Homosexual marriage II

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I would be undone by God being disproven because I'd be on God-withdrawal. .

Junkie.....

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lizra

Junkie.....

Yup .

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So the anti gay marriage folk are now admitting that homosexuality occurs in nature (and is therefore NATURAL)?

Gods, people, how many times do I have to tell you that you're frellin' EQUIVOCATING?

I keep on pointing this out, but you keep on not giving a rat's ass. Argument by equivocation destroys any possibility at a reasonable exchange.

[brownjenkins]

Everything is natural when you really think about it.

The question is what is acceptable, and that's relative.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

In a certain sense, everything is natural. In another sense, it isn't.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

In another sense, it isn't.

That's the relative sense. Relative to how you grew up. Relative to what religion you espouse. Etc.

Of course, those opinions can change, but it typically takes a few generations to do so, and gay marriage is really still in it's first or second generation at the moment.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So the anti gay marriage folk are now admitting that homosexuality occurs in nature (and is therefore NATURAL)?

Eating your babies occurs in nature (and is therefore NATURAL) too.

*eyes the bottle of ketchup; eyes her son*

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by inked

Speaking of "too much emphasis on biology," now there's this:

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/17141.html

(Ooohh, it's from Earthtimes! It must be true, mustn't it?!)

And, if it is, http://exodus.blogs.com/liveoutloud/...nge_possi.html

Comments?

Finally, if it's not choice and it's not biology, just what is it?

Turns out the research is about nothing of the sort:

http://www.badscience.net/?p=347#more-347

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

What's heterosexuality, biology or choice?

Both: I have a CHOICE what I do with my BIOLOGICAL heterosexual urges (some of which are not legal). *shrug*

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Both: I have a CHOICE what I do with my BIOLOGICAL heterosexual urges (some of which are not legal). *shrug*

Good. Then at least we can put the biology vs. choice debate to rest.

[Lotesse]

So Rian, you're equivocating eating babies with same sex couples getting legally married? And, and you happen to have a biological urge to eat your son with ketchup, yet, thanks to God and to your decision to resist your biological urges, you - will NOT eat your son? Yikes. And, woah.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Good. Then at least we can put the biology vs. choice debate to rest.

Eh? Only with one person. I don't think it's biology. My current position is that it may be sometimes choice and sometimes environment. The reason I feel confident that it isn't biology is that I have known a lesbian and a homosexual who eventually changed and afterward no longer had those instincts. So as far as I'm concerned, that rules out it being biology, unless I were to call them liars. One can deny one's biological instincts, but one can't change them.

I used to think it was largely environment and family structure, but after witnessing a friend of mine choose to become bisexual simply out of choice, I've been forced to question that view.

I do still think that there are many who can't choose to have those instincts, but who have them whether they want them or not. That, I think tends to come from environment and family structure. Exodus International, an organization which works in I think something like one hundred to one hundred and fifty countries, has noted that almost everyone they meet who is homosexual or lesbian tends to have a problem in the family structure, such as a divorce, a single parent, or other kinds of odd structures. My own experience of getting to know lesbians and homosexuals has almost always led to my hearing the same kinds of stories. There also are cases in the ancient world where whole civilizations, such as Sparta, were all homosexual. If it was biology, then they were engineered to be that way, which is pretty darn strange. You'd statistically expect the homosexuals to have been a relatively small percentage of the population, but instead, the whole Spartan army was a homosexual.

Athens also had widespread homosexuality and pedophelia, as is indicated from their left-over pottery and as is accepted by many historians. It's pretty unbelievable that these different civilizations had such widespread homosexuality and pedophelia simply from biology. More likely, either environment or choice were the central factors.

Those are some of the key reasons why I tend to think homosexuality comes largely from environment.

However, I have seen a friend choose to be bisexual. That makes it difficult for me to draw the line and say it is only environment that creates those instincts. Choice may also be a key factor in the creation or magnification of those interests.

Originally Posted by Lotesse

So Rian, you're equivocating eating babies with same sex couples getting legally married? And, and you happen to have a biological urge to eat your son with ketchup, yet, thanks to God and to your decision to resist your biological urges, you - will NOT eat your son? Yikes. And, woah.

She's not saying she has those instincts. She is saying that as humans are part of nature, whatever they do must be natural. Also, among some animal species, the male routinely eats the young. Male mosquitoes routinely eat the female mosquitoes. Black Widow spider females routinely eat the males. Crocodiles sometimes have done the same- I've seen the footage. Humans also have eaten other humans. Those things are all within a naturalist's boundaries of nature. If all is matter and the physical, and all is part of nature, humans eating humans must be natural too, as it occurs within nature.

So although it might be natural to eat one's baby, I hope we would all agree that one shouldn't. So just because homosexuality may be natural, that doesn't make it valid or acceptable. Naturalness is not a virtue and does not make anything okay or justified. Saying that something is natural is not a big admission. Nature isn't peaches and cream.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Eh? Only with one person. I don't think it's biology. My current position is that it may be sometimes choice and sometimes environment. The reason I feel confident that it isn't biology is that I have known a lesbian and a homosexual who eventually changed and afterward no longer had those instincts.

And yet, how can you say with any true confidance that you know for a fact that your freinds you mentioned did not, in fact, still retain their instincts, and had not outwardly "changed" in order to conform to be something, someone that they are not, in order to feel included in on a christian dogma that they've, yes, chosen to become a member-of-the-club with, for whatever reasons? If you can choose to deny your true unique workings, you can choose to be or become or be a part of anything, icluding a religion, or anything at all. Who is anyone among us to determine the "right" or "wrong" of any one human being's choice on how their private life ought to be led? How can you be so confidant of another private-minded individual human being's personal motivations to deny their true, birth-born and real nature? It smacks of grand, arrogant, so-called "loving" intolerance to me, Lief, this statement and stance of yours, pure and simple. Can you explain?

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

She's not saying she has those instincts. She is saying that ----

Can you please let Rian answer for herself, and not answer her things for her? I'd like to hear Rian's answer to my question and statement posed directly to her, and not to you, dear Lief. That one was strictly for Rian. I know how it is from time to time when one feels compelled to answer for a friend,m but if this is to be any kind of a serious or seriously taken debate, then we must all be serious with one another, and take one another seriously. Furthurmore, if I were Rian hypothetically in such a scenario, I personally would have been quite upset at someone else taking it upon themselves (even, and I think especially, a friend of mine, as you are to Rian) to make full and lengthy answers in my name, to questions and statements that were directed to me and me alone, and not to my friends.

So, Rian, if you are up to it, would you mind taking on my counter-statement to you about how eating babies and same-sex marriage can be spoken of within the same argument? If not, whatever, but it was YOUR answer I was interested in, not Lief's, no offense Lief but them's the facts, sir.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

And yet, how can you say with any true confidance that you know for a fact that your freinds you mentioned did not change in order to conform to be something, someone that they are not, in order to feel included in on a christian dogma that they've CHOSAN to become a member-of-the-club with, for whatever reasons?

So basically, when they say they no longer feel those instincts, you're asking me to believe that they're liars?

Here's a quote from a reviewer who posted on Amazon.com, and claims to be a former homosexual:

To the detractors of the ex-gay movement:
How can you ask for tolerance and respect for diversity, and then be completely intolerant of people in the ex-gay movement? Please grant us the tolerance you crusade for.

I don't know him, so I don't know whether he's telling the truth, but the former homosexual of my acquaintance who I did mention was named Joe Dallas, and he says the same. The ex-gay community tend to be very badly treated by most gays. So when you suggest to me that those of my acquaintance are lying because they want to fit in, you sound to me like you're doing what they suggest many homosexuals do to them.

Originally Posted by Lotesse

If you can choose to deny your true unique workings, you can choose to be or become or be a part of anything, icluding a religion, or anything at all.

The lesbian is still not a Christian, as far as I know. She never said so. But she is now free of those attractions, according to what she told me.

As for Joe Dallas, I don't really know him that well, though I've was in the same Christian group with him for several months when I was younger. Here's an article about him and his ministry:
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17208
According to the forward about one of his books on the matter, "The author, Joe Dallas, overcame his homosexual attractions and has been a professional counselor, author and speaker for years on this issue."

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Who is anyone among us to determine the "right" or "wrong" of any one human being's choice on how their private life ought to be led?

Smoking kills people eventually. That is a medically established fact. However, some people want to smoke and that's largely their own private lives, and no one else's business. But don't you think that the medical profession has the right to at least make society aware of the risks?

That's what well-meaning Christians are seeking to do as regards homosexuality. We believe it hurts people badly based upon various evidences, so we want to help. If anyone believes someone else is being badly hurt by what they are doing in their private lives, it is loving of that person to try to warn the other. It is unloving to let them keep on doing it oblivious. But if homosexuals don't want help and we try to shove it down their throats, we're doing wrong. We should not force our will on other people's private lives in this matter any more than we should on smoking.

Except that it is now discovered that second-hand smoke harms people as well, so that has rather changed that situation. I'll get to that in my next post.

Originally Posted by Lotesse

How can you be so confidant of another private-minded individual human being's personal motivations to deny their true, birth-born and real nature? It smacks of grand arrogant loving intolerance to me, Lief, this statement and stance of yours. Can you explain?

Well, it smacks me as rather arrogant that you'd conclude that my friend and acquaintance are liars without even knowing them . How can you be so confident of another private-minded individual human being's personal motivations to deny their true nature? To me, that smacks of "grand, arrogant, loving intolerance," that you'd say that without even knowing them! No offense .

All I'm doing is believing that what a friend and what an acquaintance tell me is true. That is not arrogant.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by LiefErikson

How can you be so confident of another private-minded individual human being's personal motivations to deny their true nature? To me, that smacks of "grand, arrogant, loving intolerance," that you'd say that without even knowing them! No offense .

All I'm doing is believing that what a friend and what an acquaintance tell me is true. That is not arrogant.

So, are you saying that if a friend informed you that god did not exist, would you then believe God did not exist, or would you believe that he or she believed that God did not exist? Assuming your friend is not a liar, that is. They are not lying to you about what they believe; they just believe it, therefore, you shouldbelieve them, as their statement comes from a place of honesty within their own heart. Right? Think about it, if you dare.



You are grandly arrogant and assuming to take it upon yourself to answer posts that are not addressed to you, but to someone else entirely. I cannot take you seriously; I cannot waste my time and mental energy arguing with someone who acts this way. Ciao, and I am out.

[Lief Erikson]

I think it probably is right to remove smoking from public places, because second-hand smoke can kill other people. Unless one confines smoking to designated smoking areas, it is shown to be not a private act any more.

And this is where homosexual marriage comes in too. Whereas homosexuality is a private matter, homosexual marriage laws are not private. They are public and affect everyone. When homosexual and heterosexual relationships are equated by law, several things will take place.

1) Marriage loses its meaning. If it is not defined as between a man and a woman, then its definition is up for grabs. Polygamy is the next step. I'm sure that if homosexual marriage becomes commonplace, polygamy will be right around the corner and probably would become law in my lifetime. Other kinds of sexual relationships, though, may very well also gain legal equivalence under the banner of freedom and tolerance. Marriage could become anything.

2) Heterosexual and homosexual relationships are innately different, because men and women are mentally genetically different from one another, so applying laws that have been tried and tested over hundreds of years in many different countries as regards heterosexual unions to the untested and untried homosexual relationships is negligence. It'll be a legal snare, because some laws that have been designed to work for the two genders together will probably not work so well for people of the same gender. Different laws should perhaps be made for homosexual relationships that are based upon tests and studies of what relationships between members of the same gender are like. It'll be a legal mess.

3) I believe homosexuality is harmful, so I don't believe that our government should say it's fine by giving it the same rights as heterosexual marriages have. If our government gives homosexuals those rights, it will be saying implicitly through its action that homosexuality is fine. It will be doing that without having established tests, studies or scientific research to find out. That would be as the medical community saying a new drug was fine without having tested it. What homosexual and heterosexual relationships are like has to be studied more, and comparisons and contrasts made, before they are given legal equivalence. And I also believe that since homosexuality is harmful, innocent people will be harmed if homosexual relationships are given marriage status because they will see the government's verdict and choose to embrace their homosexual instincts because the government says homosexuality is fine by giving it marriage rights. I do not want innocent people to be hurt by the government being misleading. It's the same thing as with abortion nowadays. Often, people think it's okay just because it's legal. If homosexual relationships have marriage equivalence, the government will be saying that they are okay.

Originally Posted by Lotesse

if I were Rian hypothetically in such a scenario, I personally would have been upset at someone else taking it upon themselves to make full and lengthy answers in my name, to questions and statements that were directed to me and me alone, and not to my friends.

Well, once recently I responded to something a person had directed at RÃ*an, but I asked her first if she didn't mind. She told me not to accuse her of being a post-Nazi and made clear to me that she had no problem with it, so I take it that she doesn't mind. Unless you think I should view her as a liar too .

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Can you please let Rian answer for herself, and not answer her things for her? I'd like to hear Rian's answer to my question and statement posed directly to hER, not you, dear Lief. That one was strictly for Rian.

Okay, since you don't want to hear from me on this, I'll just shut-up on this now .
*Zips his lips.*

[littleadanel]

*** sorry to jump in just like that, without reading all the recent but still lengthy debate, etcetera ***

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Both: I have a CHOICE what I do with my BIOLOGICAL heterosexual urges (some of which are not legal). *shrug*

That's IT.

(I've been keeping myself back from an urge these past weeks... not because it'd be illegal, just... I'd screw up so many things if I started it, it wouldn't be worth it. And it's not only a sexual urge, no... I'd be more than happy to go out, be together, share things with said person, but there is one big NO fact that brings many things leading to a no-win situation. Not worth it - no acting upon it.)

And it goes the same way with homosexuality, I think. I can only think because I am hopelessly straight ( )... but still. You have a choice what to do with what you feel... you can deny it to yourself and/or others, or you can recognize it as a part of who you are, and act upon it or not... to each his/her own... but you can't just wipe it out. Just as I can't wipe out my own heterosexuality. You can't help who you love... something clicks in your mind and heart, or not, just not.

Say, if I lived in a community where, for whatever reasons, homo- and/or bisexuality is not only accepted but strongly preferred and encouraged... well, I could live according to those standards if I wanted to be a 'good' member of the community... I might as well find a gal I enjoy being with, living with, even enjoy having sex with; for whom I care with all my heart; but with all this, there still would be a part of me deep inside longing for something else. A part feeling denied. I can't help myself being attracted to men; I know that for sure. And then, it would be up to me to deny it, saying things are good enough as they are, what more could I want; or gathering the courage to go my own way trying to find a way out of my confusion, to discover what is the best for me, and, no doubt, hurting many people who are important for me, and as if it wasn't enough, even going against my community's norms.

Er, that last part sounded pretty selfish... but... well, it's not that 'I want that cookie'-selfishness, if you see what I'm trying to say... it's a helluva lot more complicated. Self-denial like this can cause very, very deep hurts in one's soul and health of mind...

Well... that's what I think. *ducks the flying stones*

[Lief Erikson]

I think you're a very sweet person, littleadanel. Just thought I'd let you know .

Originally Posted by littleadanel

Er, that last part sounded pretty selfish... but... well, it's not that 'I want that cookie'-selfishness, if you see what I'm trying to say... it's a helluva lot more complicated. Self-denial like this can cause very, very deep hurts in one's soul and health of mind...

I agree with you that self-denial can cause deep hurts. I think, though, that also sometimes going for something that you really want (instinctively or on whatever other level), but is really bad for you can cause very deep hurts too. So just as you say, I think it's a "lot more complicated." I think that also doing the best thing for oneself can sometimes involve accepting severe pain.

[The Gaffer]

We've been round this topic many times before, but it's worth saying that homosexuality is NOT harmful. That is the view of the vast majority of independent health professionals and clinical evidence.

However, I do feel that we've made progress in that the "it's not natural" argument can be laid to rest.