11/20/2009 11:34:09 PM EST

Same sex marriage

posted by LastSCV

If same sex marriage is legalize, and children are raised in a same sex marriage household. Would that be healthy for the child? I read a scientific article that concluded that a child needs to be raised and learned from both male and female parents in infant hood in order to grow and develop all the necessary skills.

Furthermore, would the children raised by 2 fathers or mothers grow up to be different? Would this create a new generations of gay children? 

I'm all for the rights of freedom and liberty, and people should do whatever they want. However i cannot help but feel a bit concerned for these children who had no choice in their abnormal upbringings.

 

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
< Just an editorial on the Afghan War | Daily Blog #2 Freedom and Religion >

Poll

Is it healthy for children to be raised in a same sex marriage household?
Yes 80%
No 25%
Unsure 5%

Votes: 20
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
Same sex marriage | 83 comments (83 topical, 0 hidden)
ban single-parenthood (none / 1)
if a father and a mother are needed for proper child rearing, divorcees and unmarried singles cannot be allowed to be parents until they get married. after that, they can refuck and respawn.

by neo on 11/20/2009 11:49:09 PM EST

Credit where credit is due (none / 1)
I judge each thing on its own merit. Neo has effectively euthanized this destined-for-nowhere debate, while also coining the word "refuck."

Well played.

by OneHitKill on 11/21/2009 06:21:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree. (none / 0)
Bravo, Neo.

by Milltycoon on 11/22/2009 04:12:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Stupid is as stupid does (none / 1)
So let's look at a few facts.

There are 13.6 million single parents in this country raising 21.2 million children, or 26% of all children in this country reside in single parent households.
79% of custodial single mothers are gainfully employed
50% work full time, year round
29% work part-time or part-year
27% of single mothers live in poverty

I could go on with lots of disturbing statistics, but the question is, is it better to have 2 parents of the same sex living and contributing to the rearing of children in the household, or 1 parent household trying to earn a living and raise a child?

I know what side I pick.



"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 11/21/2009 12:22:22 AM EST

A study, you say? (none / 0)
Why not post a link to this study you mention?

There are many studies that say quite the opposite.

Here's a resource guide (which cites multiple specific studies) from the very reputable APA: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/ publications/lgparenting.pd f

To quote from the first part of the conclusion of this guide (page 15): "Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents."

A generation of gay children? Only 2%-3% of people are gay. A similar percentage of parents are gay. Unless gay people adopt all children, I find that highly impossible.

I'm gay and I was raised by straight parents. If parents were passing their sexuality onto their children, homosexuality would have died out millenia ago.

There's also the mountain of evidence that homosexuality is strongly influenced by biological factors. Scientists haven't ruled out environmental factors, but they haven't found any evidence—to my knowledge—that they play a role either.

Also, check this out: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov /entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=306 995

And this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov /Omim/getmap.cgi?l306995

It's very clear that sexuality is determined in large part, if not completely, by biological factors. There is physical evidence of this as well, including differences in size and shape of gay men's ring fingers and hypothalamuses vs. those of straight men's, just to name a couple.

by tlrdevere on 11/21/2009 12:24:11 AM EST

correction... (none / 0)
You didn't say a study. You said a scientific article which hopefully relies on scientific studies. Either way, it would be nice to know where this article comes from and what evidence they used to come to this conclusion.

by tlrdevere on 11/21/2009 12:26:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
One other thing.... (none / 0)
What has a bigger effect on whether or not gay people raise children: legal gay adoption, or legal gay marriage?

Gay adoption is legal in many states, whereas gay marriage is legal in only a few.

Gay people are already raising children. Wouldn't it be better—for the children themselves—if gay marriage were legal to offer the families the same rights and responsibilities that families with straight parents have?

by tlrdevere on 11/21/2009 12:31:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I hate this argument (none / 0)
"There is physical evidence of this as well, including differences in size and shape of gay men's ring fingers and hypothalamuses vs. those of straight men's, just to name a couple."

It is so meaningless and doesn't solve anything. So the hypothalamuses of gay men is very often bigger than that of of straight men. So what?
Gay people have a genetic disadvantage, because most can't pass on their genetic material to the next generation. Some of them also seem to suffer because of that. That's why they want to  adopt children.
All this makes being gay look like a disease, which it is not. But if people suffer because they are gay and they could be operated to be not gay (hypothalamuses-reduction, a simple brain surgery is all it needs) wouldn't that make being gay a treatable disease like depression?

This whole it is natural argument is primitive beyond measurment.
Being gay is natural we should accept it is like saying cancer is being natural we should accept it.

I really don't want to say that being gay is a disease, but that's why I don't understand why people always point out the connection to the brain or the fingers. Especially since these connections are no real indicator. You could have an extremly long ring-finger and a hypothalamuses that is below average and still be gay.
Just as you also can have good taste, hate watching sports, enjoy culture and still be straight.

I have nothing against same rights for gay people. I think it is as obvious that they deserve their rights as it is that this argument is primitive.

Why can't all people just accept that the world is much more interesting because people are different.
As long as they don't hurt anybody that's ok by me.
I don't mind if two people who are sexually attracted to chairs want to adopt a child.
The only case where I would exclude people from being allowed to adopt because of sexual prefence is when they are sexually attracted to children.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/21/2009 07:55:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
the nature vs nurture (none / 0)
argument  shouldnt be important..  everyone should enjoy the same rights and privileges no matter what.

But that being said...  the conservatives use the gay is a choice argument to justify discrimination.

Of course it is not a choice.. and it is sometimes necessary to point that out.

Im glad you dont want to say gay is a disease  because then you would be forced into the position of also saying straight is a disease and that would be really really stupid.

Sexual orientation is not a preference btw.

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 11/21/2009 10:19:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Agreed (none / 0)
On everything important. But:

"the conservatives use the gay is a choice argument to justify discrimination"

But it's a stupid argument. One that shouldn't justify a reply.

Again, just for arguments sake:
"Im glad you dont want to say gay is a disease  because then you would be forced into the position of also saying straight is a disease and that would be really really stupid."

Being gay is a evolutionary disadvantage, that causes suffering (therefore the need for adoption) and is influenced by biological processes. This could be considered a disease. If you define disease on purely biological terms. Even though the addition of some gay individuals is propably good for a species. So it's a disadvantage for the individual but an advantage for the majority. But maybe we shouldn't argue about degrees of stupidity.

"Sexual orientation is not a preference btw. "

There we disagree. Most people are not 100% gay or straight, but somewhere in between. Just ask people who are "prison-gay".

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/21/2009 10:38:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ouch and (none / 0)
ouch. Trying again to come to grips with scientific concepts and condemning them if they don't fit into your worldview? I know it is hard on you, but in this case, only materialistic science can provide the answers. In metaphysical world there would be no genders or sexual attraction.

"the conservatives use the gay is a choice argument to justify discrimination"

But it's a stupid argument. One that shouldn't justify a reply.

Unfortunately "It's a stupid argument." is in itself also a stupid argument ;).

"There is physical evidence of this as well, including differences in size and shape of gay men's ring fingers and hypothalamuses vs. those of straight men's, just to name a couple."

It is so meaningless and doesn't solve anything. So the hypothalamuses of gay men is very often bigger than that of of straight men. So what?

I know you live under the impression that you can't prove anything anyhow, but what proving biological factors of being gay does is take away the "best" argument the conservatives have for discriminating against gays.

Nother 2 things about scientific statements: correlation is not causation. And a defining feature being statistically relevant does not mean every individual of a certain category has that feature.

I will try to rewrite that so that you can understand it a little better: There is physical evidence including differences in size of women's breasts and buttocks. Whom does this fact hurt? So why would it in the case of gays? What can be wrong with finding out facts about anything? Saying that it has biological or psychological factors does not constitute a moral judgement like you seem to suspect. You seem to see everything through that morally tinged glasses.


I really don't want to say that being gay is a disease, but that's why I don't understand why people always point out the connection to the brain or the fingers

Because pointing out differences does not mean it is a disease. Just like being short is not a disease and being black is not a disease. These are called norm-variants. And being gay is not abnormal, it is very normal from a biologic perspective, normal for 5-10% of the population, maybe even more if you take away all moral restrictions.

Being gay is a evolutionary disadvantage, that causes suffering (therefore the need for adoption) and is influenced by biological processes.

In a natural, species-appropriate environment being gay would not cause suffering because child-rearing would be a much more communal process.


Even though the addition of some gay individuals is propably good for a species.

There you go. That is a strike. And I normally don't do that but in this case the "occurence of gays" might be a better term. But don't think species when talking about evolution, think horde. The individual does not care about the species in evolution.

So it's a disadvantage for the individual but an advantage for the majority.

Meh, you missed again. It is probably also advantageous for the individual when e.g. being a non-dominant male competing with stronger males for females would be life threatening. Any other action that would protect and help the horde does also help the genes of the gay individual that reside inside his siblings.

"Sexual orientation is not a preference btw. "

There we disagree. Most people are not 100% gay or straight, but somewhere in between. Just ask people who are "prison-gay".

So, you are in the camp of the conservatives? If being gay is a choice then there would be no reason not to discriminate against gays... And even the people on the fence who might swing both ways do not choose to be bisexual. And "prison-gay", really, you know they are not really gay nor do they choose, do you?

by eborujion on 11/21/2009 01:03:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Again not a question of science (none / 0)
"I know you live under the impression that you can't prove anything anyhow, but what proving biological factors of being gay does is take away the "best" argument the conservatives have for discriminating against gays."

If that is their best arguments there doesn't have to be a discussion. Conservatives didn't believe that being gay is a choice some decades ago. They and a big part of the scientists believed that it was a disease. They didn't let that keep them from disciminating. It is indeed the reason that some gay people don't like to be called homosexuals.

"What can be wrong with finding out facts about anything?"

Nothing at all. What you conclude from these facts can be questionable.

"You seem to see everything through that morally tinged glasses."

No just ethical issues like gay marriage and adoption. Biology for example has nothing to do with morals, but that's not what we are discussing here.

"It is probably also advantageous for the individual when e.g. being a non-dominant male competing with stronger males for females would be life threatening. Any other action that would protect and help the horde does also help the genes of the gay individual that reside inside his siblings."

So because gays are propably to weak to compete for the best females it is better for them if they don't try? Any other occurence where it doesn't matter which individual gets the femal, as long as it stays in the family?
In a natural environment gay animals are not able to pass on their genetic material. That is an disadvantage for them. Saying "There, there, at least your brother gets a female." goes a little beside the problem.

"If being gay is a choice then there would be no reason not to discriminate against gays"

WTF? So there is no reason not to discriminate against people, because they use their freedom of speech, have a (different) religion, vote for a different party, are (not) in a union, have a rubbish job, come from other countries to America...
All "just" choices, so let's start the discriminating.

PS:
"And I normally don't do that but in this case the "occurence of gays" might be a better term."

You petty, arrogant ass.;)
Just kidding. I'm always glad when someone corrects me because I know that I still have a lot to learn.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/21/2009 01:36:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Evolution 101 (none / 0)
So because gays are propably to weak to compete for the best females it is better for them if they don't try?

Dude, I don't make the rules of evolution, I just try to describe them! That is a possible evolutionary explanation why it might be advantageous for individuals to be gay even if they don't pass their genes on personally. Don't moralize so quickly! Nature knows no morals.

Biology for example has nothing to do with morals, but that's not what we are discussing here.

That is where you are fundamentally wrong. Biology has everything to do with morals, especially the "good" concepts that let a society (or a horde) thrive.

In a natural environment gay animals are not able to pass on their genetic material. That is an disadvantage for them. Saying "There, there, at least your brother gets a female." goes a little beside the problem.

But that is exactly how evolution works! Your brother has almost the same genes as you, especially if we are talking wilderness and hordes with fewer individuals where incest might play a bigger role.. Helping a brother out means your genes get passed on, too. Of course they do not intuitively know that, so they might end up in some cases helping a not related brother out. Remember when I explained the reason for altruism? Same mechanism. E.g. TYT did a story about gay penguins in the Berlin Zoo that adopted a motherless egg and took care of the fledgling. Might have been their nephew. Or not.

WTF? So there is no reason not to discriminate against people, because they use their freedom of speech, have a (different) religion, vote for a different party, are (not) in a union, have a rubbish job, come from other countries to America...
All "just" choices, so let's start the discriminating.

Discriminating is what people do! All the time! Against everything that they perceive as foreign and/or weird and/or wrong. Most people need a scapegoat or a whipping boy. You e.g. have the Nazis (and atheists, I suppose?) that you can discriminate against, I have religionists.

Only recently we have reached consensus that it is not acceptable to discriminate against people because of inherent traits that they can do nothing about like gender, "race", disabilities and sexual orientation (the latter not universally accepted yet). I don't advocate, I just state the obvious.

by eborujion on 11/21/2009 06:12:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Do you need me for the discussion? (none / 0)
"Nature knows no morals."
"That is where you are fundamentally wrong. Biology has everything to do with morals"
Have fun arguing with yourself.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/21/2009 06:53:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I knew that would come, (none / 0)
I only noticed it after I posted. Sorry that I confused you again. I have explained what I meant to you before in the other thread. But I will repeat it:

Nature in itself has no intention and no objective and thus does not "know" morals in the sense that it adheres to moral values.

It does, though, produce by the evolutionary process of natural selection many of the rules that you call morals. Especially the ones that are beneficial to a specific gene pool. In that sense biology has everything to do with morals. But that process does not stop at genetic level, there is also evolution with memes (ideas). But that is for another hour.

I hope that clarifies it.

by eborujion on 11/21/2009 07:08:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sure (none / 0)
You just gave a good example why we shouldn't use that it's natural example.

Just that it's natural has nothing to do with the morality of it. Evolution might have developed strategies that look like ethics, but none of them are.

Is it ok to eat your children? Some species do that. It's natural.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/22/2009 03:10:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Everything is natural (none / 0)
You just gave a good example why we shouldn't use that it's natural example.

Please elaborate on that.

Just that it's natural has nothing to do with the morality of it. Evolution might have developed strategies that look like ethics, but none of them are.

If they look and work like ethics, they are. It is just that we have formulated those principles long before we realized their biologic origins (long before we knew anything about the cosmos, really). But that does not contradict these origins.

What do you propose as the origin  of the biologically determined ethics? That they are complicated fabrications by the "devil"? How do you think our ethics have developped? That some day some already modern human invented them (or got them handed down)? And before we were humans without morals?

If you think that they are not to a large degree biological then you must suspect that we can at any moment lose all morality and go on a killing spree... Oh, wait, you do believe that... Sorry, your ignorance is consistent, so it is alright.

Is it ok to eat your children? Some species do that. It's natural.

It does not matter what some species do, it matters what our species does, what is natural for us. And we have never killed to eat our children on a large scale. I already stated that biological evolution is not the only process forming our ethics. There is also memetic evolution, that replaced/rationalized some of the biological functions but also went awry in some instances.

It gets really frustrating that you constantly try to argue against a nature you perceive as evil and inferior. You seem to believe that man is so much better than his animal roots. Slowly, I begin to suspect: you can't reasonably believe in evolution because a) you are unaware of big chunks of it (or you actively disbelieve them?) and b) you deny every implication of the theory that does not fit in you preformed world view. So, from my POV you believe in a phantasm that you call evolution.

by eborujion on 11/22/2009 05:01:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Human culture is unique (none / 0)
"You just gave a good example why we shouldn't use that it's natural example.

Please elaborate on that."

Some animals eat their young. It's natural.

"It does not matter what some species do, it matters what our species does, what is natural for us."

Like killing each other? Humans are the best when it comes to killing their own species. It really seems to be natural for us.

"you must suspect that we can at any moment lose all morality and go on a killing spree"

Yes, I indeed believe that and people have proven that believe to be right time and time again. People go postal or fight in wars all the time.

"If they look and work like ethics, they are."

Ethics require reflection. What you see in animals are just random patterns of behaviour that have been passed on from generation to generation.

"It gets really frustrating that you constantly try to argue against a nature you perceive as evil and inferior."

I never tried to argue against nature. I argued against natural behaviours to be normative to human ethics.
Finding out as much about nature as possible is good and right, but saying something is natural, therefore it is good is wrong.
You have all kinds of good and bad behaviour in nature. Why using them to give norms and not beauty?
You are arguing so much for science, it seems you don't believe in beauty.

"You seem to believe that man is so much better than his animal roots."

Let me just walk in that trap so you can go on about evolution a little more.
Yes, man is better than his roots. He has developed from the roots. He is the next superior step, the new model. He should strife to enhance that superiority. Push evolution to the next step and the step beyond that. Keep on evolving, try to be better.
He has abilities that no animal has. He can reflect about his behaviour and is not forced by some biological imperative.
Not using the mental capacities to move beyond every biological imperative would be like denying evolution.

Look forward to what should be and not backward to what has been.
Humans have behaved in a certain way, so it's natural, so we should keep on behaving like that is the worst dogma I have ever heared.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/22/2009 05:33:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Creationist says what? (none / 0)
Like killing each other? Humans are the best when it comes to killing their own species. It really seems to be natural for us.

Yes, killing is natural for human beings. That is why people have been trying to regulate that behavior in every culture with varying success. And before that natural laws did the same thing. Ever heard of killing inhibition? That is why males of an agressive species rarely severly injure or kill each other. Their behavior is just random, but ours is magic? That is dishonest, to say the least. Also we are still far more aggressive than most animals.

Even in our modern secular society, killing is still acceptable. But obviously there is a big difference between killing and sexual activities... Consensual sexuality does not hurt anyone.

Yes, I indeed believe that and people have proven that believe to be right time and time again. People go postal or fight in wars all the time.

There is a big difference between "going postal" and going to war. In the first case it is sociopathic behavior (the exception to the rule), in the latter case it is accepted behavior for a (more or less valid) reason. For the longest time in human history it was well accepted to kill anyone who did not belong to your tribe. Only the killing within was sanctioned.

Ethics require reflection. What you see in animals are just random patterns of behaviour that have been passed on from generation to generation.

So, when was that point when humans suddenly "woke up" and started implementing all the ethical behavior? Which day of Creation was that? And what time of the day? How did it happen? Did a god come down and rectally insert the souls into the monkeys? (really, I'm in the dark how you claim that man is not affected by evolution) That is what I meant that you don't really believe in evolution.

I argued against natural behaviours to be normative to human ethics.

Formative.

Finding out as much about nature as possible is good and right, but saying something is natural, therefore it is good is wrong.

Denying the findings if they don't fit with your religious views is bad, don't you think?. And I never said that something that occurs naturally is good. I just described the most likely explanations. The moral judgement comes from you. Natural does not mean good, the correct term is "organic".

You are arguing so much for science, it seems you don't believe in beauty.

WTF? What has that now to do with the discussion at hand? So, science and beauty are mutually exclusive... I did not know that.

Push evolution to the next step and the step beyond that. Keep on evolving, try to be better.

Another instance of you misunderstanding evolution... You cannot push evolution the way you think. Evolution is not an active process. It is a passive process.

He has abilities that no animal has. He can reflect about his behaviour and is not forced by some biological imperative.

Sounds suspiciously like the imperative to subdue the Earth...

Not using the mental capacities to move beyond every biological imperative would be like denying evolution.

You are so full of it... Do you mean like living on prana or something? Eating is a biological imperative, too, you know.

Look forward to what should be and not backward to what has been.

By ignoring where we came from and not accepting how we have come to the place and the state we are now, you are rejecting the most powerful tool for accessing the human condition there is. And those that ignore the past are destined to repeat it their mistakes.

Humans have behaved in a certain way, so it's natural, so we should keep on behaving like that is the worst dogma I have ever heared.

Man, enough with the stupidity. Look up dogma, pls. I just presented scientific facts/theoretical considerations about the issue. And nowhere did I state that we should embrace all kinds of natural behavior. I said being gay is normal for a certain part of the population and in combination with the fact that it does not hurt anybody, there is no objective reason to discriminate against or hate on gays.

Distortion, quote mining and moral judgements of natural processes, everything I expect from a good creationist.

And you still haven't brought forward a good argument why you accept gays, although you think being gay is a disease...

by eborujion on 11/22/2009 12:53:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nazi says what? (none / 0)
"So, when was that point when humans suddenly "woke up" and started implementing all the ethical behavior? ...That is what I meant that you don't really believe in evolution."

You might be an exception, but most humans are capable of abstrct thoughts and reflection about their behaviour. We have learned to control at least some instincts. We use reason to do that. Developing reason was a process. Our ancestors went through that process and now we have that capability. Because of evolution!

"Formative."

No, normative. In philosophy, normative statements affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong.

"Denying the findings if they don't fit with your religious views is bad, don't you think?. And I never said that something that occurs naturally is good."

I don't understand why you have to bring my religious views into this, but your argument was that the best reason not to dicriminate against gays is that it is caused by biology. I said that is rubbish, because biology is no longer a necessary normative argument. Most people have moved beyond that. We use ethical systems to find out which behaviour to encourage and which to discourage.

"You are arguing so much for science, it seems you don't believe in beauty.

WTF? What has that now to do with the discussion at hand?"

My point exactly. We argue whether it is good to discriminate against gays and instead of ethical reasons some people want to push the argument being gay is caused by nature, therefore we shouldn't discriminate. In this case biology has nothing to do with the reasons why we shouldn't behave in a certain way.

"Evolution is not an active process. It is a passive process."

Assuming that free will doesn't exist you are right. In that case it is a mindless random process. Again humanity has moved beyond that. The reason for that now we adapt less to our environment than we adapt our environment to us. We are able to influence evolution. We are doing it when we accept that we eradicate animal species, or when we save them artificially. That influences evolution. There is also an evolution of ideas, in case you didn't know. Is that a passive process, too?

"He has abilities that no animal has. He can reflect about his behaviour and is not forced by some biological imperative.

Sounds suspiciously like the imperative to subdue the Earth..."

So you deny that man has abilities that animals don't have, because that sounds like something from the bible?
Please show me the animals that have the ability to write books and build mobile phones.

"Eating is a biological imperative, too, you know. "

We can choose to stop eating. Then we can either accept that we starve or feed ourselves artificially. We are no longer bound by that imperative, because we have a free will.

"Man, enough with the stupidity. Look up dogma, pls. I just presented scientific facts/theoretical considerations about the issue. And nowhere did I state that we should embrace all kinds of natural behavior. I said being gay is normal for a certain part of the population and in combination with the fact that it does not hurt anybody, there is no objective reason to discriminate against or hate on gays."

Merriam-Webster: "dogma: something held as an established opinion."

"And you still haven't brought forward a good argument why you accept gays, although you think being gay is a disease... "

I stated several times that I don't think that being gay is a disease. I started to write on this thread, because the whole nature argument could make people argue that which makes it an argument that I hate.
EVEN IF I would think that being gay is a disease, that still wouldn't mean that we shouldn't accept them.
A question like that is what I would expect from a Nazi like you. "They are not healthy, so let's get rid of them. Evolution means survival of the fittest."

"Distortion, quote mining and moral judgements of natural processes, everything I expect from a good creationist."

What now you are a self satisfied creationist? You are distorting my arguments the whole time and assume that I use religion as a jsutification for my arguments and you are the one who is defending the argument that it is relevant whether being gay is caused by nature, that's " moral judgement(s) of natural processes".

BTW in my very first post on this thread I wrote: "Why can't all people just accept that the world is much more interesting because people are different.
As long as they don't hurt anybody that's ok by me.
I don't mind if two people who are sexually attracted to chairs want to adopt a child."

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/22/2009 01:55:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I resign... (none / 0)
OK, by your apparent ignorance and rejection of basic evolutionary principles, I deem you a Creationist. By what standards do you justify calling me a Nazi? Name one thing I said that aligns me with Nazi politics or philosophy.

Developing reason was a process. Our ancestors went through that process and now we have that capability. Because of evolution!

But if you say that only after we developped reason we were able to act ethically you assume there must have been a specific moment where one ancestor suddenly thought: Oh, maybe we should stop killing others. No, that is not what has happened. The inhibition not to kill others etc. was established long before reason as you know it came into play. Same goes with altruism. You know that chimpanzees are altruistic, too? Are they also self-reflective like we are?

Again humanity has moved beyond that. The reason for that now we adapt less to our environment than we adapt our environment to us. We are able to influence evolution. We are doing it when we accept that we eradicate animal species, or when we save them artificially. That influences evolution. There is also an evolution of ideas, in case you didn't know. Is that a passive process, too?

The idea of the evolution of ideas you got from me. So your "in case you didn't know" is incredibly arrogent yet idiotic. Influencing something does not make that process active. But I don't care to explain, you again would choose not to believe it.

"Formative."

No, normative.

Well, I wrote formative. Again: you can't just change the words I have used then argue against your distorsion. I meant nature is formative for ethics. And again, like I said before, nature knows no morals, she has no inherent values, there is no "ought to be" in nature, there is just an "is".

I don't understand why you have to bring my religious views into this, but your argument was that the best reason not to dicriminate against gays is that it is caused by biology.

I have to bring your religion into this, because you are obviously a Christian who claims to accept gays. So why does your position differ from those of other Christians? Also, my argument not to discriminate against gays was not that it is natural but that it is not a deliberate choice. That is the very best argument there is, it equates sexual orientation with other inherent characteristic like gender and "race". Everyone that is not a bigot can easily understand why we should not discriminate because of that.

If being gay was a choice and a moral one at that, it would be much easier for conservatives to find arguments for discriminating and even eradicating gayness.

A question like that is what I would expect from a Nazi like you. "They are not healthy, so let's get rid of them. Evolution means survival of the fittest."

Nowhere did I insinuate that. Again with the gratuitous Nazi accusations, tststs. But the dominant (Dogooder-)Christian view is: being gay is either a psychological or a moral disease that should be treated.

"They are not healthy, so let's get rid of them. Evolution means survival of the fittest."

Apparently you haven't really read my first comment in this thread where I explicitly stated that homosexuality is beneficial both for the individual and for his/her siblings and the horde. Your understanding of evolution igores both my statements and the last 50-100 years of research on the topic. And btw: Hitler did not believe in evolution, just like you.

What now you are a self satisfied creationist?

All creationists are liars and distortionists but not all liars and distortionists are creationists. And no, I did not distort any of your arguments. Maybe your horrible English did that for me.

you are the one who is defending the argument that it is relevant whether being gay is caused by nature, that's " moral judgement(s) of natural processes".

No, it is not. I don't judge nature when I say that being gay is natural. And I also make no judgement call based on that fact. You OTOH judge evolution when you say how it ought to have happened to be morally acceptable.

Ok, I don't know if I can keep up posting, as my time will be more limited next week. I was hoping for a little effect, not this wall of stubborness, but I have learned quite a bit about my own argument. You can claim victory, though, in the categories "most annoying", "stubborn" and "ignorant" and "closet Creationist".

by eborujion on 11/22/2009 03:30:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Where can I do the test (none / 0)
to proof that I know enough about evolution, to make sure that I'm no creationist?

"By what standards do you justify calling me a Nazi?"

You posted: "And you still haven't brought forward a good argument why you accept gays, although you think being gay is a disease..."
the connection between being sick and being accepted part of Nazi-ideology. A correlation between these two things wouldn't have crossed my mind.

"You know that chimpanzees are altruistic, too? Are they also self-reflective like we are?"

Either they are self-reflective, than they are able to act because reason justifies it, or they are not, in which case they don't act ethically. Ethics demand reflection. When action is not reflected it is controlled by instincts, not ethics. They act in a certain way because nature makes them act that way. You write that nature has nothing to do with ethics and still claim that animals act morally.
Either you separate nature and ethics or you don't. Choose!
Anyway humans justify what's considered right and wrong by ethical standarts. To realize that it really doesn't matter how long we are doing that, what was there first, the inhibition to kill or morals, all that is irrelevant.
What matters is what we define as ethical behaviour, nowadays.

"The idea of the evolution of ideas you got from me. So your "in case you didn't know" is incredibly arrogent yet idiotic. Influencing something does not make that process active."

It's neither arrogance nor idiocy, it's sarcasm. And influencing something makes you an active participant in it.

I wrote:
"I never tried to argue against nature. I argued against natural behaviours to be normative to human ethics.
Finding out as much about nature as possible is good and right, but saying something is natural, therefore it is good is wrong."

You replied with one word:

"Formative."

Then I answered:

"No, normative. In philosophy, normative statements affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong."

And now you write:

"Well, I wrote formative. Again: you can't just change the words I have used then argue against your distorsion. I meant nature is formative for ethics. And again, like I said before, nature knows no morals, she has no inherent values, there is no "ought to be" in nature, there is just an "is"."

WTF!
"And no, I did not distort any of your arguments. Maybe your horrible English did that for me."

Seems like that goes right back. Also I admitt that I would be much more eloquent if we could have this conversation in German.

"I have to bring your religion into this, because you are obviously a Christian who claims to accept gays. So why does your position differ from those of other Christians?"

Believe it or not, Christians are individuals and capable of making up their own mind. Not all Christians are idiots who claim that every word of the Bible is a literal truth. And some are even gay. Isn't that a crazy world we live in?
Are all atheists mass-murderers like Stalin?
Why does your position differ from that of other atheists?

"You OTOH judge evolution when you say how it ought to have happened to be morally acceptable."

Where did I do that. How often must I say that nature has nothing to do with discissions about ethics until you realize that maybe I'm not defending what you conceive as "the Christian position"?
I entered this thread to make clear that nature has nothing to do with (ethics and therefore ethics nothing with nature) and you keep attacking me because I judge nature on ethical standarts and then you call me stubborn.

Last but not least:

"Also, my argument not to discriminate against gays was not that it is natural but that it is not a deliberate choice. That is the very best argument there is,"

No, it isn't. The best argument there is is that they are not hurting anyone and there is no reason why we should discriminate against them. As long as they don't hurt anybody else whatever they do is just their own business.

On the other hand open tuberculosis is natural and not a choice, but I wouldn't like my children to be around anybody who has it.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/22/2009 04:56:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
One on the way... (none / 0)
to proof that I know enough about evolution, to make sure that I'm no creationist?

You don't have to know every detail, I don't know every detail, but if you acknowledge a principle you have to apply it every time. If you acknowledge that behavior in animals is shaped by evolutionary processes and you agree that humans have evolved then human behavior is shaped by evolution. You just cannot claim that you believe in evolution and then add: except when it comes to human behavior. Then you believe in something different that you just call evolution. Let's call it magiolution...

"And you still haven't brought forward a good argument why you accept gays, although you think being gay is a disease..." he connection between being sick and being accepted part of Nazi-ideology. A correlation between these two things wouldn't have crossed my mind.

I see. Well, I was referring to standard Christian ideology that regards being gay a disease which might be helped by spiritual healing/reconditionning. Not only the Nazis regarded being gay a (mental or moral) disease, but most of occidental Christianity (same goes for antisemitism btw). Also, I implied that you might have that stance because you said something like "if gay was natural then it could be considered a disease". And it is evidently natural, so I assumed you might think it is a disease.

Either [chimpanzees] are self-reflective, than they are able to act because reason justifies it, or they are not, in which case they don't act ethically.

Ok, that was a bad example because they might really be self-reflective. But then think lower, think capuccin monkeys. So, how does natural behavior become suddenly ethical when one is able to reflect upon it. Even free choice would still leave the evolutionary attained behavior the more moral choice (and animals have free choice, too). It is not ethical because it goes against nature, it is considered ethical because it was beneficial before that, so it got rationalized.

And influencing something makes you an active participant in it.

Yeah, influencing the path of a train by jumping in front of it does change the schedule. But seriously, the most active part you can play in biologic evolution is unprotected sex. You can actively pursue memetic evolution, though, because in that case the ideas are being selected by people/brains.

"normative-formative nonsense"

Yeah, sorry, my bad. I should have explained that I thought you misrepresented my position and not just written one word and assumed you would know that you should replace that in your sentence to correct the statement to fit my original intent.

Are all atheists mass-murderers like Stalin?

Ladyfriend already told you that atheism is not an assertive position but a rejection... Stalin did not murder for his atheism. But most active Christians who are seeking influence base their actions and convictions on their faith.

Seems like that goes right back. Also I admitt that I would be much more eloquent if we could have this conversation in German.

Calm down, I was just joking. But we theoretically could have, even though my vocabulary of evolution is probably better in English. As long as we don't have to write in Finnish. I get headaches by too many double-ääs.

"You OTOH judge evolution when you say how it ought to have happened to be morally acceptable."

Where did I do that.

You said: "expect from a Nazi like you. "They are not healthy, so let's get rid of them. Evolution means survival of the fittest."

I thought you implied that survival of the fittest applied to humans is Nazi-like and morally objectionable. Upon second thought you also could have meant letting (supposed) evolution taking its course is inhuman and Nazi-like. But still your objection to the idea that human behavior is shaped by evolutionary processes seems to be that this would not allow for humans to act morally. Or that the same behavior that was just instict a few generations earlier suddenly becomes ethical by just being able to think about it. Btw: I never said that being able to think about it did not also have very big impact. But it did not change the origin of "morality".


The best argument there is is that they are not hurting anyone and there is no reason why we should discriminate against them.

Let's not argue what the best argument is, they are both valid. From what I understand, though, many Christians live under the impression that in their view morally questionable behavior is somehow infectious and also does some metaphysical damage to their own well-being (e.g. "gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of traditional marriage"). It also might provoke the wrath of god or something. So they do hurt them (metaphysically).

On the other hand open tuberculosis is natural and not a choice, but I wouldn't like my children to be around anybody who has it.

Yeah, again, this is a real danger to the well-being of the children and also the individual suffers (bodily) from tuberculosis. So there are good reasons to both isolate and treat someone who has tbc. Being gay cannot be reasonably seen as a disease by someone who thinks it is natural.

by eborujion on 11/22/2009 08:31:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nature not normative (none / 0)
"You just cannot claim that you believe in evolution and then add: except when it comes to human behavior."

Yes, I can. Evolution does not influence every single part of everything.
Evolution of Quarks?
Evolution of the universe? Come on, tell me about genetic advantages of the universes behaviour, or it's procreation.
Biology is influenced by evolution. Physics is not. Neither is ethics. (unless you count evolution of thought, but that is not the same as biological evolution, on many levels)

"Not only the Nazis regarded being gay a (mental or moral) disease, but most of occidental Christianity (same goes for antisemitism btw)."

The Catholic Church doesn't. Even the current, by no measure progessive or liberal pope admitts that gay people are created like that and there is nothing people can do about it. When it comes to sex and marriage the Catholic Church holds gay and straight people to the same standarts.
Sex is a sin, unless it is within a marriage and the reason is to procreate.
Don't start it, I don't agree with that position, I just wanted to show that being gay is not considered a disease by the majority of Christians.

"it is considered ethical because it was beneficial before that"

Ethical always involves the element of consideration. It is true that some natural behaviours are considered ethical, it is also true that not all are.
Ethics is the process of moving beyond biological imperatives and acting according to morality that will hopefully become objective at some point. Without reflection no ethics.

"You can actively pursue memetic evolution, though, because in that case the ideas are being selected by people/brains."

That's what I was tallking about.

"As long as we don't have to write in Finnish. I get headaches by too many double-ääs."

Hyvä, koska minun tietokonella ei ole ä ja ö. Minä myös puhun tosi vähä suomea, mutta haluan opiskele.;)

"Let's not argue what the best argument is, they are both valid."

That's where we differ, because I don't accept the normative character of nature and see no reason why nature should be normative.
That's why I entered this thread.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/23/2009 12:09:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Late arrival... (none / 0)
Evolution does not influence every single part of everything.
Evolution of Quarks?
Evolution of the universe? Come on, tell me about genetic advantages of the universes behaviour, or it's procreation.

Obviously there is even an evolution of creationists: they claim they believe in evolution now, you being one good example of that... If we are talking about living organisms, evolution means EVERYTHING. It all only makes sense in the light of evolution. That is why all of us fight so hard against you creationists. Because you deny the very basis for making sense of how life works. Even if you just want one little exception, one little supernatural interference in the process of life. With this one interference the whole theory does not make sense. And as long as there isn't ANY reason or evidence to accept your claim, I rather stay with the consistent theory of evolution and everything. I also think that gravity does not allow for flying horses or angels.

But even before and outside of life, you can apply evolutionary principles and deduce evolutionary paths towards more stable states, e.g. for chemical systems, but also for astrophysical systems like our solar system or even entire galaxies.

Do you think a sky pixie conjured the first cell? No, that cell lastly developed from "anorganic" molecules and before that, there was a chemical evolution wherein molecules raced for dominance until DNA won out.

The Catholic Church doesn't. Even the current, by no measure progessive or liberal pope admitts that gay people are created like that and there is nothing people can do about it.

Of course, as the single biggest reservoir of closetted homosexuals in denial, I expect the Catholic Church to have a lenient stance on homosexuality. But let us listen to Ratze first:

"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder." Cardinal Ratzinger, 1986

Intrinsic moral evil... Objective disorder. OK, not disease, disorder, my bad.

The Catholic Church holds gay and straight people to the same standarts.
Sex is a sin, unless it is within a marriage and the reason is to procreate.

But they are not allowed to marry! So, same standards, my ass... That is a cruel joke, right? LIke taking someone's hand to slap him while asking: "Why are you hitting yourself?".

Ethical always involves the element of consideration. It is true that some natural behaviours are considered ethical, it is also true that not all are.
Ethics is the process of moving beyond biological imperatives and acting according to morality that will hopefully become objective at some point. Without reflection no ethics.

That is a-priori thinking. I get, I get it, solipsism, matrix, baby jesus, eternal damnation, alrighty. You think the concept of ethics or morality existed before there was anyone to adhere to. That is not how scientists and especially me assess the cosmos. I don't see how the exact same behavior that is beneficial and has evolved, will change in quality if someone can think about it, because the origins and the beneficiality stays exactly the same. By that standard, can't you also judge the behavior of animals, babies and mentally handicapped people (or even other cultures with different morals than you) as immoral, if they don't act the way you think is moral? It should not matter who is able to think about the behavior as moral or immoral, right?

It is true that some natural behaviours are considered ethical, it is also true that not all are.

Examples, please. I argue that there is no natural behavior that is absolutely unethical under any circumstances.

That is also why it does not make sense to say that ethical behavior is moving beyond biological imperatives. The biological imperatives are what you consider ethical! Some may have been amended or distorted, though...

>>"You can actively pursue memetic evolution, though, because in that case the ideas are being selected by people/brains."

>That's what I was tallking about.

But that still does not change the fact that the most sensible and deepest rooted ethics have a huge overlap with evolutionary acquired societal functions. And by that I obviously mean the latter cause the first.

That's where we differ, because I don't accept the normative character of nature and see no reason why nature should be normative.

Oh, noez, not again... I tried to explain that nature does not impose morals on beings, it is not normative. Nature has no goal and no intent. It is formative for morals and ethics, though, in the sense that behavior that is beneficial gets rewarded. And, as stated above, it is no coincidence that our so called moral values are based on these biological rules.

by eborujion on 11/27/2009 08:44:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Chihuahua (none / 0)
How's that as an aswer when you say that man is not able to influence biological developments. Is this little sick dog outside of evolution? Is it an idea and not an animal?

Another example:

Let's start talking about gene manipulated food and evolution.

"But even before and outside of life, you can apply evolutionary principles and deduce evolutionary paths towards more stable states, e.g. for chemical systems, but also for astrophysical systems like our solar system or even entire galaxies."

Now evolution has a direction? What has become of nature has no goal? And you can also deduce paths towards less stable states, e.g. decay and dying stars.
To me it seams that you have just substituted God with "fate" or "evolution" or whatever. If evolution (and natural laws in general) determines everything than evolution is almighty. It developed from a state that didn't obey physical rules, a state that was by definition metaphysical. When you now also tell me that you enjoy life you believe in something that came from a metaphysical state, is allmighty and benelovent. What does that sound like? Are you starting to become one of us? One of us... One of us... One of us...

"Intrinsic moral evil... Objective disorder. OK, not disease, disorder, my bad. "

In this very thread a pro-gay person called being gay "technically a disorder". When you consider sex that hasn't the aim of procreation a moral evil, then gay sex is always evil. It's the same with contrceptives.
Impotent men aren't allowed to be married either, or infertile people.
 Just accept that the Church says that the way they see it being married means that you have found a partner you want to father (mother?) kids with. When you take this definition of marriage it is impossible to marry gay men, because they can fuck as much as they want, but the result will never be offspring.
As I said: I don't agree with that, but at least it is consequent and propably a moral value that is not based on biological rules.
Hurting or even eating your own children happens in nature. I would like to hear when it is ok to eat your children?

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/27/2009 10:53:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Wha' abou' the chil'ren? (none / 0)
How's that as an aswer when you say that man is not able to influence biological developments.

Where have I said that? Of course humans can influence biological developments, especially in other animals and plants (or whole environments), but also within our own species.

>>towards more stable states, e.g. for chemical systems, but also for astrophysical systems like our solar system or even entire galaxies."

>Now evolution has a direction?

No, it has not the way you seem to imply. Trending towards or trying to maintain a stable state at every point is not a goal, there is no telos. It is only a direction in a very limited and short-term sense, like you adjusting your leg muscles to maintain an erect position is not the meaning of your life (I hope :). But that is more or less what evolution has in common with physical and chemical processes.

And you can also deduce paths towards less stable states, e.g. decay and dying stars.

Actually, decay and entropy are more stable states than growth and "extropy", and ultimately the whole universe supposedly tends towards that. But of course it is not impossible that there are regions that change towards lower entropy.

If evolution (and natural laws in general) determines everything than evolution is almighty. It developed from a state that didn't obey physical rules, a state that was by definition metaphysical.

I don't think I am able to follow you there. Evolution is not a being, it can't be almighty. (I can barely prevent myself from using the C-word again, as many creationists impute that atheists or materialists must put evolution in the place of a god. Atheism is not a religon, and evolution is even less so).

I did not claim that the abiological processes are identical to evolution, but that there are some analogous principles. Maybe a theory of evolution of matter can be formulated but I am not aware that it has been done yet or called that way. I tend to not make any claims about the state of the early universe because I don't know enough about it. But I challenge the notion that the early universe was metaphysical by definition, it was rather prophysical (as in: before our physical laws applied) or paraphysical (as in: different laws applied) or simply "unknown". "God did it" or "Hocus Pocus", though, do not seem like valid answers to me. You can personify natural forces and the laws of physics as much as you want, that does not really make them godlike entities. BUT, as I have stated in this forum before (not to you, IIRC): I think deism is a valid philosophical position. I don't hold it though.

">>Intrinsic moral evil... Objective disorder. OK, not disease, disorder, my bad. "

>In this very thread a pro-gay person called being gay "technically a disorder".

It does not matter what a particular pro-gay person concedes in a debate. I bet there even are or were many gays who consider(ed) their sexuality a disorder, sinful, morally corrupt or sick themselves, being conditionned by a bigotted society. The fact remains that there is no defendable objective "orderly state" that corresponds to a presumed disorder.

When you consider sex that hasn't the aim of procreation a moral evil, then gay sex is always evil. It's the same with contrceptives.

That is why we as a society have grown beyond the concept of intrinsic moral evilness. At least for now.

Impotent men aren't allowed to be married either, or infertile people.

That really is news to me! And I don't buy it. Are there specific tests whereby a priest tests how potent the applicants are? I bet there are many priests who are yearning to perform such tests...

Just accept that the Church says that the way they see it being married means that you have found a partner you want to father (mother?) kids with. When you take this definition of marriage it is impossible to marry gay men, because they can fuck as much as they want, but the result will never be offspring.

Oh, big misunderstanding. What the churches accept or what they define as marriage I could not care less about. Also, I do not care whether the churches believe gays deserve salvation. Because that concept does not exist to me. What I want though is that the churches and the believers just stfu about what other people can or cannot do with their lives. I also care about the secular recognition of the right of gay couples to form a civil union that is equal to marriage.

As I said: I don't agree with that, but at least it is consequent and propably a moral value that is not based on biological rules.

If infertile couples or older couples really were not allowed to marry, and if marriages would be annuled if one of the partners became infertile or the woman reaches menopause, it would be consistent. But what is the definiton of marriage as a bond for procreation if not a biological rule??? The exclusiveness is solely based on the biological fact that they can produce offspring... Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

Hurting or even eating your own children happens in nature. I would like to hear when it is ok to eat your children?

Like I said at least 2 times before: it does not matter what occurs elsewhere in nature, it only matters for humans what humans have done and do. And there is of course a major psychological (which I'd argue is hardwired, Kindchenschema/small child pattern etc.) inhibition to kill or eat children. There is not so much restraint, though, to hurt children because it can be beneficial to immediately punish bad behavior to prevent fatal future consequences.

But I will paint a scenario wherein I considered it ethical to eat your children: In a major famine, if the children have died and there is a chance that you survive if you eat their bodies and you most certainly die if you don't. I would argue, though, that the inhibition in this case is so strong that not many people would be able to overcome it and rather die/kill themselves. I certainly would do the latter.

I don't really know what to make of the fact that you lost your obsession with just killing and replaced it with eating children.

by eborujion on 11/27/2009 07:13:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Who cares? Fuck 'em! (none / 0)
"Of course humans can influence biological developments, especially in other animals and plants (or whole environments), but also within our own species."

Well, you did write:

"But seriously, the most active part you can play in biologic evolution is unprotected sex."

I seriously hope, that's not your expanation for the chihuahua.;)

"Evolution is not a being, it can't be almighty."

A being with biological restrictions cannot be allmighty.

"But I challenge the notion that the early universe was metaphysical by definition, it was rather prophysical (as in: before our physical laws applied) or paraphysical (as in: different laws applied) or simply "unknown"."

You mean prephysical not prophysical, don't you?
Metaphysical means beyond physics. All scientists that I heard of claimed that the laws of physics stop working just before we reach the time of the Big Bang. That makes the Big Bang beyond physics. We have a word for that and it's metaphysical. So, why make up new words?

"Impotent men aren't allowed to be married either, or infertile people.

That really is news to me! And I don't buy it."

There are no tests done by the church, but if you can proof that the man is impotent the marriage can be annulled when the marriage wasn't "consumated". Problem one is that the pope has to do it and problem two that most men wouldn't want to admitt it. Nevertheless, it has happened several times when society in general still cared about the position of the church.

"What the churches accept or what they define as marriage I could not care less about."

Try to look at it from the other side. How about one of your extrem American churches (Evangelists or whatever they are called) would say I don't care about what these atheists define as Theory of Evolution, as long as it contains the possibility of creationism.
See how stupid that sounds, but you are similarily hijacking the term marriage.
Or maybe they say: We accept the Theory of Evolution and will further it's understanding, when you agree to call it "The complicated way to describe how God has created the world". All that would change would be the name. There can obviously be no problem with that, can there?
If people would never have started talking about giving gay people the right to marry, but only to give gay couples the same legal protection as married couples that would have been a whole different story. The GLBT was a little unsensitive when they decided to fight for the right to marry. I understand them, but it was a tactical mistake and not very diplomatic.

"What I want though is that the churches and the believers just stfu about what other people can or cannot do with their lives."

That's a childish position. When you are thouroughly convinced of something you try to convince others. (You do so with atheism, btw)
That's like saying:
I want you to stfu about what religious people can or cannot do with their lives.
When they want to spend their lives talking about religion, than that is as much their right as it is yours to fuck another guy in the ass.

"If infertile couples or older couples really were not allowed to marry, and if marriages would be annuled if one of the partners became infertile or the woman reaches menopause, it would be consistent."

No. Once the marriage started all bets are of. After the first fuck as a married couple you are stuck with each other in eternity.
Even in the time when your physical bodies don't exist anymore.

"The exclusiveness is solely based on the biological fact that they can produce offspring... Way to shoot yourself in the foot."

Now wait a minute. You say the exculsiveness is based on biological facts and still you want to change it. When the laws of nature were formative in this their is no reason to change it. That would be madness.

"Like I said at least 2 times before: it does not matter what occurs elsewhere in nature, it only matters for humans what humans have done and do."

I don't get it. Why do you think that humans are somehow different from the rest of the animals? Different biological rules for humans? Is this a foot-shooting competition?

"I don't really know what to make of the fact that you lost your obsession with just killing and replaced it with eating children."

My new obsession is eating children?;)
I add one to that:
When is it ethical to rape babies?

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/28/2009 03:11:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
My big fat greek prefix (none / 0)
>Well, you did write:

"But seriously, the most active part you can play in biologic evolution is unprotected sex."

Yeah, both statements I still will repeat as valid for my opinion. We are talking about different plains here. One is the pure determinist biological plain. The other is the illusionary plain where you have choices. In other animals we can influence evolution as a selective force. In our own evolution we are influenced by our own (evolutionary formed and psychologically amended) drives and tastes. So, it's not like we can manage our own evolution totally ad libitum. You have the illusion of mating choice though, when it really is a mixture of more or less fixed action patterns, acquired psychological preferences and coincidence (probability).

>You mean prephysical not prophysical, don't you?
Metaphysical means beyond physics. All scientists that I heard of claimed that the laws of physics stop working just before we reach the time of the Big Bang. That makes the Big Bang beyond physics. We have a word for that and it's metaphysical. So, why make up new words?

"Metaphysics" was conceived millenia before any theory of a big bang and possible prophysical conditions were even thought of. And metaphysics certainly does not refer to the conditions prior/during the big bang. So, it is a new concept with a demand for a new word. You already tried to hijack the word evolution and call it god... I won't go for that. I also won't call gravity angel-weight and I won't call nuclear power satan's invisible ore sunshine.

Btw: don't try to out-smartass me, you will hurt yourself. Meta- is greek and so is pro- meaning before. Pre- is latin. I made the word up, I make the call about its components.

>How about one of your extrem American churches (Evangelists or whatever they are called) would say I don't care about what these atheists define as Theory of Evolution, as long as it contains the possibility of creationism.
See how stupid that sounds, but you are similarily hijacking the term marriage.

I don't know how you can confuse that. One is a scientific concept, the other one is a societal function. That is why it sounds stupid! You can't just redefine scientific concepts like you want, you need evidence. The important thing here is that the secular term for it is also marriage. The Christian churches have no copyright on that! But if it was for me, they even could have it. What you call it is not really important.

>The complicated way to describe how God has created the world". All that would change would be the name. There can obviously be no problem with that, can there?

OK, where do I sign? I can't wait to have evolution accepted by religionists... Now, wait a minute!!! If the name implies that the process was not scientific at all, then there is obviously a big problem with that. I already told you that what you believe in is not really evolution. Especially if you take this definition.

>>"What I want though is that the churches and the believers just stfu about what other people can or cannot do with their lives."

>That's a childish position. When you are thouroughly convinced of something you try to convince others. (You do so with atheism, btw)
That's like saying:
I want you to stfu about what religious people can or cannot do with their lives.

How is that childish? In your opinion, individual liberty is childish? You're on an American site, remember? Bold print marks the very big difference. I don't tell religious people how they should live their life. I also do not try to convince people of atheism. I just like discussing and mocking religious beliefs for the bullshit they are. If people are deconverted by that, their faith must have been weak all along. Isn't faith defined as believing in something no matter what evidence and rational arguments exist against that position? If anything, in this debate, I try to convince you that your position is just disingenuous creationism. You don't have to compromise your beliefs at all to accept that.

>When they want to spend their lives talking about religion, than that is as much their right as it is yours to fuck another guy in the ass.

Bigotry rears its ugly head again. They do not only talk about religion, they influence public morality and legislation. If a gay guy fucks someone in the ass who is not consenting, he will be punished. Religion has fucked humanity in the ass without unanimous consent for thousands of years and is still in high regards.

>>"The exclusiveness is solely based on the biological fact that they can produce offspring... Way to shoot yourself in the foot."

>Now wait a minute. You say the exculsiveness is based on biological facts and still you want to change it. When the laws of nature were formative in this their is no reason to change it. That would be madness.

Sigh... the important factors are the absolute exclusiveness and the condemning of non-procreational bonding. The "laws of nature" obviously do not prevent sexual desires that are not in the interest of procreation. Nature does not control who can love whom. Abrahamic religions OTOH try to regulate who can love whom by not allowing certain constellations based on the biological fact that they cannot produce offspring. In a way they arbitrarily set the rule that sex is only for procreation when in reality it has many more functions.They use a biological fact (not a "rule of nature") as an excuse to impose their arbitrary moral norms on other people.

">>Like I said at least 2 times before: it does not matter what occurs elsewhere in nature, it only matters for humans what humans have done and do."

>I don't get it. Why do you think that humans are somehow different from the rest of the animals? Different biological rules for humans? Is this a foot-shooting competition?

You can't be that stupid, can you? Obviously, you tried to aim at your small brain and shot your foot instead. There are no different biologic rules. Humans differ from all the other animals in that they ARE different animals. Just like ants and giraffes are different animals who live different lives. Do you also ask why giraffes don't inhabit giraffehills and don't have a giraffe queen? No? That is not how they roll?

>When is it ethical to rape babies?

You are a sick person. I don't blame you. You suffer from a sick religion. Poor guy, abused by religion your whole life... And now you can't even think for yourself... I tell you when it is morally OK to rape small children according to your own holy tome: when angels visit you and your neighbors want to rape them (everybody knows how inconvenient it is when that happens), you can offer them your baby daughters to rape instead (Genesis 19). You already told me you get inspirations from the bible. I can clearly see that. Only the perversion that is religion can justify baby rape.

by eborujion on 11/28/2009 06:37:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I wouldn't have answered during the week (none / 0)
I try to cut down my internet time and concentrate on more sensible things.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/27/2009 10:54:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
nazis (none / 0)
Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] The term Godwin's law can also refer to the tradition that whoever makes such a comparison is said to "lose" the debate.

by LadyFriend on 11/22/2009 05:41:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hehe, thanks, (none / 0)
I totally forgot ;). To be fair, though, I dropped the C-Bomb by calling him a creationist. That might have been a tiny bit exaggerated, just because he has an out-dated version of evolution. I just like the drama :).

by eborujion on 11/22/2009 08:32:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Try as you may (none / 0)
You just cant make that gay is a disease argument  work

dont want to bother discussing it

You seem to have your mind made up

:)

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 11/21/2009 05:32:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
tlrdevere did that for me (none / 0)
In one of the "proofs" that he provided (the second one, the first doesn't work) homosexuality is classified as a disorder (even though with question mark) and he admitts: "Technically speaking, homosexuality is a disorder, but so what?" Which of these terms discribes being gay best in your opinion?

When the biological argumentation makes the people who want to defend your rights say stuff like that I wonder what your enemies will make of it. And it just isn't a good argument.

Last, but definitly not least I don't want to make a "gay is a disease argument  work" I want to totally disregard that argument, because it has nothing to do with the real issue and can so easily be misused. You must be aware how bad it was when homosexuality was considered a disease.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/21/2009 06:17:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
no the REAL issue (none / 0)
is gays dont have the same rights as straights and they should

PERIOD

No matter what insane bullshit argument you want to come up with.

I guess you think comparing gays to tuberculosis is better?

FUCK OFF

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 11/28/2009 01:29:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That's what i said (none / 0)
"is gays dont have the same rights as straights and they should"

That's a given. I just think that it is better to make people aware of that than talking about how much it is influenced by biology.

It doesn't matter whether it is biological, psychological or determined by God, what matters is that they should have the same rights.

"I guess you think comparing gays to tuberculosis is better?"

I just brought this up to show what bigots will make with the it's biological argument.
They can also just keep on discussing, whether it really is until they have found the reasons and a "cure".
The part biology plays is just as relevant as the argument we need gays, because without them no man would dance in a Madonna-video.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/28/2009 02:07:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yea I know (none / 0)
You dont need to teach me anything.

I am fully aware as is most of the country that  Christofacists say gay is a choice because its easier to descriminate us.

And if god made homos  gosh how could you descrimate then?

We dont NEED gays.. anymore than we NEED people with blue eyes.

No man would dance in a Madonna video?

WTF?

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 11/28/2009 10:47:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
discriminate (none / 0)
not descriminate

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 11/28/2009 10:48:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'll tell you why conservatives tend to oppose (none / 0)
Because they are being used. They are being used by the republican party and other powers that want them to vote. And...it works.

I agree that sexual orientation is a spectrum and not a dichotomy. I'm curious though, have you engaged in both? I haven't, not that it matters. The majority of people see themselves as being attracted to one gender or the other. The issue here is not sexual orientation. It's gender. Gender is also not a dichotomy. It is behavioral and people fall somewhere on that spectrum. Sexuality is deeply entangled with social representations of gender.

by LadyFriend on 11/21/2009 06:27:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Again, facts are facts... (none / 0)
Doesn't matter if you like the argument or not. These things are just true.

Also, hypothalamus reduction... No, dude, not gonna happen. We're not capable of that, and there's nothing to make us think that that would turn gay men straight. The hypothalamus has nothing to do with sexual orientation. I only bring it up because it's an indication that sexual orienation is decided by biological factors.

Technically speaking, homosexuality is a disorder, but so what? Not all mistakes are a bad thing. Not everything needs to be put in order. It's a natural disorder but it doesn't result in anything bad.

It's not like say cancer is natural. It's totally different.... because cancer actually hurts people.

My friend, you're fighting an up-hill battle. Of course there are exceptions to the rules, but as a general rule, these physical differences tell us that it's not a choice to be gay, because you can't choose the size and shape of your hypothalamus nor your ring finger.

by tlrdevere on 11/21/2009 02:43:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nobody denies the facts (none / 0)
Just the meaning of them and the implications, and again I have to add that I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Being gay hurts these people in a way, because it prevents them from having kids of their own. That's something negative.

This means that when your argument against discriminating gays is that you can't do that because being gay is natural you just make homophobes switch their arguments.

Then they don't "discriminate against gays" they "only search for a cure". So these poor gays can have relationships that may result in kids of their own. Maybe electro-shocks could help. At least they could make people pretend not to be gay anymore.

The better argument against discrimination is that they hurt nobody and do nothing immoral.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/21/2009 03:18:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The implications are simple (none / 0)
We know what the implications are. It is primarily biological factors that decide sexual orientation.

What prevents them from giving birth to kids is being male, not being gay. They can still raise kids via adoption...

Homophobes will never find a cure, because there is none. It's not psychological.

Even if they tried to manipulate biology, it will be decades before they'll be successful. It will take time for the older generations to die out.

The BEST argument is the truth, and that's what I'm telling.

by tlrdevere on 11/21/2009 05:02:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The sun is really hot!!! (none / 1)
"The BEST argument is the truth, and that's what I'm telling. "

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/21/2009 05:25:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Now wasn't that a great argument? (none / 1)
Something being the truth doesn't always mean that it has any implications on how we act or how we should act.

When we are talking about gay adoption it really doesn't matter whether it is a choice.

There is no reason to assume that being gay is in any way immoral, unless you believe that the planet is seriously underpopulated and it's everybodies responsibility to fuck so we can raise the population to the needed level.

"What prevents them from giving birth to kids is being male, not being gay. They can still raise kids via adoption..."

Wow, you really got me there, that devaluates the whole argument that they can't pass on their genetic information.

"Homophobes will never find a cure, because there is none. It's not psychological.

Even if they tried to manipulate biology, it will be decades before they'll be successful. It will take time for the older generations to die out."

That it's not psychological doesn't make it less likely that they can find a "cure". If anything the opposite. And it defenitly can't keep them from looking for "cures" and trying them. Adopting a child is not the same as being the biological father. Why shouldn't gay people be given the opportunity to father a kid in a natural way? When someone has low sperm count he doesn't get told it's no problem. You can adopt. No doctors are looking for a cure. Even though it is biological.

Therfore the fact that it is biologically determined is a bad argument, even though it is true. It still has nothing to do with the issue. Let's assume pedophelia is biological, does that make it correct?
To anyone reading the last sentence: I'm not saying being gay is like being a pedo. The reasons why you can't compare these two "preferences" are ethical, not biological.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/21/2009 05:50:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
who says homosexuality is a "disorder"? (none / 0)
Is being left handed a "disorder" ?  Homosexuality is no more a disorder than heterosexuality. I was born gay  therefore its perfectly natural.

What makes anyone think gay men would WANT to be straight?

I like who I am.

Deciding what color shirt to wear is a choice... being gay is not  the idea that  you can choose your orientation is insane.

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 11/28/2009 10:54:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That argument is still rubbish (none / 1)
"I was born gay  therefore its perfectly natural."

Still the only important thing should be if you hurt someone who is not consenting. Assuming you don't just keep on going. I wish a higher percentage of guys would be gay. Or i would be gay. Both would probably result in more action for me.
Maybe that's the reason for discrimination. Secretly we envy you.

Sorry again, but once again you force me to use outrageous degrading arguments. It is just the fact that I really hate that "it's natural" line of argumentation.

Do you think pedophiles have chosen their orientation?
Or were they born like that and therefore it's ok?

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/28/2009 12:34:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
And THAT is rubbish as well (none / 1)
Do you think pedophiles have chosen their orientation?
Or were they born like that and therefore it's ok?

Homosexuality doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. Pedophilia does. You're comparing something harmless (like being born with a certain color hair) to something anomalous (like being born with a Gatling gun for an arm).

by OneHitKill on 11/29/2009 03:37:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Please tell me! (none / 1)
What is the relevance of being born that way?

You admitt, that it does not mean it's a good thing, so why drag on about it?

It is totally irrelevant.

When you say, that being gay is ok, because gays were born this way, than you have to accept, that pedophiles were born this way, too.

Than you have to argue that they don't infringe on anybody's rights.
I said the argument should be that they don't infringe on anybodies rights and everything else is irrelevant.

Why construct an argument that can so easily be misused and is totally irrelevant?

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/29/2009 05:43:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Is this why your name is "opposition?" (none / 1)
When you say, that being gay is ok, because gays were born this way, than you have to accept, that pedophiles were born this way, too.

I don't have to do anything. I'm not a robot. I judge things individually. So should everyone. Even if I concede that being born gay doesn't in and of itself make homosexuality "okay," I still don't see any meaningful evidence that it's "wrong," so you can't call my argument irrelevant without re-examining your own.

Pedophilia and homosexuality have been determined incomparable by modern society. Catch up to the rest of us already.

by OneHitKill on 11/29/2009 07:19:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You have to die!!! (none / 1)
We all have to die, except for the robots!;)

If your argument is, that we shouldn't discriminate against gay people, because they were born this way, than your argument is irrelevant and stupid!
The only reason, why we shouldn't discriminate against them or try to "cure" them is because they don't hurt anybody and don't want to be "cured".
Being born gay has nothing to do with it.

I compare whatever I want. When you say we shouldn't discriminate against gays, because they were born this way I wonder why you think we should discriminate against pedophiles. They were born this way, too.

Then you have to go back to they don't hurt anyone and I said that is the first and only reason.

Saying we shouldnt discriminate against them because they were born this way is as sensible as saying we shouldn't discriminate against them, because they use more beauty products than straight men.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/29/2009 11:09:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
opposition = brick wall (none / 1)
If your argument is, that we shouldn't discriminate against gay people, because they were born this way, than your argument is irrelevant and stupid!

That isn't my argument. My argument is that we shouldn't discriminate against gay people because we gain nothing by doing so. Comparing them to pedophiles achieves nothing except making the world believe that you are hell-bent on defending pedophiles (and, by extension, that maybe you're also a pedophile yourself).

by OneHitKill on 11/29/2009 06:50:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Partly agree (none / 0)
I agree with your basic argument, and keep asking why people always bring this weak it's natural argument.

PS: Seems like all the people who compared Bush with the Nazis were hell-bent on defending the Nazis, and by extension maybe Nazis themselves.
Oh my God! Beck was right all the time!
That fuckin Nazi.
Now I confused myself.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/29/2009 11:38:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nonsense (none / 1)
PS: Seems like all the people who compared Bush with the Nazis were hell-bent on defending the Nazis, and by extension maybe Nazis themselves.

That doesn't even come close to making sense.

by OneHitKill on 11/30/2009 05:03:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
this actually made me laugh a little (none / 0)
a generation of gay children? seriously? please cite this article you are referring to because it sounds pretty bogus to me. was this "scientific article" by any chance published by a religious institution? what methods were used to reach the conclusion which you have summarized?

one of my friends was raised by his grandmother. why is it that he doesnt spend every weekend at the bingo hall eating werthers originals with the rest of the old ladies?

being raised by a gay person, or gay people does not predispose someone to be gay. much in same way that being raised by a straight person, or a straight couple does not predispose someone to be straight. 


by MetalFalsetto on 11/21/2009 12:38:47 AM EST

The argument (none / 0)
that being raised by gay people  makes you gay is stupid.

I came from straight parents.. they didnt make me straight

In fact  who cares if it does? Whats wrong with being gay?

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 11/28/2009 10:56:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Selfish or not? (none / 1)

The question of whether the child will be in a healthy family isn't, in my opinion, as important as another question. Is it selfish for a gay couple to raise a child not of their own?

When a couple adopts a child it is usually because they can't have children or it might be fatal to the mother, or even as simple as the mother doesn't want to go through the process. Whatever the cause there was something wrong that wasn't a normal phenomenon. When considering a homosexual relationship they willing choose the inability to produce children. By their choices can they not have children, it was nothing to do with genetics or nature. 

With that said I believe everyone can have their choices in life and whatever makes you happy. If you like the same sex than that is your right as a human, it is a birth right and nothing a religion nor country should be able to take away. But arguably it may or may not be the healthiest way for a child to grow up. A child is very much influenced by their parents and until they can really think for themselves and go to school and see the world they have to assume that their home and household is the normal life of the world.

Does having homosexual parents make a child that way? No. Does it impact how they perceive lif e? Yes.

by Thundrstorm on 11/21/2009 12:46:59 AM EST

I refer you to my above post (none / 0)
Sexual orientation is not a choice.

Ignorance, however, often times is.

by tlrdevere on 11/21/2009 01:24:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
response (none / 0)

I do not disagree about raising a child or even great parents. I simply said that it would give the children and false sense of normal. I believe it would be up to the parents to make them realize that there are various types of people and most families have a mother and a father. As stated by another poster 2-3% are homosexual. Which means the child will have to realize that 97% of their friends will have a different type of family. They simply can't live in a bubble. That is all my point was. 

I honestly believe that if the parents don't push that issue then the child will know nothing different than two mothers or two fathers as a being normal and if not told the difference than it might come to them as a shock on the first day of school and everybody but them have a mother and father. Also I don't think orientation  ;matters of how good of a parent you will become, I think they would and could be amazing influence on a child, just at a cost of early development. They will not make their child homosexual just be living in the environment.

Side note: I don't see the point in insulting me and attacking me by saying I'm ignorant. The argument abou t being born or becoming homosexual is the same as the question of does god exist. My opinion is you prefer the same sex but do I think that when a person is six months old they think that way? Absolutely not, but to sit there and tell me I'm ignorant because my opinion differs from yours in itself ignorant.

by Thundrstorm on 11/21/2009 01:36:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Facts are facts... (none / 0)
The same thing that proves gravity is the same thing that proves people don't "choose" to be gay: the scientific method. And I doubt you're jumping off any tall buildings to see if you'll just float away and not plummet to your death.

If you don't like it, that's too bad, but the fact is, it IS ignorance that lets a person view demonstrable evidence for one thing, then completely disregard that evidence and believe something else without any evidence at all. That is ignorance in its purest form.

Yes, you can have your opinion. That's fine, but if your opinion is that people choose to be gay, you're just wrong.

You could have the opinion that gravity doesn't exist and it's only a coincidence that so far everything that's gone up has come down. But you don't have that opinion because if you did, acting on it would result in negative effects directly to you. Having an ignorant opinion about gays doesn't affect you at all though, so the selfish human mind feels free to harbor that ignorant opinion.

Also, children do not have all the hang-ups that adults have. They're not afraid of things that are different, and they're not afraid to understand those things either.

Children are in learning mode. Every single day is an adventure for them. Learning that other children have opposite- or same-sex parents is just another day in that adventure.

by tlrdevere on 11/21/2009 02:36:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Really? (none / 0)

Might I ask for this evidence thats proven that we are born gay. Let me ask this question. How does a person go their entire life dating the opposite sex say starting at 14 than around 28 they get drunk one day and kiss the same sex and find they like it and decided they want to pursue this option. Would you than state they were gay from birth and they just didn't realize it?

But I ask again please refer me to the information that they have proven at birth your child will be gay.

by Thundrstorm on 11/21/2009 10:48:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I didn't choose to be straight (none / 0)
Prison sex is more like masturbation with another person, if you ask the participants I'm sure the otherwise straight ones will tell you they were thinking about women while doing the deed, so the attraction wasn't to the person of the same sex. I have a relative who did some hard time and that's the way he explained it to me, and he would know.

I will continue to maintain that

"If you have to choose to be straight, YOUR GAY"!

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 11/21/2009 11:27:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Well (none / 0)

About that quote choosing to be straight makes you gay. So choosing to be gay makes you straight? Using your logic.

I think everyone is confusing what I'm saying. I am not against gays or gay marriage or rights. I really don't care. The question was an opinion question about children.

Maybe because I'm not gay I can't understand but I personally don't see how people can sit there and state people are born gay or straight. I have never been presented evidence to state on contrary nor have I found any. I'm not saying you can't convince me but all I'm asking is for a little bit of proof.

So heres a question how do you explain bi-sexual people? Are they confused about their "born" desires or attractions?

by Thundrstorm on 11/21/2009 11:54:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
My 2 cents (none / 0)
Nobody is only gay or straight. People are always somewhere in the middle. Everybody is attracted to people of the same and opposite sex. That doesn't always manifest in a sexual way, but gender identity is a very complex thing. Even the borders between male and female can be very hard to realise. Even when you take that sexual identity/transgender problem out of the equation. I forgot most details about that "female" runner who won some international meetings. The important part was that scientists are not able to decide whether she is really a woman or a hermaphrodite with female domination or a man with some mis(s)developments.

People are mostly not attracted to genders, but to persons. Or is it just the vagina that makes you chase women.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/21/2009 12:45:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Prison sex (none / 0)
You have a great point

Prison sex doesnt mean the guy chose to be gay..it means they chose to have sex with another guy because that was the only option.

Im sure if they could have sex with women  they would prefer it since they are straight.

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 11/28/2009 10:58:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
YES! (none / 0)
You may have that evidence. READ MY FIRST POST. It's all in there, and there's a ton of it. Follow the links.

by tlrdevere on 11/21/2009 02:48:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Okay (none / 0)
I'll yield about the information I missed your first post. But if we take that information than homosexual gene is no different than color blindness. Seeing as in order for a species to sustain its existence heterosexual gene is require, wouldn't that make homosexual a genetic mutation? 

by Thundrstorm on 11/21/2009 08:08:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey, guess what... (none / 0)
Shockingly enough some people are gay whether their parents are straight or not.

This idea that people who are around gay people will get "the gay" all over them thus becoming gay themselves is absolutely insane and should be treated as such.

by Evil Jak on 11/21/2009 04:43:23 AM EST

why gender? (none / 0)
I see no reason why the gender of the parents is any more important than the financial condition of the parents. Following that logic, people who are broke should not have kids.

by LadyFriend on 11/21/2009 12:48:56 PM EST

Should they? (none / 0)
Steven Levitt and John Donohue actually used the argument that poor people shouldn't get children in their analysis of the impact of Roe v Wade.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/21/2009 02:42:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My point exactly (none / 0)
You can argue that people are not worth of raising children for a million reasons besides gender.

by LadyFriend on 11/21/2009 06:21:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My mom used to say (none / 0)
if everyone waited until they could afford kids ..no one would ever have kids

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 11/28/2009 10:59:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Amazing... (none / 0)
I'm just amazed at how many people can so easily ignore mountains of evidence just because they don't like the real-world implications of this evidence.

A-fucking-mazing.

by tlrdevere on 11/21/2009 02:47:22 PM EST

Not really (none / 0)

Your "evidence" you speak of show the genetic mapping of the gay gene. In your honest opinion you don't think there is ANY impact towards a child that grows up with two same sex parents?

Who does the child call mother or father? Do the parents role play or do they act as if having two fathers and no mother is normal? If you have two fathers who goes to your girl scout meetings? For two mothers who helps the son with football?

I don't believe women can have the same understanding about males than men, and the same goes for men not understanding their daughters as well as a mother could.

It is your right to believe that two mothers can provide all the information and understanding that a son might need but I find it hard to believe they can help with the odd questions of puberty, help with sports/hunting/camping, not that I'm saying women don't do these things but I'm sure if I took the time I could find you the percentages that most women don't like hunting, camping, or sports. With that said there are men out there that don't like them as well.

What I find amazing is this was an opinion questi on and you are trying to throw facts proving one opinion wrong or another. If you follow my thought process for a second imagine flying. There are people who hate flying and think they will die every time they get on a plane. You can show them overwhelming evidence that it is indeed safe to fly but that won't change how they feel. The same goes for this. Your opinion is people are born gay the world they live in doesn't influence that a bit and that same sex parents won't effect a child and in fact will be the same as a family that grows up with a  mother and a father. Now my opinion differs slightly not even that I go against you, but you still feel the need to come across angry because we don't share the same view point. I don't understand why you can't have a debate without swearing or coming off abrasive with insults.

by Thundrstorm on 11/22/2009 09:32:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Plenty of kids (none / 0)
are raised by a grandparent or single parent   and they turn out fine. They seem to get all the information they need to become a well rounded individual.

The "ideal family"  the conservatives rant on about is an endangered species.

The idea that a gay couple has to role play to copy your idea of an ideal family is ludicrous .

Who goes to the girl scout meeting?  Your kidding right?

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 11/22/2009 01:13:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Who goes to the girl scout meeting? (none / 0)
Really, what kind of parents go to something like that?

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/22/2009 01:58:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You misunderstood (none / 0)

You are right, plenty of people are raised by single parents and by grandparents, but do you honestly think that they have it the same as a family with both parents?

I never had a father that could really play sports with me due to physical issues. That doesn't mean he didn't love me or push me to be better, but the simple fact is I would have loved it more if he could. The same goes for every child raised by one parent or grandparent. There will always be that "what if" feeling had they had a mother or a father.

I can not believe you think the "ideal" family isn't better than having a broken family.

by Thundrstorm on 11/23/2009 10:30:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I cant believe you think (none / 0)
that there IS an ideal family

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 11/28/2009 01:32:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ideal Family (none / 0)
The concept of the "ideal family" is as fleeting as snow in New Orleans. The idea that being raised in this fantasy family can result in heterosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality is beyond my understanding. 

I grew up with a father and mother, three brothers, and one sister....several dogs, cats, fish, and birds.  We lived in a middle class neighborhood, attended church, had dinner together almost nightly, played sports, took music lessons, had relatives visit for too long....and all the other typical family occasions. 

My brothers have all been married to women and each has children....my sister is on her second marriage and has three grown daughters. I have been in a committed same-sex relationship for the last 20 years.   I have been emotionally and sexually attracted to men for as long as I can remember. I am 50 years old.   I have NEVER had a sexual dream about a woman...NEVER.  How does anyone claim that I awoke one day in puberty and "decided" to which sex I would be attracted?  No gay or non-gay person I have ever asked has claimed they made that decision....it does not happen. 

My family has always loved me for who I am....and have never defined me as their "gay" son or brother.  I am their son or their brother. The reason gay men and women attempt to change is a direct result of other's contempt, ignorance, and fear of something different from them. 

Life affords all of us many choices.....thankfully, sexuality is not one of those choices.   My God chose that for me....and He does not make mistakes.

by Daninno on 11/28/2009 06:01:04 PM EST

Little question (none / 0)
Are your brothers older than you?

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 11/29/2009 03:03:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Family (none / 0)
I have two older brothers, one younger brother, and a younger sister.  I am the middle child.

by Daninno on 11/29/2009 10:29:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks (none / 0)
Have heared, that having older brothers increases the chances of being gay. You seem to indicate that. If your sister is older than your younger brother that would make it even better.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 12/02/2009 12:57:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
little question (none / 0)
Do you expect people to take you seriously?

Comparing  homosexuality to pedophilia?  Really?   PUH LEASE!!!

Get a fucking clue

Gay is OK?  WTF is that?

Gay is gay  is no more ok or not ok  than having blue eyes.

You are definitely NOT ok. Your arguments are specious  and you are digging a hole deeper and deeper because you are either stubborn or stupid.

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 11/30/2009 02:48:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Maybe I'm both (none / 0)
When the argument against discrimination is that you can't discriminate against someone for something that they haven't chosen, than there are a lot of things that should not be discriminated against based on that.

I choose to ignore that and discriminate against people who do something that is bad for society. To me it is totally irrelevant how natural something is.

Being gay doesn't hurt society, therefore it is wrong to discriminate against gays.

There are many natural things that deserve discrimination and treatment. Either you ignore these things or you have to admitt that it is irrelevant whether someone was born gay.

PS: Blue eyes are definitly ok. Eye diseases not so much, even if you are born with them.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 12/02/2009 01:05:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Same sex marriage | 83 comments (83 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: