|
|
|
Satan
New Member
USA
27 Posts |
 Posted - 07/16/2002 : 17:50:22
|
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
 Posted - 07/16/2002 : 18:45:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
2) To what extent should society be able to dictate one's sexual preference/activities?
Should the state be allowed to outlaw homosexual marriage? Presumably it should, since "marriage" is a term of state recognition.
The state is under no obligation to 'recognize' same-sex marriage. Those who choose to marry are under no obligation to inform the state. The problem, practical and constitutional, arises when the state confers benefits only to a section of the married population. If there was a legitimate secular reason to do this, they might have a case. But I am aware of only Scriptural rationale for banning same-sex marriage.
quote:
Some states, such as my own beloved MS, have laws which proscribe practices between married couples, as well as unmarried folk! Indeed, if my understanding is correct, homosexual intercourse is illegal, as are anal and oral sex between consenting heterosexual adults!
Attempted enforcement of these laws would not withstand a legal challenge, even in Miss-ippi (deliberate misspelling).
quote:
On what basis does society claim authority to pass such laws???
Funny you should ask that. You know that "Chrisitan nation" balderdash we've been bombarded with lately? They would like you to think we got all of our good rights and freedoms (property, speech, etc.) from Christianity. Demonstrable nonsense, that. What's more, the legal stuff we did cull from Christianity, personal behavior-type stuff and so-called blue laws, are so painfully inane that they are often trumpeted as a monument to colonial ignorance.
[aside]
I see you are but 15-years-old, young Beelzebub. You know, there's a sprightly youth by the name of Megan around here somewhere, about your age. I think she would appreciate someone as insightful and well-spoken as yourself. 
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
 |
|
|
Satan
New Member
USA
27 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2002 : 18:41:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The state is under no obligation to 'recognize' same-sex marriage. Those who choose to marry are under no obligation to inform the state. The problem, practical and constitutional, arises when the state confers benefits only to a section of the married population. If there was a legitimate secular reason to do this, they might have a case. But I am aware of only Scriptural rationale for banning same-sex marriage.
At that point society is giving positive reinforcement (or "negative punishment" - whichever side one's on) to those who adhere to cultural norms. Hence, I can see your point.
quote:
Attempted enforcement of these laws would not withstand a legal challenge, even in Miss-ippi (deliberate misspelling).
Attempted enforcement of these laws would not withstand any challenge, and I doubt you could get any officer (save the occasional "deviant" or "pervert") to do the job anyway!
quote:
Funny you should ask that. You know that "Chrisitan nation" balderdash we've been bombarded with lately? They would like you to think we got all of our good rights and freedoms (property, speech, etc.) from Christianity. Demonstrable nonsense, that.
Not "Christianity," my less-than-PC friend - but from our "Creator." All of us, whether Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, everybody recognizes the existence and sovereignty of our most magnificent, beneficient, and politically correct God. Oh yeah, those darned pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, Satanists . . . well, screw them. We'll slander them in public, turn the moral majority against them (no real challenge for any halfway-competent orator), then just sweep those dissidents under the rug! Or we can toss them off the edge of our biblical flat earth!
[aside]
I see you are but 15-years-old, young Beelzebub. You know, there's a sprightly youth by the name of Megan around here somewhere, about your age. I think she would appreciate someone as insightful and well-spoken as yourself.
[/quote]
I'll make a point to search out this "sprightly" Megan of which you speak. 
Oh yes, one more thing: after articulating my general distaste with our gov't, not to mention World Police Force, I noticed one point that was neglected. Oddly enough, it was the main one that I actually am trying to form an opinion on.
Why do you think homosexuals prefer the same gender sexually? Biology? Environment? Abomination condemned by the Holy Spirit? (Skeptical me, I doubt the last one .)
Satan,
a.k.a. the Talking Snake Whom Atheists, Witches, Muslims, and Puerto Ricans Worship (If You Ask Anyone In This State) |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2002 : 19:58:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why do you think homosexuals prefer the same gender sexually? Biology? Environment? Abomination condemned by the Holy Spirit? (Skeptical me, I doubt the last one .)
All of the above. Except the last one. Both A & B but not C.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2002 : 10:12:13 [Permalink]
|
I'd like to see conclusive evidence that homosexuality is anything but a choice. To the best of my limited knowledge, there is no 'gay gene' or 'gay hormone' or any obvious difference in brain structure. So the idea that sexual orientation is 'largely beyond our control' should be backed up with medical evidence.
If there is no genetic cause for it, then it is a choice. Trying to validate it by making it beyond one's control is a cop-out.
Homosexuality serves no purpose on any level beyond emotional. It doesn't serve to procreate and continue the species. We know sex is hardwired into us for survival. Sex with a partner that cannot produce offspring, and who weren't really made to 'work' sexually together, could be viewed as an aberration of nature.
Now I personally don't care what gets you off (except in the military, but that's a different topic) so I don't condemn gays. But I think the whole argument of it being biological is about as genuine as the NORML's push for 'medical' marijuana. A convientant excuse. I'm all for potheads too, but don't use an excuse to push your real agenda.
Just put on your fairy wings and tutu and deal with it being a choice you made for yourself.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2002 : 11:01:23 [Permalink]
|
Why should we assume that it's a choice, and claim that anyone who says otherwise must provide conclusive proof, instead of assuming it's not a choice, and anyone who says otherwise must provide conclusive proof?
quote:
Just put on your fairy wings and tutu and deal with it being a choice you made for yourself.
And to think I said I was becoming a fan of yours... 
------------
I am the storm
Sent to wake you from your dreams
Show me your scorn
But you'll thank me in the end |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2002 : 11:27:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'd like to see conclusive evidence that homosexuality is anything but a choice.
As Tokyodreamer already said: there is little in the way of conclusive evidence one way or another and it would be wrong to declare one explanation the default one based on nothing. I personally would guess for a combination of many factors, both learned and inherited. But that is also just a guess. As long as one theory does is not inherently less likely or requires more assumptionsy, you can pick any favorites.
quote:
Homosexuality serves no purpose on any level beyond emotional. It doesn't serve to procreate and continue the species.
There is much in human behaviour that does not obviously fit those criteria.
Sex among human is much more then just proceration. There is a complex socilogical aspect to it, that at one point might have evolved from the simple proceation of the species, but now fills a much greater roll.
There are plenty of examples of how homsexual sex can help establish hirachial order or further the bonds between members of a group. You find them everywhere from
todays prisons to the lifstyle of some ancient greek. It is possible to see how it might have given our primitive forfathers some advantge to evolve such an perversion, in the truest sense of the word, of the normal sexual instincts.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2002 : 11:50:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'd like to see conclusive evidence that homosexuality is anything but a choice. To the best of my limited knowledge, there is no 'gay gene' or 'gay hormone' or any obvious difference in brain structure.
There was a researcher back in the 90's who said that he had found a direct connection between the size of the hyperthalmus and a persons straight/gayness. He was quick to state that he, himself, was gay. But he was "booed off the stage" by the more PC and I never heard if his findings were confirmed or not.
A quick trip to the Proctologist should be proof enough that enjoyment of such things is 'largely beyond our control'. I've personally made the decision that any benifits I might gain from the early detection of cancer are more than off-set by the procedure itself. "That's okay, thanks for the offer, Doctor. I'll just die."
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2002 : 12:35:51 [Permalink]
|
The idea that there are lots of behaviors that don't contribute to a natural impulse is valid enough. I'm wondering what purpose nature (since I don't believe in god) would see in homosexuality. And if there was any physical proof of a difference in biology.
If there's solid evidence for it being biological, fine. I said I don't really care what you like to hump. I just hadn't seen any proof (that wasn't hotly contested by other researchers) for it being biological.
I've always considered it a matter of choice and environment. I never really assigned morality to it.
As for the crack about pink tutus, hey if the tiara fits......
Ever see one of the parades Rob Halford (formerly of Judas Priest- a kick ass band) leads in SF nowadays? Go whine to the dudes in tutus if you don't like the reference. I just think it's funny.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2002 : 12:56:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There was a researcher back in the 90's who said that he had found a direct connection between the size of the hyperthalmus and a persons straight/gayness.
I have read of this. If I remember correctly, it was stated that the measurements were mostly, if not all, taken from the corpses of dead gay men who had died from AIDS. The piece I was reading stated that this caused some speculation on whether the shrinkage of the hypothalamus was caused by either death or AIDS itself. I'm sure that this question has been answered by now, but I haven't seen anything about it.
quote:
Go whine to the dudes in tutus if you don't like the reference.
I assure you that it does much more harm to your arguments than it does to my sensibilities. But if you don't care that it makes you sound like a buffoon, hey, knock yourself out.
------------
I am the storm
Sent to wake you from your dreams
Show me your scorn
But you'll thank me in the end |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2002 : 13:12:14 [Permalink]
|
If you believe homosexuality is a choice, then wouldn't heterosexuality also be a choice? Personally, I don't find dudes very attractive (except myself, of course!) but I am a big fan of women. Since homosexual men aren't physically attracted to women, the implication is that it's more than just a choice.
To put it a slightly (but not really) different way, I really like athletic, curvy women. I am far less attracted to scrawny or obese women. This was not a choice, it is what my body responds to. Why would there be any difference when this is expanded to gender preference?
-me. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2002 : 13:32:19 [Permalink]
|
Is this environmental influences or natural instinct?
I used to know a guy whose favorite phrase was something to the effect that he'd have sexual intercourse with an invertabrate if its rate of speed declined for an unspecified period of time. Not his exact words, but I wonder how much more often and how varied our sexual appetites would be if there weren't so many rules.
quote:
Personally, I don't find dudes very attractive (except myself, of course!) but I am a big fan of women. Since homosexual men aren't physically attracted to women, the implication is that it's more than just a choice.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2002 : 14:08:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Is this environmental influences or natural instinct?
I suppose it would be very difficult to determine; however, I was raised in a very open and liberal household. I was never given any indication that homosexuality was wrong or right. I have an uncle who is gay, and several of my friends turned out to be gay (they came out in high school). This implies that it is, though possible, less likely that my heterosexuality is a result of environment.
-me. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2002 : 14:58:16 [Permalink]
|
I found that reference to the hypothalamus study.
A neuroscientist named Simon LeVay (any relation to Anton? ) at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, CA "studied the brains of 41 cadavers, 19 of which were homosexual men. The portion of the hypothalamus believed to control sexuality was less than half the size in the gay men than in the heterosexuals." (male and female, I wonder?)
The opposing argument was that all the homosexual men had died from AIDS, and that this could have been the cause of the shrinking hypothalamus. Also, since some parts of the brain change as a result of behavior, some believed that the shrinkage may have been the result of homosexuality, not the cause.'
This is from a 1995 book called "Hot Topics", a book that has 50 hot topics and presents certain arguments from "both sides".
------------
I am the storm
Sent to wake you from your dreams
Show me your scorn
But you'll thank me in the end
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 08/13/2002 14:58:53 |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2002 : 15:10:49 [Permalink]
|
Oh lighten the hell up 'Dreamer. Or is a quick one liner just below your intellectual elitism?
Buffoon? A very witty critism I might add.
Oh to be so politically correct... oh wait, that's bullshit, I forgot for a second.
I saw, with my own little eyes, full grown (and uniformly overweight) guys in PINK TUTUs and fairy wings in a gay pride parade. Now I didn't say anything ill of these people. I (unlike you) have a sense of humor, as must the guys in the tutus. I saw the get ups for what they are- a caricature of a stereotype that obviously no one (especially the gay guys in the glittery wings) takes seriously.
I was making light (of someone else making light) of what was obviously (to us no-elitist types only, I guess) meant as a spoof.
It never ceases to amaze me the intellectual haughtiness of some people. "oh he made a low-brow joke, he must be a BUFFOON. I would never be so base in a joke." snore.
Hey how about a thread on the increasing rudeness and snottyness of todays society because people increasingly hide behind a computer to say something that would get their head kicked in if they dared say it to someone's face. I'll stand in downtown SF and crack a joke about guys in tutus. I doubt you'd be in such a name calling mood face to face with me.
So just lighten up. Quit trying to out-PC everyone by looking for things to be OH-So-Offended by.
BTW, I watched that same video clip (guys in tutus) with a lesbian. I mean LESBIAN- the diesel dyke (she proudly wears the title) variety. She got genuinely pissed off at the spectacle. I just thought it was silly.
So go hang the title of intolerance on her, she must be a buffoon too. Or, like blacks using the word nigger, that doesn't count, I suppose?
Either way, I'm not here to make friends. I posed an honest opinion (which everyone else seemed to focus on but you) and tossed in a quick one-liner. Fuck you if you want to get emotional over it. Thanks to everyone else who replied with something more pertinant than a chastising.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2002 : 15:42:55 [Permalink]
|
Over the weekend I went to the Golden Gate theater to see a revival of South Pacific. One of the minor speaking roles is the XO, Cmdr. Harbison. He is supposed to be a young rough cut guy. Brooklyn / Chicago-tough-Wallace Berry type. The role was played by James Judy (no, I didn't make that up, but I'll bet he did) who looked every bit the part, fit, balding, big square jaw. The only problem was his lisp and effeminate manner. His last scene in the play he's supposed to threaten Luther Billis the con-man sailor. He says something like-"Yeah Billis, I got my own ship now. You and yer playmates have been assigned to it, and ya know what that means!" At this point someone a few rows behind me muttered "Means don't ask, don't tell."
He brought the house down.
If it doesn't work in a musical comedy Navy in the middle of San Francisco gawrd knows how it'll go over in the real seventh fleet.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
