Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 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)
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 306 (375752)
01-09-2007 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by New Cat's Eye
01-09-2007 5:20 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
That's what I disagree with. (heh, especially if his desire is to not be gay)
Don't see why. He doesn't want it now, but he can go ahead and choose to, apparently.
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.
You saw people choose homosexual arousal? Hot.
Regardless... I've repeated my response to this so many times, and it's clearly not being read. This time, I think I'll post a passage from a review of a Beck album, and see if you notice the difference.
Think back to your first memories of Beck. Remember what he was like back in 1994? A floppy haired bohemian playing a leaf blower on stage. Rapping on MTV about being a loser, minutes after getting your attention with a single called "MTV Makes Me Want to Smoke Crack". See Beck on MTV's 120 Minutes with guest host Thurston Moore, giving nonsensical answers to every question during the interview, and then jamming with Moore and Mike D., using a mini-tape player and making bizarre sounds. Hear Beck singing about Satan giving him a taco. Think of him doing an old-fashioned folk-blues song one minute, sloppily rhyming over fuzzy hip-hop beats the next. Remember him stumbling his way into stardom, seeming like his whole career consisted of stumbling from one whim to the next, rolling along like a free-wheeling prankster.
That Beck is no more.
I've already gone over homo-marriage in other threads.
Yeah. And you never gave any examples problems that didn't exist in heterosexual marriage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2007 5:20 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 137 of 306 (375760)
01-09-2007 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by crashfrog
01-07-2007 9:30 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
crashfrog, re:
No, you're just avoiding my question. It's a simple one, but apparently it was too subtle, so let me ask it explicitly - if we rejected "seperate but equal" accomodations for black people, why should we accept them for gay people?
Because, in my mind, gays and blacks are not equivalent entities for lawmaking purposes”not if gays CHOOSE to be gay, which seems to be the popular opinion. Blacks don't choose to be black; that's a biological fact. But if gays are gay by choice then I don't see the need for special laws for them.
You know, some people choose to get tattooed and have spiked hair. And, you know, some businesses don't like to hire tattoooed people with spiked hair”looks bad. Well, according to your reasoning tattoed people with spiked hair ought to have special laws that protect their rights. Even if they do CHOOSE to get tattooed and have their hair spiked, this should not mean they can be discrimitated against by employers or anyone else.
May I ask you this: Are gays gay by choice or by nature? Should it even make a difference? And one more really stupid question: Should a brother and his sister have the right to get married?
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 01-07-2007 9:30 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2007 8:07 PM Fosdick has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 138 of 306 (375763)
01-09-2007 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Fosdick
01-09-2007 7:44 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
Because, in my mind, gays and blacks are not equivalent entities for lawmaking purposes”not if gays CHOOSE to be gay, which seems to be the popular opinion.
That seems to be the exact opposite of the popular opinion, in fact. But let me ask you this - if gays choose to be gay, then by the same token, straights choose to be straight. So why should straight people be allowed to marry if being straight is a choice?
Clearly, choice has nothing to do with the legal issue in this regard. Regardless of gays choosing to be gay or not, not allowing them to marry is discriminatory.
Well, according to your reasoning tattoed people with spiked hair ought to have special laws that protect their rights.
I don't see that special laws are necessary. In fact, clearly it's your side that requires special laws to discriminate, as evidenced by the movement to amend the Constitution to "define marriage". So the question is really why you think straight people need special laws to privilege them above others?
Are gays gay by choice or by nature? Should it even make a difference?
I've just argued that it doesn't make any difference. If straight is just a choice, why should straights have special laws and a special kind of relationship just for them?
Should a brother and his sister have the right to get married?
Who says they don't? Sibling marriage has been common throughout history; it's only recently been made illegal out of eugenic concerns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Fosdick, posted 01-09-2007 7:44 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Fosdick, posted 01-09-2007 8:29 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 139 of 306 (375765)
01-09-2007 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Chiroptera
01-09-2007 3:27 PM


Re: Are humans natural?
Chiroptera wrote:
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.
I don't suppose I could get you to see that however large these cultural (environmental) components they ALL must manifest in the organism by way of its operative alleles. To me, the alleles serve as capacitors to modulate the signals from the environment. I don't see how an ebvironmental signal could reach the organism any other way.
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.
I don't think what you mean by "behaviors are determined directly by genetics" is exactly the same thing I mean about the role of genes, which operate specifically in allelic combinations. The roles of epigenes and other switches are important, too. You and I may differ on the same grounds that caused upheavals at Harvard and Michigan over E. O. Wilson's "sociobiology" and his proclaimed natural-ness of humans.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Chiroptera, posted 01-09-2007 3:27 PM Chiroptera has not replied

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


Message 140 of 306 (375766)
01-09-2007 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by crashfrog
01-09-2007 8:07 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
crashfrog wrote:
if gays choose to be gay, then by the same token, straights choose to be straight. So why should straight people be allowed to marry if being straight is a choice?
You can speak for yourself, crashfrog, but I never CHOSE to br straight”I am NATURALLY straight. (Maybe that's my problem.)
”Hoot Mon
Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2007 8:07 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2007 8:30 PM Fosdick has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 141 of 306 (375768)
01-09-2007 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Fosdick
01-09-2007 8:29 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
You can speak for yourself, crashfrog, but I never CHOOSE to br straight”I am NATURALLY straight. (Maybe that's my problem.)
If you didn't have any choice about it yourself, why should we believe that anybody else has a choice? Particularly when gay people themselves are so certain that their sexual orientation was not voluntarily established?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Fosdick, posted 01-09-2007 8:29 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Fosdick, posted 01-09-2007 8:46 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 146 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 11:45 AM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 142 of 306 (375771)
01-09-2007 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by crashfrog
01-09-2007 8:30 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
crashfrog writes:
If you didn't have any choice about it yourself, why should we believe that anybody else has a choice?
I don't. I'm a genetically predisposed kind of guy, and I expect the same is true for gays. That's why I support gay civil unions. Calling that "marriage," however, flies in the face of tradition. It is the gays and not the straights who are wrong-minded on this issue. If they had any grace at all they'd give it a break.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2007 8:30 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2007 9:03 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 144 by Taz, posted 01-09-2007 11:35 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 145 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-10-2007 10:07 AM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 230 by Jaderis, posted 01-11-2007 4:52 AM Fosdick has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 143 of 306 (375774)
01-09-2007 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Fosdick
01-09-2007 8:46 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
Calling that "marriage," however, flies in the face of tradition.
That's not true. Many African countries, for instance, have millenia-old traditions of marriage. Of course, you might just as well argue that things like
1) Monogamous marriage
2) Marriage for love
3) Marriage that is voluntary for women
4) Marriage between persons of differing race or religion
fly in the face of tradition - because that's exactly what they did. The truth of the matter is simple, but apparently you've missed it - the only tradition in marriage is change.
I take it you're not married?
If they had any grace at all they'd give it a break.
Why? They don't even have civil unions, yet. I don't think the oppressed are under an obligation to just shut up and take it simply because you find them audacious for asking for the same rights you have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Fosdick, posted 01-09-2007 8:46 PM Fosdick has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 144 of 306 (375789)
01-09-2007 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Fosdick
01-09-2007 8:46 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
Hoot Mon writes:
If they had any grace at all they'd give it a break.
This going to be the third time I ask this question. Why is it that you people always say you support civil union for gay people yet always seem to try to pass legislations that not only ban gay marriage but also ALL forms of unions for gay people? The 2 or so dozen states that have an amendment banning gay marriage also ban all forms of legal unions for gay people.
That's why I support gay civil unions. Calling that "marriage," however, flies in the face of tradition.
Interracial marriage, not too long ago, flew in the face of tradition. A judge in Virginia in 1958 even said:
quote:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
The couple on trial were sentenced to 1 year in prison for loving and marrying each other. Even though the sentence was later overturned and they were given a lighter sentence... banishment from Virginia, you can obviously see the hate that was involved in the matter.
Tradition? If you value the traditional sense of marriage that much, shouldn't you be out there picking on people like my cousin who married a Asian girl?
That's why I support gay civil unions.
But Hoot, every freakin state that has a gay marriage ban also has a ban on all forms of gay union that even remotely resemble marriage. Personally, I think you're just lying about supporting the civil union thing knowing it ain't gonna go anywhere anytime soon.

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.
George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Fosdick, posted 01-09-2007 8:46 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 12:20 PM Taz has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 306 (375841)
01-10-2007 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Fosdick
01-09-2007 8:46 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
Calling that "marriage," however, flies in the face of tradition.
Where did you purchase your thirteen year old child-bride? How much did you pay for her?
Has she squeezed out enough puppies to work the family farm yet? You should probably beat her a few times if she hasn't.
It is the gays and not the straights who are wrong-minded on this issue. If they had any grace at all they'd give it a break.
Oh, those uppity queers. What will they do next?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Fosdick, posted 01-09-2007 8:46 PM Fosdick has not replied

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


Message 146 of 306 (375857)
01-10-2007 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by crashfrog
01-09-2007 8:30 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
Hoot Mon wrote:
You can speak for yourself, crashfrog, but I never CHOSE to be straight”I am NATURALLY straight. (Maybe that's my problem.)
crashfrog replied:
If you didn't have any choice about it yourself, why should we believe that anybody else has a choice? Particularly when gay people themselves are so certain that their sexual orientation was not voluntarily established?
Actually, I do think the gay condition is genetically predisposed. And I think the same thing is true for the straight condition. So both straights and gays should get all the rights they deserve. My opinion is that gays DON'T deserve to be married, for tradtitional reasons, but they DO deserve to have civil unions. Where's the harm in that? Where's the cause for indignation? Come on, let's get real. The marriage institution was set up for heterosexual unions, was it not? And now we are suppose to change that because "gay pride" says we should? [Once upon a time we gave women their rights to vote and drive automobiles, and look at all the trouble that caused! (Heh, heh, heh, just kidding.]
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2007 8:30 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-10-2007 12:05 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 149 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2007 12:34 PM Fosdick has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 306 (375859)
01-10-2007 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Fosdick
01-10-2007 11:45 AM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
Where's the harm in that? Where's the cause for indignation?
Why do you keep re-asking questions that have already been answered? Is there some sort of traumatic memory loss involved?
You should see a doctor. You're in a dangerous age bracket; don't take risks with your health.
Once that's finished, you should try reading up on Brown v. Board of Education. You see, it's been almost 53 years since the US Government caught up to the idea that separate is inherently unequal.
One would think this would be enough time for everyone else to wrap their heads around it. But here we are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 11:45 AM Fosdick has not replied

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


Message 148 of 306 (375862)
01-10-2007 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Taz
01-09-2007 11:35 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
TD writes:
This going to be the third time I ask this question. Why is it that you people always say you support civil union for gay people yet always seem to try to pass legislations that not only ban gay marriage but also ALL forms of unions for gay people?
"You people?" You mean the ones with ordinary principles and biological predispositions? You know, when the lawmakers sit down to make laws in any state I would hope they have priority lists to work from. The item "gay marriage" is not nearly as urgent as things like public education, highway maintenance, gun control, corporate crime, environmental protection, port security, and a bazillion other matters. I look forward to the day when mittens for homeless children and birth control for feral cats reach the top of any state's priority list.
But Hoot, every freakin state that has a gay marriage ban also has a ban on all forms of gay union that even remotely resemble marriage. Personally, I think you're just lying about supporting the civil union thing knowing it ain't gonna go anywhere anytime soon.
I ain't lyin'. And I agree, that the civil-union thing for gays ain't goin' anywhere anytime soon. So what? When gay marriage is outlawed only gay outlaws will get married. Let's have an NRA equivalent for gays”say, an NQA”and make this issue really stand up like a girly-man's erection. Oops, that's not politically correct enough to say anywhere but in California.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Taz, posted 01-09-2007 11:35 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Taz, posted 01-10-2007 12:40 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 231 by Jaderis, posted 01-11-2007 5:25 AM Fosdick has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 149 of 306 (375866)
01-10-2007 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Fosdick
01-10-2007 11:45 AM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
The marriage institution was set up for heterosexual unions, was it not?
No, it was originally set up as a means of property exchange. Later it became a tool of statecraft. Still later it became a tool for preserving racial and religious boundaries.
You've never been married, have you? Because clearly you don't seem to know much about marriage.
And now we are suppose to change that because "gay pride" says we should?
No, actually, because our constitution says we should.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 11:45 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 12:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 150 of 306 (375868)
01-10-2007 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Fosdick
01-10-2007 12:20 PM


Re: Gay "marriage" & gay genes
You know that you have a gift for avoiding the point?

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.
George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 12:20 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Fosdick, posted 01-10-2007 1:03 PM Taz has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024