Gay marriage (1 Viewer)

[shining path]

And I'd point out that homosexuality can be intrinsic and irreversible and not even have a genetic component.  The development of the neural architecture is a hellishly complicated business.  Homosexuality might just be a case where some wires got crossed in the developing fetus.

Is it irreversible though? Is being straight irreversible? I don't know. A lot of the questions I'be asked are really that - questions. You can educate or you can attack. Your choice my purple friend.Anyway, if you say wires crossed in the fetus, isn't that a pathological argument that would be saying gays are birth defective? Do you really want to go there?

However you want to spin it, if that's the underlying material reason for homosexuality, then that's what it is. It's more of a defect from an adaptionist view, since presumably we're attracted to the opposite sex to increase the chance that we'll mate and have offspring. But since gays don't seem to have any physical, moral, ethical, intellectual, or creative deficiencies as a group (and in fact have an atypically heightened sense of fashion), then I don't think they'd mind it if it were pointed out that they're deficient in the narrow sense of Darwinian fitness. And besides, it's not as if they can't reproduce. It's just that they don't want to engage in the truly reproductive act.I don't know - MacArtist is (or was) here. Would you be offended if someone pointed out that your sexual preference was due to an atypical, non-adaptive wiring of your fetal brain?

I'd laugh in their face. It's hard for ignorance to offend me.

Okay, let's try this again.We don't know why some people are gay, though several studies have pointed out that there is a genetic component. However it's also possible that there are non-genetic, developmental reasons behind it. In other words, in some cases, it's not genetic, but it's still intrinsic and irreversible. The brain might normally develop so that you're attracted to the opposite sex, but for some people the complicated process goes a different direction and you're attracted to the same sex. This, on average, decreases the chances that an individual will have children, and so from a Darwinian standpoint - where it's all about offspring - it's not adaptive. Would you find this offensive?

And I just realized that I used adaptionist language to assess a non-genetic process in this and the previous post. If it's not genetic, strictly speaking you can't refer to it as adaptive or non-adaptive.

 

[shining path]

I think this issue is being used by many in the gay community to try to force acceptance on the rest of us.

Wow, wanting to be accepted as equal humans. How irrational of them.

No, that's not what I meant you know know it. It is acceptance of their lifestyle that they wish to push on us.

Just like left-handers wanted to push acceptance of their lifestyle on us, to the point of not only having us refrain from burning them at the stake, but also giving them their own special baseball mitts and scissors! The nerve!!

They're making special scissors for lefties now? Not with my tax dollars, bub.

 

[suspected]

We don't know why some people are gay, though several studies have pointed out that there is a genetic component. However it's also possible that there are non-genetic, developmental reasons behind it.

I always thought Trading Places needed a sequel.Mortimer, I'll bet you $1 there's a genetic component.

 

[bueno]

One more thing - the parades aren't going to change the minds of close-minded people. I have changed the minds of many of my straight friends who were originally opposed to gay marriage before they met me. How do I know that? Because they tell me that.How did I do that? Just by being myself and letting them see I am just like them, except I love a little differently from them - not by cramming my gayness down their throat.

So, if you had all the legal rights of a straight couple less the incentives based on the assumption of pro-creation, would you care whether it was a marriage or a civil union?

Why less the incentives? Should the incentives be taken away from infertile straight couples who adopt, too?

A good argument Jeri-loki-smoo. There are a few things that marriage does - like creative kinship - that adoption does also. That's where my brain was going.I think providing financial breaks for people reproducing were once a good thing, but now that we're at something like 300,000,000 I think maybe it's time to reverse that trend anyway.

 

[shining path]

We don't know why some people are gay, though several studies have pointed out that there is a genetic component. However it's also possible that there are non-genetic, developmental reasons behind it.

I always thought Trading Places needed a sequel.Mortimer, I'll bet you $1 there's a genetic component.

Hogwash. Drama Club, jazz dance, design school. It's a product of the environment.

 

[bueno]

One more thing - the parades aren't going to change the minds of close-minded people. I have changed the minds of many of my straight friends who were originally opposed to gay marriage before they met me. How do I know that? Because they tell me that.How did I do that? Just by being myself and letting them see I am just like them, except I love a little differently from them - not by cramming my gayness down their throat.

So, if you had all the legal rights of a straight couple less the incentives based on the assumption of pro-creation, would you care whether it was a marriage or a civil union?

Honestly, I don't care what it is called. But some people do.A rose is a rose by any other name. I just want my rights.But if it makes it easier for others to accept, then sure - go ahead and call it a civil union.

Then I suspect that you and I are not that far out of agreement.

 

[bueno]

And I'd point out that homosexuality can be intrinsic and irreversible and not even have a genetic component.  The development of the neural architecture is a hellishly complicated business.  Homosexuality might just be a case where some wires got crossed in the developing fetus.

Is it irreversible though? Is being straight irreversible? I don't know. A lot of the questions I'be asked are really that - questions. You can educate or you can attack. Your choice my purple friend.Anyway, if you say wires crossed in the fetus, isn't that a pathological argument that would be saying gays are birth defective? Do you really want to go there?

However you want to spin it, if that's the underlying material reason for homosexuality, then that's what it is. It's more of a defect from an adaptionist view, since presumably we're attracted to the opposite sex to increase the chance that we'll mate and have offspring. But since gays don't seem to have any physical, moral, ethical, intellectual, or creative deficiencies as a group (and in fact have an atypically heightened sense of fashion), then I don't think they'd mind it if it were pointed out that they're deficient in the narrow sense of Darwinian fitness. And besides, it's not as if they can't reproduce. It's just that they don't want to engage in the truly reproductive act.I don't know - MacArtist is (or was) here. Would you be offended if someone pointed out that your sexual preference was due to an atypical, non-adaptive wiring of your fetal brain?

I'd laugh in their face. It's hard for ignorance to offend me.

Okay, let's try this again.We don't know why some people are gay, though several studies have pointed out that there is a genetic component. However it's also possible that there are non-genetic, developmental reasons behind it. In other words, in some cases, it's not genetic, but it's still intrinsic and irreversible. The brain might normally develop so that you're attracted to the opposite sex, but for some people the complicated process goes a different direction and you're attracted to the same sex. This, on average, decreases the chances that an individual will have children, and so from a Darwinian standpoint - where it's all about offspring - it's not adaptive. Would you find this offensive?

And I just realized that I used adaptionist language to assess a non-genetic process in this and the previous post. If it's not genetic, strictly speaking you can't refer to it as adaptive or non-adaptive.

So you are saying that certain psychological problems are not irreversible (this is assuming that some gayness is a psychosis)? Using your words, not promoting that idea.

 

[suspected]

We don't know why some people are gay, though several studies have pointed out that there is a genetic component.  However it's also possible that there are non-genetic, developmental reasons behind it.

I always thought Trading Places needed a sequel.Mortimer, I'll bet you $1 there's a genetic component.

Hogwash. Drama Club, jazz dance, design school. It's a product of the environment.

:rotflmao: This could really be a great movie. Or perhaps it's already been done. I wouldn't know, I don't get those channels. NTTAWWT.

 

[shining path]

And I'd point out that homosexuality can be intrinsic and irreversible and not even have a genetic component.  The development of the neural architecture is a hellishly complicated business.  Homosexuality might just be a case where some wires got crossed in the developing fetus.

Is it irreversible though? Is being straight irreversible? I don't know. A lot of the questions I'be asked are really that - questions. You can educate or you can attack. Your choice my purple friend.Anyway, if you say wires crossed in the fetus, isn't that a pathological argument that would be saying gays are birth defective? Do you really want to go there?

However you want to spin it, if that's the underlying material reason for homosexuality, then that's what it is. It's more of a defect from an adaptionist view, since presumably we're attracted to the opposite sex to increase the chance that we'll mate and have offspring. But since gays don't seem to have any physical, moral, ethical, intellectual, or creative deficiencies as a group (and in fact have an atypically heightened sense of fashion), then I don't think they'd mind it if it were pointed out that they're deficient in the narrow sense of Darwinian fitness. And besides, it's not as if they can't reproduce. It's just that they don't want to engage in the truly reproductive act.I don't know - MacArtist is (or was) here. Would you be offended if someone pointed out that your sexual preference was due to an atypical, non-adaptive wiring of your fetal brain?

I'd laugh in their face. It's hard for ignorance to offend me.

Okay, let's try this again.We don't know why some people are gay, though several studies have pointed out that there is a genetic component. However it's also possible that there are non-genetic, developmental reasons behind it. In other words, in some cases, it's not genetic, but it's still intrinsic and irreversible. The brain might normally develop so that you're attracted to the opposite sex, but for some people the complicated process goes a different direction and you're attracted to the same sex. This, on average, decreases the chances that an individual will have children, and so from a Darwinian standpoint - where it's all about offspring - it's not adaptive. Would you find this offensive?

And I just realized that I used adaptionist language to assess a non-genetic process in this and the previous post. If it's not genetic, strictly speaking you can't refer to it as adaptive or non-adaptive.

So you are saying that certain psychological problems are not irreversible (this is assuming that some gayness is a psychosis)? Using your words, not promoting that idea.

Psychosis would be the wrong term for it, but I see where you're getting at. If homosexuality were found to be an abnormal result of the developmental process, then why shouldn't we just call it that? If the world were a better place and you didn't have such an entrenched homophobia that can be exploited by bigots, then I don't think anyone would have a problem with calling it what it is (keep in mind this is all hypothetical right now since we don't no if what I've described a cause or not). The results to society and the quality of life of the individual would be entirely benign. Gays seem to have the same mental (encompassing the intellectual, emotional, and moral) and physical capabilities as straights. So in Utopia the proposition is: "You, Mr. Joe Homosexual, are attracted to other men because your brain developed in a way that nature didn't originally intend. It doesn't have any other effect on you life, capabilities, or potential happiness. You can even have kids if you want."

Most people would just shrug at that and go about their business.

Unfortunately in the real world, the situation is: "You, Mr. Joe Homosexual, are attracted to other men because your brain developed in a way that nature didn't originally intend. And because of that, unscrupulous politicians, small-minded idiots, and malicious bigots are going to try to exploit the scientific reality to label you as "mentally abnormal" or "defective" as an excuse for their mistreatment of you."

That's why it pays to be careful with labels. Again, the underlying physical cause is what it is - it's ethically neutral. The problem is how the scientific reality can be used to give sanction to mistreating people. Thinking man's political correctness.

 

[Dickies]

I think this issue is being used by many in the gay community to try to force acceptance on the rest of us.

Wow, wanting to be accepted as equal humans. How irrational of them.

No, that's not what I meant you know know it. It is acceptance of their lifestyle that they wish to push on us.

Wow, wanting to be accepted as equal humans. How irrational of them.

 

[Peens]

I think this issue is being used by many in the gay community to try to force acceptance on the rest of us.

Wow, wanting to be accepted as equal humans. How irrational of them.

No, that's not what I meant you know know it. It is acceptance of their lifestyle that they wish to push on us.

Wow, wanting to be accepted as equal humans. How irrational of them.

Riiiiiiiiiiight!!I had a girlfriend years ago who had to lie and say she was "Bi" just to get a job bartending at a Gay Bar. How's that for "Equal" treatment.Another friend coming out of the "closet" at age 26 saying she has been gay her whole life, Even had a girlfriend for a couple years. She is now married to a man and is pregnant. Put a Sock in it Dickies.

 

[Dickies]

I dont understand why you people think that married couples that get certain rights that gay people dont, get these rights because of their reproductive abilities. My aunt and uncle are married, have no kids, have no intention of having kids, yet just because they can produce, they are OK to receive these? What a crock.

All I see are excuses for the discrimination. "Call them civil unions" blah blah blah. Call them marriages and get with the 21st century. This isnt biblical Jerusalem, this is 2004 USA..... As far as I'm concerned, there is no marriage clause that states that marriage is a tool for reproduction. I have always been tought that marriage is the life-long promise of love between two consenting adults.

If there are "moral" issues that are preventing gays from marrying, then the same needs to be done with divorce. You religious people will say otherwise because you really do despise gay people. I really can not see any other argument.

 

[Peens]

I dont understand why you people think that married couples that get certain rights that gay people dont, get these rights because of their reproductive abilities. My aunt and uncle are married, have no kids, have no intention of having kids, yet just because they can produce, they are OK to receive these? What a crock.

All I see are excuses for the discrimination. "Call them civil unions" blah blah blah. Call them marriages and get with the 21st century. This isnt biblical Jerusalem, this is 2004 USA..... As far as I'm concerned, there is no marriage clause that states that marriage is a tool for reproduction. I have always been tought that marriage is the life-long promise of love between two consenting adults.

If there are "moral" issues that are preventing gays from marrying, then the same needs to be done with divorce. You religious people will say otherwise because you really do despise gay people. I really can not see any other argument.

Like I said before, I have no problems whatsoever with the Govt or State giving Gay couples the same benifits as married couples. They can have the same tax breaks and everything else. I have no problem with that.

 

[Dickies]

I think this issue is being used by many in the gay community to try to force acceptance on the rest of us.

Wow, wanting to be accepted as equal humans. How irrational of them.

No, that's not what I meant you know know it. It is acceptance of their lifestyle that they wish to push on us.

Wow, wanting to be accepted as equal humans. How irrational of them.

Riiiiiiiiiiight!!I had a girlfriend years ago who had to lie and say she was "Bi" just to get a job bartending at a Gay Bar. How's that for "Equal" treatment.Another friend coming out of the "closet" at age 26 saying she has been gay her whole life, Even had a girlfriend for a couple years. She is now married to a man and is pregnant. Put a Sock in it Dickies.

I don't care about those obscure exceptions...... You have to say you're straight for many things in this world or else people like you will look down on them.As far as your friend that came out of the closet, I can't say for sure because I don't know her, but I'd be willing to bet that the grief society casts on these people makes it difficult being gay.

 

[bueno]

Since coming out of the closet, certainly there has been that aspect. Gay pride parades, dyke hikes, Gay Pride day - all defining gays by their sexuality.

That is only a small % of the population who go to the parades. I avoid that crap like the plague because I don't think it serves the rest of us well at all. You shouldn't assume that the majority of gay people are like those you mentioned above.Should I judge all black people just because I disagree with the Black Panthers and their militant views? No. Because the Black Panthers don't represent the ideals of many black people, just as these stupid parades don't do the same for the majority of us.

You make some good points. I'll try to remember that next time I see any group out making asses of themselves that they may be in the minority. They sure don't help promoting gay acceptance though.

 

[Peens]

I think this issue is being used by many in the gay community to try to force acceptance on the rest of us.

Wow, wanting to be accepted as equal humans. How irrational of them.

No, that's not what I meant you know know it. It is acceptance of their lifestyle that they wish to push on us.

Wow, wanting to be accepted as equal humans. How irrational of them.

Riiiiiiiiiiight!!I had a girlfriend years ago who had to lie and say she was "Bi" just to get a job bartending at a Gay Bar. How's that for "Equal" treatment.Another friend coming out of the "closet" at age 26 saying she has been gay her whole life, Even had a girlfriend for a couple years. She is now married to a man and is pregnant. Put a Sock in it Dickies.

I don't care about those obscure exceptions......

Yeah I'm sure those are the only ones.

 

[Jericho]

I had a girlfriend years ago who had to lie and say she was "Bi" just to get a job bartending at a Gay Bar. How's that for "Equal" treatment.

The hiring policies of a private business are irrelevant in a discussion about legal rights.

Another friend coming out of the "closet" at age 26 saying she has been gay her whole life, Even had a girlfriend for a couple years. She is now married to a man and is pregnant.

So she's probably bisexual. So?

 

[Peens]

I had a girlfriend years ago who had to lie and say she was "Bi" just to get a job bartending at a Gay Bar. How's that for "Equal" treatment.

The hiring policies of a private business are irrelevant in a discussion about legal rights.

Another friend coming out of the "closet" at age 26 saying she has been gay her whole life, Even had a girlfriend for a couple years. She is now married to a man and is pregnant. 

So she's probably bisexual. So?

If she is BI, (Which she isn't) it would be because she Chooses to be Bi.

 

[Jericho]

If she is BI, (Which she isn't) it would be because she Chooses to be Bi.

You are 100% wrong.

 

[Peens]

If she is BI, (Which she isn't) it would be because she Chooses to be Bi.

You are 100% wrong.

OK, You obviously know my friend alot better than me, You obviously know her better than SHE KNOWS herself. :rotflmao:

 

[Peens]

If she is BI, (Which she isn't) it would be because she Chooses to be Bi.

You are 100% wrong.

OK, You obviously know my friend alot better than me, You obviously know her better than SHE KNOWS herself. :rotflmao:

I can tell you for a fact that just because someone gets married doesn't mean that they are straight.Again, it comes down to societal pressure. Some like me can handle it better than others.

Thats funny, I think the society pressures got to her for her to even THINK she was gay in the first place. I remember when she told her family and all her friends none of us gave her any grief. It didnt change how we treated her. I ALWAYS knew she wasnt gay but I never said anything. Turns out, my A## was right.

 

[bueno]

Unfortunately in the real world, the situation is: "You, Mr. Joe Homosexual, are attracted to other men because your brain developed in a way that nature didn't originally intend. And because of that, unscrupulous politicians, small-minded idiots, and malicious bigots are going to try to exploit the scientific reality to label you as "mentally abnormal" or "defective" as an excuse for their mistreatment of you."That's why it pays to be careful with labels. Again, the underlying physical cause is what it is - it's ethically neutral. The problem is how the scientific reality can be used to give sanction to mistreating people. Thinking man's political correctness.

The problem goes a little deeper than that though.We are obsessed with fixing things. The physical cause may be ethically neutral (but the fundamentalists would argue that the resultant behavior is not) but can you really define it in terms of biology as normal? Because it is not the norm, people then assume something is wrong that needs to be fixed. I realize the argument you would make in return is that such thinking would be absurd if applied to every recessive trait or developmental anomaly (and I would agree), but it is society that determines norms and what is acceptable deviations from that norm. So the gay community is fighting a battle on two fronts in this imperfect world.The first battle is one of ethics. You will never convert the converted. A wasted effort.The second battle is the perception that this is an abnormality that needs to be fixed. This could probably be overcome with more tact than the vocal part of the gay community is showing.The battle you have with people like me is more of a libertarian one. I would like to see less governmnet involvement in people's personal lives. not more.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

from an earlier post -2) Traditional concepts of marriage have already given way to liberalization in other areas, such as the availability of no-fault divorce and the elimination of anti-miscegenation laws.3) Many people in modern societies no longer subscribe to the religious beliefs which inform traditional limits upon marriage, and no longer wish these beliefs to constitute the law, and that their laws should be protected from religion under the principle of separation of church and state. In fact, there are some religions that celebrate same-sex weddings or commitment ceremonies already.These are very valid. The whole reason we are even debating whether or not gay marriage should be recognized via state or federal governments is due to the feminist movements and free love movements of the 60s and 70s. Whether or not you agree with the outcomes of either movement, this is where the genesis of the gay marriage movement occurred. This is also where divorce became more of an option and led to "no fault" divorce which has in effect casterated virtually every male involved in a divorce.

 

[cbuc]

Since coming out of the closet, certainly there has been that aspect.  Gay pride parades, dyke hikes, Gay Pride day - all defining gays by their sexuality.

That is only a small % of the population who go to the parades. I avoid that crap like the plague because I don't think it serves the rest of us well at all. You shouldn't assume that the majority of gay people are like those you mentioned above.Should I judge all black people just because I disagree with the Black Panthers and their militant views? No. Because the Black Panthers don't represent the ideals of many black people, just as these stupid parades don't do the same for the majority of us.

You make some good points. I'll try to remember that next time I see any group out making asses of themselves that they may be in the minority. They sure don't help promoting gay acceptance though.

I couldn't agree with you more on that point. And I think I am more effective in influencing my friends by NOT being a part of those silly gay parades which end up alienating heteros instead of converting them to the cause.Instead, I would prefer to see all of us normal, well-adjusted gay people marching down the street in our business power suits instead of those dressing up like clowns.

Gay people need these types of demonstrations so that the pendulum swings. It is just like black people needed Martin Luther King to swing the pendulum. You have to have extremists fighting for your rights, b/c everyone deserves them. I think it is great that you have drag queens and bike dykes marching in parades. We need these people to make others pay attention to the rights we are all fighting for. These are the ones that push and fight each and everyday to be heard so that we live with less social "abnormality" (as some still see it) and we can live our lives free from hate and judgement. So instead of removing yourself from these types of things you should do more to embrace and thank these individuals every chance you get

 

[BassNBrew]

One more thing - the parades aren't going to change the minds of close-minded people. I have changed the minds of many of my straight friends who were originally opposed to gay marriage before they met me. How do I know that? Because they tell me that.How did I do that? Just by being myself and letting them see I am just like them, except I love a little differently from them - not by cramming my gayness down their throat.

So, if you had all the legal rights of a straight couple less the incentives based on the assumption of pro-creation, would you care whether it was a marriage or a civil union?

Honestly, I don't care what it is called. But some people do.A rose is a rose by any other name. I just want my rights.But if it makes it easier for others to accept, then sure - go ahead and call it a civil union.

I just want my bennies. I've been trying to tell you guys this all along. Well us single folk, gay and straight want to dip our hand in the cookie jar too.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Since coming out of the closet, certainly there has been that aspect.  Gay pride parades, dyke hikes, Gay Pride day - all defining gays by their sexuality.

That is only a small % of the population who go to the parades. I avoid that crap like the plague because I don't think it serves the rest of us well at all. You shouldn't assume that the majority of gay people are like those you mentioned above.Should I judge all black people just because I disagree with the Black Panthers and their militant views? No. Because the Black Panthers don't represent the ideals of many black people, just as these stupid parades don't do the same for the majority of us.

You make some good points. I'll try to remember that next time I see any group out making asses of themselves that they may be in the minority. They sure don't help promoting gay acceptance though.

I couldn't agree with you more on that point. And I think I am more effective in influencing my friends by NOT being a part of those silly gay parades which end up alienating heteros instead of converting them to the cause.Instead, I would prefer to see all of us normal, well-adjusted gay people marching down the street in our business power suits instead of those dressing up like clowns.

Gay people need these types of demonstrations so that the pendulum swings. It is just like black people needed Martin Luther King to swing the pendulum. You have to have extremists fighting for your rights, b/c everyone deserves them. I think it is great that you have drag queens and bike dykes marching in parades. We need these people to make others pay attention to the rights we are all fighting for. These are the ones that push and fight each and everyday to be heard so that we live with less social "abnormality" (as some still see it) and we can live our lives free from hate and judgement. So instead of removing yourself from these types of things you should do more to embrace and thank these individuals every chance you get

Your fight does not compare to the civil rights fight faced by African Americans in this society and it pisses me off when you equate them. Yes, you are fighting a fight against a perceived injustice, but until you can prove that gayness is a genetic disposition as opposed to a lifestyle choice it is completely bogus to compare the two. However I always see this occurring because it brings forth the intended gut punch for those that don't fully contemplate what the real civil rights movement entailed. I am not the only one that feels this way, do a google on african american and gay marriage. You will see that approval for gay marriage is even lower among African Americans than it is among caucasians.

 

[BassNBrew]

I dont understand why you people think that married couples that get certain rights that gay people dont, get these rights because of their reproductive abilities. My aunt and uncle are married, have no kids, have no intention of having kids, yet just because they can produce, they are OK to receive these? What a crock.

Like it our not, many of these laws/bennies were orginally created so a man could work and a female could raise kids. Don't ask me why they chose marital status as the dividing line, I was around back then.

 

[BassNBrew]

If she is BI, (Which she isn't) it would be because she Chooses to be Bi.

You are 100% wrong.

Seriously, please explain? Are you saying that we can be wired to be both gay and straight and it's not a choice that we act on? Would that apply to people attractted to kids or animals? Is that a wiring issue or a choice? Why are some things defined as deviant behavoir and others are genetically encode?

 

[shining path]

Unfortunately in the real world, the situation is: "You, Mr. Joe Homosexual, are attracted to other men because your brain developed in a way that nature didn't originally intend.  And because of that, unscrupulous politicians, small-minded idiots, and malicious bigots are going to try to exploit the scientific reality to label you as "mentally abnormal" or "defective" as an excuse for their mistreatment of you."That's why it pays to be careful with labels.  Again, the underlying physical cause is what it is - it's ethically neutral.  The problem is how the scientific reality can be used to give sanction to mistreating people.  Thinking man's political correctness.

The problem goes a little deeper than that though.We are obsessed with fixing things. The physical cause may be ethically neutral (but the fundamentalists would argue that the resultant behavior is not) but can you really define it in terms of biology as normal? Because it is not the norm, people then assume something is wrong that needs to be fixed. I realize the argument you would make in return is that such thinking would be absurd if applied to every recessive trait or developmental anomaly (and I would agree), but it is society that determines norms and what is acceptable deviations from that norm. So the gay community is fighting a battle on two fronts in this imperfect world.The first battle is one of ethics. You will never convert the converted. A wasted effort.The second battle is the perception that this is an abnormality that needs to be fixed. This could probably be overcome with more tact than the vocal part of the gay community is showing.The battle you have with people like me is more of a libertarian one. I would like to see less governmnet involvement in people's personal lives. not more.

You don't think denying responsible adults the right to label their relationships as they see fit is government intervention? You're talking about LAWS that define what constitutes a marriage and what doesn't. That's government intervention. What pro-gay-marriage people are doing is trying to reduce government intervention.You're other comments are interesting and require some thought, which is why I ain't gonna answer them tonight.:3rdbeer:

 

[BassNBrew]

Unfortunately in the real world, the situation is: "You, Mr. Joe Homosexual, are attracted to other men because your brain developed in a way that nature didn't originally intend.  And because of that, unscrupulous politicians, small-minded idiots, and malicious bigots are going to try to exploit the scientific reality to label you as "mentally abnormal" or "defective" as an excuse for their mistreatment of you."That's why it pays to be careful with labels.  Again, the underlying physical cause is what it is - it's ethically neutral.  The problem is how the scientific reality can be used to give sanction to mistreating people.  Thinking man's political correctness.

The problem goes a little deeper than that though.We are obsessed with fixing things. The physical cause may be ethically neutral (but the fundamentalists would argue that the resultant behavior is not) but can you really define it in terms of biology as normal? Because it is not the norm, people then assume something is wrong that needs to be fixed. I realize the argument you would make in return is that such thinking would be absurd if applied to every recessive trait or developmental anomaly (and I would agree), but it is society that determines norms and what is acceptable deviations from that norm. So the gay community is fighting a battle on two fronts in this imperfect world.The first battle is one of ethics. You will never convert the converted. A wasted effort.The second battle is the perception that this is an abnormality that needs to be fixed. This could probably be overcome with more tact than the vocal part of the gay community is showing.The battle you have with people like me is more of a libertarian one. I would like to see less governmnet involvement in people's personal lives. not more.

You don't think denying responsible adults the right to label their relationships as they see fit is government intervention? You're talking about LAWS that define what constitutes a marriage and what doesn't. That's government intervention. What pro-gay-marriage people are doing is trying to reduce government intervention.You're other comments are interesting and require some thought, which is why I ain't gonna answer them tonight.:3rdbeer:

I think you have that exactly backwards path.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Unfortunately in the real world, the situation is: "You, Mr. Joe Homosexual, are attracted to other men because your brain developed in a way that nature didn't originally intend.  And because of that, unscrupulous politicians, small-minded idiots, and malicious bigots are going to try to exploit the scientific reality to label you as "mentally abnormal" or "defective" as an excuse for their mistreatment of you."That's why it pays to be careful with labels.  Again, the underlying physical cause is what it is - it's ethically neutral.  The problem is how the scientific reality can be used to give sanction to mistreating people.  Thinking man's political correctness.

The problem goes a little deeper than that though.We are obsessed with fixing things. The physical cause may be ethically neutral (but the fundamentalists would argue that the resultant behavior is not) but can you really define it in terms of biology as normal? Because it is not the norm, people then assume something is wrong that needs to be fixed. I realize the argument you would make in return is that such thinking would be absurd if applied to every recessive trait or developmental anomaly (and I would agree), but it is society that determines norms and what is acceptable deviations from that norm. So the gay community is fighting a battle on two fronts in this imperfect world.The first battle is one of ethics. You will never convert the converted. A wasted effort.The second battle is the perception that this is an abnormality that needs to be fixed. This could probably be overcome with more tact than the vocal part of the gay community is showing.The battle you have with people like me is more of a libertarian one. I would like to see less governmnet involvement in people's personal lives. not more.

You don't think denying responsible adults the right to label their relationships as they see fit is government intervention? You're talking about LAWS that define what constitutes a marriage and what doesn't. That's government intervention. What pro-gay-marriage people are doing is trying to reduce government intervention.You're other comments are interesting and require some thought, which is why I ain't gonna answer them tonight.:3rdbeer:

So there are laws in place and we now want to ammend those laws for a previously unrecognized group and this is less government intervention?Hmmmm...seems like more intervention.If you want those laws abolished (if there are laws in individual states) you definitely need to get the libertarians in office. You do not want Dems in because they are for more gov't and you don't want GOP because they will stay with moral majority.

 

[BassNBrew]

Unfortunately in the real world, the situation is: "You, Mr. Joe Homosexual, are attracted to other men because your brain developed in a way that nature didn't originally intend.  And because of that, unscrupulous politicians, small-minded idiots, and malicious bigots are going to try to exploit the scientific reality to label you as "mentally abnormal" or "defective" as an excuse for their mistreatment of you."That's why it pays to be careful with labels.  Again, the underlying physical cause is what it is - it's ethically neutral.  The problem is how the scientific reality can be used to give sanction to mistreating people.  Thinking man's political correctness.

The problem goes a little deeper than that though.We are obsessed with fixing things. The physical cause may be ethically neutral (but the fundamentalists would argue that the resultant behavior is not) but can you really define it in terms of biology as normal? Because it is not the norm, people then assume something is wrong that needs to be fixed. I realize the argument you would make in return is that such thinking would be absurd if applied to every recessive trait or developmental anomaly (and I would agree), but it is society that determines norms and what is acceptable deviations from that norm. So the gay community is fighting a battle on two fronts in this imperfect world.The first battle is one of ethics. You will never convert the converted. A wasted effort.The second battle is the perception that this is an abnormality that needs to be fixed. This could probably be overcome with more tact than the vocal part of the gay community is showing.The battle you have with people like me is more of a libertarian one. I would like to see less governmnet involvement in people's personal lives. not more.

You don't think denying responsible adults the right to label their relationships as they see fit is government intervention? You're talking about LAWS that define what constitutes a marriage and what doesn't. That's government intervention. What pro-gay-marriage people are doing is trying to reduce government intervention.You're other comments are interesting and require some thought, which is why I ain't gonna answer them tonight.:3rdbeer:

So there are laws in place and we now want to ammend those laws for a previously unrecognized group and this is less government intervention?Hmmmm...seems like more intervention.If you want those laws abolished (if there are laws in individual states) you definitely need to get the libertarians in office. You do not want Dems in because they are for more gov't and you don't want GOP because they will stay with moral majority.

He knows it all!

 

[shining path]

Unfortunately in the real world, the situation is: "You, Mr. Joe Homosexual, are attracted to other men because your brain developed in a way that nature didn't originally intend.  And because of that, unscrupulous politicians, small-minded idiots, and malicious bigots are going to try to exploit the scientific reality to label you as "mentally abnormal" or "defective" as an excuse for their mistreatment of you."That's why it pays to be careful with labels.  Again, the underlying physical cause is what it is - it's ethically neutral.  The problem is how the scientific reality can be used to give sanction to mistreating people.  Thinking man's political correctness.

The problem goes a little deeper than that though.We are obsessed with fixing things. The physical cause may be ethically neutral (but the fundamentalists would argue that the resultant behavior is not) but can you really define it in terms of biology as normal? Because it is not the norm, people then assume something is wrong that needs to be fixed. I realize the argument you would make in return is that such thinking would be absurd if applied to every recessive trait or developmental anomaly (and I would agree), but it is society that determines norms and what is acceptable deviations from that norm. So the gay community is fighting a battle on two fronts in this imperfect world.The first battle is one of ethics. You will never convert the converted. A wasted effort.The second battle is the perception that this is an abnormality that needs to be fixed. This could probably be overcome with more tact than the vocal part of the gay community is showing.The battle you have with people like me is more of a libertarian one. I would like to see less governmnet involvement in people's personal lives. not more.

You don't think denying responsible adults the right to label their relationships as they see fit is government intervention? You're talking about LAWS that define what constitutes a marriage and what doesn't. That's government intervention. What pro-gay-marriage people are doing is trying to reduce government intervention.You're other comments are interesting and require some thought, which is why I ain't gonna answer them tonight.:3rdbeer:

So there are laws in place and we now want to ammend those laws for a previously unrecognized group and this is less government intervention?Hmmmm...seems like more intervention.If you want those laws abolished (if there are laws in individual states) you definitely need to get the libertarians in office. You do not want Dems in because they are for more gov't and you don't want GOP because they will stay with moral majority.

He knows it all!

And there aren't even any glaring contradictions in his post, either! Good stuff.Why is it that removing government regulation everywhere else is considered libertarian, but on the issue of gay marriage it's considered government intervention? Or are you recognizing the contradiction by indicating that the libertarian party is the way to go?

 

[Jericho]

If she is BI, (Which she isn't) it would be because she Chooses to be Bi.

You are 100% wrong.

Seriously, please explain? Are you saying that we can be wired to be both gay and straight and it's not a choice that we act on? Would that apply to people attractted to kids or animals? Is that a wiring issue or a choice? Why are some things defined as deviant behavoir and others are genetically encode?

Yes, I'm saying that is entirely possible to be attracted to both males and females. It's not an on/off switch. It's probably hormone levels or chemical balances or something. I'm sure it's also possible to be attracted to kids and animals, but there are completely separate reasons why that's frowned upon. Same-sex attraction is consensual and between adults.If you find yourself attracted to kids or animals, then yes, you have to supress those urges for good reasons that don't require ancient texts. There's no good reason outside of archaic superstition to ask two consenting adults of any gender to suppress those same urges, and there's also no good reason to not treat them equally under the law.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You are absolutely right on that point. I have a friend who is also a lesbian. She REALLY wants kids. However, she feels that because of society that she would have to marry a man if she wants her kids to not face ridicule from a close-minded society.It's sad that she allows society's pressures to make her feel this way.Fortunately for me, I don't want kids. I want to accomplish all my dreams first. Maybe one day I will have kids. But I won't cave in to societal pressure - my kids would be with a woman.

Is there a "baby boom" in the Lesbian community in Dallas like there is in the mid Atlantic? One of my best friends faces exactly the same situation, except substitute family for society. I'd marry her in a heartbeat if she could ever convince me that I could totally make her happy. Problem is I know her, and love her too much. That another best friend wouldn't be too happy with us.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Your fight does not compare to the civil rights fight faced by African Americans in this society and it pisses me off when you equate them. Yes, you are fighting a fight against a perceived injustice, but until you can prove that gayness is a genetic disposition as opposed to a lifestyle choice it is completely bogus to compare the two.

It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that sexual preference is not chosen.(And genetic disposition vs. lifestyle choice is a false dichotomy.)

 

[Dickies]

For all you people saying gay people choose to be gay..... I am straight, and I did not choose that, it just kinda happened that way. What makes you people think homosexuals would be any different? (besides the gender they are attracted to)

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Your fight does not compare to the civil rights fight faced by African Americans in this society and it pisses me off when you equate them. Yes, you are fighting a fight against a perceived injustice, but until you can prove that gayness is a genetic disposition as opposed to a lifestyle choice it is completely bogus to compare the two.

It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that sexual preference is not chosen.(And genetic disposition vs. lifestyle choice is a false dichotomy.)

Whose standard are you using, people that agree with you? I would venture to bet that many "reasonable" people have the same qualms I have about whether or not it is a lifestyle choice. You have used this standard in the past and I have never seen the irrefutable evidence that you imply exists.Seriously, show me the evidence. My "feeling" that it is not a genetic predisposition is no less valid than your "feeling that it is not...barring any proof to the contrary. I have seen the studies where certain areas of homosexual male brains are different than the same areas in their heterosexual counterparts. Now tell me, is this evidence that they are biologically different or is it evidence that they are conditionally different?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

One more thing - the parades aren't going to change the minds of close-minded people. I have changed the minds of many of my straight friends who were originally opposed to gay marriage before they met me. How do I know that? Because they tell me that.How did I do that? Just by being myself and letting them see I am just like them, except I love a little differently from them - not by cramming my gayness down their throat.

So, if you had all the legal rights of a straight couple less the incentives based on the assumption of pro-creation, would you care whether it was a marriage or a civil union?

Source

4. One out of three lesbian couples is raising children. One out of five gay malecouples is raising children.

Why should these couples should get left out of "incentives based on the assumption of pro-creation"?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

From Wikipedia: Causes of sexual orientation . . .

Each of the following factors [genetic biological factors, non-genetic biological factors, psychological and social factors] has been proposed as a possible contributor to one's sexual orientation. Various people accept one or a combination of these factors. The majority of researchers in the field believe orientation is probably determined not by any one single factor but by some combination of them, except that nearly all researchers reject conscious choice as a factor. Choice is believed to affect whether one externalizes one's orientation, but is not believed to be a factor in determining the orientation.

. . .

Some people, primarily Christians and most often fundamentalists, advocate the view that people's sexual orientation follows from their behavior: e.g., if they try homosexual acts, they might like them and thereby acquire a homosexual orientation. In fact some also believe that a heterosexual orientation is formed in the same way, and that the only genetic element is in the basic underlying sexual desire. Some people who share this view operate prayer ministries and 12-step programs to help people change from homosexuality to heterosexuality.

There is no independent research that validates the views or methods of these advocates.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I would venture to bet that many "reasonable" people have the same qualms I have about whether or not it is a lifestyle choice.

No they don't.

My "feeling" that it is not a genetic predisposition is no less valid than your "feeling that it is not...barring any proof to the contrary.

Who said anything about a genetic predisposition?I'm saying that it's not a choice. And it's not. Ask MacArtist. Or just look into your own soul. Could you choose to be sexually attracted to Michael Moore instead of Sarah Michelle Gellar?

 

[CrossEyed]

From Wikipedia: Causes of sexual orientation . . .

Each of the following factors [genetic biological factors, non-genetic biological factors, psychological and social factors] has been proposed as a possible contributor to one's sexual orientation. Various people accept one or a combination of these factors. The majority of researchers in the field believe orientation is probably determined not by any one single factor but by some combination of them, except that nearly all researchers reject conscious choice as a factor. Choice is believed to affect whether one externalizes one's orientation, but is not believed to be a factor in determining the orientation.

. . .

Some people, primarily Christians and most often fundamentalists, advocate the view that people's sexual orientation follows from their behavior: e.g., if they try homosexual acts, they might like them and thereby acquire a homosexual orientation. In fact some also believe that a heterosexual orientation is formed in the same way, and that the only genetic element is in the basic underlying sexual desire. Some people who share this view operate prayer ministries and 12-step programs to help people change from homosexuality to heterosexuality.

There is no independent research that validates the views or methods of these advocates.

Well there you have it. If Wikipedia says so, it must be true. What was I thinking?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If Wikipedia says so, it must be true.

That's a pretty good bet.

 

[BassNBrew]

Why can't they just say to themselves, "it ain't gonna happen' and move on?

Because the average lesbian I've been around is more fun to hang out with and has better self-esteem.

 

[BassNBrew]

Why can't they just say to themselves, "it ain't gonna happen' and move on? 

Because the average lesbian I've been around is more fun to hang out with and has better self-esteem.

So we're irrestible then?

2 out of the last 3 friendly acquaintances I've asked out have been lesbians. In both cases I thought that might be the case beforehand. The other supposedly is bi, but I have my doubts. Maybe I need to run with a different crowd.Anyway, I don't want to get off the subject, but maybe if there are traits unique to you that make you a lesbian, there could also be traits that make you attractive to these men.:SimpilyIrresistable:

 

[BassNBrew]

Why can't they just say to themselves, "it ain't gonna happen' and move on? 

Because the average lesbian I've been around is more fun to hang out with and has better self-esteem.

So we're irrestible then?

2 out of the last 3 friendly acquaintances I've asked out have been lesbians. In both cases I thought that might be the case beforehand. The other supposedly is bi, but I have my doubts. Maybe I need to run with a different crowd.Anyway, I don't want to get off the subject, but maybe if there are traits unique to you that make you a lesbian, there could also be traits that make you attractive to these men.:SimpilyIrresistable:

I do find that my guy friends appreciate how I'll tell them, "Yeah - she's hot. Go go for it!" or "She's fugly as hell".Does that count? :innocent:

I think it may have something to do with a higher self esteem. That's attractive to me. Of course my sample size is small so maybe I'm making generalizations that are in fact not accurate.I was going to reply "that's not what I'm talking about", but after more thought, being able to make a comment like that without comparing yourself the hottie and feeling inferior is what I'm talking about to an extent.

 

[BassNBrew]

Why can't they just say to themselves, "it ain't gonna happen' and move on? 

Because the average lesbian I've been around is more fun to hang out with and has better self-esteem.

So we're irrestible then?

2 out of the last 3 friendly acquaintances I've asked out have been lesbians. In both cases I thought that might be the case beforehand. The other supposedly is bi, but I have my doubts. Maybe I need to run with a different crowd.Anyway, I don't want to get off the subject, but maybe if there are traits unique to you that make you a lesbian, there could also be traits that make you attractive to these men.:SimpilyIrresistable:

I do find that my guy friends appreciate how I'll tell them, "Yeah - she's hot. Go go for it!" or "She's fugly as hell".Does that count? :innocent:

I think it may have something to do with a higher self esteem. That's attractive to me. Of course my sample size is small so maybe I'm making generalizations that are in fact not accurate.

You know what? I do have a very high self-esteem. I have know what I'm capable of and freely admit what I'm not capable of. I don't pretend to know what I don;t know about but I will stand up for what I DO know about. I also don't give a rat's #### what people think of me to a degree. I'm myself and for anyone who doesn't like it, it's not MY problem.

That's it, I graviate towards women with high self-esteem...or maybe I just want a threesome

 

[BassNBrew]

Also, I understand that that no matter what, people aren't always going to agree with me. And that's ok. Because I'm not always going to agree with them. I think the main thing is that I respect their opinions regardless of whether or not I THINK they are wrong.I think most of my posts do illustrate that.Edited add: At least I hope so.

I you where you're coming from and am trying to do the same. Helps when you're the only conservative/libertarian in a 12 team league of FBGs.

 

[BassNBrew]

Hopefully none of those damn liberals are surfing here tonite.

 

[bueno]

Since coming out of the closet, certainly there has been that aspect.  Gay pride parades, dyke hikes, Gay Pride day - all defining gays by their sexuality.

That is only a small % of the population who go to the parades. I avoid that crap like the plague because I don't think it serves the rest of us well at all. You shouldn't assume that the majority of gay people are like those you mentioned above.Should I judge all black people just because I disagree with the Black Panthers and their militant views? No. Because the Black Panthers don't represent the ideals of many black people, just as these stupid parades don't do the same for the majority of us.

You make some good points. I'll try to remember that next time I see any group out making asses of themselves that they may be in the minority. They sure don't help promoting gay acceptance though.

I couldn't agree with you more on that point. And I think I am more effective in influencing my friends by NOT being a part of those silly gay parades which end up alienating heteros instead of converting them to the cause.Instead, I would prefer to see all of us normal, well-adjusted gay people marching down the street in our business power suits instead of those dressing up like clowns.

Gay people need these types of demonstrations so that the pendulum swings. It is just like black people needed Martin Luther King to swing the pendulum. You have to have extremists fighting for your rights, b/c everyone deserves them. I think it is great that you have drag queens and bike dykes marching in parades. We need these people to make others pay attention to the rights we are all fighting for. These are the ones that push and fight each and everyday to be heard so that we live with less social "abnormality" (as some still see it) and we can live our lives free from hate and judgement. So instead of removing yourself from these types of things you should do more to embrace and thank these individuals every chance you get

I have to disagree. The people marching in streets in clown suits cannot be compared to MLK. If MLK marched through Selma in a tutu he would have not been taken seriously. That is the problem with dyke-hikes. MacArtist's approach is better by far.