Did you even read your own link? Nowhere in there does it say that the boys were actually sexually attracted to the men, they were simply practicing custom based on crazy religious notions. In otherwords, they weren't homosexuals.
So your argument that homosexuality is a choice is based on the rituals of an obscure tribe that believes the ingestion of semen is related to body mass?
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Jan 26 2005, 11:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Jan 26 2005, 11:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How is it that it's possible for 100% of Sambian males to lead bisexual lives up until 22, and then afterwards have over 95% of those same males lead monogamous, heterosexual lifestyles? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Because they are not bisexual males, they are heterosexual males being pretty much raped by other heterosexual males for an extremely odd reason.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Those that might have a predisposition to homosexuality would feel compelled to either suppress it and deny the fact that it's even there, or embrace it and deny the fact that they had a choice in the matter. The former would lead to psycological stress, and the latter to an understanding of self reached through crooked logic and experiencial evidence.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You paint a very grim picture my friend. So either one represses one's natural sexual urges and gains an impressive amount of emotional/psychological issues, or one accepts what one is, and is wrong through the crooked logic of "I am attracted to my own sex and not a different one, there is nothing inherently hurtful or bad about being attracted to and having sex with my own sex (which I think is what you need to prove wrong), so therefore I will have sex and enter into commited relationships with my own sex." obviously that's crooked logic. And what other kind of evidence besides experiental evidence is there anyways?
This thread does not necessarily need to focus on homosexual marriage, and since another thread already is tearing that subject apart, why don't we ignore the concept of homsexuality's relation to the concept of marriage. No one is going anywhere.
First off, it's not considered "PC" to even point out the possibility that choice is involved in the choosing of a sexuality. Saying chose isn't involved is taking the easy way out because that way someone's feelings don't get hurt. Let's drop that too. If you argue that choice isn't even remotely involved in someone's sexuality, consider yourself nothing but a pawn.
Now, what also needs to be seperated from the arguments is "exploratory behavior." I'm sure that most people have had sexual contact with a member of the same sex at some point, especially when sexual feelings come to the surface around 12-14. Things like "circle jerks" are common place at this age. Are they "homosexual" in nature? I'd say not, since they are a natural phase that most people go through.
If we're not going to define homosexuality as the act itself, how would you define it as merely having the affinity for the act?
Even though that tribe's actions are based on primitive assumptions, the fact of the matter is that 100% of the males in that tribe are involved in homosexual sex acts, most end up adjusting to it and thinking no more of it than any heterosexual sex here would be treated, and virtually all marry and lead heterosexual lives, again, adjusting to their new lifestyle.
You still make the base assumption that homosexuality is an intrinsic quality, by saying that the boys 'weren't homosexuals,' and you simply can't. For whatever the reason, if I were compelled to murder I'd be a murderer; to rape, I'd be a rapist; to steal, I'd be a theif; to preach, I'd be a preacher; to teach, I'd be a teacher. The burden of proof is on both of our arguments here. We either cite some real evidence or we just bicker about a few points.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First off, it's not considered "PC" to even point out the possibility that choice is involved in the choosing of a sexuality. Saying chose isn't involved is taking the easy way out because that way someone's feelings don't get hurt. Let's drop that too. If you argue that choice isn't even remotely involved in someone's sexuality, consider yourself nothing but a pawn. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quoted for truth. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Did you even read your own link? Nowhere in there does it say that the boys were actually sexually attracted to the men, they were simply practicing custom based on crazy religious notions. In otherwords, they weren't homosexuals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Skulkbait, I'm not arguing that the boys were attracted to the other men from the get -go. In fact, it denys that rather swiftly there. What I AM saying is that the line between exotic and erotic is a fine one. If a boy with a temperment allowing him to make friend with girls but be shunned by other boys only hangs around girls, he'll learn there's really nothing special about them, and be attracted to the guys he can't relate to, have, or understand. The opposite is also true, we as humans always want what we can't have, and wouldn't you know it, there's <a href='http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/ebe_theory.html' target='_blank'>a theory from a doctor at Cornell</a> that says just that same thing.
Also, refer to the point I made above, you assume already what homosexuality is, both in nature and in effect, and you use those assumptions -namely, that a homosexual will be attracted to men from the get-go- to reinforce your own argument.
My logical progression, on the other hand, begins with statistics that show that it's possible for one to live as a homosexual for years, then suddenly settle down in a monogamous, heterosexual marriage. This is then related to the fact that tempermental differences affect relationships, and relationships affect the development of sexuality.
If A and B, then C: It's likely that homosexuality exists as a conditioned response to previous experiences, and remains firmly in the realm of choice, as hard as that choice may be to overcome. In fact, it may seem nearly impossible, but as long as there is no biological factor for sexuality, the possibility still remains.
Well, no, I've never had a "circle jerk" phase, but hey, THANKS FOR SHARING!!!!!
If you really think that people run around choosing their sexuality, you are probably biasexual. I have no interest in men. I have a male friend who has no interest in women. Neither of us "chose" this. I'm sure some people can choose who they sleep with, and some are happy with women or men. But the majority of us have pretty clear cut attractions. So stuff your "oh you're being PC"-slurs back in your pants. Stop flashing people. We don't want to circle jerk with you, so stop asking.
There is clearly a biological factor to homosexuality. There are exclusively **** animals for goodness sakes (from one-night hump **** stags to male swans that settle down for life partnerships, and are actually MORE successful as parents (they steal other people's chicks) than heterosexual swans). Animals can't even choose to wear pants if they want: you think they choose which pheremones to go settle down with?
But regardless of whether or not homosexuality is a choice, there is nothing sensible that anyone can say is wrong with it anyway. Even if it's 100% a on a whim thing to be attracted only to men from a young age (as virtually every **** male I know has been) and want to settle down with a man, what the heck is your problem with it?
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Jan 26 2005, 11:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Jan 26 2005, 11:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If we're not going to define homosexuality as the act itself, how would you define it as merely having the affinity for the act? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Um... because that is its primary definition and the one we are dealig with at the moment?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty Audio pronunciation of "homosexuality" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-sksh-l-t, -m-) n.
1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. 2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Even though that tribe's actions are based on primitive assumptions, the fact of the matter is that 100% of the males in that tribe are involved in homosexual sex acts, most end up adjusting to it and thinking no more of it than any heterosexual sex here would be treated, and virtually all marry and lead heterosexual lives, again, adjusting to their new lifestyle.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Which means.... what exactly? That heterosexual people can walk away from homosexual sex acts and still be straight?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You still make the base assumption that homosexuality is an intrinsic quality, by saying that the boys 'weren't homosexuals,' and you simply can't. For whatever the reason, if I were compelled to murder I'd be a murderer; to rape, I'd be a rapist; to steal, I'd be a theif; to preach, I'd be a preacher; to teach, I'd be a teacher. The burden of proof is on both of our arguments here. We either cite some real evidence or we just bicker about a few points.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Apples and oranges. If I were, say, forced to suck **** at gun point, and then spend the rest of my life freaking women, does that make me homosexual? No, thats rediculous. The act of having homosexual sex doesn't make one a homosexual.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First off, it's not considered "PC" to even point out the possibility that choice is involved in the choosing of a sexuality. Saying chose isn't involved is taking the easy way out because that way someone's feelings don't get hurt. Let's drop that too. If you argue that choice isn't even remotely involved in someone's sexuality, consider yourself nothing but a pawn. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quoted for truth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm a pawn? As opposed to the christians here who attack homosexuality because their God tells them to?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What I AM saying is that the line between exotic and erotic is a fine one. If a boy with a temperment allowing him to make friend with girls but be shunned by other boys only hangs around girls, he'll learn there's really nothing special about them, and be attracted to the guys he can't relate to, have, or understand. The opposite is also true, we as humans always want what we can't have, and wouldn't you know it, there's <a href='http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/ebe_theory.html' target='_blank'>a theory from a doctor at Cornell</a> that says just that same thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A 30 second google will show you that this theory has been accused of not being supported by the evidence. I'll leave the googling as an excersise to the reader since it is generally pointless to play link wars with christian fundies. I suspect that this is because they subscribe to mailing lists or read blogs where any study, no matter how crackpot, gets hailed as new evidence that their God and his "morality" are the one true path. Of course, I can't prove anything...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, refer to the point I made above, you assume already what homosexuality is, both in nature and in effect, and you use those assumptions -namely, that a homosexual will be attracted to men from the get-go- to reinforce your own argument.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It isn't so much an assumption as it is observation. I've never met a homosexual who was ever attracted to women in his entire life. This is, of course, excluding the bisexuals. Based on my own feelings, and what people tell me their feelings are, I draw the conclusion that sexual orientation is not a choice, no simple flick of some psychological toggle switch can turn a homosexual into heterosexual, and the oposite is also true. In fact, I don't think definitions like "heterosexual" and "homosexual" are sufficient to cover the "sexual spectrum", as I've heard it called.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My logical progression, on the other hand, begins with statistics that show that it's possible for one to live as a homosexual for years, then suddenly settle down in a monogamous, heterosexual marriage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Only if you define homosexuality as the act of having homosexual sex. I have argued, and will continue to argue, that this is not the case.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If A and B, then C: It's likely that homosexuality exists as a conditioned response to previous experiences, and remains firmly in the realm of choice, as hard as that choice may be to overcome.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Lets say, for a moment, that the theory you presented above is true. That would also mean that heterosexuality is a choice, correct? So, in theory, it is possible for a heterosexual to "overcome his/her choice" and be sexually attracted to members of the same sex, correct? If so, then I invite you to try. Go on then, if it is really a choice then you can become a homosexual just by flipping that little brainswitch labeled "sexual orientation" right?
<!--QuoteBegin-Mantrid+Jan 25 2005, 06:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mantrid @ Jan 25 2005, 06:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-relsan+Jan 24 2005, 09:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (relsan @ Jan 24 2005, 09:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well one thing that kinda bothers me is if homosexuals get the same financial benefits that a married couple does. Because if that's the case, what's to stop two heterosexual people from getting married just for the tax benefits? It's very difficult to prove in court that two people are not really in love. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Some people do that already... why does it matter if homosexuals do it? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I knew people were going to say that. And my answer is that it makes it a lot easier to do; at least in the case of two guys.
Most women in America don't think so lightly of marriage and aren't going to agree to get married solely for the tax benefits.
But if you have two guys who happen to know each other they might just think to themselves, "Hey, we could get married and get some more bucks back from the government" and think nothing of it. I think this would happen a lot more often if homosexual marriage was allowed, and I simply don't think that's fair to the rest of America.
Especially considering the fact they are stealing funds that are supposed to be for people who are going through the hardship of raising children. So I don't think they should get the tax benefits unless they have(adopt, surrogate, whatever) children. Other than that, I don't have a problem with it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Most women in America don't think so lightly of marriage and aren't going to agree to get married solely for the tax benefits.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey big guy: my wife was fine with it (though it was health care in our case, not tax benefits).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But if you have two guys who happen to know each other they might just think to themselves, "Hey, we could get married and get some more bucks back from the government" and think nothing of it. I think this would happen a lot more often if homosexual marriage was allowed, and I simply don't think that's fair to the rest of America.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would **** couples would be any more likely to do this than straight couples?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Especially considering the fact they are stealing funds that are supposed to be for people who are going through the hardship of raising children.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the heck are you talking about? As far as tax "benefits" go, marriage often COSTS people more in taxes because their joint incomes go into a higher tax bracket.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So I don't think they should get the tax benefits unless they have(adopt, surrogate, whatever) children. Other than that, I don't have a problem with it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We don't force heterosexual couples to have children before giving them rights, so not treating **** couples the same way is hypocritical.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My logical progression, on the other hand, begins with statistics that show that it's possible for one to live as a homosexual for years, then suddenly settle down in a monogamous, heterosexual marriage. This is then related to the fact that tempermental differences affect relationships, and relationships affect the development of sexuality. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Did you link those statistics earlier? I can't see them in the thread, but it would be nice to have a gander at them.
Oh, by the way:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[Re: why would homos choose to be oppressed?] You could say the same thing about the early Christians.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Interesting...
If I asked you to, could you stop believing in God?
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
First off, I'd like to say that Skulkbait's last post has my complete endorsement, I would have made a post with the exact same points in it if he had not.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If A and B, then C: It's likely that homosexuality exists as a conditioned response to previous experiences, and remains firmly in the realm of choice, as hard as that choice may be to overcome. In fact, it may seem nearly impossible, but as long as there is no biological factor for sexuality, the possibility still remains.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, so let's assume you're right and homosexuals have this hypothetical choice. We have a choice between two options, one of which is appealing nd would lead to a satisfying sex life, one of which would cause considerable emotional and psychological hardships. Why should homosexuals make the choice you want them to even when does not look like the best one by any stretch from their perspective?
<!--QuoteBegin-Apos+Jan 27 2005, 07:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Apos @ Jan 27 2005, 07:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Most women in America don't think so lightly of marriage and aren't going to agree to get married solely for the tax benefits.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey big guy: my wife was fine with it (though it was health care in our case, not tax benefits).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But if you have two guys who happen to know each other they might just think to themselves, "Hey, we could get married and get some more bucks back from the government" and think nothing of it. I think this would happen a lot more often if homosexual marriage was allowed, and I simply don't think that's fair to the rest of America.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would **** couples would be any more likely to do this than straight couples?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Especially considering the fact they are stealing funds that are supposed to be for people who are going through the hardship of raising children.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the heck are you talking about? As far as tax "benefits" go, marriage often COSTS people more in taxes because their joint incomes go into a higher tax bracket.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So I don't think they should get the tax benefits unless they have(adopt, surrogate, whatever) children. Other than that, I don't have a problem with it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We don't force heterosexual couples to have children before giving them rights, so not treating **** couples the same way is hypocritical. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, I heard you the first time about your wife but I don't think MOST women in America would marry solely for tax benefits. And why are you getting so huffy about it, omg chillout kthx.
And no you're missing my point. I'm not talking about homosexual couples. I'm talking about two heterosexual guys getting a marriage license just for the tax benefits. They would be able to do this now under the guise of a homosexual union. With legal homosexual marriage it is my belief that marriage benefits would be exploited much more than they already are.
And yeah you might not get the tax benefit if you make too much collectively, but even then you have the option to file separately. Single people have no choice. And then like you say there are health benefits through employers like just in case one of you loses a job the other can have you on his health plan for much much cheaper than it would cost you to get Blue Shield, or whatever on your own. And then there are tons of consumer benefits and discounts, and not just on baby stuff but cars, houses, and food.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Which means.... what exactly? That heterosexual people can walk away from homosexual sex acts and still be straight?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You still assume that a person is either straight or homosexual from birth. That's not an assumption you can afford to make without biological evidence.
So far, you've shown none, and until you cite some and stop calling me a deluded idiot, there's no more use for me arguing with you.
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If I asked you to, could you stop believing in God?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That depends on in what sense I'm going to stop 'believing' in Him. In the sense that I stop acknowledging the fact that he exists, no, simply because the vast weight of my own experience, philisophical arguments, not to mention the huge ammount of reasonable doubt created by predictive prophecy, causes me to at least acknowledge the fact that God exists, if I am to act rationally at all.
However, if you were asking if I could basically give God the finger and do my own thing, then yes. It's perfectly possible for me to do that, but again, the benefits of such an action pale in comparison to the loss of an active personal relationship with Christ in my life. It's possible, but at this point, with what I've seen of God, it wouldn't be benificial to me.
I can only assume you're going to say the same about homosexuals, that it would make no sense for them to try and change their sexual preference, and I agree, the personal benifits of such a change are probably abyssmal. My concern is with the statistical danger to children in a home led by a same-sex couple, and the acceptance of that into society without even a blink.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Jan 27 2005, 01:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Jan 27 2005, 01:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Which means.... what exactly? That heterosexual people can walk away from homosexual sex acts and still be straight?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You still assume that a person is either straight or homosexual from birth. That's not an assumption you can afford to make without biological evidence.
So far, you've shown none, and until you cite some and stop calling me a deluded idiot, there's no more use for me arguing with you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I could say the same for you, since you say exactly the oposite and yet also provide no evidence save for some crackpot theory that itself has been accused of not being supported by the evidence.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can only assume you're going to say the same about homosexuals, that it would make no sense for them to try and change their sexual preference, and I agree, the personal benifits of such a change are probably abyssmal. My concern is with the statistical danger to children in a home led by a same-sex couple, and the acceptance of that into society without even a blink.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> We've been over this concern, and you have yet to justify it. Seriously, how would acknoledging homosexual marriage lead to a better chance of a child being adopted into dangerous conditions, when the requirements for adoption are so strict anyway?
The UK has been allowing unmarried couples and homo.'s to adopt since ~2002, IIRC. I think the argument was that even if homo. marriages aren't as "safe"/"healthy" for children as growing up with a married couple, it's still better than leaving them to rot in an orphanage. Maybe there's a government-sanctioned study on the issue...I'll have a look-see, anyway.
The EBE theory has, as far as I can tell, two main charges against it.
The first can be found <a href='http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/critique.html' target='_blank'>Here. </a>Ironically enough, it's a site that prides itself on the treatment of homosexuality, calling the EBE theory supportive of homosexuality, as if trying to force a political adjenda.
<a href='http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/ebe_politics.html' target='_blank'>Here, </a> Bem addresses the concern that his work is simply a political measure.
The other main concern is two-pronged, and the abstract can be found <a href='http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9577243&dopt=Abstract' target='_blank'>here. </a>. Bem's response can be found <a href='http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/Reply_to_Peplau.html' target='_blank'>here.</a>
So, although there are objections to the theory, they've been dealt with in a satisfactory manner, enough to allow the theory to be submitted as evidence, especially for an argument on an internet gaming forum. I might add that the same is true for evolution, It has it's attackers, but those charges have been dealt with in such a manner that a rational person can still accept the theory. I'm meerly using it as an example to prove a point, that the number of attacks on a theory is not corrolated to it's truth.
Um, hello? His theory is nothing like evolution in terms of wide acceptance as valid or predictive. Evolution is accepted by nearly every scientist in the relevant disciplines, and is essential to the very field of biology. On the other hand, this theory you are arguing for is extremely controversial, and most of the evidence is still out.
<b>Legionnaired</b>, I've tried to backtrack through your argument from here to page one and your endless piles of irrelevant links to come to the conclusion that your general argument against homosexuality and/or homosexual marriage is that:
1. There is a large percentage of homosexual relationships in Australia which either were always, or eventually moved, to a casual sex relationship.
2. Such a relationship equates to a "broken home".
3. 72% of juvinile delinquents come from a "broken home".
4. This is bad.
I feel, trying to be as objective as possible, that your argument is flawed to say the least:
1. Even if we make the generalization that "promiscuity is the norm" in all, if not the majority or homosexual relationships, this pales in comparison to the number of such "non-close-coupled" heterosexual relationships, and these heterosexual couples can breed!
2. Okay, again, let's <b>assume</b> that cheating on a spouse equates to a broken home. Cheating on a spouse is not uncommon in heterosexual relationships, in fact it's rampant, and as said before, these heterosexual relationships don't even have to apply for children and go through an arduous process to acquire them, they generally just have to breed.
3. I seriously doubt 72% of juvinile delinquents come from broken homosexual homes. Now let's say that perhaps in the future we legalize homosexual marriage and allow homosexual couples to adopt. Now we might have an influx of said juvinile delinquents, assuming your argument is unflawed, but the numbers would be miniscule compared the the numbers of juvinile delinquents coming from "broken" heterosexual homes which, by glancing at the divorce rate in America, is not particularly inclined to decline anytime soon.
4. As I've tried to point out, you have the potential for a great argument here, if only your evidence actually backed up your assertions. Like you've said, these are all theories about how homosexual couples' kids might turn out. The actual number of homosexual couples raising kids is infinitessimal and nobody really knows what will really happen.
I'm hoping you'll at least try to counter my counters instead of nitpicking at one point ad derailing the argument as others have done for the last 2 pages of thread (not that it isn't entertaining, but I'd really like to have a legitimate argument).
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
edited January 2005
Personally, I think society is more accepting of other people's sexuality. I don't care, since I'm sorta out of the norm when it comes to normal "traditional" values as well, I just don't care.
Like I say, don't say anything unless you feel comfortable with talking about it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Deus Ex Machina+Jan 28 2005, 01:54 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Deus Ex Machina @ Jan 28 2005, 01:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>Legionnaired</b>, I've tried to backtrack through your argument from here to page one and your endless piles of irrelevant links to come to the conclusion that your general argument against homosexuality and/or homosexual marriage is that:
1. There is a large percentage of homosexual relationships in Australia which either were always, or eventually moved, to a casual sex relationship.
2. Such a relationship equates to a "broken home".
3. 72% of juvinile delinquents come from a "broken home".
4. This is bad.
I feel, trying to be as objective as possible, that your argument is flawed to say the least:
1. Even if we make the generalization that "promiscuity is the norm" in all, if not the majority or homosexual relationships, this pales in comparison to the number of such "non-close-coupled" heterosexual relationships, and these heterosexual couples can breed!
2. Okay, again, let's <b>assume</b> that cheating on a spouse equates to a broken home. Cheating on a spouse is not uncommon in heterosexual relationships, in fact it's rampant, and as said before, these heterosexual relationships don't even have to apply for children and go through an arduous process to acquire them, they generally just have to breed.
3. I seriously doubt 72% of juvinile delinquents come from broken homosexual homes. Now let's say that perhaps in the future we legalize homosexual marriage and allow homosexual couples to adopt. Now we might have an influx of said juvinile delinquents, assuming your argument is unflawed, but the numbers would be miniscule compared the the numbers of juvinile delinquents coming from "broken" heterosexual homes which, by glancing at the divorce rate in America, is not particularly inclined to decline anytime soon.
4. As I've tried to point out, you have the potential for a great argument here, if only your evidence actually backed up your assertions. Like you've said, these are all theories about how homosexual couples' kids might turn out. The actual number of homosexual couples raising kids is infinitessimal and nobody really knows what will really happen.
I'm hoping you'll at least try to counter my counters instead of nitpicking at one point ad derailing the argument as others have done for the last 2 pages of thread (not that it isn't entertaining, but I'd really like to have a legitimate argument). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I believe (I could be wrong, forgive me, I'll look up the study I'm talking about if you call BS on it.) that in one of those links, it showed scholastic performace of kids raised in same-sex-couple's homes, versus a control group of kids with hetero parents.
In social studies the two groups were equivalent, but in all other areas, the kids from the same-sex homes scored much lower.
Needless to say, the effect is at least there.
Oh, by the way, I've been trying to argue the issue of choice for the last two pages because that really is what everything boils down to. If a same sex-couple raising a kid caused that kid to turn into Cthultu, we'd still have no grounds for infringing standards on them if it were an inborn quality.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I believe (I could be wrong, forgive me, I'll look up the study I'm talking about if you call BS on it.) that in one of those links, it showed scholastic performace of kids raised in same-sex-couple's homes, versus a control group of kids with hetero parents.
In social studies the two groups were equivalent, but in all other areas, the kids from the same-sex homes scored much lower.
Needless to say, the effect is at least there.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, assuming that study has legitimate results, we should ban same-sex adoption rather than try to find the root of the problem and fix it? In America, poorer school districts score lower than affluent ones in almost every instance. I guess since poor kids score lower than rich ones, we should ban couples who don't have a combined income of 100k a year from having kids. Yeah, that makes sense.
There's several other factors to take into account when looking at low income student's performance on tests, such as the fact that most of the schools educating the poor are in the city, with big classes and poorly paid teachers, working with little materials, and lets not forget, an environment that includes 60% of the gangs in the U.S.
The participants in the survey I refer to were all of the same socio-economic class. The only significant variable was the sexual preference of their guardians, and it showed to be a huge one.
So again, if homosexuality is a choice, and if kids raised in a home with people who have made that choice score abyssmally on emotional and scholastic surveys compared to their peers raised in a nuclear family, then homosexuality should be identified as a risk factor when considering adoption.
I agree with you in a sense, but I don't think that a homosexual couple should be automatically labeled a risk for adoption. I know several homosexual couples who are raising kids right now.. Sure, some of those children are odd, but then some of them are model students.
<!--QuoteBegin-Deus Ex Machina+Jan 28 2005, 03:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Deus Ex Machina @ Jan 28 2005, 03:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I agree with you in a sense, but I don't think that a homosexual couple should be automatically labeled a risk for adoption. I know several homosexual couples who are raising kids right now.. Sure, some of those children are odd, but then some of them are model students.
I would like to see this study, I'm intrigued. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'll try to dig it up for you, I lost it in a HD crash two months ago, I think.
Might be a day or two though, I need to roll on out for a job interview, and I've got exams to worry about.
I guess that it's just human nature. According to the Bible, God frowns upon homosexuality, and as we all know, the dominant religion of the world is Christianity. I personally do not have any problems with homosexuality, as long as I don't have to se a **** couple making out in public, because they should be doing that in the privacy of their own home.
<!--QuoteBegin-Skidzor+Jan 28 2005, 03:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Skidzor @ Jan 28 2005, 03:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I guess that it's just human nature. According to the Bible, God frowns upon homosexuality, and as we all know, the dominant religion of the world is Christianity. I personally do not have any problems with homosexuality, as long as I don't have to se a **** couple making out in public, because they should be doing that in the privacy of their own home. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That goes for straight couples too. Yes, I'm looking at you Mr. Gore.
Comments
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because they are not bisexual males, they are heterosexual males being pretty much raped by other heterosexual males for an extremely odd reason.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Those that might have a predisposition to homosexuality would feel compelled to either suppress it and deny the fact that it's even there, or embrace it and deny the fact that they had a choice in the matter. The former would lead to psycological stress, and the latter to an understanding of self reached through crooked logic and experiencial evidence.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You paint a very grim picture my friend. So either one represses one's natural sexual urges and gains an impressive amount of emotional/psychological issues, or one accepts what one is, and is wrong through the crooked logic of "I am attracted to my own sex and not a different one, there is nothing inherently hurtful or bad about being attracted to and having sex with my own sex (which I think is what you need to prove wrong), so therefore I will have sex and enter into commited relationships with my own sex." obviously that's crooked logic. And what other kind of evidence besides experiental evidence is there anyways?
First off, it's not considered "PC" to even point out the possibility that choice is involved in the choosing of a sexuality. Saying chose isn't involved is taking the easy way out because that way someone's feelings don't get hurt. Let's drop that too. If you argue that choice isn't even remotely involved in someone's sexuality, consider yourself nothing but a pawn.
Now, what also needs to be seperated from the arguments is "exploratory behavior." I'm sure that most people have had sexual contact with a member of the same sex at some point, especially when sexual feelings come to the surface around 12-14. Things like "circle jerks" are common place at this age. Are they "homosexual" in nature? I'd say not, since they are a natural phase that most people go through.
Even though that tribe's actions are based on primitive assumptions, the fact of the matter is that 100% of the males in that tribe are involved in homosexual sex acts, most end up adjusting to it and thinking no more of it than any heterosexual sex here would be treated, and virtually all marry and lead heterosexual lives, again, adjusting to their new lifestyle.
You still make the base assumption that homosexuality is an intrinsic quality, by saying that the boys 'weren't homosexuals,' and you simply can't. For whatever the reason, if I were compelled to murder I'd be a murderer; to rape, I'd be a rapist; to steal, I'd be a theif; to preach, I'd be a preacher; to teach, I'd be a teacher. The burden of proof is on both of our arguments here. We either cite some real evidence or we just bicker about a few points.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First off, it's not considered "PC" to even point out the possibility that choice is involved in the choosing of a sexuality. Saying chose isn't involved is taking the easy way out because that way someone's feelings don't get hurt. Let's drop that too. If you argue that choice isn't even remotely involved in someone's sexuality, consider yourself nothing but a pawn. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quoted for truth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Did you even read your own link? Nowhere in there does it say that the boys were actually sexually attracted to the men, they were simply practicing custom based on crazy religious notions. In otherwords, they weren't homosexuals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Skulkbait, I'm not arguing that the boys were attracted to the other men from the get -go. In fact, it denys that rather swiftly there. What I AM saying is that the line between exotic and erotic is a fine one. If a boy with a temperment allowing him to make friend with girls but be shunned by other boys only hangs around girls, he'll learn there's really nothing special about them, and be attracted to the guys he can't relate to, have, or understand. The opposite is also true, we as humans always want what we can't have, and wouldn't you know it, there's <a href='http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/ebe_theory.html' target='_blank'>a theory from a doctor at Cornell</a> that says just that same thing.
Also, refer to the point I made above, you assume already what homosexuality is, both in nature and in effect, and you use those assumptions -namely, that a homosexual will be attracted to men from the get-go- to reinforce your own argument.
My logical progression, on the other hand, begins with statistics that show that it's possible for one to live as a homosexual for years, then suddenly settle down in a monogamous, heterosexual marriage. This is then related to the fact that tempermental differences affect relationships, and relationships affect the development of sexuality.
If A and B, then C: It's likely that homosexuality exists as a conditioned response to previous experiences, and remains firmly in the realm of choice, as hard as that choice may be to overcome. In fact, it may seem nearly impossible, but as long as there is no biological factor for sexuality, the possibility still remains.
If you really think that people run around choosing their sexuality, you are probably biasexual. I have no interest in men. I have a male friend who has no interest in women. Neither of us "chose" this. I'm sure some people can choose who they sleep with, and some are happy with women or men. But the majority of us have pretty clear cut attractions. So stuff your "oh you're being PC"-slurs back in your pants. Stop flashing people. We don't want to circle jerk with you, so stop asking.
There is clearly a biological factor to homosexuality. There are exclusively **** animals for goodness sakes (from one-night hump **** stags to male swans that settle down for life partnerships, and are actually MORE successful as parents (they steal other people's chicks) than heterosexual swans). Animals can't even choose to wear pants if they want: you think they choose which pheremones to go settle down with?
But regardless of whether or not homosexuality is a choice, there is nothing sensible that anyone can say is wrong with it anyway. Even if it's 100% a on a whim thing to be attracted only to men from a young age (as virtually every **** male I know has been) and want to settle down with a man, what the heck is your problem with it?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um... because that is its primary definition and the one we are dealig with at the moment?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty Audio pronunciation of "homosexuality" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-sksh-l-t, -m-)
n.
1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Even though that tribe's actions are based on primitive assumptions, the fact of the matter is that 100% of the males in that tribe are involved in homosexual sex acts, most end up adjusting to it and thinking no more of it than any heterosexual sex here would be treated, and virtually all marry and lead heterosexual lives, again, adjusting to their new lifestyle.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which means.... what exactly? That heterosexual people can walk away from homosexual sex acts and still be straight?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You still make the base assumption that homosexuality is an intrinsic quality, by saying that the boys 'weren't homosexuals,' and you simply can't. For whatever the reason, if I were compelled to murder I'd be a murderer; to rape, I'd be a rapist; to steal, I'd be a theif; to preach, I'd be a preacher; to teach, I'd be a teacher. The burden of proof is on both of our arguments here. We either cite some real evidence or we just bicker about a few points.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Apples and oranges. If I were, say, forced to suck **** at gun point, and then spend the rest of my life freaking women, does that make me homosexual? No, thats rediculous. The act of having homosexual sex doesn't make one a homosexual.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First off, it's not considered "PC" to even point out the possibility that choice is involved in the choosing of a sexuality. Saying chose isn't involved is taking the easy way out because that way someone's feelings don't get hurt. Let's drop that too. If you argue that choice isn't even remotely involved in someone's sexuality, consider yourself nothing but a pawn. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quoted for truth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm a pawn? As opposed to the christians here who attack homosexuality because their God tells them to?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What I AM saying is that the line between exotic and erotic is a fine one. If a boy with a temperment allowing him to make friend with girls but be shunned by other boys only hangs around girls, he'll learn there's really nothing special about them, and be attracted to the guys he can't relate to, have, or understand. The opposite is also true, we as humans always want what we can't have, and wouldn't you know it, there's <a href='http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/ebe_theory.html' target='_blank'>a theory from a doctor at Cornell</a> that says just that same thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A 30 second google will show you that this theory has been accused of not being supported by the evidence. I'll leave the googling as an excersise to the reader since it is generally pointless to play link wars with christian fundies. I suspect that this is because they subscribe to mailing lists or read blogs where any study, no matter how crackpot, gets hailed as new evidence that their God and his "morality" are the one true path. Of course, I can't prove anything...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, refer to the point I made above, you assume already what homosexuality is, both in nature and in effect, and you use those assumptions -namely, that a homosexual will be attracted to men from the get-go- to reinforce your own argument.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It isn't so much an assumption as it is observation. I've never met a homosexual who was ever attracted to women in his entire life. This is, of course, excluding the bisexuals. Based on my own feelings, and what people tell me their feelings are, I draw the conclusion that sexual orientation is not a choice, no simple flick of some psychological toggle switch can turn a homosexual into heterosexual, and the oposite is also true. In fact, I don't think definitions like "heterosexual" and "homosexual" are sufficient to cover the "sexual spectrum", as I've heard it called.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My logical progression, on the other hand, begins with statistics that show that it's possible for one to live as a homosexual for years, then suddenly settle down in a monogamous, heterosexual marriage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only if you define homosexuality as the act of having homosexual sex. I have argued, and will continue to argue, that this is not the case.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If A and B, then C: It's likely that homosexuality exists as a conditioned response to previous experiences, and remains firmly in the realm of choice, as hard as that choice may be to overcome.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets say, for a moment, that the theory you presented above is true. That would also mean that heterosexuality is a choice, correct? So, in theory, it is possible for a heterosexual to "overcome his/her choice" and be sexually attracted to members of the same sex, correct? If so, then I invite you to try. Go on then, if it is really a choice then you can become a homosexual just by flipping that little brainswitch labeled "sexual orientation" right?
Some people do that already... why does it matter if homosexuals do it? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I knew people were going to say that. And my answer is that it makes it a lot easier to do; at least in the case of two guys.
Most women in America don't think so lightly of marriage and aren't going to agree to get married solely for the tax benefits.
But if you have two guys who happen to know each other they might just think to themselves, "Hey, we could get married and get some more bucks back from the government" and think nothing of it. I think this would happen a lot more often if homosexual marriage was allowed, and I simply don't think that's fair to the rest of America.
Especially considering the fact they are stealing funds that are supposed to be for people who are going through the hardship of raising children. So I don't think they should get the tax benefits unless they have(adopt, surrogate, whatever) children. Other than that, I don't have a problem with it.
Hey big guy: my wife was fine with it (though it was health care in our case, not tax benefits).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But if you have two guys who happen to know each other they might just think to themselves, "Hey, we could get married and get some more bucks back from the government" and think nothing of it. I think this would happen a lot more often if homosexual marriage was allowed, and I simply don't think that's fair to the rest of America.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would **** couples would be any more likely to do this than straight couples?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Especially considering the fact they are stealing funds that are supposed to be for people who are going through the hardship of raising children.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the heck are you talking about? As far as tax "benefits" go, marriage often COSTS people more in taxes because their joint incomes go into a higher tax bracket.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So I don't think they should get the tax benefits unless they have(adopt, surrogate, whatever) children. Other than that, I don't have a problem with it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We don't force heterosexual couples to have children before giving them rights, so not treating **** couples the same way is hypocritical.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did you link those statistics earlier? I can't see them in the thread, but it would be nice to have a gander at them.
Oh, by the way:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[Re: why would homos choose to be oppressed?] You could say the same thing about the early Christians.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting...
If I asked you to, could you stop believing in God?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If A and B, then C: It's likely that homosexuality exists as a conditioned response to previous experiences, and remains firmly in the realm of choice, as hard as that choice may be to overcome. In fact, it may seem nearly impossible, but as long as there is no biological factor for sexuality, the possibility still remains.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, so let's assume you're right and homosexuals have this hypothetical choice. We have a choice between two options, one of which is appealing nd would lead to a satisfying sex life, one of which would cause considerable emotional and psychological hardships. Why should homosexuals make the choice you want them to even when does not look like the best one by any stretch from their perspective?
Hey big guy: my wife was fine with it (though it was health care in our case, not tax benefits).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But if you have two guys who happen to know each other they might just think to themselves, "Hey, we could get married and get some more bucks back from the government" and think nothing of it. I think this would happen a lot more often if homosexual marriage was allowed, and I simply don't think that's fair to the rest of America.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would **** couples would be any more likely to do this than straight couples?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Especially considering the fact they are stealing funds that are supposed to be for people who are going through the hardship of raising children.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the heck are you talking about? As far as tax "benefits" go, marriage often COSTS people more in taxes because their joint incomes go into a higher tax bracket.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So I don't think they should get the tax benefits unless they have(adopt, surrogate, whatever) children. Other than that, I don't have a problem with it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We don't force heterosexual couples to have children before giving them rights, so not treating **** couples the same way is hypocritical. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I heard you the first time about your wife but I don't think MOST women in America would marry solely for tax benefits. And why are you getting so huffy about it, omg chillout kthx.
And no you're missing my point. I'm not talking about homosexual couples. I'm talking about two heterosexual guys getting a marriage license just for the tax benefits. They would be able to do this now under the guise of a homosexual union. With legal homosexual marriage it is my belief that marriage benefits would be exploited much more than they already are.
And yeah you might not get the tax benefit if you make too much collectively, but even then you have the option to file separately. Single people have no choice. And then like you say there are health benefits through employers like just in case one of you loses a job the other can have you on his health plan for much much cheaper than it would cost you to get Blue Shield, or whatever on your own. And then there are tons of consumer benefits and discounts, and not just on baby stuff but cars, houses, and food.
You still assume that a person is either straight or homosexual from birth. That's not an assumption you can afford to make without biological evidence.
So far, you've shown none, and until you cite some and stop calling me a deluded idiot, there's no more use for me arguing with you.
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If I asked you to, could you stop believing in God?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That depends on in what sense I'm going to stop 'believing' in Him. In the sense that I stop acknowledging the fact that he exists, no, simply because the vast weight of my own experience, philisophical arguments, not to mention the huge ammount of reasonable doubt created by predictive prophecy, causes me to at least acknowledge the fact that God exists, if I am to act rationally at all.
However, if you were asking if I could basically give God the finger and do my own thing, then yes. It's perfectly possible for me to do that, but again, the benefits of such an action pale in comparison to the loss of an active personal relationship with Christ in my life. It's possible, but at this point, with what I've seen of God, it wouldn't be benificial to me.
I can only assume you're going to say the same about homosexuals, that it would make no sense for them to try and change their sexual preference, and I agree, the personal benifits of such a change are probably abyssmal. My concern is with the statistical danger to children in a home led by a same-sex couple, and the acceptance of that into society without even a blink.
You still assume that a person is either straight or homosexual from birth. That's not an assumption you can afford to make without biological evidence.
So far, you've shown none, and until you cite some and stop calling me a deluded idiot, there's no more use for me arguing with you.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could say the same for you, since you say exactly the oposite and yet also provide no evidence save for some crackpot theory that itself has been accused of not being supported by the evidence.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I can only assume you're going to say the same about homosexuals, that it would make no sense for them to try and change their sexual preference, and I agree, the personal benifits of such a change are probably abyssmal. My concern is with the statistical danger to children in a home led by a same-sex couple, and the acceptance of that into society without even a blink.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We've been over this concern, and you have yet to justify it. Seriously, how would acknoledging homosexual marriage lead to a better chance of a child being adopted into dangerous conditions, when the requirements for adoption are so strict anyway?
The first can be found <a href='http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/critique.html' target='_blank'>Here. </a>Ironically enough, it's a site that prides itself on the treatment of homosexuality, calling the EBE theory supportive of homosexuality, as if trying to force a political adjenda.
<a href='http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/ebe_politics.html' target='_blank'>Here, </a> Bem addresses the concern that his work is simply a political measure.
The other main concern is two-pronged, and the abstract can be found <a href='http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9577243&dopt=Abstract' target='_blank'>here. </a>. Bem's response can be found <a href='http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/Reply_to_Peplau.html' target='_blank'>here.</a>
So, although there are objections to the theory, they've been dealt with in a satisfactory manner, enough to allow the theory to be submitted as evidence, especially for an argument on an internet gaming forum. I might add that the same is true for evolution, It has it's attackers, but those charges have been dealt with in such a manner that a rational person can still accept the theory. I'm meerly using it as an example to prove a point, that the number of attacks on a theory is not corrolated to it's truth.
that being said, im off to commit genocide and rape a goat.
1. There is a large percentage of homosexual relationships in Australia which either were always, or eventually moved, to a casual sex relationship.
2. Such a relationship equates to a "broken home".
3. 72% of juvinile delinquents come from a "broken home".
4. This is bad.
I feel, trying to be as objective as possible, that your argument is flawed to say the least:
1. Even if we make the generalization that "promiscuity is the norm" in all, if not the majority or homosexual relationships, this pales in comparison to the number of such "non-close-coupled" heterosexual relationships, and these heterosexual couples can breed!
2. Okay, again, let's <b>assume</b> that cheating on a spouse equates to a broken home. Cheating on a spouse is not uncommon in heterosexual relationships, in fact it's rampant, and as said before, these heterosexual relationships don't even have to apply for children and go through an arduous process to acquire them, they generally just have to breed.
3. I seriously doubt 72% of juvinile delinquents come from broken homosexual homes. Now let's say that perhaps in the future we legalize homosexual marriage and allow homosexual couples to adopt. Now we might have an influx of said juvinile delinquents, assuming your argument is unflawed, but the numbers would be miniscule compared the the numbers of juvinile delinquents coming from "broken" heterosexual homes which, by glancing at the divorce rate in America, is not particularly inclined to decline anytime soon.
4. As I've tried to point out, you have the potential for a great argument here, if only your evidence actually backed up your assertions. Like you've said, these are all theories about how homosexual couples' kids might turn out. The actual number of homosexual couples raising kids is infinitessimal and nobody really knows what will really happen.
I'm hoping you'll at least try to counter my counters instead of nitpicking at one point ad derailing the argument as others have done for the last 2 pages of thread (not that it isn't entertaining, but I'd really like to have a legitimate argument).
Like I say, don't say anything unless you feel comfortable with talking about it.
1. There is a large percentage of homosexual relationships in Australia which either were always, or eventually moved, to a casual sex relationship.
2. Such a relationship equates to a "broken home".
3. 72% of juvinile delinquents come from a "broken home".
4. This is bad.
I feel, trying to be as objective as possible, that your argument is flawed to say the least:
1. Even if we make the generalization that "promiscuity is the norm" in all, if not the majority or homosexual relationships, this pales in comparison to the number of such "non-close-coupled" heterosexual relationships, and these heterosexual couples can breed!
2. Okay, again, let's <b>assume</b> that cheating on a spouse equates to a broken home. Cheating on a spouse is not uncommon in heterosexual relationships, in fact it's rampant, and as said before, these heterosexual relationships don't even have to apply for children and go through an arduous process to acquire them, they generally just have to breed.
3. I seriously doubt 72% of juvinile delinquents come from broken homosexual homes. Now let's say that perhaps in the future we legalize homosexual marriage and allow homosexual couples to adopt. Now we might have an influx of said juvinile delinquents, assuming your argument is unflawed, but the numbers would be miniscule compared the the numbers of juvinile delinquents coming from "broken" heterosexual homes which, by glancing at the divorce rate in America, is not particularly inclined to decline anytime soon.
4. As I've tried to point out, you have the potential for a great argument here, if only your evidence actually backed up your assertions. Like you've said, these are all theories about how homosexual couples' kids might turn out. The actual number of homosexual couples raising kids is infinitessimal and nobody really knows what will really happen.
I'm hoping you'll at least try to counter my counters instead of nitpicking at one point ad derailing the argument as others have done for the last 2 pages of thread (not that it isn't entertaining, but I'd really like to have a legitimate argument). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe (I could be wrong, forgive me, I'll look up the study I'm talking about if you call BS on it.) that in one of those links, it showed scholastic performace of kids raised in same-sex-couple's homes, versus a control group of kids with hetero parents.
In social studies the two groups were equivalent, but in all other areas, the kids from the same-sex homes scored much lower.
Needless to say, the effect is at least there.
Oh, by the way, I've been trying to argue the issue of choice for the last two pages because that really is what everything boils down to. If a same sex-couple raising a kid caused that kid to turn into Cthultu, we'd still have no grounds for infringing standards on them if it were an inborn quality.
In social studies the two groups were equivalent, but in all other areas, the kids from the same-sex homes scored much lower.
Needless to say, the effect is at least there.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, assuming that study has legitimate results, we should ban same-sex adoption rather than try to find the root of the problem and fix it? In America, poorer school districts score lower than affluent ones in almost every instance. I guess since poor kids score lower than rich ones, we should ban couples who don't have a combined income of 100k a year from having kids. Yeah, that makes sense.
The participants in the survey I refer to were all of the same socio-economic class. The only significant variable was the sexual preference of their guardians, and it showed to be a huge one.
So again, if homosexuality is a choice, and if kids raised in a home with people who have made that choice score abyssmally on emotional and scholastic surveys compared to their peers raised in a nuclear family, then homosexuality should be identified as a risk factor when considering adoption.
I would like to see this study, I'm intrigued.
I would like to see this study, I'm intrigued. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll try to dig it up for you, I lost it in a HD crash two months ago, I think.
Might be a day or two though, I need to roll on out for a job interview, and I've got exams to worry about.
That goes for straight couples too. Yes, I'm looking at you Mr. Gore.