• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

the legalization of same-sex-marriage

Wessexman said:
These studies may do assessment and evaluation, but this doesn't mean that there is anything of worth in it. That would take detailed investigation, rather than the claim the studies simply exist.
Click to expand...

I've read most of the studies. From a research/methodological standpoint, they are sound. Now, you don't have to believe that there is worth there, but since that is based on your supposition rather than actual factual information, your believe is worth about as much as you think the studies are worth.
 
Wessexman said:
See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything ;) .
Click to expand...

Things around her would be much simpler if everyone just remembered this statement.

In fact, I do believe I have found a new signature. Thank you.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I've read most of the studies. From a research/methodological standpoint, they are sound. Now, you don't have to believe that there is worth there, but since that is based on your supposition rather than actual factual information, your believe is worth about as much as you think the studies are worth.
Click to expand...
Well seeing as my supposition is about what you and CT simply assert then it is all much of a muchness, isn't it.
 
Wessexman said:
Well seeing as my supposition is about what you and CT simply assert then it is all much of a muchness, isn't it.
Click to expand...

I've posted a dozen of the studies, here, probably about 20 times over the past 4 years. If you would like, I can do it again.
 
Wake said:
Tbh right now I only have a few minutes to be online, so I can't really offer a thorough response. I didn't want to get dragged into a debate on homosexuality, when I mainly intended to correct the misapplied statement of intolerance. So...

1) I have absolutely no problem with homosexuals. I hate the sin, not the sinner. My own cousin is gay and we manage to have decent/civil discussions about it.
Click to expand...

OK.

2) I think homosexuality is wrong, according to Christianity. However, there have been arguments that the Bible only condemns homosexual acts, and not the desire to have sex with the same sex. I have yet to see any social conservatives from my side offer a plausible-enough argument to persuade me.
Click to expand...

I have posted interpretations/translations that used original Hebrew text and the context of the times in regards to OT passages that supposedly condemn homosexuality. They actually don't do anything of the sort.

3) I never said gay parents were inferior. [Where the HELL did I ever say that, lol?]
Click to expand...

Good, since they are not.

4) I do believe homosexuality is unnatural. To say it's natural because animals do it in the wild, to me, is rather odd because animals in the wild tend to be cannibalistic, incestuous, etc, etc...
Click to expand...

It is natural because it occurs in nature with humans.

5) As for ignorance, that's a whole 'nother issue. To be ignorant I have to have a lack of knowledge on your POV. The thing is, I disagree with that POV, though I UNDERSTAND/KNOW about it, thus I'm not ignorant, but not like-minded on the issue.
Click to expand...

Ignorance is when you incorrectly use terms that describe natural or normal, or incorrect interpretations of the Bible. Stuff like that.

6) According to the 6 scriptures on homosexuality, it is a perversion.
Click to expand...

This is what I mean by ignorance. That is NOT what they claim.

7) Intolerance means that I can't even allow you to voice your opinion. I'm the opposite of intolerant. I'll gladly hear any point of view out there, including the extreme ones. Doesn't mean I agree, but I at least allow you to speak your mind to your heart's content while I get to understand those POVs.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that.

8) I don't have an issue with homosexuals. I have an issue with homosexuality.

This is what I honestly believe in. I don't think badly of anyone here. There's no good guy. There's no bad guy. We simply see things differently. :shrug:
Click to expand...

OK.
 
Wake said:
The only things that really apply to me are the bolded parts.

Basically, I strongly believe marriage is between one man and one woman, only. I also think there is some merit to the Christian effort behind the "pray the gay away"/whatever institutions that help those people who are/were homosexual transition to the straight lifestyle. Simply, if a straight person can suddenly decide he/she's gay, then I think it's just as plausible they can change their mind back. :shrug:
Click to expand...

This has been shown to alter behaviors, not orientation. There is a difference between these two concepts.
 
Wake said:
1) I think they do. I think deciding to go from straight to gay is a result of behavior. Meaning, earlier influences in life can definitely contribute to that.

2) How do you figure? Are you saying not one in all of the thousands who have apllied haven't worked, because you said so?
Click to expand...

You do understand that heterosexuality is a sexual orientation, too. When did you decide to be straight?
 
Wake said:
Where exactly, in our genes, is there a desire for a man to have sex with another man?

What purpose do those genes fulfill?
Click to expand...

Please show where in our genes is the marker for sexual orientation... hetero- or homo-.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
When did you decide to be straight?
Click to expand...
[FONT=&quot]What I am saying is that gay is good because it is, not because we can't help it. Love is good because it's love, not because we can't choose to love in any other fashion.
—Cory Kerens, 1999

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Another classically inauthentic mode is to say that one cannot help what one is. This reduces the individual to a person incapable of free choice or responsibility. People can tell their parents for instance that they are biologically homosexual ergo not responsible. This is fine to keep financial support flowing, but not as the basis of an authentic loving relationship. It has two other problems, one is that a typical response would be that one cannot choose one's sexual orientation, but one can refrain from engaging in sin. The other is especially deleterious to those who are not only attempting to deceive others, but themselves as well, namely that it virtually concedes that homoeroticism, or at least the practice of homosexuality, is bad in some way. This means that not only is the person who takes refuge in this flight from freedom bad, but it is an essential property of theirs that is bad. This can be psychologically devastating.
—David M. Munsey, "The Love That Need Not Name its Speaker," The National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 2 No.1, 1996[/FONT]




Gays argue that they should have the right to marry someone of their choice, and then equivocate by claiming they can't help who they love. Either it's a choice, or it isn't. If how the local Afgan nationals act while in their trucks waiting is any indication, either Afghanistan has an astronomically high rate of homosexuality, or it's a choice.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Gays argue that they should have the right to marry someone of their choice, and then equivocate by claiming they can't help who they love.
Click to expand...

This statement is a complete non-sequitur.
 
Jerry said:
It's not a specific gene, it's a part of the brain.

PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects

Exactly why this occurs is still under study.

Edit: Dug up another link from my old list...
BBC NEWS | Health | Scans see 'gay brain differences'
Click to expand...

So, what do we learn from these studies? We learn that sexual orientation may be located in brain development. We learn that the sex that you are attracted to is probably dictated by how your brain is structured. All good information to have.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
So, what do we learn from these studies? We learn that sexual orientation may be located in brain development. We learn that the sex that you are attracted to is probably dictated by how your brain is structured. All good information to have.
Click to expand...
Aren't you assuming the causal relationships? Why isn't it that homosexuality causes the change in the brain structure rather than the other way around?
 
Wessexman said:
Aren't you assuming the causal relationships? Why isn't it that homosexuality causes the change in the brain structure rather than the other way around?
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that it does. Why isn't that HETEROsexuality causes the change in the brain structure?
 
Jerry said:
Another straw-man. Carry on.
Click to expand...

Nope. Your sentence made no sense. Here try this: "Straights argue that they should have the right to marry someone of their choice, and then equivocate by claiming they can't help who they love."

See? It's exactly the same. Whatever point you were trying to make, you failed to make.
 
dadman said:
The logic is clear .. if our society is going to legalize same-sex-marriage ..
then why not fathers and daughters ( consenting adults of course ) mothers and sons ?? ..
one wife and four husbands ?? .. two husbands and six wives ?? ..
what the heck .. let's allow brothers and sisters to marry . . .
just a big buntcha happy "families" Larry King Live (Same-Sex Marriage Ban?)http://www.gty.org/video/Date/2004if some or none of my suggestions are fine and acceptable .. then please tell me why ..
only the logical do need apply
==========
 http://dadmansabode.dailyforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1#p3http://dadmansabode.dailyforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1#p3 .. dadman
Click to expand...

Doesn't mothers and sons, fathers and daughters, brothers and sisters mating lead to birth defects? Isn't that why it's illegal? I just don't follow your line of reasoning. Are you saying that homosexual unions lead to birth defects as well? If so, how?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
There is no evidence that it does.
Click to expand...
You just made a claim of evidence. You also made a causal claim in it. I was just asking why the causation cannot be the other way around.

Why isn't that HETEROsexuality causes the change in the brain structure?
Click to expand...
Well, presumably if you have brain structure that you say correlates to homosexuality there is one which correlates to heterosexuality for you to make this comparison and claim.
 
Wessexman said:
Aren't you assuming the causal relationships? Why isn't it that homosexuality causes the change in the brain structure rather than the other way around?
Click to expand...

This is actually a good point and likely one that no researcher would touch with a ten foot pole. It is well known that we develop via a gene-environment interaction. Who we become is the result of our genetic tendencies which are altered by the environment and visa versa. The brain is the only area where things really change (i.e. physical appearance is not likely to change as much, although some change has been noticed, e.g. studies have shown that children who are exposed to more sexuality, observing sexuality, being around it etc. is associated with a quicker onset of puberty). The brain is a wonderfully adaptive organ that can rebuild and restructure even in the face of injury. It is true that we are not blank slates when we are born; we have genetic tendencies, however, those tendencies will interact with the environment to eventually lead to a certain outcome. This is why there is psychological variation between twins i.e. it is literally impossible for two individuals to experience the same exact environment. It would be interesting to see if any twin studies have been done on homosexuality-simply for interests sake. Personally, I don't see what the big deal is regarding whether sexual preference is a "choice" or not. Scientifically speaking, one's preference is influenced by both genes and environment, as discussed above.
 
Wessexman said:
You just made a claim of evidence. You also made a causal claim in it. I was just asking why the causation cannot be the other way around.

Well, presumably if you have brain structure that you say correlates to homosexuality there is one which correlates to heterosexuality for you to make this comparison and claim.
Click to expand...

Here's an interesting scholarly article; the following is its abstract and a link to get full access to the full article:

We describe six pairs of monozygotic twins, in which at least one member of five pairs were homosexual, and one of the remaining pair was bisexual, from a series of 55 pairs, reared apart from infancy; all the female pairs were discordant for homosexual behaviour. This and other evidence suggest that female homosexuality may be an acquired trait. One male pair was concordant for homosexuality, while the other was not clearly concordant or discordant; this suggests that male homosexuality may be associated with a complex interaction, in which genes play some part

Homosexuality in monozygotic twins reared apart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom