information about you that would allow me to determine who you are and where you live? You haven't even filled out a physical location!

quote:

---

quote:

---

And since this forum is a private enterprise, the rules for what is and is not allowable are defined by the owner of the forum, not the government.

---

​

So its ok to allow sexual harrassment in a work office?

---

A work office is not a private enterprise. It is a public contract between the employee and employer.But see below, too.

quote:

---

A public park?

---

You can show actual harm from such actions because you are dealing with direct interaction.Where is the harm from a completely anonymous forum where nobody knows who you are and you are free to disengage at any time?Harrassment necessarily requires unwanted intrusion into your personal space. This is not your personal space. You are here of your own free will and the moment you decide that you do not want to be here, it is impossible for someone to continue to engage in behaviour toward you that you find unpleasant.So where is the harm?By your logic, if we attend a potluck and I have brought a bowl of peanuts that are clearly marked as such, you would have a claim against me should you decide to consume the peanuts to which you are deathly allergic. Despite the fact that you knew that you were walking into a scenario that was problematic for you (food prepared by other people who might not have your particular issue with peanuts in mind), despite the fact that nobody forced you to come or eat the food, despite the fact that you could have refused at every step along the way, you have a cause of action because you ate something you knew would cause you harm.You don't have to be here. Nobody knows who you are. How can there be any harrassment?

quote:

---

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.

---

​

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

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Vishnu is Allah? Amaterasu is Jehovah? Zeus is Coyote?Strange how the people who actually follow those religions don't seem to share your view. Since they are the final arbiters of who their gods are, I think we would have to defer to them when they claim that they do not worship the same god you do.

quote:

---

I never tried to tell you want God wants you to do.

---

Incorrect.You said, and I quote (from Message 142): How is this not telling me what god wants me to do? Surely god is the one who decides who gets into heaven, yes?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

custard responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why would anybody choose to engage in sexual activity they find disgusting?

---

​

Easy. For the same reasons people choose to do all sorts of things they don't really like to do: money, peer pressure, and a desire to please.

---

The first would explain sex workers ("gay for pay"). The question, of course, then becomes what they do when they aren't getting paid. And obviously, they don't find it that disgusting or they wouldn't do it unless they were so desperate they have no other alternative.I fail to see how there could ever be a case of "peer pressure to be gay" without it being a completely artificial environment. Our entire society is dramatically pointed toward being straight. Where are these high schools where everybody's gay and they don't allow straight couples to go to the prom? When was the last time you heard someone complain, "My mother keeps asking me when I'm going to find a good woman and settle down. I have to keep telling her, 'Mom! I'm straight! I'm never going to be a lesbian!'"The last one would be a sign of abuse.So now that we have removed business, desperation, fantasy, and neurosis, let's look at the healthy, well-adjusted human being.What would cause a healthy, well-adjusted human being to engage in sexual activity he found revolting?Or are you intimating that gay people are either doing it for money, out of desperation, or are psychologically disturbed?

quote:

---

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?

---

They're still having sex with a man, however. If they truly found it that bad, then no, they wouldn't do it. I think it's safe to say that if a man found out his female partner continually retched when trying to fellate him, he'd take the hint. Of course, that assumes we're talking about healthy, well-adjusted people. We are talking about healthy, well-adjusted people and not those who take pleasure in forcing people to do something they vehemently despise, aren't we?I don't think you understand just how gay some people are. This isn't a question of "I'm starving and if I don't eat something, I'll die. The only thing in front of me is liver which I have a hard time keeping down without retching. But if I don't try, I'll die."This is a question of, "I have a full buffet in front of me and can have my pick of what I want to eat. Do I take the liver which I will vomit over or the chicken?"

quote:

---

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.

---

In other words, they're either businessmen, desperate, non-existent, or neurotic.Do you seriously think that applies in the context of my question? Do we seriously expect to find a significant number of gay people who fall into any of the above?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

My point is that women may find the idea of oral sex repulsive at first, but after performing it, or participating in it, they may grow to actually enjoy it. Why? Because they never tried it so they didn't know that turns them on, or because they derive pleasure from giving pleasure to their partners: a desire to please.Not sure why you linked desire to please strictly to abuse, but lots of lovers will try new things merely because they think their partners might enjoy it. Read Penthouse Letters sometime. Yes, but you are assuming that most people only want chicken or liver whereas I am arguing that there might be more people trying and enjoying both, or all of the items offered by the buffet but they don't because they are raised to believe everything but the liver is bad for them.I don't see any evidence that sexual proclivity or orientation is genetic any more than most of the other aspects of an individual's personality are genetic. I certainly think that experience and environment have a great deal of impact on an individual's personality, and that includes his/her sexual desires. Sure, your words perhaps; but I would never characterize gay people in that way.This message has been edited by custard, 06-18-2004 03:25 AM

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

How does somebody else being gay affect your children? They're not going to choose to be gay. Sexual orientation isn't a choice. Gay people aren't sexual predators. In fact, straight people are much more likely to molest your children than gay people are. Even more pointedly, you are much more of a threat to your children than any stranger.

---

​

How does a drug dealer on the corner affect my children then?

---

By causing them harm.A gay person causes no harm. You can't get hooked on being gay. Being gay does not affect your lifespan, cause you to become incapable of functioning in the world, or lead to traffic accidents.Are you seriously saying that gay people are equivalent to drug dealers?

quote:

---

Being gay is a choice.

---

Then why is it we cannot find a single person who chose his sexual orientation? Why is it that despite numerous attempts to convert gay people to straight, initiated by highly motivated subjects who truly want to become straight, there haven't been any successes?If it were a choice, why is it nobody manages to make the switch?

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.

---

Strange...I've had no fewer than five straight people try to molest me. Not a single gay person has ever bothered.Question: How did you know they were gay? Just because a person is the same sex as you does not mean he is gay. Pedophilia is about attraction to the child. The reason why male pedophiles go after little boys (aside from easier access...we think nothing of letting our boys go off alone with adult males but would never dream of letting our girls go off alone with adult males) is precisely because little boys are androgynous and don't look that much like males. They have no body hair. Their voices haven't cracked. Their sexual organs are not developed. They do not register as "male."

quote:

---

quote:

---

But Jesus tells you directly to stop that. How can you possibly remove the mote in your neighbor's eye when you have that great plank in your own? Stop worrying about what other people are doing. Concentrate on yourself. Render unto Caesar that which is due Caesar, but render unto god what is due god.

---

​

Yes yes, I completely agree with that. But if what they are doing affect me or my children, then I can legally get involved.

---

But since gay people do not affect you or your children, why are you so obsessed?Surely you aren't comparing gay people to drug dealers and child molesters, are you?

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, it doesn't. Jesus directly tells you that it doesn't. Your neighbor's sin is not your concern. The only admonishment to you regarding your neighbors is that you be an example. You do not tell them that they have to do what you do. You do not chastise them. You do not berate them. You do absolutely nothing against them.

---

​

Now your starting to get it.
But do I help them sin?

---

How are you helping them to sin? Are you procuring for them? Are you performing the marriage?No?Then acknowledging that the government requires equal access to the legal contract of marriage is not helping anybody to sin. The fact that a same-sex couple can get married does not mean they will.A knife can be used to kill somebody. Does that mean we shouldn't allow any knives lest somebody use one in a bad way?

quote:

---

quote:

---

You are calling gay people sinners and then saying they will not go to heaven.

---

​

Please Johnny, tell me when I said they won't go to heaven?

---

So unrepentant gay people, sinners in your mind, all go to heaven? Being gay and engaging in sex enthusiastically and repeatedly is no impediment to getting to heaven? There are no divine consequences for engaging in same-sex sex to the exclusion of all other sexual activity?Are you really saying that?

quote:

---

quote:

---

You are in no position to say who is a sinner and who is no

---

​

Yes I am, so are you.

​

Matthew 7:2
For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?You do realize that that passage means the exact opposite of what you are claiming, yes? The point behind Matthew 7:2 is that you are NOT supposed to judge people for whatever judgement you mete out, you will receive. No, it isn't that you will be tested and if you are found acceptable, you won't receive the punishment. You will receive the punishment despite the fact that you are innocent.If you're heterosexual, never even once fantasizing about let alone engaging in sex with someone of the same sex, judging a gay person will result in you suffering the exact same punishment you would have done to the gay person you judged.You are not the one to decide who is and who is not a sinner. That is left to the sole discretion of god. God does not need nor care about your opinion of the actions of others.

quote:

---

Eating liver is not a sin.

---

But eating pork is.Should we legislate against the eating of pork? How do the Jews manage to do it? Despite living in a society that is constantly offering pork products, they manage to keep kosher.If Jews can live in a pork-eating world without problems, why are you having such a problem living in a world with such a small number of gay people having the same rights as you?

quote:

---

If I steal something, then I am a thief.

​

Calling people gay, who claim themselves as gay, and saying it is a sin, is not judging.

---

Yes, it is.Being a theif does not mean you have decided how to punish said thief. After all, Jesus directly tells you that you are to turn the other cheek. If a man asks you for your shirt, give him your coat as well. You are to pray to god to forgive your debts as you forgive your debtors.To call it sin is to claim that god will punish. But you are not in any position to say what god will or will not do.

quote:

---

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

---

Prove that I'm not.

quote:

---

quote:

---

shows your children that you understand the difference between yourself and others. It shows them that just because you support the right to choose does not mean you support all choices.

---

​

Oops !! (puts hand over mouth) You didn't just say choose did you?

---

Yes, I did.You do understand rhetoric, don't you? You had asked what you would tell your children if they saw you supporting equal treatment under the law with respect to sexual orientation.My response wouldn't be much good if I didn't take into consideration your position that sexual orientation is a choice, and a bad one at that, would it? If I were to assume that you had changed your mind and that being gay was perfectly square with god, that would be inappropriate, wouldn't it?I was trying to point out that even though you think that being gay is a sin, you are still compelled to provide equal treatment under the law with regard to sexual orientation because the concept of equal treatment is so vitally important to a free society that allows you to feel that being gay is a sin.Get it? In this particular area, I am not trying to change your assumptions (though in the overal sense, I am since your assumptions are incorrect). I am starting with your (erroneous) assumptions and finding that I still reach the same conclusion: The only morally and ethically acceptable response is to fight for equal treatment under the law.Especially for things you don't particularly like. As someone once said, I may not like what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Render unto Caesar that which is due Caesar.
How much clearer does it need to be?

---

​

Caeser was gay?

---

"Husband to every woman and wife to every man," as they say. King Bithynia left his kingdom to the Romans because of his love affair with Julius Caesar.But of course, we're not talking about him. If Jesus were speaking literally, he would have been referring to Tiberius. But by then, following the death of Augustus, the term "Caesar" became the term known for the Roman emperor, all the way through to Constantine and beyond.

quote:

---

Christ was talking about money there.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Does the concept of metaphor mean nothing to you? Yes, the literal context of the tale is that Jesus is looking at a coin. But the question put to him is about the tribute. You do understand the bigger picture, yes? The Pharisees are making the same argument that you are: By paying the tribute to Caesar, doesn't that mean they are saying they approve of Caesar?Of course not. It's only money. If Caesar is due money, then let him have his money. That doesn't mean you are agreeing with anything that he says or does. Caesar may have claim over your money, but god has claim over your soul. So if Caesar wants you to give him your money, let him have it. He will never get your soul for that belongs to god.Do you seriously not see the bigger picture? The material things of this world are not important. Even if you are stripped of everything, you are still richer than the wealthiest man because you have the blessings of god upon you.

quote:

---

Go back in the bible and tell me what he told sexual immoral people.

---

Jesus never said a single word about homosexuality. Surely if he were that upset about it he would have given it a mention. He seemed to have a thing about corruption. Why didn't he manage to even hint at a displeasure regarding not being straight?

quote:

---

Go back in the bible and tell what happened to nations that made their own gods

---

Gay people are not idolators.

quote:

---

Don't use the bible, unless you are going to use the whole thing.

---

Nice try. That's my argument to you.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

How? How does it cost more money?

---

​

Anytime soneone else gets married it costs us more money.
This doesn't bother me. I only stated that because someone asked.

---

No, you were asked why you were bothered by GAY PEOPLE getting married and you said that it would cost you more.How is it that gay people getting married costs you more than straight people getting married?If your argument is, indeed, that married people causes you to pay more to supply their social support, what on earth does the sex of the participants have to do with anything? It's the fact that they are married that is causing you to pay out more, not that they are same-sex or mixed-sex.If you have two men and two women, how do you pay more if the couples are boy/boy, girl/girl rather than boy/girl, boy/girl?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!