Gay DNA found

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem

Originally posted by: aidanjm
"good gays" and "bad gays"?

Yes. Good gays. And bad gays. It's a simplistic way to put it, I know, and only an opinion.
I don't like hedonistic, promiscuous homosexuals. It's a dangerous way to live, in my opinion.

No more dangerous than engaging in activities like rock climbing, sky diving, playing football, etc.

I try not to villify people because of their non-mainstream lifestyle.

True. But in rock climbing, football and sky diving you should always have your safety gear, and in sky diving don't you usually sign a waiver? But alot of guys don't use safety gear when having sex. And there is certainly no waiver.
In my opinion, it's a bad way to live. You risk getting infected, and infecting others with STDs. And I am not at all saying promiscuous homosexuals are the only people who contract and spread STDs.
And plus I just don't like that lifestyle. I think it's risky and pointless. If you are a man, and want to be with another man, go for it. But why be with 100 different men? Or even more in some cases? It makes no sense to me.

It's one thing to say that kind of lifestyle is risky and dangerous and that you don't like it, but it's another thing to say people living that lifestyle are bad people.

I didn't say bad people. I said bad gays. Referring to their homosexual lifestyle only. Calling someone gay refers to their homosexuality, but does not encompass their entire personality.
But that is just my opinion.

So the "bad gays" are the gays who engage in sexual and other behaviors that you, personally, do not approve of, whereas the "good gays" are gays who lead a lifestyle that you DO approve of? That seems like a very arbitrary classification scheme. How is that any different to the religious right classifying all gay people as bad because of the sexual behaviors they imagine we all engage in (sexual behaviors they disaprove of)?

I wonder if you resent these "bad gays" because you think their behavior somehow reflects poorly on the "good gays" such as yourself?

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
I have a friend, who has settled down since, but used to be pretty promiscuous. He would meet guys online and then meet them in parking lots. He would get in their car, and well, you know what would happen then. It scared me that he was doing this. I was dating a guy at the time, and we broke up, and within a few days my friend had had sex with my ex. That truely scared me. I consider what he was doing wrong and bad. I feared for him, and the people he was with. He was still my friend, and is a good person.
I guess he was just going through a phase.

The fact he slept with your partner indicates a lack of loyalty to you as a friend, I would have thought.

May'be, in an odd way, I cater to a society I care nothing for by choosing one partner and sticking to him.
I'm not sure why I feel monogamy is a better way. I really don't know. How do you feel about the matter?
But don't get me wrong...lol. This is just my opinion. A conclusion I have come to through my lifetime of experiences. Nothing more. I am not saying I am right. I prefer everyone to live their life as they choose, whether or not I agree with it. I'm just telling you how I feel about the subject. I will not attempt to impose this way of living on anyone else.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: aidanjm
And yet you lack basic critical thinking skills. That is inexcusable.

According to you.

"I can tell you what is or is not ethical and you can do with that information whatever you like... sexuality has two purposes: creating unity in a relationship and procreation. If a sex act violates either of these, then it's unethical."
-- PsychoWizard.

These are not the words of a critical thinker.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
But, then, you're just an ignorant, arrogant, blowhard as you so eloquently put it.

You have made the claim that sex which is non-procreative, or that does not create unity in a relationship, is "unethical". No attempt to provide support for such a claim. That you would make such a claim -- not even deigning to provide supporting arguments -- and arrogantly insist that you are right and that everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant, makes you an ignorant, arrogant blowhard, in my opinion:

"sexuality has two purposes: creating unity in a relationship and procreation. If a sex act violates either of these, then it's unethical. You can try to dismiss this as bigotry if you want, but your qualification to do so would be based on your own ignorance.
-- PsychoWizard.

A translation of your last sentence, above, might be: "anyone who disagrees with me does so out of ignorance." Lol at your critical thinking skills, fvckwit.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'll take the judgment of a roomful of PhD's over some internet jackass. Sorry to say, they tend to disagree with you mightily. Go read a book.

"I can tell you what is or is not ethical and you can do with that information whatever you like... sexuality has two purposes: creating unity in a relationship and procreation. If a sex act violates either of these, then it's unethical."
-- PsychoWizard.


The fact that you display such underdeveloped thinking skills, and yet have managed to pick up an undergraduate degree, does lead me to wonder at the academic standards of US universities.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Oh, and glad to see you laugh in the face of reason yet again just because you'd rather live in direct opposition to it.

You are no doubt over-estimating the risks associated with a so-called promiscuous lifestyle, and under-estimating the risks associated with common recreational activites.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
May'be, in an odd way, I cater to a society I care nothing for by choosing one partner and sticking to him.
I'm not sure why I feel monogamy is a better way. I really don't know. How do you feel about the matter?
But don't get me wrong...lol. This is just my opinion. A conclusion I have come to through my lifetime of experiences. Nothing more. I am not saying I am right. I prefer everyone to live their life as they choose, whether or not I agree with it. I'm just telling you how I feel about the subject. I will not attempt to impose this way of living on anyone else.

I think long term, monogamous relationships probably contribute to health and happiness. Not everyone seems to be suited to that kind of relationship, tho. I think many people who are very promiscuous probably do have unresolved emotional issues they need to be dealing with (as opposed to screwing around constantly). I don't think it helps the situation to be labelling these people as bad, tho.

If what you have with your partner is bringing you some contentment and happiness, then I'd say nurture it and protect it!!

 

[Infohawk]

*shakes his head at zealotry*

Well I suspected this evidence of biological gayness was coming, but I was pretty sure the zealots wouldn't listen. Heck, they don't understand science (see evolution threads) to begin with. Can't really expect them to understand.

Only a small fraction of people like alchemize (who others have labelled pseudo-libertarian creeps) are going to be able to remotely change their mind about gay rights because of this. Most people already understand gayness isn't a choice or are hopelessly hateful

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
May'be, in an odd way, I cater to a society I care nothing for by choosing one partner and sticking to him.
I'm not sure why I feel monogamy is a better way. I really don't know. How do you feel about the matter?
But don't get me wrong...lol. This is just my opinion. A conclusion I have come to through my lifetime of experiences. Nothing more. I am not saying I am right. I prefer everyone to live their life as they choose, whether or not I agree with it. I'm just telling you how I feel about the subject. I will not attempt to impose this way of living on anyone else.

I think long term, monogamous relationships probably contribute to health and happiness. Not everyone seems to be suited to that kind of relationship, tho. I think many people who are very promiscuous probably do have unresolved emotional issues they need to be dealing with (as opposed to screwing around constantly). I don't think it helps the situation to be labelling these people as bad, tho.

My intention was not to help the situation. I was just giving my opinion.
In alot of cases, for someone to change, they have to want to change. For whatever reason. We all have our issues.
And in all honesty, with the risk of sounding like a jerk, I am not interested in helping people who are not willing to help themselves.
I believe anyone who gave monogamy a try would find, while not being as fun or pleasurable as doing everything that moves, it's a really beautiful thing.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

"Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation."


best guess....

potentially interacting with environmental influences.....


that's not so much evidence as it is speculation.

genetic makup doesn't equall homosexuality

genetic makeup + outside stimuli can result in homosexuality.

simply put a person isn't born gay..... that's like saying someone is genetically jewish.... while they are jewish by blood from birth and have no choice but to be so, they a jewish by culture as a result of outside stimuli, or they're upbringing.

so while a certain genetic trait may allow a person to be suseptible to homosexuality, that doesn't mean that ALL people with such genetic traits will be homosexual, nor does it mean that all homosexuals will possess these traits.


"Dr. Richard Pillard, a professor of psychiatry at Boston University School of Medicine who was involved in a study of twins and sexual orientation, has done research showing that sexuality is greatly influenced by environment, and that the role of genetics is, in the end, limited."

link

i'm not a gay hater.... i make no claim that it's deplorable or something to be ridiculed for. EVERYONE deserves a fair shake. NO ONE is gonna get it. unfortunately, a good cause (i say it's a good cause, not because of the exact problem it represents, but for it's desire toward equality as a whole) will always be destroyed by the powers that be, because just like slavery someone has alot to lose, while someone else has alot to gain and it's not liberty, equality, or justice. it's money and power.

we are all equal..... in our liberties and our shortcomings.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well I was following your line of reasoning rather closely, CW, and i not you fall back on your usual pattern. You pursue a line of reasoning till you get a personal attack and then claim how inferior the other person is because they can't stick to a line of reasoning, never noting the didactic and hence somewhat annoying nature of your presentation if that is the word. I am not annoyed, however, and curious as to the foundation of your claim on the matter of ethics and sex. I share aidanjm's suggestion that it is just your opinion. I do not know why you just don't lay your cards on the table, but I will play along. I do not see a trap in the notion that sex has a purpose. Sex is an accident of evolution as as with evolution has no purpose. It is what is. Purpose is a human intellectual construct without physical reality, a product of duality created by language. Real ethics refers to the spontaneity that proceeds from a presence in the now, the localized action in any given situation of a fully conscious mind. Sometimes that is called Tao, I think. Ethics is what happens when one is cosmically in Love.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Identical stretches of DNA on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8 and 10 -- were found to be shared in about 60 percent of the gay brothers in the study, compared to about 50 percent expected by chance. The region on chromosome 10 correlated with sexual orientation only if it was inherited from the mother.

That's just a 10% higher rate. Not much of finding "gay genes".

Personally, it shouldn't even be a concern. A person is who they are, not what their genes are.

It's another one of those Nurture vs. Nature debates, which in the end have no bearing on who'll the person will become. In that study, they might even find hetrosexuals with the "gay genes" who never had an attraction to males.

Finding such genes also can bring the worst type of discrimination too. Not only by those who are ignorant, health/life insurance companies when factoring which population would likely to have HIV/AIDS.

Not a good path to go down on.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
*shakes his head at zealotry*

Well I suspected this evidence of biological gayness was coming, but I was pretty sure the zealots wouldn't listen. Heck, they don't understand science (see evolution threads) to begin with. Can't really expect them to understand.

Only a small fraction of people like alchemize (who others have labelled pseudo-libertarian creeps) are going to be able to remotely change their mind about gay rights because of this. Most people already understand gayness isn't a choice or are hopelessly hateful

Um, thanks...I think? What's a pseudo-libertarian creep? I thought I was a neocon...

Anyhow, I'm pretty sure that gayness is a variety of factors. Some choice, some genetic, some environmental/background, and I think I've stated in this and other threads that attempting to legislate another protected "class" of citizens is a huge can of worms and is inherently unconstitutional. Unless of course we amend the constitution.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Um, thanks...I think? What's a pseudo-libertarian creep? I thought I was a neocon...

Sometimes people fall into two overlapping categories. Like liberal AND Democrat.

Anyway, I'm not the one who said you were a "pseudo-libertarian creep", but I think it's self-explanatory. It's a philosophy that hides under libertarian ideals like "everyone gets what they work for" except it fake libertarian because it only adopts libertarian ideals when it's self-serving. And the creep part probably comes from the fact that proponents of pseudo-libertarian views (not necessarily you) are apt to call welfare kids "welfare brats."

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: alchemize
Um, thanks...I think? What's a pseudo-libertarian creep? I thought I was a neocon...

Sometimes people fall into two overlapping categories. Like liberal AND Democrat.

Anyway, I'm not the one who said you were a "pseudo-libertarian creep", but I think it's self-explanatory. It's a philosophy that hides under libertarian ideals like "everyone gets what they work for" except it fake libertarian because it only adopts libertarian ideals when it's self-serving. And the creep part probably comes from the fact that proponents of pseudo-libertarian views (not necessarily you) are apt to call welfare kids "welfare brats."

You nailed that on the head!

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Faith in Christ would no more mean someone would stop having homosexual sex any more than it would mean that i would stop eating to much. But it would mean that you'd have accepted, in faith, God's sacrifice of his own son on your account, which is what makes all the difference.

Jesus didn't come for the people who live a completely moral life, he came for the prostitutes, thieves and liars so that they could turn to God though we all act immorally.

How is that perverted?

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

You offer no convincing argument here that homosexual sex is immoral.

didn't know that it was my job to argue morality, i figure we've all got our convictions from the Lord how we act on them is a personal thing.

I am not a xian, I am an atheist, and I do not share your perverted xian beliefs.

Believing in Christ or believing in X doesn't change what is and isn't moral. Nor do personal attacks in calling me a pervert.

The point is that morality is something we've all got convictions about, no matter what your personal convictions are.

It's sad that when i say that "hey, i can't argue morals" you call me a pervert.. interesting isn't it? who here's the bigot and who here is open-minded?

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

What exactly is traditional sexual morality, anyway?

sex as blessed by God in the covenant of marriage.

Which god are you referring to, there are so many after all.

Only one God, in every religion, though some did focus on lesser gods.

The one God is the creator, the God that made all of existence and without whom none of us would not exist, the only one that's truly worthy to judge any of us.

So, again, i answered your question, a personal one at that, and you insult me... i feel really bad for militants like yourself, you can't possibly be happy knowing that there are people who live a life that deviates from your own belief structure.

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

This is justifiable on public health grounds, & there is plenty of data indicating you can get communities of gay men to change their sexual behaviors towards safer sexual practices with highly targeted public health messages

I think the truth about the higher likelihood of breakage and disease transmission is something that we should make publicly available.

?if I could choose this why would I? people chose to be counter to the culture there in and often fight with all they are simply to hold on to the self-image they?ve created.

Greeks didn?t have any gays, but the men had sex with boys, it?s not a matter of ?genetics? but how those in a society react to weakness of flesh.

do you think that just because you can prove that the flesh is week that it means that you shouldn?t rise above that?

Your comments here don't seem to have much of a relationship to my comments.

Well, first i answered your statement. Secondly it established the precepts of my moral convictions, a precept that's held by the majority of people in this country.


as for the ethics: you've not established a value system by which we'll turn, less a pseudo-libertarianism that ends when it stops helping what your fighting for.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I am not a xian, I am an atheist, and I do not share your perverted xian beliefs.

Believing in Christ or believing in X doesn't change what is and isn't moral. Nor do personal attacks in calling me a pervert.

Just to clarify, I described christian beliefs as perverted, I didn't describe you as perverted.

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
The point is that morality is something we've all got convictions about, no matter what your personal convictions are.

It's sad that when i say that "hey, i can't argue morals" you call me a pervert.. interesting isn't it? who here's the bigot and who here is open-minded?

I do think the motley collection of irrational prejudices and fantasies that fall under the rubric of "christianity" are aptly described as "perverted". I didn't describe you as perverted, I described xian beliefs as perverted.

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: aidanjm

What exactly is traditional sexual morality, anyway?

sex as blessed by God in the covenant of marriage.

Which god are you referring to, there are so many after all.

Only one God, in every religion, though some did focus on lesser gods.

?? That is simply not true. Utter nonsense.

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
The one God is the creator, the God that made all of existence and without whom none of us would not exist, the only one that's truly worthy to judge any of us.

So, again, i answered your question, a personal one at that, and you insult me... i feel really bad for militants like yourself, you can't possibly be happy knowing that there are people who live a life that deviates from your own belief structure.

The fact that there are people living lives that deviate from my own belief structures is a source of comfort, actually. To the extent that someone attempts to impose their belief system on me (and that can be as subtle as that person stating their OPINIONS as if they are established fact on a public forum, such as what you are doing here when you talk about there only being one god) I get annoyed.

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

This is justifiable on public health grounds, & there is plenty of data indicating you can get communities of gay men to change their sexual behaviors towards safer sexual practices with highly targeted public health messages

I think the truth about the higher likelihood of breakage and disease transmission is something that we should make publicly available.

?if I could choose this why would I? people chose to be counter to the culture there in and often fight with all they are simply to hold on to the self-image they?ve created.

Greeks didn?t have any gays, but the men had sex with boys, it?s not a matter of ?genetics? but how those in a society react to weakness of flesh.

do you think that just because you can prove that the flesh is week that it means that you shouldn?t rise above that?

Your comments here don't seem to have much of an intelligible relationship to my comments.

Well, first i answered your statement. Secondly it established the precepts of my moral convictions, a precept that's held by the majority of people in this country.
[/quote]

Higher likelihood of breakage? WTF does that mean? The flesh is weak/ Greeks/ Genetics? I have no idea what you are talking about.

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
as for the ethics: you've not established a value system by which we'll turn, less a pseudo-libertarianism that ends when it stops helping what your fighting for.

It's not my job to establish a value system by which other people will live. The rest of your sentence above is unintelligble to me.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Um, thanks...I think? What's a pseudo-libertarian creep? I thought I was a neocon...

Anyhow, I'm pretty sure that gayness is a variety of factors. Some choice, some genetic, some environmental/background, and I think I've stated in this and other threads that attempting to legislate another protected "class" of citizens is a huge can of worms and is inherently unconstitutional. Unless of course we amend the constitution.

It's illegal in around 15 states to fire someone based on their sexual orientation. Is this what you mean by "protected class of citizens"?

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: alchemize
Well that's good news. Now a cure can be found.

God I do hope my sarc-O-meter is on the fritz today.

Why? Don't you think that there will be some gays who want to be "cured"? Would you deny their rights?

Don't you think there will be parents, who given the choice for some genetic switch-flipping before birth, would not want their children to be gay? Would you deny their rights?

I wouldn't want to be heterosexual. Being attracted to other males has always felt entirely natural and appropriate for me. I feel bad for gay people who have been conned into thinking they are somehow ill or immoral or of less worth than a heterosexually oriented person.

Certainly your perrogative - but do you speak for all gays? That was my question - would you deny the rights of those who don't want to remain gay? (or parents)

So you would say we need to play God and decide what sexuality a child should be? I mean really where does it stop? This whole gay issue/argument is a circle argument simply leading to the conclusion of shuting up and learning to accept those who are you brothers and sisters in the eyes of God.

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: alchemize
So in other words, you've been gifted with an "open mind", but don't want to talk about it and think we are all bigots?

No just the opinion of an outsider looking in. These are sometimes the best opinions to listen to because they are opinions you cannot discern for yourself.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well I was following your line of reasoning rather closely, CW, and i not you fall back on your usual pattern. You pursue a line of reasoning till you get a personal attack and then claim how inferior the other person is because they can't stick to a line of reasoning, never noting the didactic and hence somewhat annoying nature of your presentation if that is the word. I am not annoyed, however, and curious as to the foundation of your claim on the matter of ethics and sex. I share aidanjm's suggestion that it is just your opinion. I do not know why you just don't lay your cards on the table, but I will play along. I do not see a trap in the notion that sex has a purpose. Sex is an accident of evolution as as with evolution has no purpose. It is what is. Purpose is a human intellectual construct without physical reality, a product of duality created by language.

Yes, I would agree with that. From a biological, evolutionary perspective, sex facilitates procreation. HOWEVER the fact that sex served the biological/ evolutionary function of facilitating procreation during our species' evolution doesn't mean that I have to procreate with every orgasm I have! Attempting to derive human moral or ethical prescriptions from the evolutionary or biological functions of sex strikes me as silly.

If PsychoWizard had the balls to put his cards on the table, I'd guess he is taking a "natural law" approach to the ethics of sex. The (fallacious) reasoning behind so-called natural law goes something like this:

The role of sex in nature appears to be procreative (this is a fact), THEREFORE
the moral or ethical purpose and use of sex for humans SHOULD be procreative (this is a moral commandment or prescription).

In other words, natural law takes a fact about the natural world (sex leads to procreation in nature) and turns it into a moral prescription (Sex SHOULD lead to procreation at all times).

People do the same thing with homosexuality; they take various facts, such as

Most people (and animals) engage in heterosexual sex, or
heterosexual sex results in procreation, or
Homosexuality isn't all that common in the animal world (actually, it is very common, but never mind),

and turn these facts about the natural world into moral prescriptions, i.e.,
People SHOULD only engage in heterosexual sex/ homosexual sex is wrong.

Taking a fact, and turning it into a moral prescription, has no rational, logical basis. It is a very primitive form of moral reasoning. It is easy to come up with examples indicating the pitfalls of this approach, for example:
-in the natural world, it is "survival of the fittest", THEREFORE
-we should do away with welfare safety nets, social security, etc. and people should sink or swim according to their abilities.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

It's not my job to establish a value system by which other people will live.

if you want us to abandon our values for your personal gain you'd damed well better have a good value system of your own for us to go by.

as it is you don't even have a libertarian value system, if you did you'd be aruging for an abolition of state-sanctioned marriage all together.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well I was following your line of reasoning rather closely, CW, and i not you fall back on your usual pattern. You pursue a line of reasoning till you get a personal attack and then claim how inferior the other person is because they can't stick to a line of reasoning, never noting the didactic and hence somewhat annoying nature of your presentation if that is the word. I am not annoyed, however, and curious as to the foundation of your claim on the matter of ethics and sex. I share aidanjm's suggestion that it is just your opinion. I do not know why you just don't lay your cards on the table, but I will play along. I do not see a trap in the notion that sex has a purpose. Sex is an accident of evolution as as with evolution has no purpose. It is what is. Purpose is a human intellectual construct without physical reality, a product of duality created by language. Real ethics refers to the spontaneity that proceeds from a presence in the now, the localized action in any given situation of a fully conscious mind. Sometimes that is called Tao, I think. Ethics is what happens when one is cosmically in Love.

As much as I appreciate your viewpoint (as it is unique and obviously developed by you and for you), I can't adopt it as my own. I think we both know why the other thinks/feels the way he does, and it comes down to a fundamental difference of opinion on why we are.

I do have one question (to anyone) that I asked before and don't think anyone answered. Why would biological homosexuality make homosexual rights more valid? Why would the choice to be homosexual make it any less worthy of rights? I've never been able to puzzle out why people think peculiar genetics is the basis for bestowing rights. In other words, why am I less deserving of rights because I chose X than if I was born as X?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

It's not my job to establish a value system by which other people will live.

if you want us to abandon our values for your personal gain you'd damed well better have a good value system of your own for us to go by.

I am not interested in what your values are. I am interested in what is legal, and what is illegal, according to law. My belief is that denying gay people access to marriage is illegal (unconstitutional). As for values, I support the values of a free and open, liberal democratic society -- liberty, freedom, equality, justice, and so on. I think all human life has worth. Etc.

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
as it is you don't even have a libertarian value system, if you did you'd be aruging for an abolition of state-sanctioned marriage all together.

Why do you keep mentioning libertarianism, I am not a libertarian, if I had to label my general outlook, I'd say I am a secular humanist, I don't have a problem with state involvement in marriage, in fact I think some degree of state involvement is inevitable and probably juistified.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

I am not interested in what your values are

. I am interested in what is legal, and what is illegal, according to law. My belief is that denying gay people access to marriage is illegal

laws are formed around the values of the population in a society, so unless you 1.) want to change everyone into a secular humanist with specialized sexual morality or 2.) want secular humanism with your brand of specialized sexual morality tyrannically dictated to us from the bench then:

You've got to establish what logical difference there is between abandoning our traditional values for your point of view and abandoning our traditional definitions for polygamy or creating a ?right? to marriage for any other legal sexual behavior.

in other words: given that tradition has brought us this far, why should we change and how does it not change how we treat all legal sexual behavior?

Why do you keep mentioning libertarianism

the only argument I?ve heard from you for ?why? stems from a general libertine ideas or at very least ?legal sexual behavior demands a right for marriage?

A ridiculous idea that will never be accepted by even 1/3rd of this country.


honestly: tell me i'm wrong, give me a better way to look at it.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Zysoclaplem
My intention was not to help the situation. I was just giving my opinion.
In alot of cases, for someone to change, they have to want to change. For whatever reason. We all have our issues.
And in all honesty, with the risk of sounding like a jerk, I am not interested in helping people who are not willing to help themselves.

You might not be interested in helping such people, but I wonder if you are unconsciously using such people as scapegoats to make yourself feel better? ("I may be gay, but at least I'm not one of those bad promiscuous, hedonistic gays" sort of thing). By labelling promiscuous, hedonistic gays as "bad gays" you are stigmatising an entire group of people, based on nothing more than their legal, consensual sexual behaviors. I see no fundamental difference between what you are doing, and what the religious right does with all gay people. Another example of stigmatising people based on sexual behaviors which I don't like is the way straight men label women who openly enjoy sex as "sluts".

ps: I hope this doesn't come across as me being overly critical of you

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

I am not interested in what your values are

. I am interested in what is legal, and what is illegal, according to law. My belief is that denying gay people access to marriage is illegal

laws are formed around the values of the population in a society, so unless you 1.) want to change everyone into a secular humanist with specialized sexual morality or 2.) want secular humanism with your brand of specialized sexual morality tyrannically dictated to us from the bench then:

With gay marriage, certain values held by the american people are in conflict. On the one hand, Americans do believe in equality, fairness. Most Americans seem to be regretful when they hear about gay people not being able to visit their partners in hospital, having property stolen from them by relatives, etc. OTOH most Americans would like to be able to exclude gay citizens from marriage. There is a conflict here between traditional "values" (prejudices) re: how marriage should be, and values of equality, fairness, etc.

btw what do you mean, "tyranically dictated"? Are you suggesting judges are forcing heterosexual people into gay marriages?

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
You've got to establish what logical difference there is between abandoning our traditional values for your point of view and abandoning our traditional definitions for polygamy or creating a ?right? to marriage for any other legal sexual behavior.

in other words: given that tradition has brought us this far, why should we change and how does it not change how we treat all legal sexual behavior?

You choose to ignore cultural values that don't support your case. Important cultural values in an open, democratic society include values of equality and justice.

I don't believe that society is somehow dependent on a foundation of heterosexual marriage, I think our society is able to exist due to limited government, the right to own property, the freedom to associate with those we choose and conduct business, and certain other fundamental legal principles (equality before the law, etc.)

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Why do you keep mentioning libertarianism

the only argument I?ve heard from you for ?why? stems from a general libertine ideas or at very least ?legal sexual behavior demands a right for marriage?

A ridiculous idea that will never be accepted by even 1/3rd of this country.


honestly: tell me i'm wrong, give me a better way to look at it.

I don't think there is much to be gained continuing this.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well I was following your line of reasoning rather closely, CW, and i not you fall back on your usual pattern. You pursue a line of reasoning till you get a personal attack and then claim how inferior the other person is because they can't stick to a line of reasoning, never noting the didactic and hence somewhat annoying nature of your presentation if that is the word. I am not annoyed, however, and curious as to the foundation of your claim on the matter of ethics and sex. I share aidanjm's suggestion that it is just your opinion. I do not know why you just don't lay your cards on the table, but I will play along. I do not see a trap in the notion that sex has a purpose. Sex is an accident of evolution as as with evolution has no purpose. It is what is. Purpose is a human intellectual construct without physical reality, a product of duality created by language. Real ethics refers to the spontaneity that proceeds from a presence in the now, the localized action in any given situation of a fully conscious mind. Sometimes that is called Tao, I think. Ethics is what happens when one is cosmically in Love.

As much as I appreciate your viewpoint (as it is unique and obviously developed by you and for you), I can't adopt it as my own. I think we both know why the other thinks/feels the way he does, and it comes down to a fundamental difference of opinion on why we are.

I do have one question (to anyone) that I asked before and don't think anyone answered. Why would biological homosexuality make homosexual rights more valid? Why would the choice to be homosexual make it any less worthy of rights? I've never been able to puzzle out why people think peculiar genetics is the basis for bestowing rights. In other words, why am I less deserving of rights because I chose X than if I was born as X?

personally, i dont think it does make it more right.
but i think it is presented to those people the believe it is wrong in the hope that it will be construed by those it is presented to as being more "right"
im thinking that the people who are opposed to homosexuality tend to be folks who see it as a moral choice. and if it is not a choice, then denying that human being rights would be tantamount to racism. (at least, that would appear to be the logic)
discriminating based on something i have no control over would be unacceptable, no?
so i think thats why homosexual rights advocates tend to hold on to these sorts of things.
as i said, i doubt very many of those advocates believe this makes it more acceptable, i think they just see it as a lever with which to hopefully convince some people.

 

[Tommunist]

I'm still at a loss as to why anyone cares if homosexuals get married. It doesn't harm me or anyone else in any way so who cares?