The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage (1 Viewer)

[Skateguy]

Wow. You really have no idea what the scientific method is, do you?

Do you know what selective perception and confirmation bias are?

Can you cut an Acme thread, on K-manel 500?

 

[CriticalThought]

Can you cut an Acme thread, on K-manel 500?

Um...being able to cut an Acme thread on K-manel 500 gives you some innate ability to bypass selective perception and confirmation bias?

 

[Skateguy]

Um...being able to cut an Acme thread on K-manel 500 gives you some innate ability to bypass selective perception and confirmation bias?

Do us both a favor please--focus on the topic, and less on me personally. I don't appreciate it. thank you.

 

[CriticalThought]

Do us both a favor please--focus on the topic, and less on me personally. I don't appreciate it. thank you.

Okey dokes. For the record though, you brought yourself into the discussion.

See...

And I take it, that is what you call proof. cool by me. Just askin. As for how I come to my conclusions, I do so in the same way I do it with everything else. I use a culmination of information I have gathered in 63 years, and reach my conclusions based on that information. I don't seek the opinions of others. Nor seek their counsel. I formulate my own theories, and it has served me well for several decades. I care little what others may think, although I don't summarily disregard them. I just understand that people often view the same evidence differently. and I just happen to trust my track record, more than someone I have never met. Our Worlds may be full of different events. so people should just decide what is best for themselves, and call it good.

And since you refuse to consider scientific evidence over your own personal experience, there really isn't much to discuss.

 

[cpwill]

Evidence indicates that sexual orientation is determined in the womb. In other words, gays probably truly are born gay even if they don't directly have any genetics which lead them to be gay. Brain development during fetal development probably varies as a result of hormone exposure to the extent that a portion of the population is born gay. Any other questions?

It may not be absolutely conclusive proof, but it goes far beyond anything you could provide to support your argument that sexual orientation is a choice.

not really. evidence suggests both. there are the countless examples of "phase" homosexuals, and the growth of homosexuality with the loss of social stigma (and with social approval) that indicate that at the very least a hefty portion of it is non-deterministic.

 

[Skateguy]

Okey dokes. For the record though, you brought yourself into the discussion.

See...



And since you refuse to consider scientific evidence over your own personal experience, there really isn't much to discuss.

Explaining how I reach my conclusions, does not make me the topic of the conversation. One is free to agree or disagree, but there is not a reason to focus on me, rather than the topic. You are better than that. I've read your posts.

 

[CriticalThought]

not really. evidence suggests both. there are the countless examples of "phase" homosexuals, and the growth of homosexuality with the loss of social stigma (and with social approval) that indicate that at the very least a hefty portion of it is non-deterministic.

Could you provide some of this evidence of "phase" homosexuals? Are these the so called ex gays who just always happen to be from very religious backgrounds and who just happen to occasionally have "relapses"? And how much is a "hefty" portion?

 

[cpwill]

:shrug: i've had a couple of friends switch back and forth, and a third that i suspect will switch back in the future. phase homosexuals are about as well liked in the "movement" as black conservatives are - they tend by their identity to sort of dispel some of the force of the arguments. women are more common, hence the in-community put down of the "LUG" (lesbian until graduation).

furthermore, you can see rise and falls of homosexuals as a percentage of the population across multiple cultures with variant levels of acceptance of homosexual activity. today, for example, would fall between the "love that dare not speak it's name" approach of the 19th century, and ancient greek society, where some form of it was nearly universal.

 

[Skateguy]

If people expect equal protection under the law, as is claimed, --then it has to work both ways. Straights or Gays--same rules.

 

[CriticalThought]

:shrug: i've had a couple of friends switch back and forth, and a third that i suspect will switch back in the future. phase homosexuals are about as well liked in the "movement" as black conservatives are - they tend by their identity to sort of dispel some of the force of the arguments. women are more common, hence the in-community put down of the "LUG" (lesbian until graduation).

Interesting how "phase" homosexuals sound like bisexuals. How do you tell the difference?

Furthermore, how does having a segment of society, in which no one can provide a percentage, of people who can switch back and forth in anyway disprove the notion that there is a segment of society that cannot?

I know there are heterosexuals who could never sleep with someone of the same sex and I know there are homosexuals who could never sleep with someone of the opposite sex. The fact that there are people out there who can sleep with both does not negate the existence of either of those types of people.

furthermore, you can see rise and falls of homosexuals as a percentage of the population across multiple cultures with variant levels of acceptance of homosexual activity.

Actually no. Homosexuality as a sexual identity is only a few decades old. Ancient cultures viewed homosexuality as a form of sexual behavior, not as an orientation. There is really no way to determine the percentage of homosexuals in any given culture at any given time because the concept simply did not exist. You can measure the level of acceptance of homosexual behavior at the time but that is about it.

today, for example, would fall between the "love that dare not speak it's name" approach of the 19th century, and ancient greek society, where some form of it was nearly universal.

Only the wealthy of Greece really engaged in homosexual behavior. It was not as common as you might think.

 

[cpwill]

Interesting how "phase" homosexuals sound like bisexuals. How do you tell the difference?

:shrug: i didn't. they told me. and since we are at least partially basing the credibility of homosexual attraction being an inherent state off of peoples' claims; it seems that's a standard we're going to have to accept also for the phasers.

Furthermore, how does having a segment of society, in which no one can provide a percentage, of people who can switch back and forth in anyway disprove the notion that there is a segment of society that cannot?

it doesn't. the "is sexuality a choice or determinist" meme is a binary question with a paragraph answer.

Only the wealthy of Greece really engaged in homosexual behavior. It was not as common as you might think.

if by "wealthy" you mean "non farming free men" then yes, that's a fair enough split. within that population, you are talking about something that was (dependent upon particular location and time period) often very open and very popular. with the higher classes of Greece the tendency was more towards pederasty, which i suppose would be considered a subset of homosexuality.

 

[CriticalThought]

:shrug: i didn't. they told me. and since we are at least partially basing the credibility of homosexual attraction being an inherent state off of peoples' claims; it seems that's a standard we're going to have to accept also for the phasers.

I don't recall that some people can speak for all people. I think if some people claim that their sexual behavior is just a phase, and some claim that it is an orientation, then you may be dealing with two very different types of people. If you are genuinely going by the credibility of what people say, then you have to accept that there are those who believe they are inherently the way they are just as you would accept those who believe they are simply going through a phase in their lives. The existence of one is not mutually exclusive to the existence of the other.

As you may recall, the explaination that people who believe that all sexual behavior is inherent have for your "phase" homosexuals is that they are in fact bisexual people. The fact that they identify as "phase" homosexuals does not mean that their inherent identity is not actually bisexual.

it doesn't. the "is sexuality a choice or determinist" meme is a binary question with a paragraph answer.

Indeed. Although, it could be argued that for some people it is choice, and for some people it is deterministic. The argument that the same answer applies to everyone is where the faulty logic comes into play. Hence, "phase" homosexuals in no way disprove the existence of inherent homosexuals.

if by "wealthy" you mean "non farming free men" then yes, that's a fair enough split. within that population, you are talking about something that was (dependent upon particular location and time period) often very open and very popular. with the higher classes of Greece the tendency was more towards pederasty, which i suppose would be considered a subset of homosexuality.

I wouldn't call it that. It is a subset of homosexual behavior, but not necessarily of a homosexual orientation. Ephebophilia is considerably different than say...two middle aged men being married together. Of course, I suppose the same thing occurs in the heterosexual community, where much older men seek out considerably younger women.

 

[Skateguy]

Greeks, from what little I have read, had many of there most elite forces all made of Gay Men. they felt they would fight harder, and be more dedicated because they had that Love of each other, that they felt straight Men, didn't share.---I'm not sure how much of that I believe, but I guess I can see some merit in the idea.the did like to go Nakid into battle, which had to be quite the sight, if you were the opposing Army.---don't drop yer sword.

 

[JustineCredible]

OK, so would you support Straight guys getting Married, so they could also enjoy the tax breaks, and all the other perks that Married People get??

Not that that type of situation would be all that likely. Considering the cost of divorces. It would take two really ugly, unfit to marry, guys to pull that off!


But if they want to..fine, whatever, its their life...I'm not about to question it because it doesn't affect me.

 

[JustineCredible]

Marriage is just a piece of paper. I been there twice. --but it does have certain perks that single people don't get.---So anybody that wants to get married for those perks should be allowed to do so. their sexual preference should have no weight on the matter.

You're right, this is exactly what we've been trying to say!


But for some reason I get the impression you're attempting to illicit a negative response and getting nowhere for your effort. Sorry, can't help you in your attempt to find hypocrisy where it doesn't exist.

 

[JustineCredible]

Gay marriage didn't use to happen either, now did it. Men are Men, and should have equal rights under the Law. Sexual preference should not even be on the table. Equal is equal. Will celibate people now want special rights also?? Or should the same rights cover all, regardless if they a sexual beings or not. Male is Male--everything else is personal choice.

You assume celibate or a-sexual persons don't Already take advantage of "marriages of convenience."

 

[cpwill]

they do. remind me why the existance of a social malady means we should expand it's reach?

 

[cpwill]

If you are genuinely going by the credibility of what people say, then you have to accept that there are those who believe they are inherently the way they are just as you would accept those who believe they are simply going through a phase in their lives. The existence of one is not mutually exclusive to the existence of the other.

i think, CT, that we are arguing the same thing

As you may recall, the explaination that people who believe that all sexual behavior is inherent have for your "phase" homosexuals is that they are in fact bisexual people. The fact that they identify as "phase" homosexuals does not mean that their inherent identity is not actually bisexual.

:shrug: fine. i hereby establish that all those who claim to be inherent homosexuals are in fact also bisexuals who simply no longer wish to engage in relations with the opposite sex. my claim has no more credibility than yours, as neither of us can speak from the authority of experience.

Indeed. Although, it could be argued that for some people it is choice, and for some people it is deterministic.

the picture i've used is that we are born with a given range on a scale of sexuality; and that choice and experience can push us to different locations in that range.

 

[Skateguy]

You're right, this is exactly what we've been trying to say!


But for some reason I get the impression you're attempting to illicit a negative response and getting nowhere for your effort. Sorry, can't help you in your attempt to find hypocrisy where it doesn't exist.

If you are getting that from my statements, I should look closer at how I'm presenting my case. for that is not my intent.---I may be reacting to an earlier post, that implied Gay Men should be given preferential treatment, as they were somehow superior people and make better parents. I find that to be incorrect. Not to mention the difficulty that may be involved in being a parent, with adoption entering into the equation.

 

[CriticalThought]

:shrug: fine. i hereby establish that all those who claim to be inherent homosexuals are in fact also bisexuals who simply no longer wish to engage in relations with the opposite sex. my claim has no more credibility than yours, as neither of us can speak from the authority of experience.

Fair. I can't speak for everyone, and I guess neither can you.

the picture i've used is that we are born with a given range on a scale of sexuality; and that choice and experience can push us to different locations in that range.

It seems we are speaking of the same thing. The Robert Epstein model of human sexuality does seem to represent the bipolarization data most closely and accounts for varying degrees of sexual flexibility on the poles. Plus his sample size of 18,000 is pretty reputable, even if not perfectly representative.

 

[cpwill]

dang, and here i was just using the thumb-squint method. turns out it's all sciency!

 

[Reality Land]

OK, so would you support Straight guys getting Married, so they could also enjoy the tax breaks, and all the other perks that Married People get??

If it is a tax issue, why don't more liberals support the "Fair Tax?" That would take tax out of the gay marriage equation.
In other words, it isn't gay marriage that is the issue, it is the unfairness of our current tax system?
Maybe we need to define the problem correctly before we can find a cure.
I am against using the term marriage when talking about gay unions for other reasons. I also do not thing government should support deviant lifestyles.