publiusvarus wrote:
It's a learned behaviour.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- We probably have a prop 8 thread
We probably have a prop 8 threadFollow
No it is not.
Codyy wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
It's a learned behaviour.
He's just trollin'.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Codyy wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
It's a learned behaviour.
He's just trollin'.
Now he's going to tell us how he was recruited and/or traumatized into making those "man seeking man" ads.
#55REDACTED,
Posted: Jan 12 2010 at 5:50 PM, Rating: Unrated, (Expand Post) They weren't born that way. Why is this so difficult to understand? You choose who you are attracted to based on your life experiences. You don't come out of the womb with a sexual preference. I suppose you have to lie to yourself because if it's not natural, which it isn't, then promoting this lifestyle choice becomes more difficult.
I've always seen the "natural-ness" of homosexuality as a red herring--who cares? It assumes a faulty dichotomy in which something that is unnatural is necessarily bad and where natural is good.
This is varus's final form
Nexa wrote:
...but I felt this deserved its own.
This, I feel, is a good start.
Nexa
Quote:
A Harvard history professor testified in San Francisco federal court today that procreation has never been the central purpose of marriage in the United States.
This, I feel, is a good start.
Nexa
Correct me if I am wrong but the outcome of this will have to apply to ALL states as this is going to be decided on a federal level? So either gay rights for all, or none?
Is that not a little scary if gay rights are lost?
#59gbaji,
Posted: Jan 12 2010 at 6:13 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yes. And I'm sure she is the only person to ever study the history of marriage. Or... wait a minute! Maybe they picked the expert who agreed with their position? Nah! That would just be crazy...
#60gbaji,
Posted: Jan 12 2010 at 6:16 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) No. It's pretty much entirely been about procreation. Marriages having nothing to do with procreation are the rare exception, not the rule.
GwynapNud of the Emerald Dream wrote:
Nexa wrote:
...but I felt this deserved its own.
This, I feel, is a good start.
Nexa
Quote:
A Harvard history professor testified in San Francisco federal court today that procreation has never been the central purpose of marriage in the United States.
This, I feel, is a good start.
Nexa
Correct me if I am wrong but the outcome of this will have to apply to ALL states as this is going to be decided on a federal level? So either gay rights for all, or none?
Is that not a little scary if gay rights are lost?
It still can go to the Supreme Court, but it sets in motion a series of events that would be difficult to undo regardless of the outcome. This is why some Gay Rights groups chastised Olson when he announced his intentions to pursue the case. Their argument was that it wasn't the right time.
GwynapNud of the Emerald Dream wrote:
Nexa wrote:
...but I felt this deserved its own.
This, I feel, is a good start.
Nexa
Quote:
A Harvard history professor testified in San Francisco federal court today that procreation has never been the central purpose of marriage in the United States.
This, I feel, is a good start.
Nexa
Correct me if I am wrong but the outcome of this will have to apply to ALL states as this is going to be decided on a federal level? So either gay rights for all, or none?
Is that not a little scary if gay rights are lost?
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Actually, I think I might be the minority here but I've always held hope that there was a little bit of choice in matter. I've played on both sides of the game (and the outfield ;D) in the spectrum of sexuality, and to me, the idea that one has free will is tantamount. Its just... All these people saying "We're/You're born that way..." feels entirely too much like a cop-out to Conservatives, when its really more of a selling point to undecided straights who don't know any better. So they say we're not 'natural'. Neither is Centrum Silver, Tupperware and Invisible Men in the Sky, you crusty old f.ucks. It's not even good PR. Which sounds better?
"Daddy, why do you date other boys instead of girls?"
"Because I was born this way."
"Daddy, why do you date other boys instead of girls?"
"Because I like them more than girls."
But this may just be too much of a hot button issue for me. Maybe homosexuals ARE born that way. Maybe not. But instead of digging down to the finer details about this NOW, why not use that effort where it really is needed: Righting the wrongs and correcting the lies that portray homosexuality was a disease, a sin, unnatural and what have you?
Third can of beer. Terribad drunk.
"Daddy, why do you date other boys instead of girls?"
"Because I was born this way."
"Daddy, why do you date other boys instead of girls?"
"Because I like them more than girls."
But this may just be too much of a hot button issue for me. Maybe homosexuals ARE born that way. Maybe not. But instead of digging down to the finer details about this NOW, why not use that effort where it really is needed: Righting the wrongs and correcting the lies that portray homosexuality was a disease, a sin, unnatural and what have you?
Third can of beer. Terribad drunk.
I think it can probably be both.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
It's not a choice. People are routinely forced into heterosexuality to fit societal standards.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I think it can probably be both.
This.
I also think it's more than a little unfair to identify Conservatives with the "born gay" position. it's usually the other way around, but both sides tend to pick and choose their positions based on the argument they're in at the moment. Most religious folk prefer to believe it's learned or choice because that way, it can be unlearned and fits better into the concept of "sin". Gay advocates will vacillate on that position depending on whether they're defending a "right to choose" to be gay, or insisting that they didn't have a choice so it's more like being born black and therefore they should be protected by anti-discrimination laws.
Of course, the instant the suggestion of a "gay gene" comes up, positions switch rapidly based on the specifics of the discussion. Especially if someone suggests that we could test for it...
Edited, Jan 12th 2010 5:00pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Of course, the instant the suggestion of a "gay gene" comes up, positions switch rapidly based on the specifics of the discussion. Especially if someone suggests that we could test for it...
I mean, seriously, the whole "testing for a gay gene" idea is just another flavor of "designer babies" (no matter which side of the test you're wanting) - and I'd be worried about anyone who thinks it's a good idea.
Quote:
I mean, seriously, the whole "testing for a gay gene" idea is just another flavor of "designer babies" (no matter which side of the test you're wanting) - and I'd be worried about anyone who thinks it's a good idea.
Why don't you like progress :(
Just as Planned.
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
I mean, seriously, the whole "testing for a gay gene" idea is just another flavor of "designer babies" (no matter which side of the test you're wanting) - and I'd be worried about anyone who thinks it's a good idea.
Why don't you like progress :(
MDenham wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Of course, the instant the suggestion of a "gay gene" comes up, positions switch rapidly based on the specifics of the discussion. Especially if someone suggests that we could test for it...
No. That's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. It's not about just that though...
Quote:
I mean, seriously, the whole "testing for a gay gene" idea is just another flavor of "designer babies" (no matter which side of the test you're wanting) - and I'd be worried about anyone who thinks it's a good idea.
Yeah. I'm not talking about the reality or the feasibility of such a thing. I'm simply making an observation as someone who did watch this discussion unfold over a few decades of time. In the 70s, homosexuality was a choice and every gay rights activist insisted that this choice be respected. Then, in the 80s, suddenly it became something that was not a choice. They realized apparently that if it's a choice, your choice isn't protected from discrimination, so the position switched. Then, the idea of a "gay gene" showed up. Initially it was something some gay supporters liked and wanted to find in order to prove that homosexuality wasn't a choice, but was something you were born with. Then as the reality of what could happen if such a gene were identified dawned on them, they backed off that idea.
Positions are often defined by the specifics of the issue being discussed at the moment and the benefits to be gained based on those positions. I suppose that's fine though, since we don't really know either way. But it is funny to watch people insist that it's one or the other, not based on any direct evidence, but purely based on which assumption best supports some larger agenda they want.
Edited, Jan 12th 2010 5:46pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
I have my doubts about us ever being smart enough to do it properly, but I'm certain that at this time, we aren't.
Sounds like we should make ourselves smart enough.
Just as Planned.
Good god, didn't we just do this thread?
What I want to know is, if marriage is about procreation, why is that never brought up when you get your marriage license? Why is there no one there checking on you a few years into your marriage to make sure you're doing your job by bringing snot-nosed brats into the world? Why are married couples with no children not being fined or forced to divorce?
Furthermore, why aren't people having babies outside marriage fined?
#75gbaji,
Posted: Jan 12 2010 at 9:37 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I've explained this before. It's not about making sure every couple who marries procreates, but to attempt to get every couple who procreates to be married.
#76gbaji,
Posted: Jan 12 2010 at 9:39 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Historically? I'm quite sure stonings, labels of *******, and scarlet letters were applied. I'll bet that the history professor from Harvard failed to mention that in her testimony though...
Recent Visitors: 482
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (482)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- We probably have a prop 8 thread
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC