Nature vs. Nurture

[Triggerhappy]

I may tolerate homosexuality, but I may not accept it as being moral

That's all I asked.

 

After all, just as the pro-homosexual side has flaws in their reasons, so does the anti-homosexuals

that argue reasons. My whole point was to get you to admit this, not reform your beliefs and morals to support homosexual's lifestyles. I never said you should believe it to be morally sound.

[[TNT] Sonic Goo]

*checks thread for actual arguments against gay rights, finds none*

 

*still waits for explanation on how something like gay marriage would be harmful or even immoral*

[RXS]

That's all I asked.

 

After all, just as the pro-homosexual side has flaws in their reasons, so does the anti-homosexuals

that argue reasons. My whole point was to get you to admit this, not reform your beliefs and morals to support homosexual's lifestyles. I never said you should believe it to be morally sound.

Right.......what you did is known as defamation, not an innocent request for tolerance.

Edited August 9, 2007 by RXS

[[FF5]Knix]

*checks thread for actual arguments against gay rights, finds none*

 

*still waits for explanation on how something like gay marriage would be harmful or even immoral*

 

 

*Checks posts on topic...feels releived to know that he is not losing his mind, and that he did in fact give explinations Goo asked. wonders why goo keeps asking for an arguement. Suggests a Berlitz refresher class.

 

*Re-Checks posts on topic, see's best suggestions is to recommend all read sentence above. Hopes Goo doesn't ask for reasons again.

 

*Still waits for an explanation to at what point does atypical sexual behavior cross the line of morality and what is best for society? Hopes everyone read my reasons (yep I said reasons goo! real live ones too) in refuting the "consent" idea. Hopes he does not get the slippery slope defense.

 

 

 

[Caip]

I may tolerate homosexuality, but I may not accept it as being moral

That's all I asked.

 

 

Wow, it took several unnecessary posts to establish THAT? To me, RXS' point of view has been absolutely clear right from the beginning...

 

I don't think homosexuality should be perceived as immoral, but at least RXS tolerates them

 

 

The question is of course, whether gay rights should be granted based on tolerance or acceptance.

[Kitty!]

For me, should be based on tolerance.

[[FF5]Knix]

That's all I asked.

Wow, it took several unnecessary posts to establish THAT? To me, RXS' point of view has been absolutely clear right from the beginning...

 

I don't think homosexuality should be perceived as immoral, but at least RXS tolerates them

The question is of course, whether gay rights should be granted based on tolerance or acceptance.

 

I think it's irrelevant whether it is accepted or tolerated. What is the response to something NOT being tolerated? Usually violence, which is not accetptable. Acceptance in which form? I accept the fact that people in this world practice a homosexual lifestyle. I accept the fact that these people feel that they deserve to have the same legal rights accross the board that heterosexual people have. I have no reason not to tolerate their behavior as it does not directly affect myself or my family ,and I would never perform violence to anyone that does not immediatley affect or threaten myself, my family, or friends.

 

That does not preclude me to agree that that they should be granted marrige rights, adoption rights, etc, as I feel the validation they are looking for should not be granted as...

 

1) The majority of this country (through various polls and state based bill votes show) are in the opposition.

2) It has not been proven that this behavior is based on biological or social conditions. Since I feel (as I mentioned) that such behavior goes against the main neccesity of human existance (procreation), we cannot offer options to those who have this condition if we don't determine it's origin.

3) If full rights are granted, and legal validation (social validation in reality is not as important) given, there has been no assurance by anyone so far in this thread as to where is the line as to what atypical sexual behavior down the road will also warrant such validation.

 

 

[[TNT] Sonic Goo]

1) Rights issues should not be vote issues, they should be legal issues. Rights are not about popularity contests, on the contrary. They exists to protect the rights of a minority from the tyranny of the majority.

2) As pointed out by me above, your argument is silly. Not just that, it's irrelevant to the issue. Gay people will not suddenly stop having the children they're not having anyway when they're allowed to marry. In situation 1, not being allowed to marry, they have no children naturally. In situation 2, being allowed to marry, they don't either. Procreation doesn't effect the issue and the issue doesn't effect procreation. Your main argument is irrelevant.

3) As pointed out above and before as well, gay rights do not have adverse effects on society. Other situations you claim it sets a precedent for, do. Incestuous relationships lead to birth defects, polygamy would alter the structure of society negatively (see for example the issues this causes in the mormon community), etc. etc. These things you compare it with are not similar and will not be legalised as a result of gay marriage being legalised. The first examples you gave fall down for reasons of consent, the others for reasons of their own.

Then there are the countries that have already legalised gay marriage. There have been no cases of any of the other issues you mentioned being legalised citing gay marriage as a precedent. There have been no other ill effects on society either.

 

So both theory and practice assure you that no other atypical* behaviour will be legalised as a result of this.

 

In short, I'm still waiting for any valid reasons that this would be bad in some way.

 

 

*you know, just because something is not typical, average or normal, does not make it bad. I know it's natural for people to fear what they don't know/understand, but I was hoping we'd moved beyond that.

[RXS]

1) Rights issues should not be vote issues, they should be legal issues. Rights are not about popularity contests, on the contrary. They exists to protect the rights of a minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Legal issues are put to a vote (at least at a state level)..... Majority of votes determines outcome. Majority vote = "popularity contest"...the majority determine the rights and laws by which they will be bound.

 

Maybe i'm not understanding where you wanted to go with this.....

 

 

3) polygamy would alter the structure of society negatively (see for example the issues this causes in the mormon community), etc. etc. These things you compare it with are not similar and will not be legalised as a result of gay marriage being legalised. The first examples you gave fall down for reasons of consent, the others for reasons of their own.

The mormon community does not practice polygamy. I'm kind of currious how polygamy would alter the structure of society negatively????

Edited August 10, 2007 by RXS

[[FF5]Knix]

 

I don't see how Polygamy is any more dangerous to society then homosexuality. The Mormon church outlawed the practice due to outside pressures and a means to avoid further persacution (seen today still) by many Americans, not because one day one of the elders of the Church woke up one day and thought it was a bad idea. You say homosexuality has no adverse affect on society. Is this fact or opinion? You say that giving validation and certain rights to gay people won't set precedent in the future request for acceptability of say polygamy. Why not? The same reasons you give for giving certain "rights" to gay people can easily be made for polygamy.

 

Rights are not unlimited. In many forms they are more privledge then right. In this country, you have the right to vote if you are a citizen, age 18 or older, and a non-felon. You can be any color of the rainbow, if you fit these 3 parameters you're free to do so. Gun laws, same deal (except for the need to be a citizen I think), etc, etc, etc.

 

Marrige is viewed the same way, any color, any size, on death row, or free as a bird, as long as you are of a minimum age (or less via parental approval), you pay the application fee, you are not of biological relations (up to 2nd cousins I think, however this gets looked over frequently in certain Southern states ), and you are marrying a person of the opposite sex.

So nowhere have I read where marrige is an "unalianable right", it like voting is a priviledge.

 

In this country if you wish to amend the rules of such privledges, you must pass a bill to do so. This has not happened, as any congressperson or Senator knows any bill would get blown out of the sky, as every politician knows the majority of this country doesn't want it.

 

Again I don't see the advantage of giving such privledges to people who's behavior is not condusive to the progression of society. Research is not pusched on the cause of such behavior, as the people who have such tendencies, and practice such behavior don't want to know of possible post birth causes, as they feel it will diminish their position. Thus the constant push to state without medical proof that they are born with this preference.

 

They are not having children you say? Gay men donating sperm to Lesbian women in a sign of "solidarity" is not uncommon at all in this country. So its not like some zero sum game like you suggest.

 

How about this tact. Teach people at an early age to live life the right way, to be responsible, to make better decisions. Create more early intervention programs to help those going off the right track.

 

Gay people are viable as adoptive parents because they love the child they are adopting? I never suggested they were incapable of love. Using them as a safety net to put unwanted or uncared for children is just putting a bandaid on the real problem. Teach young people about the responcibility of practicing sex, and what pitfalls may lie infront of them if they dont, and maybe we won't have so many unwanted/cared for children around to have to pass off!

 

If we woke up tomorrow and there was no homosexuality in the world, what do we lose as a society? Nothing. Same can't be said for heterosexuality.

 

So once again as maybe I maybe I am not being clear enough in my reasons...

The rights that you speak of are not in fact rights, but privleges. The harm in allowing these privledges being granted to homosexuals is giving their sexual practice validity. This practice should not be valid as by itself it could not sustain itself, its practice bears no fruit. The idea of even looking into causation in the hopes to offer the option to no longer want to continue such behavior is shot down as biggoted.

 

A gay person can be president

A gay person can vote

A gay person can adopt

A gay person cannot be terminated from a job (except in the active military) for their lifestyle

 

Back to you goo (and anyone in the viewing audience), give me reasons why we should not look into causation, strive for treatment, or the advantages of providing these privledges. I haven't seen one written yet.

 

 

[Caip]

Again I don't see the advantage of giving such privledges to people who's behavior is not condusive to the progression of society.

 

Progression of society = making babies? There is more to the progression of society, as Goo already pointed out, like philosophy, culture and science. There are ways for e.g. lesbian couples to give birth to children with the help of sperm donors as you already pointed out. The argument that homosexuality is not contributing to the "procreation" of society fails.

 

Back to you goo (and anyone in the viewing audience), give me reasons why we should not look into causation, strive for treatment, or the advantages of providing these privledges. I haven't seen one written yet.

 

Treatment. That word again. Homosexuality isn't a disease, homosexuals aren't disabled or mentally ill (I know some beg to differ). As far as causation and treatment goes, sure look into them as much as you want to, but don't you agree that money should be spent more reasonably? Research into cancer treatment, a cure for Aids or non-polluting energy generation, to name a few.

 

Marriage certainly isn't needed for procreation or founding a family, so what are the advantages of granting heterosexuals the privilege of marriage? Tax benefits? Are there any other rational arguments in favor of straight marriage that couldn't be used to argue in favor of gay marriage? I doubt it. Where's the problem in granting homosexuals the same social benefits heterosexuals enjoy?

[{GD}Independent]

3) As pointed out above and before as well, gay rights do not have adverse effects on society. Other situations you claim it sets a precedent for, do. Incestuous relationships lead to birth defects, ...

 

 

Are we to gather that Goo does not think AIDS has had an adverse effect on society? OH, wait! Sorry! We're supposed to say that AIDS is not a homosexual disease. Sorry, forgot. Please forgive me. Let me get back to that mantra we're all supposed to repeat until we believe it: AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. There, I feel better! Just repeat something often enough, and it becomes true!

[[FF5]Knix]

Are we to gather that Goo does not think AIDS has had an adverse effect on society? OH, wait! Sorry! We're supposed to say that AIDS is not a homosexual disease. Sorry, forgot. Please forgive me. Let me get back to that mantra we're all supposed to repeat until we believe it: AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. There, I feel better! Just repeat something often enough, and it becomes true!

 

I've heard 2 theories...

 

1) African Monkeys

2) Canadian (homosexual) flight attendent back in the '70's.

 

But alas, we digest...er....digress

[[TNT] Sonic Goo]

RXS:

Not all laws are made (or changed) by congress. Segregation for example was not ended by referendum (otherwise it would still be there). It's not about passing a bill, it's about changing existing ones.

 

As for polygamy, it doesn't happen legally, but it does happen. It’s estimated that nearly 37,000 fundamentalist Mormons still practice polygamy today. See also http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200604...auch_2006-04-04

 

I haven't seen one written yet.

There have been plenty mentioned already. Kids that need adopting. It will lower hate crimes against gays (which you seem to condone). It will reduce sham marriages. It will reduce people living a sham life, being forced to be something they aren't. Something you seem to want to encourage.

 

Indy:

In Africa, HIV was first recognized in sexually active heterosexuals, and AIDS cases in Africa have occurred at least as frequently in women as in men. Overall, the worldwide distribution of HIV infection and AIDS between men and women is approximately 1 to 1.[59] In sub-Saharan Africa, 57% of adults with HIV are women, and young women aged 15 to 24 are more than three times as likely to be infected as young men.

[RXS]

RXS:

As for polygamy, it doesn't happen legally, but it does happen. It’s estimated that nearly 37,000 fundamentalist Mormons still practice polygamy today. See also http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200604...auch_2006-04-04

 

 

Goo:

One more time - Mormons do not practice polygamy. Some small splinter groups who broke off from the Mormon religion may practice polygamy, but it is not practiced by those of the LDS/Mormon faith nor is it sanctioned in any way by the Mormon religion. Anyone within the 13+ Million members of the Mormon religion practicing polygamy is excomunicated...0 tolerance - no ifs, ands, or butts about it.

 

You dodged the questions possed, "how polygamy would alter the structure of society negatively????"

 

[RXS]

RXS:

Not all laws are made (or changed) by congress. Segregation for example was not ended by referendum (otherwise it would still be there). It's not about passing a bill, it's about changing existing ones.

 

And how do you think existing ones are changed?

[[FF5]Knix]

 

Indy:

In Africa, HIV was first recognized in sexually active heterosexuals, and AIDS cases in Africa have occurred at least as frequently in women as in men. Overall, the worldwide distribution of HIV infection and AIDS between men and women is approximately 1 to 1.[59] In sub-Saharan Africa, 57% of adults with HIV are women, and young women aged 15 to 24 are more than three times as likely to be infected as young men.

http://www.originofaids.com/

http://www.avert.org/origins.htm

http://afgen.com/aids_cancer.html

http://www.healtoronto.com/wicked.html

http://www.osstation.com/origin.html

 

Cause can be argued.

This can't...

 

http://img.thebody.com/cdc/pdfs/2005SurveillanceReport.pdf

 

Page 10...

[{BAB} JJ Argus]

Traditional. One loving, biological father. One loving, biological mother. No abuse, no neglect, no divorce. Stability. No molesting uncle. Am I so weird that I think that's the normal, ideal environment in which to raise children?!?!

 

That aint 'normal'. I dont know anyone who ticks all those boxes - ergo it isnt normal. All western societies consider single-parent families, divorced families, adopted and foster children to be the normal state of affairs. I also dont think it stops a child being raised well. I think there is just as much chance that something would be wrong with a full biological family as with any other sort. I'm with you on the molesting uncle bit though.

 

Incidentally, it isn't even historically 'normal'. Wars, disease, famines, politics, money and natural disasters have always meant that families are split up or family members are lost.

 

A gay person cannot be terminated from a job (except in the active military) for their lifestyle

 

Really, wow that is weird. We have laws that keep our military in check over that and good on them. Not that it's all fine and dandy yet but it's going in the right direction.

 

Are we to gather that Goo does not think AIDS has had an adverse effect on society? OH, wait! Sorry! We're supposed to say that AIDS is not a homosexual disease. Sorry, forgot. Please forgive me. Let me get back to that mantra we're all supposed to repeat until we believe it: AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. There, I feel better! Just repeat something often enough, and it becomes true!

 

Yeah of course it's gay people that caused this???? - NOT. Hmm, maybe have a read of some basic medical material and you'll see the disease orignated in Africa and was actually spread (and is still spread) mainly by heterosexual intercourse. The only reason it ever got associated with homosexuality is because of an outbreak in the 70's amongst the western homosexual community that got a lot of media interest.

 

Incidentally this weekend was Manchester Pride (Kind of a gay Mardi Gras affair) and even though i'm not gay i'm proud that it happens every year and that where i live diversity and cultural appreciation is so positive. Even the military march in the parades now.

[{GD}Independent]

and was actually spread (and is still spread) mainly by heterosexual intercourse.

 

 

See! The technique worked perfectly on JJ! Congratulations, JJ!

 

AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease.AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease.AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease. AIDS is not a homosexual disease.

 

Pretty soon I'll believe it too!

 

Just curious -- If AIDS is not primarily a homosexual disease, how come there are so many gay groups involved in AIDS activism? Seems to me, they shouldn't have any more interest in the issue than straights! Huh. I must be missing something...

Edited September 18, 2007 by {SFI}Independent

[[FF5]Knix]

I've had this convo enough times to give you the answer GDI!

 

If gay people were accepted world wide as equals in society, and thus granted the same privledges granted to all peoples of this world, there would be no clandestine ronde vous in secret bath houses, bathroom stalls at certain airports, and weigh stations off of major highways where strangers would rush to have quickys on the sly, thus increasing the likely hood of passing on or acquiring the HIV virus. If these people were allowed to hold hands in public, marry, date openly, apply to any job, run for office, without fear of recrimination, there would be no need for such actions, and thus the rate of AIDS in the homesexual community would plummit like Star Jones' waist line. (I am paraphrasing of course).

 

I usually retort such statements asking why the rate of those with AIDS inside the gay community itself is SIGNIFICANTLY higher among homesexual males vs. Lesbians?

 

Could it be that men are horny dogs who will hump a tree if you don't watch over them every second? Where as women in any relationship are more "maternal" thus more likely to settle down with one sexual partner over a longer period of time?

 

Are we to summise that if the permiscuous gay male be allowed into holy matrimony, that they would be as faithfull on the whole as any married straight man?

 

 

[Kitty!]

Exactly KNIX, very true, i do notice that men are more sluttly than us women (no offense to the good guys). Lesbians are more faithful, while the gay men love to have too much fun. Also if they dont take care of themselves, they can end with colon cancer and stuff, i knew this guy who was gay and was diagnosed with that, dont know the exact cause, but it may be due to having anal sex a lot. And just in case someone starts shooting at me, im just saying, it COULD BE A POSSIBILITY.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Kitty!

[FzyBunnySliprs]

Exactly KNIX, very true, i do notice that men are more sluttly than us women (no offense to the good guys). Lesbians are more faithful, while the gay men love to have too much fun. Also if they dont take care of themselves, they can end with colon cancer and stuff, i knew this guy who was gay and was diagnosed with that, dont know the exact cause, but it may be due to having anal sex a lot. And just in case someone starts shooting at me, im just saying, it COULD BE A POSSIBILITY.

Oh boy, here we go again...a little research would be in order before making such rediculous statements. Click here

[Kitty!]

haha ANYWAYS.... I dont know what medical knowledge u may have, but it has been said that anal sex may cause different deceases. Read again... POSSIBILITY, i didnt said ITS A FACT. Im just saying of what i heard on TV, medicine magazines ETC. Anal sex causes health probs, which is an act that gay men happen to practice.

Edited September 18, 2007 by Kitty!

[FzyBunnySliprs]

My point is that if you have no facts to support your statement, why would you make it in the first place? Your disclaimer only points out that you know the statement you made is basically ignorant. There is plenty of information that suggests some cancers (not colon cancer, actually) may stem from other medical conditions which may be cause by said acts. But really, if you want to make a logical statement, perhaps you could spend 5 minutes getting your facts straight first.

 

It occurs to me that this is a futile argument. Bottom line is that we all make choices which may not be in our best interest health wise. That should really have no overall bearing on this topic. What were we debating? Oh right, nature vs. nurture. Back to you Kitty...

Edited September 19, 2007 by FzyBunnySliprs

[robert]

I do believe that circumstance can cause one to choose (subconsciously, of course) a gay lifestyle. How many of your gay friends had "normal" childhoods? Be honest, please.

 

So are we saying that YOUR interpretation of "normal" is what we should base how somone is gay?

 

I have a very close friend who went though some terrible 'frack'. They were abused as a child. mother died of cancer,father left,foster homes drugs,drinking,the whole shabang and they are as straight as a ruler. A person is not born gay. But they are also not "created" as though some result of a sick experiment. On the other hand i know one of my best friends Michelle was brought up in a prosporus CA family. she was born into a life where she has never had to work, was one of the most popular girls in school, had probably the most homcoming queen and prom nominations of anyone ive ever seen. And she is gay. Not a "dress up in flamboyant clothes and cut my hair short" but just a hahah "normal" person. you would never suspect it unless she brought her girlfriend or told you it herself. I myself was shocked when i found out and I have been her friend for nearly 14 years. So i ask what exactly is normal/moral/right? who are we to say somone can or cannot be gay, cannot have "children" , cannot fight in our military, etc. the list goes on and on. I do not believe it is a "genetic" imperfection. You like many of the choices you make in your life, choose to be gay or straight. Its what excites you. I know that most men ive talked to 25-29 year olds have discussed with me what would it be like to have an intimate moment with a member of the opposite and same sex. Its curiosity and what mkes us "happy" or "excited" You are not born gay. As Kitty said if one were born gay wouldnt we be all born gay? however there have been studies that gay people have some incresed/decreased mass in the frontal lobe cavity which distinguishes somthing from right and wrong. Im just stating that its one of those freak things not in the sense gay people are freaks, but that we really have not say in that situation. How would you like it if somone told you you had to conform to a specific "quo".Its not somthing we can really comment on...Why do you dress the way you do. Why do you talk and act the way you do? its all a matter of opinion and this conversation will continue to feud because, and hear me on this people, EVERYONE HAS THEIR OWN OPINION OF WHATS RIGHT WRONG FAIR AND UNFAIR MORAL AND UNMORAL. It is not our place to judge them on the opinion. I do object to gays who shove it down your throat as though you HAVE to accept it....Just as i hate when somone tells me I HAVE to accept their customs,religion,morals,etc. Its all a matter of opion folks and thats where people get into such heated debate. I see somthing one way and you may see it the other way, Are either of us correct? are we justified? its all a crapshoot. Just becuase people choose to confrom doesnt mean its right? when that whole fad of sagging the pants came in....Everyone confromed to it...Was it right? i dont know who are we to say....some will say its right some will say its wrong....And thats why people cannont judge another person because they ARE NOT that person and they havent had the same experiances same family...etc.