|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
posted November 01, 2003 05:57 AM |
|
|
oh gee lews, thanks for the great meaningful input to the thread again. *smack*
I never said your bouncing on me.. fool
why dont you learn how to read, then mabey you can make a point with your BS perspective.
-part 2-
i imd you 3 times. and the last one was lets leave this argument out of the thread :| there should be peace between us anyways
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
|
posted November 01, 2003 07:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Still I do find the idea funny, that someone discriminates against a minority group of people for all of his life, with no rational reasons and just because some "holy" book tells him so - and afterwards finds out that he had been quite misinformed.
Once again, if you cannot prove that homosexuality is not a choice, you cannot use the discrimination idea because if, unlike race and gender, homosexuality is voluntary, then homosexuals can choose whether or not they wish to be discriminated against. They have to decide which is more important: choice or general acceptance.
Of course, I cannot prove that homosexuality is a choice, so I guess that I have no room to talk. There haven't been many convincing arguments for either side, at least to me, so I guess that for now, we are at an impass.
Feel free to prove me wrong. 
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 01, 2003 09:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Once again, if you cannot prove that homosexuality is not a choice, you cannot use the discrimination idea because if, unlike race and gender, homosexuality is voluntary, then homosexuals can choose whether or not they wish to be discriminated against.
Hello Shadowcaster,
in the case of choice, the discrimination argument would be valid, too. Example: People are discriminated against for their religion in many countries. Would you deny this, or deny the voluntariness of religion?
But that put aside - I think modern science (biologists, sociologists, psychologists and whoever else is competent on that matter) is quite clear on that matter, and I´m doubtful that there is an independent source that takes the possibility of sexual orientation being a decision serious. Just as you will have a hard time finding an astronomer who holds the view that the moon is made of green cheese.
A few pages ago, I posted a link (unfortunately in my mother tongue, German) that summarizes a large number of empirical studies on that subject. They examined heterosexual and homosexual families with children, and came to the result that those children showed hardly any difference in their sexual preferences (and most other fields of personality development). Which also clearly contradicts the idea of choice.
Of course, even if homosexuality were based on voluntary decision, we would still be missing a rational reason why it should not be practiced between two grown adults.
____________
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted November 01, 2003 09:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
we would still be missing a rational reason why it should not be practiced between two grown adults.
Right, and possibly humans will never know for sure wether it should, or should not be practised.
1 thing is for sure, hetro should be done.
Some rational reasoning has been exxpressed, and is within people who know, the reasons homosexuality is not the best way. We can let homosexuals do what they want, but we cant stop the correct feelings in the majority of humans. And by life and everything itself, we should try to maintain the most correct feelings everywhere possible.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted November 01, 2003 07:01 PM |
|
|
Celfious --
Your rude response suggests that my own post might have come across as somewhat rude. It if did, please let me apologize as that was not my intent.
Studies in persuasion suggest there are two ways to communicate in terms of debate: One is "I speak the truth and care not who hears." The other is the application of logic, analytical scrutiny and diplomacy to persuade one's audience. Personally I try to employ the latter method.
As to your arguments, you continue to argue from the position of ipsi dixit, which means it is "correct" because you (and/or your constiuency) say it is. There is no point in arguing with you then, because as I said, no matter how persuasive arguments are, they are lost on an entrenched mindset which is, by definition, unwilling to consider new information. It is simply so because you say it is so, so anybody who disagrees with you is wasting their breath on you. So it appears that in your mind you are "speaking the truth and care not who hears." So be it.
Since you appear unable to hear anything I say with which you disagree, let me respond to the substance of your posts for the benefit of others. To say it doesn't make it right just because Indians do it that way cuts both ways. It doesn't make it right just because it's the way of the dominant society not to accept it either.
Nobody is trying to stop you from doing what you think is "correct." Nobody's trying to make you or anyone else gay that isn't already (remember, this is coming from a straight person). You, hoewever, fail to see it is the opposite -- that you are trying to stop people who disagree with you from having equal rights and status with you. As I have said, there are a landslide of legal and civil ramifications to gay life partners who are denied the status that other live partners enjoy, some of them crippling. But as I said, you appear unable to digest such logic, so this is for the benefit of others.
By the way. If you really want to offend Indians, continue to refer to them in the past tense, even when you are in conversation with them. I realize (through ongoing first-hand experience) that many people do this, but it is a symptom of the larger mindset problem I've groused about over several threads. We are thought of as an extinct form of wildlife, thus smoothing the wound on the American psyche a bit. If we're no longer here, than we need not be dealt with, and the government can continue to manipulate our sovereignty, rights and resources away from us without anyone really noticing or caring. Celfious, don't take this too personally. It is not aimed just at you. As I said, many people do it without even realizing it. It is, however, a good habit to break if you can, dude.
Lews, your post on the other hand was not offensive to me at all. So don't sweat it baby.  I always enjoy reading your posts and your whole posture in this community is one of thoughtfulness and openmindedness, at least from what I've seen. And you may still be right for all I know. I certainly don't know everything and hope not to come across as though I think that way.
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
|
posted November 01, 2003 09:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
in the case of choice, the discrimination argument would be valid, too. Example: People are discriminated against for their religion in many countries. Would you deny this, or deny the voluntariness of religion?
That all goes back to point of view, though, because the people who discriminate against other religions believe that religion is wrong. Granted, they are going about it the wrong way, but sadly, the human race is nowhere near perfect, expecially not in judgement. It's too bad that many think their way only is the right way. Also, I hope that it doesn't come across as discrimination when I argue against homosexuality, because I don't mean to make it sound like I am looking down on anyone. I just believe that it is wrong.
Quote:
A few pages ago, I posted a link (unfortunately in my mother tongue, German) that summarizes a large number of empirical studies on that subject. They examined heterosexual and homosexual families with children, and came to the result that those children showed hardly any difference in their sexual preferences (and most other fields of personality development). Which also clearly contradicts the idea of choice.
Of course, even if homosexuality were based on voluntary decision, we would still be missing a rational reason why it should not be practiced between two grown adults.
Answer me this: since you believe that homosexuality is not a choice and the empirical studies you advocate disprove genetics as the source, what do you believe, then, causes homosexuality in human beings?
The rational reason is based heavily on what moral grounds someone bases their life on. It is all a question of whether you believe that homosexuality, which lacks the ability to procreate, was intended to happen at all. It hinges on whether you think it is natural or not.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted November 01, 2003 09:51 PM |
|
|
Yes, I second that question. Lews, could you extract and interpret for us any information from the cite that goes to this point?
(I have heard of a study by -- was it the Salk Institute??? that there is what they call a "suspect gene" that geneticists have identified as turning up in homosexual people. Is that rumor verified anywhere in your materials?)
<EDIT>
Okay, here's one. Let's see if I can post it here:
The Genetics of Homosexuality
... Mendelian genetics and chromosomal study have increased the desire for scientists
to ... nuclei of the hypothalamus in known heterosexual and homosexual males who ...
http://www.geocities.com/smooth_velvett/homosex.html - Cached
Anybody know how I can get this to appear directly in link form???? (Delfontes, thanks for the prior advice by the way; I think I need your help again...)
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted November 01, 2003 11:15 PM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 1 Nov 2003
|
http://www.geocities.com/smooth_velvett/homosex.html
Or:
work darn you
The first was done using [ url ] and [ /url ] codes (minus spaces, obviously). The second is done by [ url=http://www.geocities.com/smooth_velvett/homosex.html ] Link Text Here [ /url ]
Edit 6,348: Okay, I give up on Link Text code. Usually, it works. Anyway, there's a mini-guide to BB code in the FAQ.
Edit 6,349: Now it works??? ARGH!!! 
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 02, 2003 12:39 AM |
|
|
Hello Shadowcaster,
Quote:
That all goes back to point of view, though, because the people who discriminate against other religions believe that religion is wrong.
No, discrimination against other religions is usually done and supported by dogmatic followers of the one and only true religion or ideology. Marxists and fascists, muslims and christians, all have a history of oppressing and murdering those who did not share their beliefs.
Quote:
Also, I hope that it doesn't come across as discrimination when I argue against homosexuality, because I don't mean to make it sound like I am looking down on anyone.
Don´t worry, you come across as a moderate and reasonable person.
Quote:
Answer me this: since you believe that homosexuality is not a choice and the empirical studies you advocate disprove genetics as the source, what do you believe, then, causes homosexuality in human beings?
The studies do not disprove genetics as a source. Rather the opposite, by showing no significant difference between homo- and hetero-families, they invalidate theories that are based on environmental influence (psychological and sociological explanation models).
Which by the way surprised me. Before reading the said text, I would have guessed genetical and environmental influence to be roughly about equal. Now I tend to presume that sexual orientation, regarding the gender, is mostly inborn. This is also supported by what Peacemaker said earlier, that homosexuality has always been constant in human (and also in animal) populations.
In any case, "voluntary choice" in this matter is certainly nonsense.
Quote:
The rational reason is based heavily on what moral grounds someone bases their life on.
If moral cannot be deducted onto rational grounds, it´s completely worth- and meaningless. Holy books can not be the sole source of a morale system.
You suggest that homosexuality is morally wrong because god dislikes it. Now, if god would approve of infant sacrifices, would that make infant sacrifices morally good?
Quote:
It is all a question of whether you believe that homosexuality, which lacks the ability to procreate, was intended to happen at all.
Now I´d like to ask you something: The christian god is said to be omnipotent, right? Why would an omnipotent being create between 5% and 15% of its human and animal species as homosexuals, if that´s not intended? Omnipotence implies the ability to do everything as intended!
Quote:
It hinges on whether you think it is natural or not.
I think Bort and Peacemaker have already written alot of good stuff regarding that "natural" argument. I´d like to add:
Is it natural to wear clothes?
To use a toothbrush?
To communicate over the internet with help of a keyboard, instead of forming words with mouth and tongue?
To use a more analogous example:
Is left-handedness natural? Most people are alot more agile with their right hands and feet. Does that make lefties unnatural? Does it mean that they have to be forced into the primary use of their right hand?
Homosexuality, likewise, has always existed in nature as a minority preference.
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted November 02, 2003 12:49 AM |
|
|
I second Lews' last point -- with my left hand of course, since I am also left-handed.
BTW Thanks Khaelo, for getting the kink out of the link, as it were. I am abysmal with written instructions and don't know internet lingo very well.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 02, 2003 12:56 AM |
|
|
Hello Peacemaker,
first of all, thank you for your friendly words .
The link that I posted originates from the psychological institute of the University of Zürich. It takes into consideration numerous studies, the largest of them is from Bailey (1995).
And to make a link appear, you just need to type "url" before and "/url" after the link. With [] around them of course.
So ... here is your link :
http://www.geocities.com/smooth_velvett/homosex.html
To find out how other people have posted links and images, you can also use the "quote reply" function. There you can always see the exact code that was used to make the thing appear.
EDIT: Arg, I just noticed I´m late by an hour and 31 minutes ...
____________
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted November 02, 2003 03:50 AM |
|
|
Peacemaker.. Hetrosexuality is correct no matter what.
Homosexuality may or may not be, while at the same time no earthly evidence leads to affirmity in the matter.
sooo..
telling youngins anything otherwise is wrong.
"hetro is more than ok, it is the way of life, but some people do something very contraversial and become homosexuals. No one knows for sure if it's ok or not, but they do it anyways on their belifes. And young child, I hope you just live a normal life"
edit [ now i quit
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted November 02, 2003 05:16 AM |
|
|
I know you will probably find this appalling, Celfious.
When my son gets curious enough to ask about this topic, I am inclined to tell him everything I know about it and let him decide. I do not indoctrinate him about anything else intentionally and I do not intend to do so on this topic either.
Unless it's something real clear-cut (i.e. being cruel to other people, animals or living things in general, creating dangerous situations for others by being careless, telling lies, stuff like that) when we talk about a controvercial issue or deep question, I always try to present all sides of a topic as fairly as possible including my understanding of the rationale behind various positions. I tell him which position I believe, and why. Then I remind him that his decisions about what he believes, the choices he makes, and the consequences he incurs are his responsibility to sort out.
I do this because I believe people are not only capable, but that it is in fact incumbent upon all of us to be ultimately internally self-guided and take spiritual responsibility for ourselves and our relationship with Creation. I believe we are more capable of doing this when we are not indoctrinated by our parents to believe a certain thing just because they say so. In fact I believe we cripple children spiritually by telling them what to believe, instead of framing the issues for them and then making them think through it themselves.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted November 02, 2003 07:34 AM |
|
|
Take your self as your own creation. You decide for yourself whats right and wrong. Take your beliefs and feel ok about it when you spread your perception amongst the world.
But dont be suprised if you regret it (and dont be suprised if you dont )
..
If I found out my mothers thoughts on whatever.. it would be up to me to decide wether or not thats oka after self maturity.
If I found out how my mother thinks, then I'd say "fine its your life" and mean it too.. Whats the difference what a mother, or anyone else thinks? Its us and ourselves when it comes to decisions, remember? But of course parent/childeren are a big part of eachothers lives.
If someone wants to be gay let them.
But for godsake kids are kids and they cant firgure out reasoning forthemselves til self maturity. I hope god dosnt enable your type of message into much TV internet, and schooling.
The government, likes the nuclear family TV shows.
And a vast majortiy of our school kids dont ask their parents about sexual preference.
It's oka for a father to bring it up sayin ""****er play with GIjoez!" but its not ok for either parent to bring up "Being gay is ok" Cuz really, that would tramatize kids that grow up and mature the most correct & natrualy reasonable way.
The person would always remember what their parents said in spiritual context and meaning..
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted November 03, 2003 01:34 AM |
|
|
Celfious you confuse me with your inconsistency.
First, you say that your mother taught you a certain way, and then you decided for yourself once reaching maturity.
Then you imply that it is not alright for us to teach our children to think for themselves.
If you disregarded what your mother said (which you may have originally accepted based soley on the fact that she was your mother), and decided to think for yourself despite what she told you once reaching maturity, what is wrong with teaching children to think for themselves to begin with????
Seems to me that what I am doing for my son is removing an obstacle (parental biases) by telling him what I as parent think, and then paying him the respect (and others) of informing him what others think as well, then assigning him the responsibility of choosing for himself what is right. What I am trying to do is let my son stand on my shoulders, not tread through the same muddy confusion as I had to.
In doing this, I have to force myself to be intellectually honest. I have to be both informed of the divergent positions with which I disagree, and tell him honestly of those positions and their strongest arguments, even if I disagree with them.
(By the way, your method of each parent teaching their children what they think is right just perpetuates divergent indoctrinated viewpoints. The "left continues to "teach" the left, and the "right" continues to "teach" the right, and the ne'er the entrenched 'twain shall meet.)
Remember, I come from two completely divergent cultures. Each culture would tell me as a child when I was looking for answers that the answers coming from the other culture were wrong.
It was left up to me to sort out what was right for me.
This is not to suggest that I am a complete relativist. You must understand that I draw the lines where all humans draw the lines (unless they are aberrant to the point of harming others' rights to live in peace, decide for themselves what is right, and then act on those beliefs in manners that do not impinge on the same rights they should presume others have as well.)
Would it surprise you to find that one of the most influenncial guiding principles in my life is the Golden Rule -- that one should do unto others as they would have the others do unto them??? (Matthew 7:12).
I choose this not because it is Christian, but because it makes spiritual sense to me. I am not a relativist in the sense that you imply -- that I decide what is right for me and everybody else goes to hell (and that that is what I'm teaching my son). The one thing I find in all cultural spirituality that is consistent is Love.
Love is an absolute. It becomes warped by any manner of societal and cultural influences, but if you look -- really look -- at the teachings of Buddha, Christ, Mohammed, Ghandi, the White Buffalo Calf Woman, and any leader or spiritual conduit -- any of them (I can't recall all of them now) -- they all send the same message.
That is that without Love we are nothing. And this Love they are all teaching is not just the personal love we all know -- it is a far more embracing, all-inclusive type of Love that circumfuses very type of life and existence. As lowly two-legged humans we manifest this Love through our friendships, our families, our partnerships and our communities. We think simply, we humans -- we tend to get narrower and narrower in our thinking as progressive cultural influences drive us from tribalism forward (instead of getting broader and broader, which is one reason I think we are being forced to the cusp of a spiritual revolution). We place more and more constrictive rules on our expressions of Love, our sexual expressions, our manifestations of community, our willingness to help one another -- we are spiritually retrograde in my opinion and it is forcing us to the brink of global disaster.
So yes, if you insist that I indoctrinate my son, you should be satisfied that I am indoctrinating him with the idea that Love, if we use it as our ultimate, most fundamental motivation, should guide us in our every decision -- whether or not to burn an ant with a magnifying glass; whether or not to accept when someone is being cruel to us or reject such treatment in a loving way; whether or not to kill someone thus depriving them of the most precious thing imaginable -- their opporuntity to live and love -- whether to express true feelings to another honestly if it should damage the person in some way they can;t help; whether or not to take a job that pays a lot of money if the purpose of the institution damages other peoples' lives unfairly out of profit or greed; whether or not to pass judgment on others who are different than you in ways that you cannot possibly understand and to maintain laws that harm them....
And on and on. But I guess that last one leads us back home, friend. Call me amoral and you will be making the biggest, most common conceptial mistake of your moral life. If you come across me in life and do something that is universally immoral, I will do my best to become your friend and teach you what I know -- out of Love -- not to convert you, but becaue I love you as my brother or sister and all I know is all I know and I want you to be happy, and I think I have some good suggestions on how to get there.
I know I have not been specific in what I have taught my son. That is because I do not want to proclaim that I have all the answers -- to you, to him, or to anyone else. That is our greatest spiritual mistake -- to look outside ourselves for the guidance that each one of us has the ultimate spiritual responsibility to seek out for ourselves. What I proclaim is this -- when humans look within, truly, they all see the same thing. I will not presume to tell others -- including my own son -- what to find when they go on their own spiritual journeys. I will remain confident though, that we all find the same thing. I remain confident of that because when those of us who have done it talk, it always pretty much turns out the same.
I have so much faith in this that I turn my own son's soul over to the same responsibility -- the same quest -- that he look within and find his own answers. I have so much faith in Creation that I know if he truly does this it will be the same for him. He will find that Love will guide him.
Celfious, I know I lose my temper sometimes. I act against my own beliefs when I do so. But believe me when I say that I will still be your sister in life because that's the only way I know how to think of all people. It is the only right way in my mind. I know you are trying as I am to do the right thing.
What I want is for my son to look deep within, because when I finally shed all the trappings my parents gave me of what they believed, I looked within -- and saw genuine guidance from a source greater than myself, telling me there was a better way to get to that Love.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted November 03, 2003 11:20 PM |
|
|
this is good to know. I dont intend for my opinions to make enemies or anything like it.
And totaly, im not trying to go all into world changes with this.. lol
there are bigger fish to fry and frankly on the deepest level where this issue is concerned I couldn't care much less. I think I said here I have nothing against homosexuals (4 times ) i jus, really dont even care much. Just was asked my opinion thats all.
bye
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted November 18, 2003 06:59 PM |
|
|
We interrupt this program...
for the following special report.
The Massachusetts State Supreme Court has just declared bans on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Delfontes
Known Hero
Sorcerer Extraordinaire
|
|
posted November 18, 2003 10:33 PM |
|
|
I read that, and was wondering if this thread would be bumped .
Here is a CNN article about it:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/index.html
Quote:
Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry and ordered the state's lawmakers to devise changes in the law within six months.
In a 4-3 ruling, the court stopped short of allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the seven couples that challenged the Massachusetts law.
Who knows what this will do... for Massachusetts it appears we'll know in 6 months, for the rest of the country it could be a while.
|
|
Zero
Hired Hero
of Hyrule
|
|
posted February 11, 2004 01:13 AM |
|
|
My 2 cents
I don't think there should be same sex marriges. If there was suppose to why was the opposite sex created.
____________
I am the one who will lead you to the Final Destination
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted February 11, 2004 01:48 AM |
|
|
Spoken like a true fascist Zero.
I'll not go into a big spiel here because I have done so on the 'Gay People' thread. Just a few points.
1. I am gay
2. This does not make me a bad person
3. I did not choose to be gay, whether it's genetic influence or environmental is irrelevant.
4. Due to this lack of choice, I can therefore not 'choose to be straight'. To prove my point I'll ask you all one question - 'could YOU choose to be gay'
5. Religion has nothing to do with it, ever. You will never achieve success if you try and have me 'pray out the gay'. And beleive me. And I don't want the government to 'force churches to marry same sex couples'. Lot's of people make do with a registry office, or have the ceremony at some place special to them. I was raised a Catholic, so the last place I want to mark my special day is in a church. I would like to do it really tacky, and get married by Elvis in the Little White Chapel in Vegas (that last bit's a joke btw)
6. This does not make me a bad person
7. What specific reason do you give for denying me the right to have a ceremony with a certain special person that I have chosen to spend the rest of my life to, and therefore not have him recognised as my next of kin for the purposes of my will or if I ever contract a disease like cancer
8. Don't tell me marriage is for the purposes of pro-creation. If that were the case, women known to be infertile should also be denied this right
9. This does not make me a bad person
10. Straight guys can't dance.
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
