Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 3:56 PM
37 online now:
dwise1, edge, Faith, JonF, PaulK, RAZD, Stile, Tangle, Theodoric (9 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,083 Year: 5,120/19,786 Month: 1,242/873 Week: 138/460 Day: 80/58 Hour: 7/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
7Next
Author Topic:   First Gay marriage, then Polygamy (its happening!)
Scaryfish
Junior Member (Idle past 4398 days)
Posts: 30
From: New Zealand
Joined: 12-06-2004


Message 76 of 94 (251506)
10-13-2005 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Silent H
10-13-2005 4:48 AM


Re: generally not born fixed
Just to let you know, your link to a study was empty

Thanks for that. That's weird, when I edit the post, the URL does show up correctly. Help, anyone? Here's the URL anyway: Shorthened a long sucker link. Use peek to learn how.

First, even for heterosexual or homosexual individuals their level of arousal was greater for images of the non-arousing sex than for the arousing sex. However, their arousal in response to the arousing sex was significantly greater.

This appears to be contradictory. A mistatement?

Whoops, yeah, that's a misstatement. It should have been "their level of arousal was greater for images of the non-arousing sex than for neutral images." So a heterosexual male is aroused more by images of other males than images of, say, kittens. Not really surprising.

I worry that there is still an artificiality about this, which can disguise what is happening. How do you differentiate orientation from identity in a self-report? Even measurements of physical arousal may be hampered by inhibitions, and desires not to be found outside one's cultural norms.

That is of course true. However I would argue that self-reported orientation is going to be much more fluid and influenced by cultural norms than physical arousal. I mean, many homosexual individuals initially identified as heterosexual - but that doesn't mean that they were actually aroused by the opposite sex more than the same sex. Similarly, I bet you'd have a hard time finding anyone willing to refer to themselves as homosexual in countries where that carries the death penalty, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

My main point here was that sexual behaviour and sexual attraction are two different things, and that I believe sexual behaviour would be far more susceptible to cultural influence than attraction is. If you are going to define sexual orientation as who a person has sex with, then yes it is very dependent on culture and other factors.

there appear to be people in society who do have disordered arousal patterns who, to the best of my knowledge, have never sexually offended."

Exactly. Physical arousal is separate from actual sexual behaviour. If you are going to limit the term "sexual orientation" to sexual behaviour, then strictly speaking people would be born asexual. They would become hetero- homo- or bisexual when they become sexually active. However, I don't think this is really a very useful definition.

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 10-20-2005 03:29 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Silent H, posted 10-13-2005 4:48 AM Silent H has not yet responded

    
Epiphany7
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 94 (253470)
10-20-2005 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
10-02-2005 8:38 AM


It is funny how the folks who are most concerned about gay marriage leading to polygamy are the same folks that promote this supposed word of God that condones polygamy.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 10-02-2005 8:38 AM Silent H has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Lammy, posted 10-20-2005 5:53 PM Epiphany7 has responded
 Message 81 by HaggisnNeeps, posted 10-21-2005 12:19 AM Epiphany7 has responded

  
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3607
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 78 of 94 (253488)
10-20-2005 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Epiphany7
10-20-2005 4:23 PM


You kidding?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Epiphany7, posted 10-20-2005 4:23 PM Epiphany7 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Silent H, posted 10-20-2005 6:48 PM Lammy has not yet responded
 Message 85 by Epiphany7, posted 10-21-2005 8:13 AM Lammy has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 79 of 94 (253497)
10-20-2005 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Lammy
10-20-2005 5:53 PM


You kidding?

Not sure whether epiphany was kidding, but the poster was right. The literal wording in the Bible is polygamous positive. Only some limited and specific statements (iirc restricted to the New Testament) can be read to prefer monogamy, but never in a way that wholly denies polygamy.

Of course religion is what you make of it. Fundie Xians are generally antipolygamy due to the history of their changing interpretations. Its just sort of ironic that they claim to demand absolute literalism, and yet ignore that rather obvious literal position.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Lammy, posted 10-20-2005 5:53 PM Lammy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Chiroptera, posted 10-20-2005 6:57 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 80 of 94 (253500)
10-20-2005 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Silent H
10-20-2005 6:48 PM


quote:
Only some limited and specific statements (iirc restricted to the New Testament) can be read to prefer monogamy....

And some of Paul's writings can be interpreted to prefer strict virginity for both sexes (a interpretation taken serious by some sects) over even monogamy.

But polygamy doesn't make the cut, nor does strict chastity, among the modern hip Christian.


"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Silent H, posted 10-20-2005 6:48 PM Silent H has not yet responded

  
HaggisnNeeps
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 94 (253579)
10-21-2005 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Epiphany7
10-20-2005 4:23 PM


I've never really got my head round the objections
I have never really gotten my head around the Christian objections to homosexuality/gay marriage. I wish someone sensible (rather than the rabid homophobes that normally present their ideas in the media) could explain.

I can follow the first step very easily - the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong. Ok, fine. If that's true then Christians who believe that shouldn't be gay or get married to someone of the same sex.

How does that then lead to trying to dictate what is legal/illegal for non-Christians? This is the part that I don't get at all. Is it a simple defence mechanism because they feel that millions of Christians would suddenly turn gay and get married if it was legal?

Or do they really feel that by denying someone marriage they can turn them straight?

Or is it simply that they feel anything non-Christian should be illegal?

I wish someone could explain what exactly people hope to achieve?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Epiphany7, posted 10-20-2005 4:23 PM Epiphany7 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by nwr, posted 10-21-2005 12:43 AM HaggisnNeeps has not yet responded
 Message 83 by cavediver, posted 10-21-2005 4:50 AM HaggisnNeeps has not yet responded
 Message 84 by Silent H, posted 10-21-2005 6:51 AM HaggisnNeeps has not yet responded
 Message 86 by Epiphany7, posted 10-21-2005 8:20 AM HaggisnNeeps has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 82 of 94 (253581)
10-21-2005 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by HaggisnNeeps
10-21-2005 12:19 AM


Re: I've never really got my head round the objections
I have never really gotten my head around the Christian objections to homosexuality/gay marriage.

They probably think that they will turn into pillars of salt.

I can follow the first step very easily - the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong. Ok, fine. If that's true then Christians who believe that shouldn't be gay or get married to someone of the same sex.

Quite right.

How does that then lead to trying to dictate what is legal/illegal for non-Christians?

They apparently believe that marriage is a religious matter, not a state matter. Therefore the state should pass laws and constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and making marriage a state affair, so that marriage can remain a religious affair and not a state affair.

If that does not seem logical, please don't blame me.

Or is it simply that they feel anything non-Christian should be illegal?

These people are control freaks, provided that it is them controlling us and not us controlling them.

I wish someone could explain what exactly people hope to achieve?

A thousand years ago, or so, King Canute is said to have attempted to hold back the tide. He failed.

As far as I can tell, these people want to repeat the experiment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by HaggisnNeeps, posted 10-21-2005 12:19 AM HaggisnNeeps has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1751 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 83 of 94 (253607)
10-21-2005 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by HaggisnNeeps
10-21-2005 12:19 AM


Re: I've never really got my head round the objections
How does that then lead to trying to dictate what is legal/illegal for non-Christians?

I wish I knew. As a Christian, this is the bit that frustrates the hell out of me. To be fair, it's seem to be largely a problem with right-wing Christianity in your country (assuming you are a US citizen). Over here in the UK, there are a couple of small vocal Christian groups that make some noise about these issues, and get laughed at in the press. The main issue reported over here concerns homosexual priests practising in the Church of England.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by HaggisnNeeps, posted 10-21-2005 12:19 AM HaggisnNeeps has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 84 of 94 (253613)
10-21-2005 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by HaggisnNeeps
10-21-2005 12:19 AM


Re: I've never really got my head round the objections
In short, they believe that secular gov't should reflect cultural values which to their mind is fundie Xian in the US. Of course they miss the point that a secular gov't, even if allowing for cultural values, should not support purely religious values. And further they miss that secular gov't shouldn't really even be handling cultural values.

They like to bypass the fact that we have a Bill of Rights to concentrate on a few laws which sound similar to a few items in the 10 commandments in order to support their argument.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by HaggisnNeeps, posted 10-21-2005 12:19 AM HaggisnNeeps has not yet responded

    
Epiphany7
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 94 (253623)
10-21-2005 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Lammy
10-20-2005 5:53 PM


Nope, I'm serious.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Lammy, posted 10-20-2005 5:53 PM Lammy has not yet responded

  
Epiphany7
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 94 (253624)
10-21-2005 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by HaggisnNeeps
10-21-2005 12:19 AM


Re: I've never really got my head round the objections
You answered your own question, and this is it:

"Or is it simply that they feel anything non-Christian should be illegal?"

Fundy Christians believe that anyone who doesn't believe as they do are going to Hell. Even they cannot explain why other "sins," such as fornication are more acceptable to them though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by HaggisnNeeps, posted 10-21-2005 12:19 AM HaggisnNeeps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Silent H, posted 10-21-2005 3:10 PM Epiphany7 has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 87 of 94 (253721)
10-21-2005 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Epiphany7
10-21-2005 8:20 AM


Re: I've never really got my head round the objections
Even they cannot explain why other "sins," such as fornication are more acceptable to them though.

To be fair many believe it is also unacceptable and are fighting it tooth an nail. They simply find homosexuality to be one of the signs of extreme loss of morality... it's a place to start.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Epiphany7, posted 10-21-2005 8:20 AM Epiphany7 has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5381
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 88 of 94 (254545)
10-24-2005 7:32 PM


This just in.......
All marraige will be illegal here in Texas come November, when Proposition 2 passes overwhelmingly. See if you can find where they should have inserted the word "other" in the following ballot language:
"The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

:D

Friggin' dolts that get elected around here.......


Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 10-24-2005 7:40 PM Coragyps has not yet responded
 Message 90 by roxrkool, posted 10-25-2005 11:36 AM Coragyps has not yet responded
 Message 91 by Silent H, posted 10-25-2005 12:35 PM Coragyps has responded
 Message 93 by Lammy, posted 10-26-2005 1:31 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 89 of 94 (254549)
10-24-2005 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Coragyps
10-24-2005 7:32 PM


Re: This just in.......
There's hope for us yet!!!!!! ;)


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Coragyps, posted 10-24-2005 7:32 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1005 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 90 of 94 (254693)
10-25-2005 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Coragyps
10-24-2005 7:32 PM


Re: This just in.......
Lord I hope that passes!!! lol
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Coragyps, posted 10-24-2005 7:32 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Prev12345
6
7Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019