Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common)
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 306 (375679)
01-09-2007 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Dan Carroll
01-09-2007 1:05 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
However, your point assumes that rape is fun.
No, it doesn't. Even if the sexual preference was painfully forced, it would still be mutable.
No... I am claiming that there are people who are unable to choose their sexuality. And that if this is the case, then trying to say that homosexuality is a choice is stupid.
Well, you've backed up from your original position now so I'll rest my case.
I do agree that a blanket statement like "Homosexuality is a choice." is stupid and I don't believe that it is, however I do think that it is capable of being a choice (which you seemed to desagree with).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-09-2007 1:05 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-09-2007 1:56 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 306 (375683)
01-09-2007 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Taz
01-09-2007 1:09 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
For some of us, IT IS as immutable as he seemed to have suggested.
Oh, I agree. I think my sexuality is immutable but I have known some people that made me think that their sexuality was mutable. But, as has been pointed out, we can't really tell if it was actually their sexuality or if they were faking it or were tricked into it.
For those of us that are completely secured with our sexuality, we are not as caught up with the whole sanctity of marriage thing.
My issue with gay marriage doesn't really have much to do with sexuality per se, the issue is that sexuality, which is something we can't know of a person, is going to be used in a basis for legal agreements.
In sorta the same way, if they said that gay people couldn't be in the army and then had a draft, I could just say that I was gay to avoid the draft. Since nobody can really know my sexuality, I think that makes it a bad basis for determining who can be drafted or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Taz, posted 01-09-2007 1:09 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-09-2007 1:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 306 (375684)
01-09-2007 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by New Cat's Eye
01-09-2007 1:45 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
However, your point assumes that rape is fun.
No, it doesn't.
"I think you might be able to be forced into it. Or at least forced into it not being so bad, and then gradually learn to like it..."
Little known fact... rape victims are constantly saying, "gee, it was bad at first, but after a while it was great!"
Well, you've backed up from your original position now so I'll rest my case.
If you say so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2007 1:45 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 306 (375686)
01-09-2007 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by New Cat's Eye
01-09-2007 1:52 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
My issue with gay marriage doesn't really have much to do with sexuality per se, the issue is that sexuality, which is something we can't know of a person, is going to be used in a basis for legal agreements.
We also can't say whether or not someone's really straight. But you have no problem with heterosexual marriage... just the gays.
And, of course, your arguments are not based on bigotry, blah blah blah, same old shit, different month.
Edited by Dan Carroll, : grammar costs nothing
Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2007 1:52 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2007 3:10 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 125 of 306 (375690)
01-09-2007 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Jaderis
01-08-2007 11:52 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
Jaderis, re:
As for the whole marriage deal, I have said this before here, but I will say it again. I do not particularly care if my relationship with the woman I love is called "marriage" or not as long as I get the same rights entitled to me as heterosexual couples do. However, I know that many people do care and I will fight for their right to use that word. It is just a word, after all.
I agree with your first sentence, but your second sentence makes me want to ask why the word "marriage" should make any difference...as long as you get the same rights entitled to heterosexual couples. The word makes a great deal of difference to many of those who are married in the traditional way; after all, they came first. Wouldn't the gays be more graceful and garner more acceptance if they respected that tradition? What do they want to accomplish? Protecting their rights or exercising their pride?
Personally, I don't believe it is homophobic (as others do) to make my claim, because I support civil-union rights for gays. I don't think we need to pass special or affirmitive-action-type laws for them, nor do I think we should pass such laws for sailors, nuns or football players. The elephant here in the room is that annoying, out-of-the-closet "gay pride." I'm not even in favor of "human pride"!
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Jaderis, posted 01-08-2007 11:52 PM Jaderis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-09-2007 2:41 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 126 of 306 (375696)
01-09-2007 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Chiroptera
01-09-2007 9:23 AM


Re: Are humans natural?
Chiroptera, re:
If sexual orientation were genetically determined, I would expect that near 100% of identical twins would either be both gay or both not gay.
Well, first off, I'd have to say that the Y chromosome seems to have a lot to do with determining the sex of an individual. Given that, sex seems genetically predetermined to me. Second, I'd say that environmental stimuli can affect the expressions of genes. Have you taken this into account? I don't think any organism can do anything or behave in any way that is not somehow coordinated with or otherwise allowed for by gene expression.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Chiroptera, posted 01-09-2007 9:23 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Chiroptera, posted 01-09-2007 3:27 PM Fosdick has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 306 (375698)
01-09-2007 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Fosdick
01-09-2007 2:08 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
Personally, I don't believe it is homophobic (as others do) to make my claim, because I support civil-union rights for gays.
Oh come on, now. You didn't even wait a full day before repeating this one.
If you're gonna be all disingenuous, at least do it with a little style.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Fosdick, posted 01-09-2007 2:08 PM Fosdick has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 306 (375708)
01-09-2007 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Dan Carroll
01-09-2007 1:59 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
"I think you might be able to be forced into it. Or at least forced into it not being so bad, and then gradually learn to like it..."
Little known fact... rape victims are constantly saying, "gee, it was bad at first, but after a while it was great!"
I wish you put as much effort into actually understanding what I’m saying as you do into just trying to be a smartass.
"gee, it was bad at first, but after a while it was great!"
That sounds like something that someone might say after being in an arranged marriage, in which the sex could be described as rape if we were so inclined.
So change your ”are constantly saying’ to ”have said’ and you have a point that I could agree with. But it would still be far from the point that I originally was making: that sexuality is not immutable.
We also can't say whether or not someone's really straight. But you have no problem with heterosexual marriage... just the gays.
Heterosexual marriage used to be redundant. Marriage, and the laws around it, ”grew-up’ being heterosexual. To simply insert homosexual marriage in there too is throwing a curveball that the laws are not prepared for. But, it is wrong to deny them rights, so we have to do something. I certainly don’t care who’s fucking who.
And, of course, your arguments are not based on bigotry, blah blah blah, same old shit, different month.
Typical liberal response: if you don’t agree with the way that I think then you are [insert derogatory term]. Same old shit for real.
Bigot: (noun) A person who has defeated a liberal in an argument

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-09-2007 1:59 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-09-2007 3:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 306 (375712)
01-09-2007 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by New Cat's Eye
01-09-2007 3:10 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
I wish you put as much effort into actually understanding what I’m saying as you do into just trying to be a smartass.
Don't worry, I've got time to do both.
That sounds like something that someone might say after being in an arranged marriage, in which the sex could be described as rape if we were so inclined.
I'm sure the arranged marriages of the world are full of lesbian women who became straight after their husband forcibly dicked them enough times.
All they really needed was a good hard fuckin' anyway, when you get down it. Am I right, boys? WOO!
So change your ”are constantly saying’ to ”have said’ and you have a point that I could agree with. But it would still be far from the point that I originally was making: that sexuality is not immutable.
Oh, that's right. My original argument, apparently, was that human sexuality is completely immutable 100% of the time.
I forgot about that. But in my defense, I never said it. So you can see how it might slip my mind.
Heterosexual marriage used to be redundant. Marriage, and the laws around it, ”grew-up’ being heterosexual. To simply insert homosexual marriage in there too is throwing a curveball that the laws are not prepared for.
Hey, you two guys? You can get married.
Wow, that was hard.
Typical liberal response: if you don’t agree with the way that I think then you are [insert derogatory term]. Same old shit for real.
You said that you want to prevent gay marriage, because we can't confirm the sexuality of those involved. The exact same thing is true of heterosexual marriage, but that... well, you don't have a problem with that.
The only difference? Gays.
Little hint... supporting an essentially bigoted idea, then getting called on it, doesn't mean you scored some message board point. But if it'll really make you happy, I can whip you up a photoshop image of a scoreboard with a "1" under your name.
Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2007 3:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2007 4:17 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 306 (375713)
01-09-2007 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Fosdick
01-09-2007 2:28 PM


Re: Are humans natural?
quote:
Well, first off, I'd have to say that the Y chromosome seems to have a lot to do with determining the sex of an individual. Given that, sex seems genetically predetermined to me.
Well, yes, I would agree that sex, as in biological male versus biological female, is determined, almost exclusively by genetics. But sex, as in the behavior in which the individual actually acts in his or her life, has a very large cultural component.
-
quote:
Second, I'd say that environmental stimuli can affect the expressions of genes. Have you taken this into account?
I would say that this is exactly what I have been saying. Trying to determine which behaviors have a biological component and to what degree the behaviors are determined directly by genetics is extremely difficult because the facts demonstrate that even if any behaviors do have a genetic component, the actual behaviors exhibited by individuals are clearly influenced to a very high degree by factors other than genetics.
--
quote:
I don't think any organism can do anything or behave in any way that is not somehow coordinated with or otherwise allowed for by gene expression.
Well, this is self-evident.

I have always preferred, as guides to human action, messy hypothetical imperatives like the Golden Rule, based on negotiation, compromise and general respect, to the Kantian categorical imperatives of absolute righteousness, in whose name we so often murder and maim until we decide that we had followed the wrong instantiation of the right generality. -- Stephen Jay Gould

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Fosdick, posted 01-09-2007 2:28 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Fosdick, posted 01-09-2007 8:22 PM Chiroptera has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 306 (375725)
01-09-2007 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Dan Carroll
01-09-2007 3:27 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
I'm sure the arranged marriages of the world are full of lesbian women who became straight after their husband forcibly dicked them enough times.
All they really needed was a good hard fuckin' anyway, when you get down it. Am I right, boys? WOO!
While incredibly hilarious, that doesn't even come close to a response to what I was saying. Oh well.
Oh, that's right. My original argument, apparently, was that human sexuality is completely immutable 100% of the time.
In not so many words that IS what your post said. What else did you mean by this line in Message 75:
quote:
If one can choose to be gay, you'll love it, no matter what your feelings on the subject are right now.
I looks like you are saying that if he is doesn't like the gay sex then one can NOT choose to be gay. If you say:
quote:
One cannot choose to be gay
How is that different than no one can choose to be gay?
I realise that is different than saying: that human sexuality is completely immutable 100% of the time. But if you say that no one can choose to be gay and then argue against sexuality being mutable, whether you are or not, it looks like you are saying: that human sexuality is completely immutable 100% of the time. Sorry I misunderstood you but your posts are littered with sarcasm, so it ain't hard to.
Heterosexual marriage used to be redundant. Marriage, and the laws around it, ”grew-up’ being heterosexual. To simply insert homosexual marriage in there too is throwing a curveball that the laws are not prepared for.
Hey, you two guys? You can get married.
Wow, that was hard.
Oh, I'm not saying it would be hard to insert homosexual into marriage, thats the easy part. I was talking about the ramifications, which it seems like you think there are no negetive ones.
You said that you want to prevent gay marriage, because we can't confirm the sexuality of those involved. The exact same thing is true of heterosexual marriage, but that... well, you don't have a problem with that.
The only difference? Gays.
Wrong, thats not the only difference. Also, not being able to confirm their sexuality is just a minor point, not really my reasoning for prefering a different name for the agreement. But then. you haven't really been addressing anything I actually been saying, its all a big joke to you. But you are really funny.
You're really good at spinning what people say to make it easier to mock them. Have you found a way to use those skills for your own, perhaps monetary, benefit in real life? You could be a writer or something.
Little hint... supporting an essentially bigoted idea, then getting called on it, doesn't mean you scored some message board point.
Calling an idea bigoted because you don't agree with it doesn't mean that it is.
But if it'll really make you happy, I can whip you up a photoshop image of a scoreboard with a "1" under your name.
Let's have it... I could prolly use it for other stuff too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-09-2007 3:27 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-09-2007 4:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 132 of 306 (375734)
01-09-2007 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Fosdick
01-09-2007 1:37 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
I certainly did get that impression from reading Sonny Barger's "Hell's Angel."
You got the impression, or there's actually a passage to the book dedicated to advocacy for the right to fight in parking lots?
My favorite Beastie Boys song, after "Root Down", is "Fight for Your Right"; but that song shouldn't be taken as evidence that the Beastie Boys are the leaders of a serious movement to enact a Constitutional amendment enshrining the right "to paaaarrrr-tee!"
In other words, there are people that are talking about "rights" in an ironic, sardonic, or otherwise non-serious sense; then there are people who are actually talking about real rights, like people pushing for government recognition of gay marriage. On the other hand, you bringing up the Hells Angels is indicative of the fact that, like many of gay marriage's opponents, you don't really take this issue very seriously, despite the fact that people's families are on the line here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Fosdick, posted 01-09-2007 1:37 PM Fosdick has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 133 of 306 (375737)
01-09-2007 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Fosdick
01-09-2007 12:33 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
I think it is germane to mention here that I am in love with my sailboat Pearl.
See what I mean? You're not the least interested in taking this seriously.
But real people's families are on the line, here. I simply can't understand how jokers like you think that's funny. Is it funny, to you, when two women can build a family together, raise children, have joint ownership of property - do everything married people do, literally - but when one of them comes down with an illness, her partner can't see her in the hospital?
That's funny to you? That's just like your enthusiasm for your sailboat? It's a big fucking joke, I guess.
Christ, I hate the fact that people like you even have a say in any of this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Fosdick, posted 01-09-2007 12:33 PM Fosdick has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 306 (375740)
01-09-2007 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by New Cat's Eye
01-09-2007 4:17 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
In not so many words that IS what your post said. What else did you mean by this line in Message 75:
That if homosexuality is a choice, he'll have no trouble choosing it. His existing desires will be no obstacle.
I looks like you are saying that if he is doesn't like the gay sex then one can NOT choose to be gay.
Yeah, you already said it looked like that waaaay back in post 81. And I clarified waaaay back in post 85, just on the off chance it was too confusing.
Why you're still on about it all this time later, I got no idea.
If you say...
It is easier to say I said something when you posit the existence of a parallel universe in which I may or may not have said it. It does mean not talking about the things I said in this reality, though.
Oh, I'm not saying it would be hard to insert homosexual into marriage, thats the easy part. I was talking about the ramifications, which it seems like you think there are no negetive ones.
The only ones to which you've ever pointed are ones that already exist for heterosexual marriage.
Again... only difference? Gays.
Wrong, thats not the only difference.
Cool. Feel free to share the rest anytime.
Also, not being able to confirm their sexuality is just a minor point, not really my reasoning for prefering a different name for the agreement.
*shrug*
It's the one to which I was responding when this line of argument started.
You're really good at spinning what people say to make it easier to mock them. Have you found a way to use those skills for your own, perhaps monetary, benefit in real life? You could be a writer or something.
I earn a small amount of money from my webcomic, but nothing to write home about. It spins the writing of a man much smarter than all of us put together... but doesn't change his ideas or words. Just shows them from another angle.
*raises eyebrow*
Calling an idea bigoted because you don't agree with it doesn't mean that it is.
I'm not calling it bigoted because I don't agree with it. I'm calling it bigoted because it singles out a minority subset of the population for discrimination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2007 4:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2007 5:20 PM Dan Carroll has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 306 (375750)
01-09-2007 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Dan Carroll
01-09-2007 4:43 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
That if homosexuality is a choice, he'll have no trouble choosing it. His existing desires will be no obstacle.
That's what I disagree with. (heh, especially if his desire is to not be gay)
My, or his, trouble choosing to be homosexual doesn't mean that other poeple will also have a problem making the choice, especially when I've seen people do it, althoug that in itself is debatable.
Why you're still on about it all this time later, I got no idea.
Because you continued to support the position that sexuality is immutable.
I've already gone over homo-marriage in other threads.
I earn a small amount of money from my webcomic, but nothing to write home about. It spins the writing of a man much smarter than all of us put together... but doesn't change his ideas or words. Just shows them from another angle.
*raises eyebrow*
At a quick glance it interested me enough that I will read it when I have time. Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-09-2007 4:43 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-09-2007 5:31 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024