Gays in society (split from Boy Scouts thread)

[Charles Kozierok]

Vaux, you continue to ignore arguments that suggest that homosexuality is a natural byproduct of other evolutionary forces that influence sexuality. The point about the human race ceasing to exist if everyone was born gay is a red herring -- the human race would also cease to exist if all sorts of other things happened 100% of the time that do not.

"Natural" is inherently a subjective value judgment, as is "normal". It was once considered "natural" to have multiple wives, to beat your children and to own slaves.

Life is not just about procreation.

And since you seem to like to compare gays to babies with birth defects, it might be worth pointing out that we don't try to make children with anomalies feel less human or less deserving of equal rights than others.

 

[LumbergTech]

Actually that is not correct. Approximately 4 percent of the population is gay. 8 million kids a year are born with birth defects, or about 3%.

Source?

 

[nehalem256]

Source?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-adults-overestimate-homosexual-population-much-tenfold

While a recent Gallup poll showed that U.S. adults, on average, think homosexuals make up about 25 percent of the entire population, official data reveal that gays and lesbians comprise between 2 percent and 4 percent of the population.

 

[LumbergTech]

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-adults-overestimate-homosexual-population-much-tenfold

Gallup disagrees. Try reading their own site about the subject.

Yes, people do over estimate the percentage, but its not as low as 4%.

 

[Retro Rob]

Take your blinders off and do some research about the heinous shit done to gays.

You need a fresh one?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/19/homophobic-murder-new-york/2325087/

What does this have to do with me?

Am I committing violent acts against gays?

 

[LumbergTech]

What does this have to do with me?

Am I committing violent acts against gays?

You are attacking them because you want to ensure your place in heaven.

 

[Retro Rob]

You are attacking them because you want to ensure your place in heaven.

Got any proof to back this claim?

You can link my opinion with attacks on gays when you prove that my opinion directly leads to my involvement in anti-gay hate crimes.

 

[Craig234]

Vaux, think about how circular your argument is:

People born attracted to the opposite sex are not 'natural' in that same-sex couples will not reproduce between themselves, and that's a reason to deny them the right to marry; so opposite-sex couples are 'natural' because they have a desire that can usually - not always - result in reproduction, so they are allowed to marry; but if the heterosexual couple can not or will not reproduce, they are still allowed to marry because they are attracted to the same sex - even if they will not reproduce.

So you have just undermined your own rationale about why a couple should be allowed to marry as related to reproduction.

It's a bogus argument to begin with - as you admit, marriage is not only about reproduction - yet you say the opposite-sex couple who will not reproduce should have the right to marry while the same-sex couple - who you sort of admit has the same needs and desires, only oriented to the same sex - should not, for no reason, since the only one you give - reproduction - is not applied to non-reprucing same-sex couples.

What you're showing here is that the only issue is indeed bigotry toward the same-sex couples - inventing rules that only are applied to them.

I think you should put yourself in their shoes and ask what's right and wrong. I notice you dodge questions as well - for example, when you talk about how wrong it is for gays not to reproduce, you did not answer if say Catholic priests are also doing wrong by not reproducing - except that's a choice.

 

[Craig234]

Got any proof to back this claim?

You can link my opinion with attacks on gays when you prove that my opinion directly leads to my involvement in anti-gay hate crimes.

We're in the rather bizarre situation that expressing the opinion that society allowing bigotry towards a group - gays, Jews, blacks, whoever - can lead to an increase in violence towards that group is not allowed and anyone stating that opinion will be banned from the sub-forum. So, I'm not sure how it's approriate for the 'approved' view that a society filled with hate speech towards a group has absolutely nothing to do with any violence towards that group to be allowed to be posted when it can't be responded to.

 

[LumbergTech]

Got any proof to back this claim?

You can link my opinion with attacks on gays when you prove that my opinion directly leads to my involvement in anti-gay hate crimes.

First of all, I never said they were successful.

It is my opinion based on what I've read of your comments. I find it particularly interesting that you have that comment in your sig talking about how your beliefs an opinions are the "light" or "correct" side of things and yet you find no trouble attempting to smear homosexuals who want to get married as a problem within our society.

 

[busydude]

I am not religious and I don't believe in any of it. That has nothing to do with any of my arguments.

Although, if you believe in god and the bible, then it's kind of hard for you to say that you know better than he does. His views on homosexuals is clear.

I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that it is not natural and not "right."

First of all, many people seem to think of homosexuality in black and white. Just like many things homosexuality has a lot of gray areas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale#Alternate_measures_of_sexual_orientation


Homosexuality depends on a lot of factors.

 

[Retro Rob]

We're in the rather bizarre situation that expressing the opinion that society allowing bigotry towards a group - gays, Jews, blacks, whoever - can lead to an increase in violence towards that group is not allowed and anyone stating that opinion will be banned from the sub-forum. So, I'm not sure how it's approriate for the 'approved' view that a society filled with hate speech towards a group has absolutely nothing to do with any violence towards that group to be allowed to be posted when it can't be responded to.

What hate speech are you talking about? I've not uttered one HATEFUL word about gays.

I think Charles kind of got it right by making you guys either prove or shut up about the opinions which I hold is somehow linked to someone shooting a gay man in the face on the street, or would cause me to commit some horrid act of bigotry.

You seem to be focusing more on the actions of others based on their own opinions and motivations, and trying to make some kind of "causation" with what I think and believe.

This is simply dishonest.

 

[LumbergTech]

What hate speech are you talking about? I've not uttered one HATEFUL word about gays.

I think Charles kind of got it right by making you guys either prove or shut up about the opinions which I hold is somehow linked to someone shooting a gay man in the face on the street, or would cause me to commit some horrid act of bigotry.

You seem to be focusing more on the actions of others based on their own opinions and motivations, and trying to make some kind of "causation" with what I think and believe.

This is simply dishonest.

You are being dishonest by not admitting that your smearing of homosexuals is self serving and not based upon legitimate reasoning.

 

[Retro Rob]

You are being dishonest by not admitting that your smearing of homosexuals is self serving and not based upon legitimate reasoning.

Find a quote of mine where I "smeared" homosexuals.

 

[Retro Rob]

First of all, I never said they were successful.

It is my opinion based on what I've read of your comments. I find it particularly interesting that you have that comment in your sig talking about how your beliefs an opinions are the "light" or "correct" side of things and yet you find no trouble attempting to smear homosexuals who want to get married as a problem within our society.

My sig is in response to what I thought was an uneducated remark by Hawking, and I am simply mocking his remark. It has nothing to do with how I view my own personal opinions.

Please, re-read my position on the matter -- I don't personally support SSM, but I said nothing about them individually, morally, etc... so I don't know why you think I'm "smearing" them, or how you came to such a irrational and not well read conclusion.

 

[LumbergTech]

My sig is in response to what I thought was an uneducated remark by Hawking, and I am simply mocking his remark. It has nothing to do with how I view my own personal opinions.

Please, re-read my position on the matter -- I don't personally support SSM, but I said nothing about them individually, morally, etc... so I don't know why you think I'm "smearing" them, or how you came to such a irrational and not well read conclusion.

I will go back over the thread and consider your thoughts once more and then reply.

 

[nehalem256]

Gallup disagrees. Try reading their own site about the subject.

Yes, people do over estimate the percentage, but its not as low as 4%.

sure,

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/special-report-adults-identify-lgbt.aspx

The inaugural results of a new Gallup question -- posed to more than 120,000 U.S. adults thus far -- shows that 3.4% say "yes" when asked if they identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.

...
The 3.4% figure is similar to a 3.8% estimate made by one of the authors of this study (Gates), averaging a group of smaller U.S. surveys conducted from 2004 to 2008.

Now maybe you are referring to something like this:

Adults aged 18 to 29 (6.4%) are more than three times as likely as seniors aged 65 and older (1.9%) to identify as LGBT. Among those aged 30 to 64, LGBT identity declines with age -- at 3.2% for 30- to 49-year-olds and 2.6% for 50- to 64-year-olds.

Consistent with other recent studies and with the gender gap identified earlier in this report, younger women are more likely to identify as LGBT than are younger men. Among 18- to 29-year-olds, 8.3% of women identify as LGBT, compared with 4.6% of men the same age.

Of course given that overall 3.6% women vs 3.3% men identify as LGBT I would bet that a lot of this is caused by young women identifying as bi-sexual because its "cool". If you were to argue for somewhere in the 4.6-5% as suggested by the 18-29 year old men results I would think you would have a point.

 

[schmuckley]

Only 3.4% of all people in the U.S. are homosexual.Why should they get special privileges?
If all men are created equal;What are these special "Hate Laws"?
It's just another way to further restrict the freedoms the U.S.A. was founded for.
"Hate Speech" Pls..They've been dumbing publicly-educated students down for close to 20 years now.You can't say "Black man" or "Retarded" anymore.
The hate speech laws are aimed at restricting freedom of religion.People can't discipline their children without going to prison now.Yet they wonder why all-of-a-sudden all this crazy stuff with kids is going on?
Well.. Let's see:You teach them we all came from monkeys,there is no God;You are your own god..Your morality is yours.There are no eternal consequences for doing bad things.Combine Humanistic World View with no corporal punishment;and there ya go.DERP! Columbine-o-rama kids.. wheeee!
/end rambling rant
So..What game is "Smear the queer" called now? LOL

 

[Charles Kozierok]

About half of the most recent dozen or so posts have personal attacks in them. I'm not going through them one by one -- act like adults or I'm locking this.

 

[Craig234]

Only 3.4% of all people in the U.S. are homosexual.Why should they get special privileges?
If all men are created equal;What are these special "Hate Laws"?
It's just another way to further restrict the freedoms the U.S.A. was founded for.
"Hate Speech" Pls..They've been dumbing publicly-educated students down for close to 20 years now.You can't say "Black man" "Retarded"
The hate speech laws are aimed at restricting freedom of religion.

You are saying that gay people should not get the same rights - they should be treated with discrimination denying them right - and you call equal rights "special priviliges".

 

[busydude]

Only 3.4% of all people in the U.S. are homosexual.Why should they get special privileges?

They aren't fighting for special privileges. They are fighting for equality.

 

[Craig234]

What hate speech are you talking about? I've not uttered one HATEFUL word about gays.

I think Charles kind of got it right by making you guys either prove or shut up about the opinions which I hold is somehow linked to someone shooting a gay man in the face on the street, or would cause me to commit some horrid act of bigotry.

You seem to be focusing more on the actions of others based on their own opinions and motivations, and trying to make some kind of "causation" with what I think and believe.

This is simply dishonest.

You're misrepresenting what was said - if anything is dishonest, it's that. But maybe you are just in error.

Again, no one is allowed to 'prove' on the topic of problems caused when hate speech is allowed, that point in your post is not correct either.

Advocacy for denying people rights without any rational justification can be inferred to be a hateful act - even if the people hating don't realize they are.

 

[schmuckley]

What is this "Hate Speech" talk?
It's a method to silence those who would speak against something.That is all.
"Oh,That's hate speech""It's not PC"
Marriage in Western Culture has always been the same.
What comes next?Bestiality?Necrophilia?Pedophilia?
Gay marriage laws can open a whole Pandora's box of problems.

 

[busydude]

Gay marriage laws can open a whole Pandora's box of problems.

No, they can't. It is about consent more than anything else. How can you extrapolate that legalizing gay marriage can make the laws easier for humans to have sex with animals?

Marriage in Western Culture has always been the same.

Are you against divorce and sex before marriage too?

 

[Craig234]

What is this "Hate Speech" talk?
It's a method to silence those who would speak against something.That is all.
"Oh,That's hate speech""It's not PC"
Marriage in Western Culture has always been the same.
What comes next?Bestiality?Necrophilia?Pedophilia?
Gay marriage laws can open a whole Pandora's box of problems.

No, it's describing speech that is negative towards a group - declaring them to somehow be inferior, threatening, evil, bad, flawed, some trait used to create negative feelings towards them that is not something more rational - like criticizing rapists or thieves - but tends to be about some personal characteristic, race and religion are common.

You also indulge in a slippery slope. Gay marriage does not imply those other things.