Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (100) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: coralville Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 196399  
Subject: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 4:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Having posed the question once, I'm now very curious about the answer. Unfortunately, no one seems to be answering so I'll ask again. It seems to me that those (principally it seems heterosexuals) who strongly believe sexual orientation is a matter of choice must have had some personal experience where they remember choosing the sex to which they wished to be physically attracted. So here is the question:

When did you choose to become heterosexual?
Print the post Back To Top
Author: andryia Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104670 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 4:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
When did you choose to become heterosexual?

At age 10, when I saw Harrison Ford in Raiders of the Lost Ark :-)

Andrea

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104671 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 4:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Unfortunately, no one seems to be answering so I'll ask again. It seems to me that those (principally it seems heterosexuals) who strongly believe sexual orientation is a matter of choice must have had some personal experience where they remember choosing the sex to which they wished to be physically attracted. So here is the question:

When did you choose to become heterosexual?


Coralville,

I'll be surprised if you get any specific answer. My wife and I debated/discussed homosexuality last week. She argued that it was strictly a choice...... I asked the same identical question to her:

'When did you choose to become heterosexual?'

She couldn't answer...... she never had to make that choice, and she had never thought about sexual orientation in that light.

cliff


Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104676 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 4:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Having posed the question once, I'm now very curious about the answer. Unfortunately, no one seems to be answering so I'll ask again. It seems to me that those (principally it seems heterosexuals) who strongly believe sexual orientation is a matter of choice must have had some personal experience where they remember choosing the sex to which they wished to be physically attracted. So here is the question:

When did you choose to become heterosexual?


Silly question. It is equivalent to asking "When did you decide not to be a good for nothing? Now "most" people do believe that you doing something productive with ones life is a decision that one has to make. Now it could be be broken down to on April 5th, 1985; I decided that I wanted to work hard, stay out of trouble and not not embarrass my parents. However most people do not experience such. Now even if one does it was not a single decision that was made. It was a combination of previous decisions by you (sneak out to go to party) and experiences that came about due to those decisions (See someone get shot at said party over drugs) as well as things of which you had no control (Who your parents are and if they would abuse you).

If one does come to a single day where they say such things, it was not really a decision made at a single time but instead more of a realization of where one is in their life and where one thinks it will be good to go.

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104677 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 4:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Cliff,

I'll be surprised if you get any specific answer. My wife and I debated/discussed homosexuality last week. She argued that it was strictly a choice...... I asked the same identical question to her:

'When did you choose to become heterosexual?'

She couldn't answer...... she never had to make that choice, and she had never thought about sexual orientation in that light.


It's a decision that she made, albeit perhaps unconsciously, when in a tentative way she started dating you, that she formalized when she married you, and that she renews whenever you and she engage in marital relations.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: woodymw Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104680 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 4:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Goofyhoofy's post notwithstanding, I'll pony up and give an answer -

I didn't have to choose, and I don't believe that this is inconsistent with the thought that homosexuality is chosen.

I think that we can probably agree that heterosexuality is the norm. Though I understand this is a very generalized statement, I think it is safe to say that without normalized heterosexuality, procreation and therefore survival of the species would not be very effective. Therefore, I think that a heterosexual orientation is determined at birth, just like gender. No choice involved - I'm a boy, I like girls. Normal.

In that case, homosexuality is aberrant (sp?) behavior. It strays from the norm, and does so in such a way that, if all the species was homosexual, survival of the species could be placed in jeopardy. Which gender you prefer, sexually, determined as soon as gender is determined - and then a differing sexual orientation strays from the original determination.

Now, the question at hand is - what determines the differing sexual orientation? Obviously, there are those who would say genetics. I would say that one must choose homosexuality, a difference from the norm. And, that the choice you suggest exists - heterosexuality (and, by implication, an active rejection of homosexuality) - I do not believe exists. My sexual orientation is as it was when God determined "Make him a boy."

I never chose.

Matthew

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104681 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 4:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Coralville,

When did you choose to become heterosexual?

Being single, it's a decision that I make in a tentative way when I choose to invite a lady on a date and that someday I may well formalize through the sacrament of Christian marriage.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: QASteph Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104682 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 4:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 16
A. I didn't read the whole thread but I don't think that there was anyone who denied that upbringing, life experiences, and perhaps - though we don't know - genetics, have some *influence*.

B. Even if sexual orientation were something over which one has no control whatsoever, actions are something which we can control. For example, I am a heterosexual but I am unmarried. Because I believe that God calls us to refrain from sexual intercourse outside of marriage, I am also a virgin. I choose not to have sex. Not just once, but on a continuing basis. Daily, if you will, for the past 28 years. I will continue to make that choice until such a time as I have the blessing of a husband. If I never get married, I will make that choice every day for my entire life. [At this point that scenario doesn't seem all that far fetched (unfortunately).]

For the above mentioned reason (B) I do not think that a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality, even if it were provn beyond a shadow of a doubt, has any relevance to the discussion. It might be an interesting academic question. But for Christians who believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, it makes no difference. [Please note here the lack of a comma between Christians and who. This is my attempt to not get into the "is it a sin" discussion. I am not saying that all Christians believe as I do.]

The choice then becomes whether the individual will act on his or her sexual feelings. There is also a choice as to what an individual will do to support, encourage or intensify said feelings. For example, choice in reading material, movies, people to hang out with. Those are choices that all of us make. Even those who are married, heterosexual, and in all other ways fall into the traditional/conservative Christian family unit make decisions about acting or not acting on sexual desires and feelings.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: coralville Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104684 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 5:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
Silly question.

No its not. I can tell you when I decided I wanted to be a scientist, when I became a Cub fan, when I decided to marry, when I decided to go to college, when I decided to become a Christian. I can tell you because all of those were conscious choices. On the other hand I cannot tell you when I decided to have two arms, when I decided to become a male, when I decided to have hay fever, or when I decided that sweet things are good tasting. I cannot tell you because those were involuntary...they are either innate traits or instilled in me before I could make conscious decisions.

See, it's not silly if you approach it with an open mind.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104685 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 5:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
In that case, homosexuality is aberrant (sp?) behavior. It strays from the norm, and does so in such a way that, if all the species was homosexual, survival of the species could be placed in jeopardy. Which gender you prefer, sexually, determined as soon as gender is determined - and then a differing sexual orientation strays from the original determination.

I don't think I could disagree more.

a couple of cases following your logic:

People who do not have mental illness are the norm. Therefore people who are diagnosed with bi-polar disorder are an aberration. People have a choice to decide whether or not they will be depressed, or suffer from mental illness.

People who don't have cancer are the norm. Therefore people who have cancer are an aberration. People who make the choice to have cancer put the survival of the entire species in danger (through death, inability to reproduce or raise offspring).

It doesn't hold water. Some things are beyond 'choice'.

cliff



Print the post Back To Top
Author: coralville Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104687 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 5:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Being single, it's a decision that I make in a tentative way when I choose to invite a lady on a date and that someday I may well formalize through the sacrament of Christian marriage.

I am referring to sexuality from a biological perspective, i.e., heterosexual is one who is sexually attracted to the opposite sex, homosexual is one who is sexually attracted to the same sex.

I personally don't recall deciding which sex I would be attracted to. For me, it seems an innate trait rather than a chosen one.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: woodymw Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104690 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 5:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
People who do not have mental illness are the norm. Therefore people who are diagnosed with bi-polar disorder are an aberration. People have a choice to decide whether or not they will be depressed, or suffer from mental illness.

People who don't have cancer are the norm. Therefore people who have cancer are an aberration. People who make the choice to have cancer put the survival of the entire species in danger (through death, inability to reproduce or raise offspring).


So then, do you equate cancer and bi-polar disorder with homosexuality? Is homosexuality a disease? And, referencing QASteph's post - do I really get to choose how I live my sexual life? I think the answer to that last question is "yes". There is no choice with cancer, or chemical imbalance. Are you calling homosexuality chemical imbalance, or at least on par with such?

In my mind, in order to apply my logic to those situations you have to be treating homosexuality very differently than I've seen it treated.

Matthew

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Wradical Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104693 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 5:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
When did you choose to become heterosexual?
(Norm):
Being single, it's a decision that I make in a tentative way when I choose to invite a lady on a date and that someday I may well formalize through the sacrament of Christian marriage.

Norm.
_____________________________

The question as I read it,is not when did/do you decide to pursue the possibility of a sexual relationship, but rather, when did you "decide", if possible, that you were attracted to women, as opposed to other men?

My strong suspicion is that you have always been heterosexual, or have been so inclined from some point in your childhood. For gay men, I believe the opposite is true.

The controversy about this subject on this board should suffice to show that we don't really know. And even more troubling is the notion that one's sexual orientation is his own fault.

Bill





Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104694 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 5:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
When did you choose to become heterosexual?

My father probably called me out as a male somewhere between 18 and 24 months.

That I know this I can tell from (unposed) pictures taken during that period.

Now my question to you. Tell me about the relationship with your father during that period, and now.

Katinga
Who helped Mom care for his father (Parkinsons) at home during his last week on earth a year ago.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104696 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 5:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Silly question.


No its not. I can tell you when I decided I wanted to be a scientist, when I became a Cub fan, when I decided to marry, when I decided to go to college, when I decided to become a Christian. I can tell you because all of those were conscious choices. On the other hand I cannot tell you when I decided to have two arms, when I decided to become a male, when I decided to have hay fever, or when I decided that sweet things are good tasting. I cannot tell you because those were involuntary...they are either innate traits or instilled in me before I could make conscious decisions.

See, it's not silly if you approach it with an open mind.


Um a deep breath may be in order.

All the things that you said were just decisions were not made in a vacuum outside of your previous decisions and experiences. Lets start with Cubs.
You did not just all sudden, without knowing anything about baseball, their history, any of the players, etc. just decided</b. that the Cubs would be your team. Now you could perhaps have some relative/friend etc. that was a fan (or even a person who despised the Cubs; which then made you look into why they were so bad and you later deciding that they were alright). Perhaps it was even a game where they just showed a lot of heart etc.

Next marriage. Are you telling me that if all you heard all your life was that marriage was evil and sucked all the life out of you, and that woman only want to get married so that they can then be lazy and live off of you etc.; then you have your parents go through nasty marriage with abuse and then a nasty divorce; that you could have just decided to just get married? Experiences/Decisions matter.

I am not touching the Christian one at this moment.

The second half of your list was involuntary actions that you did not choose. Fair enough, but the problem is your attempt to take homosexuality out of the first list and put it into the second one.

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104697 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 5:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
I am referring to sexuality from a biological perspective, i.e., heterosexual is one who is sexually attracted to the opposite sex, homosexual is one who is sexually attracted to the same sex.

And many of us are saying you are making a false dichotomy. The true dichotomy is:

1. Developed heterosexuals.
2. Heterosexuals who never developed as such but remain in an arrested stage of development.

#2 is what most repaired heterosexuals testify to, and what they had to overcome to repair their development.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104698 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 5:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
So then, do you equate cancer and bi-polar disorder with homosexuality? Is homosexuality a disease?

I am equating the different diagnoses based on the logic presented.
Homosexuality may be a disease in the context that blue eyes, blonde hair, and light complexion are a disease.

Cancer can be caused by genetics (see my earlier post on breast cancer). There is not a choice for the person who has these genes. Cancer in its general form is called a disease..... however, one must wonder if people who have these genetic predispositions, have them for a biological reason. Genes do not know that they cause a disease. They are only passed to the recipient biologically and simply do their job (you do get some errors once in a while).

Many people disregard mental disease as an actual illness. They think people are mentally weak, lazy, etc. It simply isn't true. The chemical imbalances that you mention for mental disease are related to the persons genetic makeup. Hence, mental illness many times occurs in multi-generation of the same family.

cliff


Print the post Back To Top
Author: woodymw Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104701 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 5:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I am equating the different diagnoses based on the logic presented.
Homosexuality may be a disease in the context that blue eyes, blonde hair, and light complexion are a disease.


This gets into a serious morality question, though. Assuming that you are correct and that homosexuality is in fact genetic, then based on the rest of the post you can put homosexuality, blue eyes, and potentially breast cancer all in the same category as "genetic make-up." As katinga said, taking homosexuality and putting it in that list doesn't work.

Hence, mental illness many times occurs in multi-generation of the same family.


Because I don't know - does homosexuality occur multi-generationally in the same way? In my experience, the answer to that question is no, but have there been studies on that question?

Matthew

Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104702 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 5:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
No one seriously opposes the connection of smoking and lung cancer. But still, it is a complex disease, with genetic and behavioral involvement. My wife's grandfather smoked all his life into his 90s and died of other causes.

Although you do not choose to have homosexual struggles, early childhood behavior is well known as a triggering factor. It, too, can be regarded as a complex disease/condition/whatever. Homosexuality is like cancer is like hypertension is like adult diabetes is like depression is like alcoholism is like pedophilia is kleptomania is like any number of things of varying degrees of social acceptability. We simply don't base social acceptability on whether or not a condition has genetic factors.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Eyago Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104703 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 5:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Unfortunately, no one seems to be answering so I'll ask again.

First, I think you are a little too impatient. Your question wasn't posed that long ago, and it may be that some who might wish to answer have not had time or have not read it. Remember, most people do not respond to all posts, it would be too time consuming. (Besides, it took me over an hour to write this response.)

Also, let me add that your question is difficult to answer, in part, because it is a loaded question, and most people (unlike myself) are too smart to get suckered(sp?) into it.

It seems to me that those (principally it seems heterosexuals) who strongly believe sexual orientation is a matter of choice must have had some personal experience where they remember choosing the sex to which they wished to be physically attracted. So here is the question:

When did you choose to become heterosexual?


So, taking a risk since I have never asked myself that question, I will try to come up with a reasonable analysis of the issue from the top of my head. Hopefully I won't be too villified and will be given fair opportunities to refine the argument/position based on other's inputs.

{deep, sighing breath} The question of "choice" may be improperly applied in this situation. One does not choose a lot of things about themselves, but that does not negate the issue of choice in that realm. I do not generally choose to be alcoholic, addicted to drugs, a sports fanatic, a chat room junkie, a couch potato, or many other things in the classic sense of me sitting down and saying "hmm. I think I will choose to be a omnivorous in my eating habits." Much of what we are might be construed as "default" behaviors. When we change the default, we then exercise a choice in the manner you suggest. Some choices are much less difficult than others to make.

If I am an avoider of confrontation, I might learn to be a little more assertive and be willing to accept the consequences of discord so that I can reap the rewards of standing up for my self. For me, it wasn't very hard, but it was an active choice. For someone else, it could be monumentally difficult, boardering on impossible. Does the mousy person choose to be mousy? Did they learn it as a defense response of an overbearing sibling or parent? Were they disposed to mousiness but could have been more or less so based on the type of treatment they received in their formative years? Could proper nurtuing and confidence building have minimized the effect? So, how would you expect a person like that to answer when you ask them when they chose to be mousy? They could not answer you (and probably wouldn't but that is not the point.)

I would conted that most complex personality issues are developed over years based on a starting predispoisition followed by various forms of negative and positive reinforcements. Lets get a little graphic here. (warning, the followwing text may be uncomfortable for some readers, read at your own choice.) Take an example of a shy young boy. He is not comfortable around people in general and does not like criticism. He is raised by a single mother who, due to her own experiences of being raised my a mother who did not "want" her, has trouble displaying affection to her son. As this boy grows into his sexual maturity and is inundated with images, music and talk reagrding the joys of intimacy and sex, he begins to wonder about it. With his natural shiness, his fear of criticism in the form of rejection from girls he is too shy to talk to anyway, and his longing for any kind of love and affection, he begins to fanticize about relationships, love and sex. As his fantasies develop, he explores more and deeper themes over time and may learn to subsidize his fantasies with images of varoius sorts, generally very available in our society. Strongly desiring to actually expereince what he only imagines, there are a number paths this person can take. He can wrap deeper into himself and divorce himself further from reality and other people. He can get wrapped up in unhealthy relationships (maybe from a domineering girl/woman who happens to take initiative with him). He can, if he has the resources, hire a companion every once in a while, or if really in dire straights get wrapped up in the business itself, or other businesses of the shady sort, as a means to satisfying those needs. It's possible that he may have one strong relationship with another boy that may by small steps develop into a mutual fullfillment of needs.

The point here is that no matter which path he goes down, he likely would not have "chosen" it. The choice then becomes to choose NOT to do certain things, and maybe even to choose "none of the above". But, how does he choose "none of the above" and get back to what should be the default situation? That is a tough question and would require lots of desire on his part to hold fast to that choice as well as specific assistance from professionals to unravel the chain that brought him to his current point. One thing you can be certain of, however is that he will always be connected to those past experiences which can, under certain circumstances, attempt to reclaim prominence in his life.

I cannot quote it at the moment, but one prominent advocate for assisting practicieng homosexuals who wish to overcome that lifestyle has stated that he can show that every homosexual has certain social experiences that are common. I'm not wording that correctly I think, but you get the gist. Much like abusers almost always have the same social factors that lead to them being abusers. I'm am not stating that this is the only cause, but use it to reinforce that social effects are more powerful than we may allow for.

Ron (donning asbestos undies)

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104704 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 5:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Because I don't know - does homosexuality occur multi-generationally in the same way? In my experience, the answer to that question is no, but have there been studies on that question?

It has recently been demonstrated that adopted children of homosexual parents are more likely to struggle with homosexuality than adopted children of heterosexual parents.

Well, duh.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104711 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 5:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It has recently been demonstrated that adopted children of homosexual parents are more likely to struggle with homosexuality than adopted children of heterosexual parents.

I'm interested in a link to a valid study..... I have read that there is no correlation.

You provide your link.
I'll provide mine.

cliff



Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104712 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 5:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm interested in a link to a valid study..... I have read that there is no correlation.

You provide your link.
I'll provide mine.

=============

Already posted on TMF during 2003, either here or PA or Gwens, in order of likelihood. If and when I have the time, I'll look again, or Google again.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Eyago Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104713 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 5:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
It has recently been demonstrated that adopted children of homosexual parents are more likely to struggle with homosexuality than adopted children of heterosexual parents.

I'm interested in a link to a valid study..... I have read that there is no correlation.

You provide your link.
I'll provide mine.


Not my post, but I felt the need to but in...

This particular topic is so hot pilitically that I have very serious doubts that you will find ANY objective study on the issue.

Ron

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ShelbyBoy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104718 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 7:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
It seems to me that those (principally it seems heterosexuals) who strongly believe sexual orientation is a matter of choice must have had some personal experience where they remember choosing the sex to which they wished to be physically attracted. So here is the question:

When did you choose to become heterosexual?



I think what you'll find is that many (if not most or all) people who believe that homosexuality (not sexual orientation) is a choice, believe that heterosexuality is the natural order of things. Therefore, there is no need to make a choice to be heterosexual, only a need to make a choice to go against the norm and be a homosexual.

ShelbyBoy


Print the post Back To Top
Author: ShelbyBoy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104720 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 7:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Does anyone know of any scripture, even very liberally interpreted scripture, that speaks of same-sex human intimate relationships in a favorable manner?


ShelbyBoy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ShelbyBoy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104722 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 8:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
It has recently been demonstrated that adopted children of homosexual parents are more likely to struggle with homosexuality than adopted children of heterosexual parents.


By "struggle with", do you mean they think they have to make a choice?

ShelbyBoy





Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104725 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/8/2004 8:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Bill,

My strong suspicion is that you have always been heterosexual, or have been so inclined from some point in your childhood. For gay men, I believe the opposite is true.

Did you ever watch children in grammar school? At that age, the reaction to the other sex typically is "Yuck!" -- there's definitely no attraction. Somewhere around middle school, a transition occurs (connected with puberty?) and most indiviudals start to experience an attraction to the other sex that becomes fairly strong by high school.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: coralville Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104736 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/9/2004 6:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
I said: I am referring to sexuality from a biological perspective, i.e., heterosexual is one who is sexually attracted to the opposite sex, homosexual is one who is sexually attracted to the same sex.

Katinga replied: And many of us are saying you are making a false dichotomy. The true dichotomy is:
1. Developed heterosexuals.
2. Heterosexuals who never developed as such but remain in an arrested stage of development.


My definition of heterosexual and homosexual is derived almost directly from Websters dictionary. You can, of course, define homosexual in any way you want but it seems to me that any commentary that ignores or denies the observation that homosexuals are sexually attracted to the same sex is suspect.




Print the post Back To Top
Author: coralville Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104737 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/9/2004 6:42 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
Also, let me add that your question is difficult to answer, in part, because it is a loaded question...

Sorry you think the question is loaded. I'm not sure why. The defining characteristic of heterosexuality is being physically attracted to the opposite sex. The defining trait of homosexuality is being physically attracted to the same sex. The claim has been made that one chooses to be heterosexual or homosexual. Therefore it seems reasonable to ask the very obvious question of when did folks here voluntarily choose the sex they are physically attracted to. The question seems very straightforward to me.

In my experience, the capacity to choose between homosexuality or heterosexuality is much more similar to the option of short/tall than, say, conservative/liberal.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: andryia Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104741 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/9/2004 11:31 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
In my experience, the capacity to choose between homosexuality or heterosexuality is much more similar to the option of short/tall than, say, conservative/liberal.

I'd say it's more like fat/skinny or depressed/non-depressed than either of the above.

Andrea

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Eyago Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104742 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/9/2004 11:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
Coralville,

Sorry you think the question is loaded. I'm not sure why. The defining characteristic of heterosexuality is being physically attracted to the opposite sex. The defining trait of homosexuality is being physically attracted to the same sex. The claim has been made that one chooses to be heterosexual or homosexual. Therefore it seems reasonable to ask the very obvious question of when did folks here voluntarily choose the sex they are physically attracted to. The question seems very straightforward to me.

In my experience, the capacity to choose between homosexuality or heterosexuality is much more similar to the option of short/tall than, say, conservative/liberal.


I did not mean to imply that you were trying to trap someone with a loaded question such as "When did you stop beating your wife". All I was saying is that the question as phrased was loaded because of how it was positioned.

I think, in my post, that I tried to clarify the difference between choosing the default and choosing against it. No, people do not choose to be heterosexual, nor do people choose to be homosexual in the way you are presenting your question. However, in some people's life situation, they may be faced with having to choose NOT to be an alternative from the default. In that sense, they can choose. I can also make a very clear case that a person CAN choose to be bisexual or homosexual. Over time, anything can be brought about with the correct influences. I would contend that the fact that you claim you could never choose to be homosexual has more to do with your unwillingness to make the attempt then anything else. Given the right stressors lots of people could have their basic erotic stimulus factors altered. I speak not from professional but from personal experinces that are not appropriate for this forum out of respect for people involved.

We may be a long way from truly understanding the causes of homosexuality because of how much politics plays a part in the issue. For the most part, people have made up their minds as to what it is not based on the science but based on...I guess consience might be the best word. The homosexual activist groups do not want homosexuality to be curable. They WANT it to be genetic. They are a VERY strident voice in politics, and those sympathetic to the issue of personal rights work to "educate" America on the normalcy of homosexuality. Any evidence to the contrary must be squashed if the activists are going to be successful in mainstreaming thier lifestyle. They have to make it legitimate, and to make it legitimate, it has to be perceived as unchangeable. That is why you will see strong activist protests against groups that help homosexuals change. Do they really care if some homosexuals become heterosexual? No. They very much care that it can be proven to be possible. It is why dissenting voices to homosexuality are not allowed in public schools to debate pro-homosexual activists, but the pro-homosexual activists are invited regularly. That is why homosexuals on TV are currently given very affirming supportive treatment while heterosexuals (and specifically white males, but that is a different point) play the buffoons. This is a political war, and while it is political, very little truth will actually be discovered.

I didn't intend to get on the soapbox again, but then, I usually can't help myself. My intention is to hopefully shed light on the topic rather than tell someone they are wrong. I truly understand the reasons people have for wanting to be sympathetic toward any group of people who are different. There is a lot of hate, and fear and other emotions that are inappropriate, but we should focus on the fear and hate, not stiffle the truth.

So, in conclusion, let me reiterate that people do not choose to be alcoholic, homosexual, a gambling addict, a pedophile, an abuser or any number of things. There could very well be genetic factors involved, but there are also huge social factors and to exclude EITHER one is doing society and injustice. However, it is also interesting that MOST of the genetic/environment combination issues we are actively trying to cure. Homosexuality is one we are not trying to cure. Now, we can be honest as a society and decide that we don't consider the condition to be in need of a cure, but we are being dishonest if we try and reclassify it to say it is normal. Set that precidence, and you have less and less grounds to deny pedophiles and others their right to live as they were "born". Remember, we live in a country that uses previous law to interpret new law. Once you allow something, you have allowed a whole host of "related" issues to cascade from there.

Ron

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ShelbyBoy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104744 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/9/2004 12:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The claim has been made that one chooses to be heterosexual or homosexual. Therefore it seems reasonable to ask the very obvious question of when did folks here voluntarily choose the sex they are physically attracted to. The question seems very straightforward to me.



My guess is the reason a lot of others aren't responding or don't see the question as straightforward is they don't accept the basic assumption. The basic assumption, as I read it, is that everyone has to make a choice, both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

I think I've read at least three different options:

1. A human is born heterosexual and must choose to "change" to homosexual

2. A human is born either a heterosexual or a homosexual and choice is not involved

3. A human is born neither heterosexual or homosexual and must make a choice at some point

My guess, and it's only a guess, is that most people believe either 1 or 2.

I could post a poll to see, but someone would just go to some other board and invite people to come over and distort the results.

ShelbyBoy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockemup Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104745 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/9/2004 1:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Shelby,

No coulding!. Anytime something controversial goes up here, its like a bums rush from other boards to here as though we shouldn't be allowed to broach these topics amongst ourselves.



Stockemup

Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockemup Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104746 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/9/2004 1:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Shelby,

Pardon my awful typing and proofreading. I meant to say no kidding.



Stockemup

Print the post Back To Top
Author: coralville Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104747 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/9/2004 1:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 14
However, it is also interesting that MOST of the genetic/environment combination issues we are actively trying to cure. Homosexuality is one we are not trying to cure. Now, we can be honest as a society and decide that we don't consider the condition to be in need of a cure, but we are being dishonest if we try and reclassify it to say it is normal.

Society is not trying to cure homosexuality because homosexuality is not considered a disease by the medical community. Normality has nothing to do with it, otherwise we would be trying to "cure" left-handers, libertarians, vegans, and Cub fans. For homosexuality to be considered a disease, it would have to be demonstrated that it harms the individual or prevents the individual from functioning happily in society. By this standard, eliminate the negative effects of homophobic prejudice, and there is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality itself is a disease state. I'm not sure where it is you think society has been dishonest on this issue. I think the societal trend is not to say homosexuality is the norm, rather that it doesn't matter for most social interactions.

Set that precidence, and you have less and less grounds to deny pedophiles and others their right to live as they were "born". Remember, we live in a country that uses previous law to interpret new law. Once you allow something, you have allowed a whole host of "related" issues to cascade from there.

Sorry, I don't buy this slippery slope argument. Let me first note the obvious, we are not a theocracy so the basis of our laws must be secular. The best rationale for restricting the freedoms of an individual is to protect individuals or society from harm. We have laws against pedophilia because a good case can be made that pedophilia is frequently coercive and can potentially cause great harm to individuals we believe are incapable of making a mature and reasoned choice.

Therefore, to restrict homosexual behavior one must first demonstrate that such behavior causes harm to the consenting adults involved or to society in general. Make a convincing case and I'll agree that laws should be passed. Otherwise I think homosexuals should be allowed to live as they were "born" (as you put it) just as heterosexuals.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104748 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/9/2004 1:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

I could post a poll to see, but someone would just go to some other board and invite people to come over and distort the results.


do you have actual evidence of this happening? Very rarely do I ever see CF in the BOL. That's what usually drives people to visit boards that they normally would not read.

just curious
cliff



Print the post Back To Top
Author: ShelbyBoy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104749 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/9/2004 2:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
do you have actual evidence of this happening?

In the 5 years or so I have been on TMF, there have been a number of times I've noticed an unusual reaction to a post, dug into it a bit, and found one of the "hey guys, come on over to X board and help me out" posts on another board.



Very rarely do I ever see CF in the BOL.

If someone went to a board he considers friendly and asks people on that board to visit another board to vote in a poll, rec a post, comment on a post, etc., that wouldn't necessarily make the BOL.


ShelbyBoy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Eyago Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104750 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/9/2004 2:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Coralville,

Society is not trying to cure homosexuality because homosexuality is not considered a disease by the medical community. Normality has nothing to do with it, otherwise we would be trying to "cure" left-handers, libertarians, vegans, and Cub fans.

Where one classifies homosexuality is a big portion of my point. It is far too political an issue to make the assertation that you make. It classified the way it is because of strong political pressure and not objective medical or scientific fact. NOBODY knows its source, but many people believe it has a genetic FACTOR.

For homosexuality to be considered a disease, it would have to be demonstrated that it harms the individual or prevents the individual from functioning happily in society. By this standard, eliminate the negative effects of homophobic prejudice, and there is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality itself is a disease state.

This too is not a scientific fact but is more philosophical and political. There are "happy" alcoholics and "happy" addicted gamblers and people who are "happily" addicted to pornography. That does not mean that there aren't significant issues that are a result of a person's chosen lifestyle that are detrimentally affecting a person's life. Again, a highly political issue. Facts are not as important as agenda in this environemnt, so quoting reswearch and "expert" opinion is not going to illuminate much of anything on this issue.

Sorry, I don't buy this slippery slope argument.

I am sorry as well. Slippery slope is too charged a term, but the reality is still there. Things like this are contimuums and not discrete issues. Rationales for one things are leveraged to rationalize other things. The fear of the pro-abortionist is that bans on partial birth abortions are the beginning of restrictions on other types, just as the pro-lifers were afraid that allowing abortions for some types would lead to partial birth abortions. The same thing can be said for gun control. Lobbying and information campaigns are already in play buy groups like MBLA to further their agenda. It is already becoming more prevalent in Scandanavian Europe which has been more open to homosexuality than the US. There are psycologists there that have already begun to say that childhood sex is normal and beneficial and some even go so far as to suggest taht it is wrong to deny children sexual fulfillment. So, as soon as you legally or otherwise classify something one way or another, you automatically get the group who is one or two steps down the line planning and working their way to move the bar. THe civil union issue is already spillingover into the group realtionship realm. Everything is connected, noting is isolated. With the right PR, even murder becomes socially acceptable.


Let me first note the obvious, we are not a theocracy so the basis of our laws must be secular. The best rationale for restricting the freedoms of an individual is to protect individuals or society from harm. We have laws against pedophilia because a good case can be made that pedophilia is frequently coercive and can potentially cause great harm to individuals we believe are incapable of making a mature and reasoned choice.

Until such time as mores cahnge in society and we begin to "accept" and "validate" someone else's lifestyle as they have in Europe.
I am not arguing this from a theological point of view, by the way. Nowhere have I quoted scripture to support my claims that homosexuality is sinful or wrong. I do believe that the Bible is correct, but my belief is not the basis for my evaluation of the social/political landscape.

Therefore, to restrict homosexual behavior one must first demonstrate that such behavior causes harm to the consenting adults involved or to society in general. Make a convincing case and I'll agree that laws should be passed. Otherwise I think homosexuals should be allowed to live as they were "born" (as you put it) just as heterosexuals.

I'm not advocating passing laws to make it illegal or anything else. I am saying that when you pass laws declaring it normal, you run risks of unintended consequences. I am saying that we are in no position to make such claims either way and that it is foolish to do so. I also do not advocate "preventing" homosexuals from living as they choose within the legal framework we all do. There is no basis to "legalize" homosexuality any more than there is cause to "legalize" blindness, alcoholism, left handedness or anything else.

I am not anit-homosexual. I have worked with a number of homosexuals throughout my life, I have a relative who is homosexual, and I hold no animosity toward them. I don't preach fire and brimstone at them. I have counted some as friends and was never "threatened" in their presence.

Ron


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: coralville Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104755 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/9/2004 3:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
I said: Society is not trying to cure homosexuality because homosexuality is not considered a disease by the medical community. Normality has nothing to do with it, otherwise we would be trying to "cure" left-handers, libertarians, vegans, and Cub fans.

eyago replies: Where one classifies homosexuality is a big portion of my point. It is far too political an issue to make the assertation that you make. It classified the way it is because of strong political pressure and not objective medical or scientific fact. NOBODY knows its source, but many people believe it has a genetic FACTOR.

But the burden of proof is on those who wish to have it classified as a disease. If the current classification is in error for political reasons as you claim, then you should be able to make a convincing case that it is harmful...go to it. If the evidence isn't there of causing harm, then what right does society have of calling homosexuals sick or deviant? And what does the possibility of there being a "genetic FACTOR" have to do with calling homosexuality a disease? Afterall, there are genetic factors for intelligence and hair color.

This too is not a scientific fact but is more philosophical and political. There are "happy" alcoholics and "happy" addicted gamblers and people who are "happily" addicted to pornography. That does not mean that there aren't significant issues that are a result of a person's chosen lifestyle that are detrimentally affecting a person's life. Again, a highly political issue. Facts are not as important as agenda in this environemnt, so quoting reswearch and "expert" opinion is not going to illuminate much of anything on this issue.

So what criteria would you use to classify homosexuality? And if you reject "experts" and current research as being politically driven then where do you get your facts from? The claim that the established medical community is being intellectually dishonest about the issue of homosexuality is a big one so I think you need to make your case. Where is the medical community in error?

Slippery slope is too charged a term, but the reality is still there.

I guess I have more faith in the rationality of the average person and the checks and balances of a representative democracy. In any case, it runs counter to my sense of morality to let fear of a slippery slope justify putting unfair restrictions or labels on a minority group.

I'm not advocating passing laws to make it illegal or anything else. I am saying that when you pass laws declaring it normal, you run risks of unintended consequences.

I'm not sure what "law" you are referring to that declares homosexuality normal. I'm further unsure what such a law would mean.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104757 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/9/2004 4:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
In the 5 years or so I have been on TMF, there have been a number of times I've noticed an unusual reaction to a post, dug into it a bit, and found one of the "hey guys, come on over to X board and help me out" posts on another board.

I am not arguing that it does not happen, I was curious if you had any evidence of this in the last 6 months or so. This complaint has come up on many boards (Choosing not to have kids, Cute kid stories, etc) so it is not a problem specifically to the CF board.

The original reason I bring this up is because of the tone of several prior posts. I find it difficult to put this in a manner that won't be perceived in the wrong light, or possibly as a flame. It seems that groups of people always think they are persecuted, and the political agenda is stacked against them. The conservatives complain that the media is liberal, the liberals complain that the media is conservative. I have seen this in regards to 'belief' on the Atheist board, and I have seen this on the christian fools board.

I would like to post two (three if you include your post) examples from the last day or so and address them. I sincerely offer that my criticism are not directed at the individuals that wrote them, but with the statements themselves.

Katinga:
'Of course, I would find getting funding difficult for research which might raise questions about homosexualist claims about pure genetic causation of homosexuality, because any possibility of violating homosexualist dogma would exclude me from such funding.'
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=20118863


If I perform any relevant search on the web (google, alta vista) and key on the word 'homosexuality-research/behavior/genetics/choice,etc', I will invariably come across a a deluge of information. That information will vary from universities, hospitals, private research, gay/lesbian sites, and Religious sites (including anything from churches to religious institutions that perform research).

I have a difficult time understanding Katinga's claim that he would not get funded for research because he would be researching in a manner contrary to homosexual dogma. Yet there are a huge amount of studies being done on this specific topic. At the very least, I am sure that a religious institution would give him a grant if he had any decent sort of idea for a study.

EYAGO:
'The homosexual activist groups do not want homosexuality to be curable. They WANT it to be genetic. They are a VERY strident voice in politics, and those sympathetic to the issue of personal rights work to "educate" America on the normalcy of homosexuality. Any evidence to the contrary must be squashed if the activists are going to be successful in mainstreaming thier lifestyle. They have to make it legitimate, and to make it legitimate, it has to be perceived as unchangeable. That is why you will see strong activist protests against groups that help homosexuals change. Do they really care if some homosexuals become heterosexual? No. They very much care that it can be proven to be possible. It is why dissenting voices to homosexuality are not allowed in public schools to debate pro-homosexual activists, but the pro-homosexual activists are invited regularly. That is why homosexuals on TV are currently given very affirming supportive treatment while heterosexuals (and specifically white males, but that is a different point) play the buffoons. This is a political war, and while it is political, very little truth will actually be discovered.'
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=20123365

Where do I start with this? 'The homosexual activist groups do not want homosexuality to be curable. They WANT it to be genetic.

Would it be fair to state that in general, conservative christians have a lot to loose if indeed homosexuality is mostly based in genetics. Would it be fair to state that there are a large number of strident politicians who are speaking out against homosexuality because of their personal beliefs, not because of any research that prove useful one way or another?

Both writers state that because of the politics involved, they are unable to do research, or garner any truth from the results of research. The claim is that the gay/lesbian political wind is prevailing against them. I find that very distasteful.

I might symphathize with some small minority groups in such a situation. It has been stated many times on this board that this country has a large majority of christians (indeed, I hear the statement 'christian nation' quite often). How can a group who makes up roughly 8-10% of the population have such disproportionate power that they can influence the outcome of medical research, as well as the political agenda for the entire United States? To state that the government is stacked in favor of the homosexual community is disingenious, to say the least. It reeks too much like a conspiracy theory, like communists taking over the country or the gov't hiding evidence of extra-terrestrials.

cliff



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104759 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/9/2004 5:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2

However, it is also interesting that MOST of the genetic/environment combination issues we are actively trying to cure. Homosexuality is one we are not trying to cure. Now, we can be honest as a society and decide that we don't consider the condition to be in need of a cure, but we are being dishonest if we try and reclassify it to say it is normal.


Society is not trying to cure homosexuality because homosexuality is not considered a disease by the medical community.

Oh I see, so you are saying that the medical community is that standard by which soceity decides to act or not act? I would prefer, as a Christian to put God's word in such a position instead.

Normality has nothing to do with it, otherwise we would be trying to "cure" left-handers, libertarians, vegans, and Cub fans. For homosexuality to be considered a disease, it would have to be demonstrated that it harms the individual or prevents the individual from functioning happily in society.

As a Christian we should be concerned about what the Bible says about an action and therefore act accordingly instead of trying to find some secular data to "verify" God. The Bible says that is a degrading passion that is penalized, and sign of a depraved and sick society.

By this standard, eliminate the negative effects of homophobic prejudice, and there is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality itself is a disease state. I'm not sure where it is you think society has been dishonest on this issue. I think the societal trend is not to say homosexuality is the norm, rather that it doesn't matter for most social interactions.

Since the Bible is so against homosexuality, then why would you have any reason to believe that somehow, acceptance of such a lifestyle will make things better?

Set that precidence, and you have less and less grounds to deny pedophiles and others their right to live as they were "born". Remember, we live in a country that uses previous law to interpret new law. Once you allow something, you have allowed a whole host of "related" issues to cascade from there.

Sorry, I don't buy this slippery slope argument. Let me first note the obvious, we are not a theocracy so the basis of our laws must be secular.

Can you show me where the Bible condones establishing some other authority on the level of God and scriptures? We are to be the Light and Salt of the earth. We do not only get to be light and salt when the medical community accepts what we have to say.
Romans 3:4
By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written: "That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged."

he best rationale for restricting the freedoms of an individual is to protect individuals or society from harm. We have laws against pedophilia because a good case can be made that pedophilia is frequently coercive and can potentially cause great harm to individuals we believe are incapable of making a mature and reasoned choice.

So as long as someone makes a "mature and reasoned choice" then we should all just but out and stop being the salt and light of the world?
Because various secular community are behind those who hold the Bible to be true, does not mean that are laws also need to be backward.

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Eyago Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104763 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/9/2004 8:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
cliff,

How can a group who makes up roughly 8-10% of the population have such disproportionate power that they can influence the outcome of medical research, as well as the political agenda for the entire United States? To state that the government is stacked in favor of the homosexual community is disingenious, to say the least. It reeks too much like a conspiracy theory, like communists taking over the country or the gov't hiding evidence of extra-terrestrials.

I wish I had more time to do a thorough job of this, but I do not and may not until Monday, so I'll just have to give you a couple of comments and links to show that I am not making this up out of whole cloth. I am upset that you reference consipracy theries and such as I never worded it that way. Your references put me at a decided disadvantage by the association.

What I said was that there is strong political pressure at play. That pressure stiffles the debate (much like name calling and guilt by association tactics). There are people with all kinds of agendas that have different ways of exercising power. How effective is a group of hollywood bigwigs in forwarding an agenda verses suburban Kansas residents? Power politics is a fact of life and it is not consipracy theories. Special interests have played HUGE roles in public policy. I can't believe that I am the only person who has noticed that.

8-10%? You might want to quote me a reputable source on that data. My understanding is that the population is more like 3%. The fact taht you think it is 8-10 might indicate just how effective their PR campaign is.

Pressure from a dedicated group that wants to change the political environment just requires a little cash and a few zealots and a few lawyers. Here is a link that provides some data on how it's done:

http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/coverstory/a0023411.cfm

Note the quotes from the activiists themselves.

As for research bias, I can't begin to explain this to you without tons of prep work into the philosphy of science. I have done extensive reading, and I have in the past quoted numerous experts both in research and in Philosophy of Science disciplines that make it very clear that research has less to do with finding the truth and more to do with personal, sociological, and polical bias with a huge helping "defend my territory" attitude. Scientists believe what they believe as much from ther personal and political makeup as they do from their actual scientific research. I think that most research is started from the perspective of "I wonder if I can prove my belief". However, research money and reseach publishing is handled by people who hold their OWN views of the universe, and if they are not predisposed to a particular idea, they will be less likely to approve it when it is compared to something they do favorably view. Wish I could quote right now, but I don't have time to dig out all my old books and reread them.

I will add one other link that you might find interesting.

Note the expert panel's decision with the response from the general community at large. You can easily find references to the panel's decision but likely would not find the dissenting opinions of the pediatricians at large. This is a clear exapmple of how a small group can weild a disproportionate amount of influence.

http://www.family.org/welcome/press/a0020031.cfm

Ron

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: HisDelight Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104766 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/9/2004 9:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Hey, Cliff ,

We're both behaving ourselves tonight as far as I've seen....that's a definite plus. :-)

"I am not arguing that it does not happen..." I'm glad, because it has. And still does. The example that I could give dates back longer than six months and unless you insist, I'd rather not provide it because I don't want to start a flame war between CF and AF......but rest assured that I will take that chance if you want.

Back to the point. Please forgive me for jumping in on a thread that I basically haven't read, but I'm jumping in because a thought occurred to me. You are an agnostic, Cliff, am I right?

I only ask because if you are, I don't think you'll get anywhere in your "faith life" arguing or debating what you see or don't see as logical. The Bible tells believers that faith is based on what we can't see...I can understand as much as possible "where you're coming from" but at the same time from my perspective I don't see that you're going to make any headway by trying to make things make sense. They do or they don't. As to why you don't (yet?) believe, I don't know if it's God or if it's you being difficult (been there/still there way too many times).

I guess I just don't see that you're getting anywhere....not sure if that makes sense or not and believe me you are one of the last people I'd want to insult.

An observation, and only that...

You're my friend, and I hope I'm still yours.

Pam

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: HisDelight Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104767 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/9/2004 10:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
Hoo-boy, here I go again.

Before I begin, let me say that I have a lot of friends--I love my friends, as I should. I don't agree with all of them but because we respect each other--and we know each other's opinions--we're friends. I've read a lot of opinions that differ radically from my own on these boards and, with the exception of one that to me represented the height of disrespect (and therefore no friendship), I have no problem with friends not agreeing with me. I hope my post will be met with the same consideration.

When did I choose to be heterosexual? I didn't choose. I was created that way. Let me elaborate with something seemingly unrelated but which is, in actuality, very related. I will not be offended if you ask questions.

In addition to everything I've endured during my lifetime, I am also an alcoholic. There....I've said it. You could say (what the heck, I did) that it was in response to stress (plenty of it), sexual abuse (plenty of it), verbal abuse (plenty of it), physical abuse (plenty of it)--and yeah, maybe that's how it came to light. The simple fact of the matter, however, is that I did not have to handle any of that by drinking....but I did. Is alcoholism a disease?--oh yeah, baby, it is. It is a very real and very deadly disease. Did I choose it? No, of course not. Did God create me that way? Yes, He did--God created everything, and therefore He obviously created me an alcoholic. I'm trying to draw a parallel here between alcoholism and homosexuality...

I was created this way, so do I "go with it"? Of course not. Does God love me the way He created me? Of course He does. Does that mean I have no control over how He created me? Of course it doesn't mean that. I have the choice to say 'no'

Sorry, people, but that's the way it is. Just because God created me this way doesn't mean that that's where He wants me to be. The fact that He creates alcoholics in no way implies that alcoholism is a good thing. It isn't. I'm truly lucky to be alive. I am. I was carted off to the "hoo-hoo hotel" (can't help but try to funny even in the midst of all of this--that's an Archie Bunker expression) after which one of my family members told me, six days later, that I must have an angel sitting on my shoulder...I have always loved candles, and when my family initially showed up to start packing my house they found a candle--tipped over and out--on my bed, with a black spot on the sheet.

So I'm an alcoholic and always will be. Just because God created me that way doesn't mean I want to be this way--I have choices. I'm lucky--some alcoholics fight with making a decision every day. I don't, I've been very blessed. Usually I forget that I am one, except in cases like this where it makes a whole lot of sense to remember.

Pam--an alcoholic who decides every day not to drink.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104769 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/9/2004 11:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
When did I choose to be heterosexual? I didn't choose. I was created that way. Let me elaborate with something seemingly unrelated but which is, in actuality, very related. I will not be offended if you ask questions.

I do not quite agree here. I think the case to be made is that we are each born with a certain attraction to various actions. Since we are born with a sin nature, we are born with a number of high attractions to sins. Some people are born with a high propensity to jealousy. Some to anger etc. However I do not think it makes any sense to say that they were born angry or jealous. (This is not to say that a person's propensity towards an action is not also influenced by their environment.)


In addition to everything I've endured during my lifetime, I am also an alcoholic. There....I've said it. You could say (what the heck, I did) that it was in response to stress (plenty of it), sexual abuse (plenty of it), verbal abuse (plenty of it), physical abuse (plenty of it)--and yeah, maybe that's how it came to light. The simple fact of the matter, however, is that I did not have to handle any of that by drinking....but I did. Is alcoholism a disease?--oh yeah, baby, it is. It is a very real and very deadly disease. Did I choose it? No, of course not. Did God create me that way? Yes, He did--God created everything, and therefore He obviously created me an alcoholic. I'm trying to draw a parallel here between alcoholism and homosexuality...


Using your example, one could seemingly say that everyone is born an alcoholic however they do not experience the circumstances that "unleash" it. Also I think you would admit that you never "had" to take that first drink (unless you were somehow forced at gunpoint, which is not out of the question). If so then how can you say that you did not choose alcohol. An interesting question concerning choice would be: "If you knew the suffering that you have experienced due to being an alcoholic, would/could you have decided never to drink?" If you could decide such, then it seems that you then have a hard time saying that you did not choose such?

Also it seems that by saying you were born an alcoholic (made more attractive by various experiences) then a person who develops cancer can say that they were "born" with it. It was just their various experiencs (smoking, stress, radiation exposure etc.) that were the trigger to fully develop it.

CT





Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: HisDelight Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104773 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/9/2004 11:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
"I do not quite agree here"

I'm so shocked zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Print the post Back To Top
Author: HisDelight Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104774 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/9/2004 11:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
"Also it seems that by saying you were born an alcoholic (made more attractive by various experiences) then a person who develops cancer can say that they were "born" with it. It was just their various experiencs (smoking, stress, radiation exposure etc.) that were the trigger to fully develop it.

Has your brain ever seen the light of day?

Didn't think so...





Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104776 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/9/2004 11:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I'm glad, because it has. And still does. The example that I could give dates back longer than six months and unless you insist, I'd rather not provide it because I don't want to start a flame war between CF and AF......but rest assured that I will take that chance if you want.

I am aware of a few events that have happened in the past, also. What I was trying to get across, and obviously I didn't do that good of a job, was that you can't be afraid of putting up a poll because of the risk of someone bringing their friends over to skew it every time (I don't think it happens that often). Sometimes results come out in a way you don't expect, and a good part of the time its not because anyone stacked the deck against you. Any board that has 'hot topics' dealing with religion, politics, family planning, what constitutes living below your means, has to deal with that.

I know CF has had its share of impolite arses in the past. Again, its not just a CF occurence.

You are an agnostic, Cliff, am I right?
Deist/Agnostic.

I guess I just don't see that you're getting anywhere....not sure if that makes sense or not and believe me you are one of the last people I'd want to insult.
First off, you haven't insulted me. I appreciate your honesty. I always try to mind my manners when I'm posting here..... mainly because of the respect I have for folks like you...... and believe it or not, I understand the Christian point of view very well. I live in a family full of em! Hey, my family had two birthday cakes for Jesus on Christmas. That's gotta count for something, right?

On a more serious note. I try very hard to understand the world around me. I feel a great responsibility in understanding science, math, government, religious beliefs (not just christianity), philosophy, Art, Music and on...... Already I have had the excitement of passing on some of my knowledge to my sons. My oldest listened with wide eyes and excitement when I told him why the sun appears to rise and set (or as he likes to ask, why does the sun 'wake up' and goes night-night.

So, when I come upon something that I disagree with or don't understand fully, I have to question or debate it. It's not necessary for me to convert anyone to my way of thinking. If someone states that they have a certain belief, I want to know how extensively they have thought about it, especially if it impacts the society I live in. What are their reasons for believing it? Are they valid reasons (I don't mean that arrogantly). I think its everyones responsibility to participate in life. I think you have to question, listen, observe, exhange thoughts, and analyze to really participate in learning. I have a long, long way to go. Debate and discussion are just two of the tools available to me in my quest for knowledge and understanding. I am held to the same standards of reason whenever I post on this and other boards.

Since we all live in the same society, and the decisions and beliefs that we make or hold impact each of us, I think it behooves us all to understand one another. Sometimes things might seem tense during a discussion, but not anymore than I have encountered outside the virtual world.

Pam, thank you for expressing your thoughts. Yes, you are my friend.

cliff







Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: HisDelight Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104777 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/10/2004 12:01 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"Pam, thank you for expressing your thoughts. Yes, you are my friend.


(((Cliff)))

:-)

Pam

Print the post Back To Top
Author: HisDelight Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104778 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/10/2004 12:16 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
"Also it seems that by saying you were born an alcoholic (made more attractive by various experiences) then a person who develops cancer can say that they were "born" with it. It was just their various experiencs (smoking, stress, radiation exposure etc.) that were the trigger to fully develop it."

Okay, "Christian"Trader, let's go---

"Using your example, one could seemingly say that everyone is born an alcoholic however they do not experience the circumstances that "unleash" it."

What do I say in response to you?--"Umm..." Hummmmm"......ROFL

Whatever.....tell me how, using my example, you can "seemingly" say that everyone is born an alcoholic. To my way of thinking, you can't. Do you realize, "C"T, that alcholism is a disease? We humans have these things called endorphins. For the alchoholic, alcohol creates false endorphins, plugs up the entryway for the real endorphins to get through, and thereby creates a physical need for the body to "get those endorphins". Someone who isn't an alcoholic doesn't have a problem; an alcoholic does--once they understand what is happening with their body they have a choice to "say no"--in which case, finally, the craving for the false endorphins from alcohol will subside, or they can say "the hell with it"--and continue to drink, provide their bodies with false endorphins, the disease continues......so you tell me, "C"T--

You think you draw a parallel between alcoholism and nicotine addiction. Tell me, and provide links in your infinite wisdom--shouldn't be a problem--how does addiction compare with physical disease?

Personally, I see that you are as usual in too much of a hurry to disagree with me no matter what, without giving thought to the obvious fact that you know not that of what you speak. It shows.

Again, please give me the similaries between nicotine addiction and the physical disease of alcoholism.

Daylight doesn't exist in your case, but it's long overdue. Most people would like it, but in your case I doubt it would bring anything but resentment. *sigh* Enlightenment isn't always welcome by everyone.

Pam

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104779 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/10/2004 12:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
As for research bias, I can't begin to explain this to you without tons of prep work into the philosphy of science. I have done extensive reading, and I have in the past quoted numerous experts both in research and in Philosophy of Science disciplines that make it very clear that research has less to do with finding the truth and more to do with personal, sociological, and polical bias with a huge helping "defend my territory" attitude. Scientists believe what they believe as much from ther personal and political makeup as they do from their actual scientific research. I think that most research is started from the perspective of "I wonder if I can prove my belief".

Ron,

If it is clear that research has less to do with finding the truth than political, personal of sociological agendas, why is so much of it succesful? How could discoveries be made that benefit both of us so much, if research is so tainted? Your last statement interests me greatly; can the shoe be put on the other foot. Do you think maybe religious groups who feel that homosexuality is 'deviant' make a conclusion and then work back from that assumption, trying hard to prove their beliefs? Its healthy to question results from research. I don't think it is to your benefit to be suspicious of everyone who does research on topics that are politically charged. I'm sure there are one or two honest researchers out there. :^)

What I said was that there is strong political pressure at play. That pressure stiffles the debate (much like name calling and guilt by association tactics). There are people with all kinds of agendas that have different ways of exercising power.

Trying not to be repetitive, but again, could this be true of say, the southern baptist convention?

8-10%? You might want to quote me a reputable source on that data. My understanding is that the population is more like 3%. The fact taht you think it is 8-10 might indicate just how effective their PR campaign is.

Just did some footwork. The 2000 census results list the homosexual population at roughly 3%. There are many, many sites who have their own agenda on interpreting these results. What is homosexuality? How many people admitted it? etc. One of the more detailed write ups I found was this: http://www.geocities.com/plusg1/facts_05.htm.

I think it may be higher than 3% because of various factors, but for arguments sake, I'll accept the 3% number as fact. Let's restate my earlier question:

How can a group who represent just 3% of the population have such disproportionate power, that they can influence the outcome of medical research, as well as the political agenda for the entire United States?

I wish I had more time to do a thorough job of this, but I do not and may not until Monday, so I'll just have to give you a couple of comments and links to show that I am not making this up out of whole cloth. I am upset that you reference consipracy theries and such as I never worded it that way. Your references put me at a decided disadvantage by the association.

The references were not a personal attack on you (or Katinga and shelby). I don't believe that they put you at a disadvantage. However, I do feel that they are accurate in exposing what I believe to be inaccurate assumptions. Just about every political and religious group who has ever 'lost' in legislation, judicial decisions, or elections cry out that foul play is involved; they're views are right, they only lost because they were outspent, or the judge was biased, ad infinitum....... It may be true on occassion, but the argument can be used by any group.

How effective is a group of hollywood bigwigs in forwarding an agenda verses suburban Kansas residents? Power politics is a fact of life and it is not consipracy theories. Special interests have played HUGE roles in public policy. I can't believe that I am the only person who has noticed that.

I have ranted on PA that special interests groups dominate public policy and I believe that it is not right. So it does not go unnoticed. Hollywood activists might have a lot of money and exposure to push their personal agendas, but if we want to talk pure dollars and political power, I'd place my money on religious institutions.

regards
cliff












Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104780 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/10/2004 1:01 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
You think you draw a parallel between alcoholism and nicotine addiction. Tell me, and provide links in your infinite wisdom--shouldn't be a problem--how does addiction compare with physical disease?

A difference between an addiction and a physical disease is that a physical disease is something that you have no control over (outside of medicine - which may or may not be available), for example you cannot will your cells to stop dividing so quickly in the case of cancer or will your immune system to function better in the case of AIDS. Addiction are things that a person has to deal with and hopefully overcome. There is a choice involved in the second case.

Put another way, a cancer patient can just pray that the medicine works, while a smoker can chose (meaning to do what ever it takes) to stop smoking and live. (Not to say that this choice is at all trivial).

Also my issue with your claim to be a born alcoholic is that you have said nothing to indicate that somehow your system was screaming for alcohol when you exited your mothers womb. Now this may be the case, however I have not seen you express this as of yet. Now perhaps you can say that you were born with a genetic/hormonal set that makes it easier for you to become dependent on alcohol than most others. To go beyond this seems unwarranted.

CT

P.S. I never stated anything about infinite or even a great deal of wisdom. Therefore I am glad someone believes that I have a great amount of it.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104781 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/10/2004 5:03 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"Using your example, one could seemingly say that everyone is born an alcoholic however they do not experience the circumstances that "unleash" it."



Whatever.....tell me how, using my example, you can "seemingly" say that everyone is born an alcoholic. To my way of thinking, you can't. Do you realize, "C"T, that alcholism is a disease? We humans have these things called endorphins. For the alchoholic, alcohol creates false endorphins, plugs up the entryway for the real endorphins to get through, and thereby creates a physical need for the body to "get those endorphins". Someone who isn't an alcoholic doesn't have a problem; an alcoholic does--once they understand what is happening with their body they have a choice to "say no"--in which case, finally, the craving for the false endorphins from alcohol will subside, or they can say "the hell with it"--and continue to drink, provide their bodies with false endorphins, the disease continues......so you tell me, "C"T--


From your previous post.

In addition to everything I've endured during my lifetime, I am also an alcoholic. There....I've said it. You could say (what the heck, I did) that it was in response to stress (plenty of it), sexual abuse (plenty of it), verbal abuse (plenty of it), physical abuse (plenty of it)--and yeah, maybe that's how it came to light.

First you say that your alcoholism "could be said" to have been in response to various nasty things in your past. Then you say in a later paragraph, that you were born an alcoholic. Which position are you trying to defend. If its the former, then one can say that everyone is an alcoholic and just waiting for the right nasty experiences before actually exhibit the symptoms of alcoholism. If its the later, then you would then need to accept the cancer analogy. If you want to take both positions, (or genes + environment = alcoholism) and say that choice was not involved, then you would have to say that if you could go back in time, you could not change your decisions even though you know the harm that they caused. Take your pick.


Personally, I see that you are as usual in too much of a hurry to disagree with me no matter what, without giving thought to the obvious fact that you know not that of what you speak. It shows.

Actually I do not have a preference on people with which to disagree. I would personally like to disagree with others besides yourself because they do not tend to go to pieces and claim that they are being picked on by myself, where ever there is a disagreement.

Lastly, I would appreciate it if you would at least attempt to accurately portray my statements. It is really easy to quote one sentence out of a paragraph as well as forget to include what that sentence was responding to, in order to win cheap debate points.
However, if a true discussion is to take place, then a certain level accurate and in context quoting needs to take place.

For example, even when you claim that I am willingly misrepresenting you , I include your full quote so that anyone who wishes follow the discussion can see for themselves.

Tis all,

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: HisDelight Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104787 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/10/2004 1:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
"A difference between an addiction and a physical disease is that a physical disease is something that you have no control over..."

Correct, and alcoholism is a physical disease.

"Addiction are things that a person has to deal with and hopefully overcome. There is a choice involved in the second case."

And there is a choice involved in combating alcoholism; simply put--stop drinking. Not that it's simple to do, but there is that choice. You make the choice one day to not drink. The following day comes around and you make the choice all over again, and it continues--hopefully every day for the rest of your life. People who fall "off the wagon" choose to do so. Alcoholism is a powerful disease, but it does not take away one's ability to choose--it's just that sometimes the alcoholic wants to think that it does, which is a cop-out.

No one "chooses" to have a disease. No one chooses to be an alcoholic, just like no one chooses to have high blood pressure, diabetes, etc., etc. There are medicines available to combat high blood pressure and diabetes (along with lifestyle changes, but that isn't the point of this post)--and people need to be responsible and take their medication whether they feel they need it or not. The alcoholic's "medicine" is "stop drinking". The disease will always be there--there's no such thing as a "former" alcoholic.

"you have said nothing to indicate that somehow your system was screaming for alcohol when you exited your mothers womb."

This comment seems to stem from a regrettably common and juvenile misconception of alcoholism. Not all alcoholics walk around 24/7 climbing the walls thinking of taking a drink. I'm sure we all walk past alcoholics every day of our lives--probably work with some, too. An alcoholic who is drinking no doubt does have a system crying out for more. However, there are countless alcoholics who no longer drink--one day at a time--and many, many (myself included) who rarely give it much thought. My system isn't crying out for it because I haven't been drinking--if I'm stupid and have one drink, though, that whole cycle is going to start up again. I hope that I never have another drink for the rest of my life; however, I'm always going to be an alcoholic.

"To go beyond this seems unwarranted." And that is, of course, your opinion and you're welcome to it.

I see similar misunderstandings in a later post of yours but will have to answer that later on this afternoon.

Pam


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104788 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/10/2004 2:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

"A difference between an addiction and a physical disease is that a physical disease is something that you have no control over..."


Correct, and alcoholism is a physical disease.

Are you saying that you have no control over the urge to drink or that you do not have control over the drinking itself? If it is the former then I think we are on the same team.

Now perhaps you can say that you were born with a genetic/hormonal set that makes it easier for you to become dependent on alcohol than most others. To go beyond this seems unwarranted.

And that is, of course, your opinion and you're welcome to it.

I see similar misunderstandings in a later post of yours but will have to answer that later on this afternoon.

Pam


I do not see anything in you post that attempts to refute this "opinion"? If you have a contrary opinion then it would be nice to see it expressed.

Lastly, what do you see as the difference between a disease (such as alcoholism) and just an aweful habit or tendency (beginning at birth or after a series of bad decision)?

My opinion on the issue (I am just giving it so that you understand where I am coming from) is that the previous condition is something that is harder to say no to, then the later category. Do you agree?

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: HisDelight Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104797 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/10/2004 9:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
"Are you saying that you have no control over the urge to drink or that you do not have control over the drinking itself? If it is the former then I think we are on the same team."

That'd be swell. ;-) However, I'm not clear yet what team we're on, but will keep trying to respond as honestly as I know how and maybe eventually we'll know. Now, back to your question:

"Are you saying that you have no control over the urge to drink..." I have every control over the urge to drink, when and if I were to get an urge. I "merely" (ha) had to learn that, believe it, and act on that belief. I did not have as hard a time as some (most?), but a couple of times when I did get the "urge" I did one thing they'd advised us/me to do. I told myself, "No, not today. If I still feel like it tomorrow, I'll drink tomorrow." When "tomorrow" came and if the urge was still there, I'd say it all over again. No one is at the mercy of an "urge", unless that person chooses to give in to it.

"or that you do not have control over the drinking itself?" If I were to start drinking again, I'd still have every control over the drinking--when I chose to take control. That would be up to me. It could be hard--made harder by the fact that the alcohol would be back in my system playing its games again--but that wouldn't take away from the fact that yes, I have control. I have control over both the urge to drink and the drinking itself.

"Lastly, what do you see as the difference between a disease (such as alcoholism) and just an aweful habit or tendency (beginning at birth or after a series of bad decision)?"

At their very core--and I'm talking about before we get into acting on something, dependency, etc.--at their very core, we aren't comparing apples to apples. A disease is a disease and at its core can't be compared to a habit. Since we're basically talking about the specific disease of alcoholism here, I think it's when the alcoholic decides to give in to the urge and drinks that we move into an arena that somewhat compares with other addictions.

I'm having a hard time thinking of an example of a habit that might begin at birth but can still work with this as you also mention habits resulting from a series of bad decisions. I can think of all kinds of examples of that, as I'm sure anyone can--cigarette smoking, cocaine addiction, sexual addiction.

"My opinion on the issue (I am just giving it so that you understand where I am coming from) is that the previous condition is something that is harder to say no to, then the later category. Do you agree?"

No, I don't. I have seen enough that I could never honestly tell someone that their addiction (to anything) isn't as tough to fight as mine. A lot of addictions are psychological and man oh man our minds can be very powerful. Consider (I think this does fit in) another kind of psychological addiction--anorexia. I've seen it in my cousin's daughter, read about it in countless articles. It's its own kind of addiction and it's psychological--so powerful that even with treatment many die. I consider it an addiction to self-punishment. Is alcoholism, because it's a physical disease, tougher to fight than anorexia? There's no way I can say that, they've got such a tough fight. Addictions are hard. And keep in mind, too, that not every person addicted to alcohol is an alcoholic--there are plenty of people who are psychologically dependent on the "buzz", the feeling of "escape", the "numbing"--I wouldn't want to be in their shoes, either.

I'm not sure I answered anything as much as I've thrown a few more things out for consideration. And I still have that other post of yours I hope to answer tonight.

So maybe we aren't on the same team--maybe we are and I don't see it yet--but I think that at least we're on the same field.

Later,
Pam







Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104798 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/10/2004 11:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"Are you saying that you have no control over the urge to drink..."

" I have every control over the urge to drink, when and if I were to get an urge. I "merely" (ha) had to learn that, believe it, and act on that belief. I did not have as hard a time as some (most?), but a couple of times when I did get the "urge" I did one thing they'd advised us/me to do. I told myself, "No, not today. If I still feel like it tomorrow, I'll drink tomorrow." When "tomorrow" came and if the urge was still there, I'd say it all over again. No one is at the mercy of an "urge", unless that person chooses to give in to it.

What I was trying to do was to compare controlling the urge as the same thing as controlling what thoughts come into your head. You cannot control thoughts,(however you can control what thoughts you dwell on). Therefore I have no problem with this answer.

"or that you do not have control over the drinking itself?"

If I were to start drinking again, I'd still have every control over the drinking--when I chose to take control. That would be up to me. It could be hard--made harder by the fact that the alcohol would be back in my system playing its games again--but that wouldn't take away from the fact that yes, I have control. I have control over both the urge to drink and the drinking itself.

NO problem here either.

"Lastly, what do you see as the difference between a disease (such as alcoholism) and just an aweful habit or tendency (beginning at birth or after a series of bad decision)?"

At their very core--and I'm talking about before we get into acting on something, dependency, etc.--at their very core, we aren't comparing apples to apples. A disease is a disease and at its core can't be compared to a habit. Since we're basically talking about the specific disease of alcoholism here, I think it's when the alcoholic decides to give in to the urge and drinks that we move into an arena that somewhat compares with other addictions.

My problem is the labeling of things that we can control as diseases. As in could you not then call a bunch of bad character traits "diseases". It just seems like calling things diseases is a sign of giving up on oneself and ones ability to deal with it. No one is born perfect, and therefore each has certain things that they have to deal with from birth. For some its anger, others have various other things. What really seperates diseases like alcohol from other bad character traits that people are born with and have to deal? Calling a disease a disease is not really helping me with more information.

Going back to your original post. You were attempting to equate not choosing alcoholism to not choosing homosexuality. Since you equate alcoholism to a disease that cannot be cured, do you think homosexuality can also not be cured? Is the best a homosexual can do is be celibate the rest of their lives or can they become "normal"?

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: HisDelight Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104799 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/11/2004 12:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
CT,

As far as I can tell from your profile, you're on the east coast. It's only been the past few days that I've noticed the times of some of your posts. You either work nights or you manage to get by on some ridiculously and/or nearly-nonexistent amount of sleep. Be that as it may, I'm up too late myself but caught this before I turned the computer off.

"My problem is the labeling of things that we can control as diseases."

I don't have that problem, and I just don't understand it. For me, having a way to control a disease elicits a loud "AMEN, AND THANK YOU, LORD!"--i.e. having a disease does not have to be a "death sentence". A way of controlling it does not mean it isn't a physical disease.

"It just seems like calling things diseases is a sign of giving up on oneself..." Absolutely not! Diabetics who accept their disease and do what they're advised to control it are not giving up--"giving up" is for those who want to bury their heads in the sand, deny that they have a disease that requires action in order to survive. I have to admit that I don't completely understand diabetes, but I'm picking on that because I know a few diabetics. I used to work for a woman who had to check her insulin levels at least a couple times a day, and she did so faithfully. She faithfully followed her doctor's recommendations for dietary changes and faithfully followed his recommendations for physical activity. She accepted the reality of her disease and did everything she possibly could to control it and keep it in line--that is hardly giving up, not even close. In contrast, my ex's cousin has diabetes--he either couldn't or wouldn't accept it, whether it was because dealing with it was "too much work" or whatever, I honestly don't know. He ignored his doctors' advice and continued to live and eat the way he wanted to--last I knew (about 7 months ago), reality had started to sink in. Because he did nothing about it, he's having very real problems now with both feet and one leg--and he's young, he isn't even 40 yet. His reaction is what I would term "giving up"--he tried to run away from it. Acknowledging something isn't giving up, CT--it's a sign of strength. I'm thankful for ways that we have now to control various diseases and pray that more can be found.

"What really seperates diseases like alcohol from other bad character traits that people are born with and have to deal?" You'd have to actually talk with a doctor to (probably) get an answer that would make sense to you, but simply put (because I want to go to sleep)--diseases are medically documented, plain and simple. Bad character traits are bad character traits--like the poor excuse for a father down south who recently went on a killing/kidnapping rampage. He was jealous...haven't we all been jealous at one time or another? That doesn't excuse his behavior--bad character traits are subject to choices, too, but can't be confused with physical diseases.

"You were attempting to equate not choosing alcoholism to not choosing homosexuality."

Not quite on the mark with that one. However, that's a loaded subject that is going to require me to be very, very careful in how I word my answer (not that I'm not trying to be, anyway, but...) And there's still that other post of yours.

I think my best bet, if I'm ever going to answer that other post, is to intentionally ignore any reply you might make to this at least until I answer the other one. You can stay up all night if you so choose--I choose not to. There's another example of making a wise choice.

Over and out. My word, it's past 12:30........

Pam



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104802 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/11/2004 9:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
For homosexuality to be considered a disease, it would have to be demonstrated that it harms the individual or prevents the individual from functioning happily in society.

Homosexuality was considered a disease in psychiatry until relatively recently, and under pressure from guess who?

Hardly a triumph for naturalism or scientific method.

In point of fact, there is a very significant group of people with homosexual struggles who do indeed not feel they are functioning happily. Yet homosexual activists and their (pseudo)scientific cronies are trying to shut down successful efforts to heal them.

Keeping the boundaries of ones group closed. Hmm. Sounds Islamist.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104809 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/11/2004 10:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
I have a difficult time understanding Katinga's claim that he would not get funded for research because he would be researching in a manner contrary to homosexual dogma. Yet there are a huge amount of studies being done on this specific topic. At the very least, I am sure that a religious institution would give him a grant if he had any decent sort of idea for a study.

Precisely.

Is a religious funded study going to get peer review and publication in a scientific journal?


Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104814 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/11/2004 11:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Is a religious funded study going to get peer review and publication in a scientific journal?

Only if it follows the guidelines of scientific research, Katinga. Then it would be welcomed in peer reviewed scientific publications. The same criteria applied to all other researchers.

cliff



Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104816 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/11/2004 11:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Is a religious funded study going to get peer review and publication in a scientific journal?

Only if it follows the guidelines of scientific research, Katinga. Then it would be welcomed in peer reviewed scientific publications. The same criteria applied to all other researchers.

cliff


Um are you trying to claim that what is published and what is not published in scientific journals is not political? If so then you are not truly familiar with this field.

Also if a peer-reviewers do not agree with your work, they can always just send it back for you to do more and bigger studies, or just claim that you are not taking X or Y into account and therefore your conclusions are worthless.

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104819 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/12/2004 7:44 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Homosexuality was considered a disease in psychiatry until relatively recently,

What exactly does that prove?

Epilepsy was attributed to everything from demonic possession to frequent masturbation until this century. Is one supposed to give these ideas credence because they have been held for so long?

'Slowly, the ideas of supernatural causation died out only to be replaced by another set of bizarre misnomers. Physician Benjamin Rush (1812) wrote in the first major American textbook of psychology that masturbation was the cause of a variety of illnesses including epilepsy, and could, in fact, cause death. It was in this cultural climate that Sir Charles Locock, obstetrician to Queen Victoria, credited crowded teeth, masturbation, and menstruation with causing seizures.'

http://www.epilepsytoronto.org/people/eaupdate/vol6-3.html

cliff


Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104820 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/12/2004 9:08 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Homosexuality was considered a disease in psychiatry until relatively recently,


What exactly does that prove?

Epilepsy was attributed to everything from demonic possession to frequent masturbation until this century. Is one supposed to give these ideas credence because they have been held for so long?

'Slowly, the ideas of supernatural causation died out only to be replaced by another set of bizarre misnomers. Physician Benjamin Rush (1812) wrote in the first major American textbook of psychology that masturbation was the cause of a variety of illnesses including epilepsy, and could, in fact, cause death. It was in this cultural climate that Sir Charles Locock, obstetrician to Queen Victoria, credited crowded teeth, masturbation, and menstruation with causing seizures.'

http://www.epilepsytoronto.org/people/eaupdate/vol6-3.html

cliff


One does not give things creedance because they have held so long, however it does put the burden of proof on you to show that these long held beliefs are just hogwash. One is not given the right to say that everyone who said otherwise for such a long period is just stupid.

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104822 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/12/2004 10:01 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Only if it follows the guidelines of scientific research, Katinga. Then it would be welcomed in peer reviewed scientific publications. The same criteria applied to all other researchers.

You are talking about ideals, and not how the world actually works. Got a small sample of brain pathologies that have a tendency wrt homosexual studies? SciAm will be pleased to give you a headline and you'll get a pass from peer reviewers with a similar political agenda. Got a repeatable result that runs against scientific orthodoxy? Peers and journals won't give you the time of day.

Kat
Contemplating the wildnerness years of the cataclismiologists in the 50s through 70s before meteor and volcano studies came into vogue.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104824 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/12/2004 10:16 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
What exactly does that prove?

Epilepsy was attributed to everything from demonic possession to frequent masturbation until this century. Is one supposed to give these ideas credence because they have been held for so long?


Comparison by smear, full of sound and fury...

And dodging the question, which I repeat. By your own definition, there are homosexuals, many homosexuals, who are that way as far back as they can remember (thus meeting the current definition of homosexual) who are dissatisfied with their condition. That meets the definition of the disease before psychiatry caved in to homosexualism, and the definition is still valid.

If you pull on a cow's udder and get milk, consideration of cows as milk givers holds despite any agenda of PETA to the contrary that would force society to abandon the idea that you can get milk from a cow.

It's homosexualists who are the flat earthers and shamans of science, not those who would conduct homosexual reparative therapy.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Umm Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104828 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/12/2004 12:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
"Comparison by smear, full of sound and fury..."

Heh. Irony can be so funny sometimes.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Umm Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104829 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/12/2004 12:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
"Keeping the boundaries of ones group closed. Hmm. Sounds Islamist."

Wow, you managed to smear two groups with only one line. You are getting good at this.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104830 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/12/2004 12:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Wow, you managed to smear two groups with only one line. You are getting good at this.

Not a smear of Islam. Try being a Pakistani Muslim then converting out. You will be shunned and you will have committed a crime. You may well go to prison or worse.

Not a smear of homosexualism. Be a homosexual with accompanying social relationships, then try to leave. You will be shunned. Then go to a psychiatrist for help, like Nicolosi. He will be taking a considerable risk to treat you. In Canada, it might even be a crime. I know that groups like Focus on the Family may not advocate reparative therapy on a Canadian media without incurring penalties.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Umm Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104831 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/12/2004 1:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
"Not a smear of Islam. Try being a Pakistani Muslim then converting out. You will be shunned and you will have committed a crime. You may well go to prison or worse."

Ahh, the old "use the extremists to smear the whole group" trick. There are millions of Islamists who are tolerant and accepting of others religious choices, yet you choose to smear all of Islam.

Would you consider it a smear of Christianity if someone called Christianity the religion of murder and terrorism due to the actions of Eric Rudolph? I would, and I am betting you would. They would be wrong just like your smear of Islam and homosexuals.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104834 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/12/2004 2:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Ahh, the old "use the extremists to smear the whole group" trick. There are millions of Islamists who are tolerant and accepting of others religious choices, yet you choose to smear all of Islam.

There are comparatively few Islamists who are tolerant and accepting of others religious choices. There are many, consisting of the populations of these countries that do not.

The PA
Saudi
Pakistan
Iran
Nigeria
Sudan
Egypt
Indonesia

In fact, almost anywhere where Islamists are in the majority or a large minority.

Would you consider it a smear of Christianity if someone called Christianity the religion of murder and terrorism due to the actions of Eric Rudolph? I would, and I am betting you would.

Yes, but there is no comparison. You smear all Christianity with the actions of 1. I make the valid comparison of ideological homosexualism and Islamism. Add Stalinism, if you wish, to the list of closed ideologies.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104835 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/12/2004 3:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Ahh, the old "use the extremists to smear the whole group" trick. There are millions of Islamists who are tolerant and accepting of others religious choices, yet you choose to smear all of Islam.

Would you consider it a smear of Christianity if someone called Christianity the religion of murder and terrorism due to the actions of Eric Rudolph? I would, and I am betting you would. They would be wrong just like your smear of Islam and homosexuals.


This is trolling, and a smear of a valid comparison.

You may respond as you wish, but I consider this an end to your part of the thread.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: Eyago Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104839 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/12/2004 5:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Warning: this is a long post. If this is not of direct interest to you, you may want to skip or skim it. I'll try to be organized to make it easier to digest. I have been challenged to "prove" a few assertions of concepts that do not lend themselves to "sound bite" responses

This is a reply to a few posts that have occurred over the last few days.

On science, research, and methodology

From Coralville: So what criteria would you use to classify homosexuality? And if you reject "experts" and current research as being politically driven then where do you get your facts from? The claim that the established medical community is being intellectually dishonest about the issue of homosexuality is a big one so I think you need to make your case. Where is the medical community in error?

From cevera1: If it is clear that research has less to do with finding the truth than political, personal of sociological agendas, why is so much of it succesful? How could discoveries be made that benefit both of us so much, if research is so tainted? Your last statement interests me greatly; can the shoe be put on the other foot. Do you think maybe religious groups who feel that homosexuality is 'deviant' make a conclusion and then work back from that assumption, trying hard to prove their beliefs? Its healthy to question results from research. I don't think it is to your benefit to be suspicious of everyone who does research on topics that are politically charged. I'm sure there are one or two honest researchers out there.

This is a very difficult topic address succinctly. To understand the idea of emerging science, one has to also understand what science really is. It isn't simply the process of going into a lab and seeing what happens when you mix liquid A with liquid B. Almost no scientific discoveries come in the "eureka! I found it!" form. Science happens as a process of theory, testing, re-testing, comparing experimental results, validating, revising the theory, re-testing, etc. Eventually, after years of research, a scientist will venture to put his life's work out for public scrutiny. That work will be submitted to various publications that may or may not accept it for print based on whether the work is considered legitimate, whether it is long or short enough for the publication, whether it is of a topic deemed appropriate to the publication and whether the editor finds the material to be good scientific work. Only then will the greater scientific community be able to review and validate it.

Let me present a few quotes about science and discovery from a couple of texts that cover the issue.

The first is by Henry H Bauer, Former Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and professor of chemistry at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. The book is titled: "Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method."

"One of my fellow graduate students in chemistry at the University of Sydney many years ago was trying to calculate certain properties of molecules, and was the first to try to take account of one relatively subtle factor. Unfortunately, his calculations turned out to differ from the experimental values by more than earlier calculations [from experiments performed by other scientists] had.

According to the Method for being Scientific, Dave should have considered his calculations falsified [based on experimental results] and tried a different tack. Instead, he and his faculty advisor ignored the comparison with experiment! They were both mighty pleased with the progress Dave had made. He graduated top of our class, not much later he was on the faculty at Oxford, and soon after that he was a Fellow of the Royal Society.

Dave is far from alone in trusting theory more than experiment. A few years ago, a review article in Science listed many instances in which calculations had been right while experiment had been wrong…"

"Some scientists thus do a lot of speculating, whereas others do virtually none, and there is no warrant to call the one approach scientific and the other not. It is just the case that different aspects of nature yield to investigation at different rates and in different ways, and so scientists come to differ in all manner of things. Whenever a generalization is made about science or about scientists, disregarding thereby the fact that there are so many distinct sorts of science, misconception is promulgated."

"Again, though we use the same word 'science' for both, textbook science is a very far cry from frontier science. What is in the texts is reliable. It is relatively uncolored by the personalities of those who originally conceived it. It is generally agreed to by almost all the experts…By contrast, science at the frontier is very unreliable: today's discovery often turns out tomorrow to have been in error. Frontier science often bears the stamp of its discoverer's persona; and it is often disputed by other experts. Frontier science and textbook science are about as different from one another as any two things can be, within the bounds that both are guesses about the nature of the real world. Our failure to bear these differences in mind has drastic consequences."

"But even published research is not yet scientific knowledge; as John Ziman points out., it is just information that has been made widely available. Unless it is interesting to others, it will not be used and will fade from sight (and it is the case that the majority of the articles in the scientific literature are never cited by anyone). Those who do make use of a published piece of work thereby test it, and thereby also even modify or extend it. If they find something inadequate in it they will make that known. So any piece of scientific work that becomes widely cited and therefore well known is unlikely to be fraudulent or incorporate mistakes; and dull, uninteresting, or scientifically incompetent stuff never becomes widely known. Only what has stood the test of time, as interesting and useful and not obviously wrong, becomes incorporated into the secondary literature of review articles, monographs, and graduate level textbooks; and this then represents something like prevailing consensus in the various research communities. It is pretty reliable stuff, mostly. But it is known in detail only to people who work actively in that particular field or in closely related ones."

"Overall then, the raw stuff of frontier science has those characteristics of uncertainty, subjectivity, and lack of discipline that one should surely expect whenever human beings try to do what has never been done before. But after successive filterings trough institutions that science has evolved over the centuries, what remains easily gives the appearance of being objective and true. In point of fact, what remains is (relatively) impersonal rather than strictly objective, and it is hugely reliable and trustworthy rather than warranted and true for all time; but in practice one rarely or never notices the difference—nor does that usually matter. John Ziman has ventured the guess that, in physics, textbook science may be about 90 percent right, whereas the primary literature is probably about 90 percent wrong."

The second is from Dr. Del Ratzsch, Professor of philosophy at Calvin College, specializing in the philosophy of science. The book is titled "Creation verses Evolution", but the chapter I cite is relevant to science in general "The Nature of Science: A Contemporary Perspective".

"This tenacity of scientists in the face of apparently contradictory data is part of the reason science has developed as far as it has. Our theories are not perfect. In fact, it is so common for scientists to be aware of data apparently contrary to their theories, even at the very time that those theories are being proposed, that one historian/philosopher of science has declared that every theory is born refuted."

"Science is not, as it turns out, a rule-governed enterprise. The 'rules of science' are a myth. Science still strives to be empirical, rational and objective, but it turns out that those characteristics have an irremovable human shading to them."

I would add another example of how scientists are biased by their own view of what reality "should" be. Albert Einstein, after discovering that his theory of general relativity determined that the universe would have to be a constantly expanding body invented a fudge factor he called the cosmological constant. At the time (1920s) nearly all astronomers believed the universe to be static, so Einstein altered his calculations to fit his perception of the universe. It took time and further review by OTHER scientists to finally convince him of his error.

Science does not happen over night, and even in the relatively MATURE science of physics, that is much speculation and error in the frontier science. In a very young science like genetics and psychology, there is even a greater amount of error in that realm.

To say that we know anything at all about homosexuality is questionable. To base public policy on the existing "scientific facts" as they exist now might be very irresponsible.

The public forum.

Cevera1 said: How can a group who represent just 3% of the population have such disproportionate power, that they can influence the outcome of medical research, as well as the political agenda for the entire United States?

The political issue is not simply about homosexuals verses the rest of us. I am guessing that the majority of people who rec your posts and you yourself are not homosexual, but the very fact that you advocate a certain public policy that is the same public policy for which another group advocates means there is certainly more than the 3% involved. Everything is based on one's perception of what is right based on ones understanding of the "facts". Those predisposed to advocate for rights of individuals to live their lives unhindered by others will wish to see homosexuals receive acceptance in society, but that is based on the belief that homosexuality is normal. That question of Normal is all important. My guess is that you nor most who advocate for homosexual acceptance have actually researched the issue in depth. This is not an accusation, this is a reality of American politics. I freely admit that I hold scores of opinions on topics for which I have totally relied upon consumer information outlets as my only data source. In almost every case where I have dug deeper, I have discovered that I was very mistaken about the assumptions that I held. Therefore, my contention is that consumer media plays a HUGE role in defining perception about what is true and not true. It is also true that most of us will strongly defend our position on any topic based more on or faith and trust in the rightness of it rather than based on the actual data we have researched for ourselves.

Taking all that into consideration as well as the understanding of the above section on the reliability of emerging science that is published in scientific journals, explain to me why the media made such fanfare of the report in 1993 that purported to have found a gay gene? How often do major publications make headline stores of scientific publications? Almost never. Why did THIS study get such attention? Because it purported to support what a large number of social activists wanted it to support. If a study came out that showed that homosexuality in men is highly influenced by the dysfunctionality of their relationships with their fathers, and in some part their mothers, it would not get such attention. This research exists, by the way, but you did not hear it on NPR. Why? Because it does not further the political agenda. One does not have to assert that those who publish these stories are being purposefully dishonest. They believe in certain values and ideals, and they will naturally present data consistent with those ideals because they KNOW the rightness of them. There is not intent to trick. However, there is still bias, and that bias is very important in setting the tone of the American political landscape.

Why does perception matter? "There is, however, another reason why homosexual activists are pushing unproved theories for a genetic cause for homosexuality: they have research which shows that people who believe that homosexuality has a genetic cause are more likely to support homosexual rights. "

Here is a commentary on the "gay gene" issue:

http://www.stonewallrevisited.com/issues/gene.html

Also attached is the research on environmental factors involved in homosexuality (Note it is extremely long and detailed):

http://www.fathersforlife.org/dale/child1.html

Homosexaulity: Disease or normal

Coralville said:
But the burden of proof is on those who wish to have it classified as a disease. If the current classification is in error for political reasons as you claim, then you should be able to make a convincing case that it is harmful...go to it. If the evidence isn't there of causing harm, then what right does society have of calling homosexuals sick or deviant? And what does the possibility of there being a "genetic FACTOR" have to do with calling homosexuality a disease? Afterall, there are genetic factors for intelligence and hair color.


Classifying as a disease is a political hot potato. Whether it is correct or not, to do so would result in significant press and notoriety for those in the medical profession who would support that change. So, while you and I might want things to be "right" with respect to a disease, when politics enters the arena, we have to understand that those people who actually have to make the decision would be subject to much negative publicity that they would not wish to have. We cannot rely simply on the fact that it has been declassified and not subsequently reclassified. The issue is simply too hot. However, I can add some interesting data to the mix:

"Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, the prominent psychiatrist who led the team that deleted homosexuality from the diagnostic manual in 1973, now says homosexuality may be changeable. 'Like most psychiatrists,' said Dr. Spitzer, 'I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted—but that no one could really change their sexual orientation. I now believe that's untrue—some people can and do change'. To the researcher's surprise, good heterosexual functioning was reportedly achieved by 67 percent of men who had rarely or never felt any opposite-sex attraction before the change process. 'Contrary to conventional wisdom,' Spitzer concluded, 'some highly motivated individuals, using a variety of change efforts, can make substantial change in multiple indicators of sexual orientation and achieve good heterosexual functioning.' 'I'm convinced from the people I have interviewed, that for many of them, they have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual . . . I think that's news . . . I came to this study skeptical, I now claim that these changes can be sustained.' Other professionals have reported a range from 50 to 70 percent success rate in the treatment of unwanted homosexual attraction. Findings such as these have prompted some professionals to admit that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation through a variety of change efforts."

It appears that Spitzer was incorrect in his understanding in 1973. Of course, maybe he was right then and wrong now? Who knows? I would say that we are far from understanding this issue. However, we are forming opinions, public policy and medical decisions based on incomplete data. I'm not saying we should never decide until we have all the facts, but when politics enters the picture, science takes a back seat, and that is where the tragedy lies.

The following link (same as above) will explain why homosexuality is not like left handedness, blue eyes or hair color.

http://www.stonewallrevisited.com/issues/gene.html


The changing landscape of relative morality

Coralville said: I guess I have more faith in the rationality of the average person and the checks and balances of a representative democracy. In any case, it runs counter to my sense of morality to let fear of a slippery slope justify putting unfair restrictions or labels on a minority group.

The checks and balances of representative democracy has nothing to do with the ever changing perception of people as to what is right or wrong. Over a long period of time, what was considered immoral can then be considered normal simply by the slow erosion of viewpoints. In the 1950's what one would have considered decent dress, decent sexual activity, decent depictions of sexuality in music, movies and TV is vastly different from today. In those days, Elvis Presley was considered obscene. Today he is quaint. If you were there during that time period and were a social progressive, you might have felt that what he was doing was relatively harmless as long as he didn't grab his crotch or sing about rape. However, if you were then teleported to 2004, you would probably be instantly transformed into a right-wing, stiff-necked, conservative, reactionary. The 1950's progressive would have had no intention of things progressing as far as they have today, but that is the inherent nature of progressiveness. One is a progressive until such time as the progression has moved beyond them and they become a conservative. There is no static point. It moves with each barrier broken down. As the envelope is pushed, someone else comes along who wants it pushed a little farther. Progressiveness is an insatiable beast because it must progress. So, what you consider normal and abnormal today will not remain that way tomorrow. Without a check on the progress, it would move even faster. After all, you are probably of the mind set that it takes too long for things to happen as it is. But, if it weren't for all those a right-wing, stiff-necked, conservative, reactionaries, things like pedophelia would already be common.

Here is a link that shows that the slide has already begun:

http://www.upress.umn.edu/Books/L/levine_harmful.html

This is how it starts. It has been published, you can find it at Amazon.com, and it has already received positive response in some areas. In a few years, others will join the band wagon. Expect in your lifetime for that to be as hot a topic as homosexuality is today.

Here are some other "professionals" supporting adult sexual relations with children:

"In 1981, Dr. Theo Sandfort, co-director of the research program of the Department of Gay and Lesbian Studies at the University of Utrecht, Netherlands, interviewed 25 boys aged 10 to 16 who were currently involved in sexual relationships with adult men. The interviews took place in the homes of the men.
According to Sandfort, "For virtually all the boys ... the sexual contact itself was experienced positively..." Could an adult-child sexual contact, then, truly be called positive for the child? Based on the research presented, Sandfort answered that question in the affirmative."

In 1990, the campaign to legalize man-boy sex was furthered by the publication of a two-issue special of the Journal on Homosexuality, reissued as Male Intergenerational Intimacy: Historical, Socio-Psychological, and Legal Perspectives.
In the forward, Gunter Schmidt decries discrimination against and persecution of pedophiles, and describes
"successful pedophile relationships which help and encourage the child, even though the child often agrees to sex while really seeking comfort and affection. These are often emotionally deprived, deeply lonely, socially isolated children who seek, as it were, a refuge in an adult's love and for whom, because of their misery, see it as a stroke of luck to have found such an 'enormously nurturant relationship'."

The same volume contains an article by Robert Bauserman-co-author of the A.P.A. study--which complains that objective research is impossible in a social climate that condemns man-boy sexual relationships. Bauserman decries the prevailing ideology that labels all boys as "victims" and all adult pedophiles as "perpetrators." He attacks researchers Mzarek and Finkelhor as being driven by a "particular set of beliefs about adult-juvenile sex." Bauserman looks for a new "scientific objectivity," with the explicit call for research that will challenge the social-moral taboo against adult/child sex. The meta-analysis which he co-authored, and which the American Psychological Association published, can be seen as Bauserman's follow-up to his Journal of Homosexuality article.

Harris Mirkin recently wrote a lead article in the Journal of Homosexuality entitled "The Pattern of Sexual Politics: Feminism, Homosexuality and Pedophilia." Using social-constructionist theory, he argues that the concept of child molestation is a "culture- and class-specific creation" which can and should be changed.
He likens the battle for the legalization of pedophilia to the battles for women's rights, homosexual rights, and even the civil rights of blacks.
He sees the hoped-for shift as taking place in two stages. During the first stage, the opponents of pedophilia control the debate by insisting that the issue is non-negotiable--while using psychological and moral categories to silence all discussion.
But in the second stage, Mirkin says, the discussion must move on to such issues as the "right" of children to have and enjoy sex.
If this paradigm shift could be accomplished, the issue would move from the moral to the political arena, and therefore become open to negotiation. For example, rather than decrying sexual abuse, lawmakers would be forced to argue about when and under what conditions adult/child sex could be accepted. Once the issues becomes "discussible," it would only be a matter of time before the public would begin to view pedophilia as another sexual orientation, and not a choice for the pedophile.

Conclusion:

We cannot rely on "frontier" science to settle the debate as to whether homosexuality is normal or something to be treated. We need to be careful of the strong political overtones in this issue when deciding public policy based on science that is not properly vetted.

Additional resources regarding psychiatric work regarding factors involved in the development of homosexuality.

http://www.fathersforlife.org/dale/change1.html

http://www.fathersforlife.org/dale/genetic.html

Ron


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: coralville Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104840 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/12/2004 6:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
That's a very nice post and I agree with your conclusion:

We cannot rely on "frontier" science to settle the debate as to whether homosexuality is normal or something to be treated. We need to be careful of the strong political overtones in this issue when deciding public policy based on science that is not properly vetted.

My conclusion from this cautionary statement is that we should not restrict the personal freedoms of individuals unless we are certain they represent a danger to themselves or to society. Therefore, we should not restrict the rights and privilieges of homosexuals or categorize them in a negative way without clear, objective, and overwhelming reasons. Otherwise we risk inflicting the same prejudice-based injustices endured by so many groups for so many years.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Umm Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104841 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/12/2004 6:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
"Would you consider it a smear of Christianity if someone called Christianity the religion of murder and terrorism due to the actions of Eric Rudolph? I would, and I am betting you would. They would be wrong just like your smear of Islam and homosexuals."

"This is trolling, and a smear of a valid comparison."

This is not trolling. I said myself that it would be an incorrect conclusion, twice (I was consciously trying to reinforce the fact I thought it was wrong). I just applied your same incorrect logic to a group which was closer to home hoping it would be easier for you to see the problems of the logic if the subject was familiar. This doesn't even come close to trolling, I used your same method of argument.

Defend it however you wish, but it boils down to this, you tried to smear, whitewash, label, stereotype, or whatever you want to call it two whole groups of people with negative behavior. I called you on it. Even though there are plenty of individuals within each of those two groups who do not exhibit the negative behavior you associated with them , this means nothing to you.

If point out poor/wrong methods of argument makes you label me a troll it is fine by me as I believe I have shown that you seem to throw out plenty of labels improperly.

"You may respond as you wish"

Gee thanks. Generous of you to grant that which you have no control over.

"but I consider this an end to your part of the thread."

That is ironic considering that this sub-discussion started over you mentioning closed objects.

I will gladly continue this discussion if you wish but I will also understand completely if you do not. Good day. May God grant you peace, goodwill, and the power to see beyond simple labels.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Umm Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104842 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/12/2004 6:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"My conclusion from this cautionary statement is that we should not restrict the personal freedoms of individuals unless we are certain they represent a danger to themselves or to society. Therefore, we should not restrict the rights and privilieges of homosexuals or categorize them in a negative way without clear, objective, and overwhelming reasons. Otherwise we risk inflicting the same prejudice-based injustices endured by so many groups for so many years."

Coralville I was a long time ago lurker/remote fan of your posts. So even though it has been awhile since I have seen/read one of your posts, you still have the power to make me shake my head in amazement by expressing the same exact sentiment I am feeling but stating it a much more thoughtful, logical, and concise way than I could ever hope to do myself.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104843 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/12/2004 6:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Eyago: "Classifying as a disease is a political hot potato. Whether it is correct or not, to do so would result in significant press and notoriety for those in the medical profession who would support that change. So, while you and I might want things to be "right" with respect to a disease, when politics enters the arena, we have to understand that those people who actually have to make the decision would be subject to much negative publicity that they would not wish to have. We cannot rely simply on the fact that it has been declassified and not subsequently reclassified. The issue is simply too hot. However, I can add some interesting data to the mix:

"Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, the prominent psychiatrist who led the team that deleted homosexuality from the diagnostic manual in 1973, now says homosexuality may be changeable. 'Like most psychiatrists,' said Dr. Spitzer, 'I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted—but that no one could really change their sexual orientation. I now believe that's untrue—some people can and do change'. To the researcher's surprise, good heterosexual functioning was reportedly achieved by 67 percent of men who had rarely or never felt any opposite-sex attraction before the change process. 'Contrary to conventional wisdom,' Spitzer concluded, 'some highly motivated individuals, using a variety of change efforts, can make substantial change in multiple indicators of sexual orientation and achieve good heterosexual functioning.' 'I'm convinced from the people I have interviewed, that for many of them, they have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual . . . I think that's news . . . I came to this study skeptical, I now claim that these changes can be sustained.' Other professionals have reported a range from 50 to 70 percent success rate in the treatment of unwanted homosexual attraction. Findings such as these have prompted some professionals to admit that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation through a variety of change efforts."

It appears that Spitzer was incorrect in his understanding in 1973. Of course, maybe he was right then and wrong now? Who knows? I would say that we are far from understanding this issue."


Or could he be correct in both? You have written as if it is an either/or dichotomy. I guess it in part depends upo how you define disease (and/or mental illness).

Regards, JAFO

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Eyago Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104844 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/12/2004 7:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
coralville,

You and I are not that far apart in many ways becuase our underlying sentiment is for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all persons. No one should suffer from abuse, hate, attacks (physical or verbal), or certain forms of discrimination.

Whether homosexuality is genetically hard-wired, geneitcally influenced, caused by environment or simply a matter of conscious choice has no bearing on proper respect for them as a human being (nor, BTW should it have any effect on Christian doctrine regarding sin, but that is a different topic).

What does matter is the impact that certain policies have on the population at large.

My conclusion from this cautionary statement is that we should not restrict the personal freedoms of individuals unless we are certain they represent a danger to themselves or to society. Therefore, we should not restrict the rights and privilieges of homosexuals or categorize them in a negative way without clear, objective, and overwhelming reasons. Otherwise we risk inflicting the same prejudice-based injustices endured by so many groups for so many years.

Persons in this country are generally free to be homosexual and even practice same sex (with some exceptions, but let's stick to the general idea.) But when you use the phrase "rights and privileges" what exactly do you mean? That is where I think we will find differences.

When you say "categorize them in a negative way", what are you saying there?

When you say we "risk inflicting...prejudicial based injustices" do you mean to say that disagreeing with someone is tatamount to persecuting them? Do they have to be fully "accepted" to be free from prejudice or should we deal with the prejudice of the person and not the object of their prejudice?

When you say: "unless we are certain they represent a danger to themselves or to society" what do you consider a danger? Is there a less strong term or alternate term besides danger that would be better descriptive of what we really want? For instance, some of our laws exist to encourage certain behaviors that are beneficial to society as a whole not because of any danger or threat posed but because either the encouragement of or the discouragement of alternate behavior is considered positive. For example, we have tax deductions for those who pay interest on their home mortgages to encourage home ownership. Is anyone in danger if everybody rented rahter than purchased their living quarters?

Is the compulsive gambler a danger to himself? Should we enact laws for his benefit anyway? Should we make laws to validate his lifestyle? Should we make sure he is not discriminated aganst based on that condition? Is he a harm to himself? Should we care? Should we classify his condition as one needing therapy? Does it hurt him in any way that we do so or is it to his benefit that we classify it so?

I throw all these out because they are germaine to our treatment of homosexuality. True that homosexuals have received significant discrimination and hate, but that is an issue of hate, and not of governemnt validation or lack thereof regarding their sexual preference and choice of sexual partners.

Do laws that encourage the traditional family benefit the country as a whole? Do children benefit from having a mom and a dad? Is there no, little, some, or a lot of effect on children who are raised without one parent? The answer to that question is relavent because "privileges" in this country are things like benifits, and tax breaks and other incentives that help the fmaily. If they are no longer used to help just the family but help any person, pair, or group of people who want to declare themselves a family, then they are of no use and become simply a weird way of government to take money and give it back with no rhyme or reason. If homosexuals can marry, and adopt, does it or does it not impact the children? Who should we be more concerned about while we wait for the facts to come in? The adult homosexuals who want to have children, or the children themselves?

When we consider danger, do we consider the high risk sexual activity of homosexuals and the highly disproportional instances of STDs? Do we consider the higher rates of subsance abuse? Do we consider the higher rates of suicide and attempted suicide (Note that studies on these issues have shown that the rates of substance abuse and suicide in the gay community are virtually identical in populations where the practice is generally accepted like San Francisco and New York City as it is in places where it is not as tolerated, suggesting a low correlation of "ostracization" and persecution for the behavior.) Additionally, do we consider the exteremely high rates of infidelity and multiple partner activities of homosexual "couples" as harmful? If these things ARE harmful, are we being irresponsible as a society by affirming thier right to harm themsleves when there are possiblities to impact behavior that leads to negative results?

Finaly, is the stable, hetoersexual marriage the ideal place to raise children? If so, the next question is, does it benefit society as a whole to have children raised in such an environment? If so, should the government (society itself) encourage the formation and the stability of those family arrangements? If so, to what extent should those arrangements be encouraged? And if they are to be encouraged, should we encourage alternative family arrangements? If so, what kinds, to what extent? If so, does it become counter-productive to to encourage anything if all things are "equally valid"?

Ron

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Eyago Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104845 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/12/2004 7:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
JAFO,

Or could he be correct in both? You have written as if it is an either/or dichotomy. I guess it in part depends upo how you define disease (and/or mental illness).

It seems to me that his statement is, in effect saying that he was wrong at one level back in 1973. I will not go so far as to say that HE believes he should not have declassified it, I can only point out that he changed his mind with respect to its treatability. He says he was wrong about that in 1973. Had he known that it was treatable would he have tried to have it removed as a disease? I can't say at this time. My biased opinion is that he probably declassified due to his belief that if it could not be cured it is not a disease. That can be somewhat supported by the way he positioned his updated stance on the issue, but it IS still speculation on my part. I'm still looking into his more recent statement to see if there is more that is relavent.

Ron

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Eyago Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104846 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/12/2004 8:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
coralville,

That's a very nice post

I appreciate it and give you kudos for you willingness to do so.

Ron

Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104847 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/12/2004 8:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
That, Eyago, was the hardest earned 4 current recs that I have ever seen. Thanks with a bow to the post of the as yet young year.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104851 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/12/2004 11:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
"Defend it however you wish, but it boils down to this, you tried to smear, whitewash, label, stereotype, or whatever you want to call it two whole groups of people with negative behavior. "

I suspect that you actually *do* understand the difference between the actions of an individual and the institutional actions of an organized hierarchy. Which pretty much makes the rest of your posts in this thread vis a vis Islam disingenuous. Unless of course you do not understand that distinction, in which case I apologize and suggest you acquaint yourself with that difference.

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Umm Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104852 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/13/2004 12:23 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
"I suspect that you actually *do* understand the difference between the actions of an individual and the institutional actions of an organized hierarchy."

Yes I do. Good guess.

"Which pretty much makes the rest of your posts in this thread vis a vis Islam disingenuous."

No it doesn't. Not at all. Because even with respect to institutions, there are plenty of Islamic and homosexual groups (can't forget that smear either...) which do not practice nor preach the negative behavior indicated. All of my logic and reasoning with respect to individuals applies just as soundly to institutions as well.

As a simple counterpoint, please answer this question. Who is the person (or what institution) is the head (ultimate) governing body that dictates policy for Islam worldwide? Who is this person (or institution) which has dictated that all of Islam exhibit this closed behavior? These are trick questions of course, simply because there isn't one singular indiviual or institution. There are many groups (and individuals) who set policy within their various sects, countries, or whatever appropriate division. Each is different in their intrepretations and exact beliefs. I will grant that within Islam there are some groups (perhaps even a majority) who display the negative, closed behavior mentioned, but there are many who do not.

Unfortuntely, these groups get whitewashed with the same brush he used to smear everyone in the group.

The same logic applies to homosexuals as well. Attributing negative behavior to stereotypes, labels, or general groups is usually an indication of intellectual laziness and usually ends up being wrong. It is generally a logically poor method of argument, as I showed.

"Unless of course you do not understand that distinction, in which case I apologize and suggest you acquaint yourself with that difference."

Yep. About what I expected.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: coralville Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104853 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/13/2004 12:32 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
When you say we "risk inflicting...prejudicial based injustices" do you mean to say that disagreeing with someone is tatamount to persecuting them?

Nope. I mean the injustice of passing laws that prejudicially restricts a minority's freedom to work, live, and pursue happiness.

When you say: "unless we are certain they represent a danger to themselves or to society" what do you consider a danger?

Ultimately the criteria used to justify restricting a person's or group's freedoms are socially defined and limited by the constitution. For example, we pass laws against pedophilia because of the danger to children. I see no evidence that homosexuals who only have relationships with consenting adults represent an equivalent danger.

For instance, some of our laws exist to encourage certain behaviors that are beneficial to society as a whole not because of any danger or threat posed but because either the encouragement of or the discouragement of alternate behavior is considered positive.

Such laws do not restrict freedoms so I don't have much of a problem with them, other than the question of whether they are an effective use of tax dollars. In this regard, I would think allowing same-sex marriage would encourage monogamy in homosexual relationships, which strikes me as a good thing. Yet it seems an unusually contentious issue.

Is the compulsive gambler a danger to himself? Should we enact laws for his benefit anyway?

The key word here is compulsive. This term has a medical meaning indicating an illness. I don't think we should enact laws to encourage compulsion.

If homosexuals can marry, and adopt, does it or does it not impact the children? Who should we be more concerned about while we wait for the facts to come in? The adult homosexuals who want to have children, or the children themselves?

The question is whether a child is better off in an orphanage or temporary foster home than in a stable homosexual relationship. I'm no expert on this so this is just an opinion but I suspect it is the latter. I think the choice should be based on what is best for the child (as opposed to the homosexual couple or for that matter, any religious group.

When we consider danger, do we consider the high risk sexual activity of homosexuals...

Sure, in the same way we consider the danger of divorce, wife-beating, and infidelity in heterosexuals, the high rates of alcoholism in Indian reservations, drug use among members of the entertainment industry, etc., etc.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104854 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/13/2004 1:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
"Yes I do. Good guess."

"All of my logic and reasoning with respect to individuals applies just as soundly to institutions as well."


Given these two statements I wonder if there is any point in taking this any further. If you truly see no difference between the actions of a single person and the actions of the governments of numerous nations I wonder if we have anything to discuss.

"Ahh, the old "use the extremists to smear the whole group" trick. "

"I will grant that within Islam there are some groups (perhaps even a majority) who display the negative, closed behavior mentioned, but there are many who do not."


What is it, the extremists or "perhaps a majority"? I'm sure you are not saying that "perhaps a majority" of Muslims are extremists?

But since you positively assert there are many groups within Islam who do not display the negative closed behavior mentioned perhaps you would care to share your knowledge of who they are with us? And of course to be relevant they should be places where Muslims have the numbers and political power to display this behavior, namely control of the government or a majority of the population in the country. Muslims in the US wouldn't count, for example, because even if they wanted to display this behavior they have neither the numbers nor the political power to do so.

Maybe katinga is wrong and you can make a case that it is not true that in the vast majority of cases where Muslims can display this behavior they do. It is my understanding that it is a tenet of the faith that one who leaves and becomes apostate should forfeit all civil rights and be subject to severe punishment. Prove us both wrong.

And FWIW, I intentionally limited my initial response to the case of Islam. I am not interested in getting into the situation of gays.

God bless,

Rich

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104856 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/13/2004 9:51 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Maybe katinga is wrong and you can make a case that it is not true that in the vast majority of cases where Muslims can display this behavior they do. It is my understanding that it is a tenet of the faith that one who leaves and becomes apostate should forfeit all civil rights and be subject to severe punishment. Prove us both wrong.

And prove the same thing wrt mainline homosexual organizations. Give us a link to several that explicitly support homosexuals going into reparative therapy.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: Umm Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104858 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/13/2004 11:35 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
"If you truly see no difference between the actions of a single person and the actions of the governments of numerous nations I wonder if we have anything to discuss."

Wow. Nice twist of my words. I said I can see the difference between individuals and groups/institutions/nations, but that in this case is doesn't matter. Read what Katinga said. He didn't make a distinction to groups or individuals. He smeared all of Islam. He didn't say "Keeping the boundaries of ones group closed. Hmm. Sounds like Iranian Mullahs." or "Keeping the boundaries of ones group closed. Hmm. Sounds Sunni.". He said "Keeping the boundaries of ones group closed. Hmm. Sounds Islamist.". You would be offended by someone making a blanket derogatory statement about Christians, even if such a statement fit a majority of Christians. Rightly so, because it is insulting to those who don't fit. Why is it any different when making blanket derogatory statements about Islamists?

"What is it, the extremists or "perhaps a majority"?"

It doesn't matter. There exists at least some who don't fit the description.

"But since you positively assert there are many groups within Islam who do not display the negative closed behavior mentioned perhaps you would care to share your knowledge of who they are with us? And of course to be relevant they should be places where Muslims have the numbers and political power to display this behavior, namely control of the government or a majority of the population in the country. Muslims in the US wouldn't count, for example, because even if they wanted to display this behavior they have neither the numbers nor the political power to do so."

Huh? Why are you putting all sorts of restrictions on who I can and cannot use as examples of Islamists who do not fit the description? That was my whole point. Katinga didn't use any words to restrict his description to a certain group. He blasted all Islamists. So it appears you are providing your own examples of where his desription doesn't fit but aren't allowing me to use them.

What was the word you used... oh yeah... disingenuous.

"And FWIW, I intentionally limited my initial response to the case of Islam. I am not interested in getting into the situation of gays."

Well, since I made it quite clear my arguments were in reference to homosexuals as well, don't you think it is kind of silly or unfair to attack them as "disingenuous" and suggent I aquaint myself with some knowledge and then say "I am not interested in getting into" that?

" It is my understanding that it is a tenet of the faith that one who leaves and becomes apostate should forfeit all civil rights and be subject to severe punishment."

Severe punishment like eternal damnation? Does this mean you are saying Christianity is a closed system?

Just as there are many Christians who are accepting of those who leave the faith, there are Islamists who are accepting of those who leave. You are asking me to meet a challenge that you have defined in a way that Christianity would fail. What was that word again...

Oh right... Disingenuous.




Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104862 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/13/2004 2:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Ron,

First, let me say that the amount of time and effort you put into your post is appreciated. I always enjoy discussing issues with someone who takes the time to research their claims and provide logical evidence for their views.

Having said that, I must state that while I agree with just about every item you placed in your post, I disagree with it as a whole. I want to make it clear that I think that your stance on a great many of the topics we have discussed are not all that different from mine. Of course I could be wrong.......

On science, research, and methodology

I agree on just about every example of poor research you placed in this section. To go one step further, I would mention that I am a big fan of Richard Feynman. An excellent scientist, who would ruthlessly point out flaws in research (If you aren't aware he conducted the investigation on the Challenger explosion). Some of his stories on research are even more hair raising than the ones you included.

There were two things I felt that you did not emphasize directly in this section. The first being that scientists attack each others theories and research mercilessly. They are the ones that police their own, so to speak. The fact that science can tolerate change, and adapt theories when new data is presented, is one of it's strongest assets. There are no sacred cows. In fact, people who can refute well respected theories and scientific beliefs will soon have fame and fortune on their doorstep.

The second item I felt you didn't present well was a direct answer to coralville's question:
So what criteria would you use to classify homosexuality? And if you reject "experts" and current research as being politically driven then where do you get your facts from?

If research is suspect, where do you get your facts from? If I missed it in your post, please point it out.

To say that we know anything at all about homosexuality is questionable. To base public policy on the existing "scientific facts" as they exist now might be very irresponsible.

Socrates was very good at arguing that people, did not in fact, know anything. Lets say I agree with your statement. If we do not know anything at all about homosexuality, why is there such a problem? Are you stating that only science does not have any valid knowledge of homosexuality? Or are you including groups of people who just state their opinion that "homosexuality is wrong". Why would the Pope have any better opinion on the causes of homosexuality; that in fact it isn't genetic? That it's strictly a choice? That all homosexuals need help and that they can be cured?

If he doesn't have these answers, and I'm quite sure he doesn't, why would he speak out publicly against homosexuality without understanding all of the issues involved? Would you agree that to base public policy on peoples 'beliefs' that homosexuality is inherently wrong, who themselves cannot rule out that there might in fact be a genetic link to this behavior, might be very irresponsible?

I am in a time crunch right now. I will attempt to respond to the rest of your post as time permits. I feel obligated, as you put a lot of thought in it.

thanks
cliff








Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: andryia Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104863 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/13/2004 3:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
He blasted all Islamists

FWIW, Kat makes a distinction between Muslims and Islamists. He defines Islamists as those who punish people for converting or even listening to other points of view. So an Islamist, for example, would favor censorship of any anti-Muslim materials.

Kat is saying that Islamists are, by definition, a type of "thought police."

He explained his distinction in a thread several weeks ago.

Andrea

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Eyago Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104878 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/13/2004 6:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
I must say that I am feeling a little frustrated about this discussion thread. I am not trying to make accusations aginst those I am debating against such as coralville or cevera1, it's just that things seem a bit unbalanced. In one way I am unhappy about the fact that I take a goodly amount of time to back up my points with clear reasoning, and at times with thorough references while others who reply to me can make general unsupported statements and recieve the approval of at least 8 other people (as of this reply) in the form of recs.

While it is fine to say things along the lines of "I support this view", or "I think this is right" and it is fine for others to say "hear, hear" in the form of recs, it seems unfair that one side is backing up his claims wile other is allowed to take on the "assumption of fact". I would like to see others in the debate or those who "vote" in favor of their position provide some supporting material. I'll try to be specific where.

As for your last reply (Coralville) you answered the least important questions, questions that were used more rhetorically, as a lead up to the real questions that you did not address. No blame to you, I didn't specify what I wanted so you had no expectation. However, I would like to address both the points you made and reiterate some of the other questions that you did not answer:

First:

I asked: When you say we "risk inflicting...prejudicial based injustices" do you mean to say that disagreeing with someone is tatamount to persecuting them?

Coralville replied Nope. I mean the injustice of passing laws that prejudicially restricts a minority's freedom to work, live, and pursue happiness.

Are there any specific laws you are referring to and in what way (if not obvious in the description itself) might they be restrictive? I'll hold any questions regarding whether restrictive is too loose a term. Laws that discriminate against those with epilepsy from driving cars is disciminating against a legally proteted class, those with disabilities, but that does not mean it is wrong to make that distiction.

I think the more important question was the second one I asked:

Do they have to be fully "accepted" to be free from prejudice or should we deal with the prejudice of the person and not the object of their prejudice?

This is a very important part of the debate when we attempt to legislate a problem away. Where should the focus be?

Second:

I said:When you say: "unless we are certain they represent a danger to themselves or to society" what do you consider a danger?

Coralville replied: Ultimately the criteria used to justify restricting a person's or group's freedoms are socially defined and limited by the constitution. For example, we pass laws against pedophilia because of the danger to children. I see no evidence that homosexuals who only have relationships with consenting adults represent an equivalent danger.

This seems to be a different approach than previous statements used:

You said previously: For homosexuality to be considered a disease, it would have to be demonstrated that it harms the individual or prevents the individual from functioning happily in society.

And:Therefore, to restrict homosexual behavior one must first demonstrate that such behavior causes harm to the consenting adults involved or to society in general.

Earlier you said the issue is whether the impact is to society and themselves. Your current reply limits that (by referring to pedophelia) to only harming society. I have made arguments pointing out that homosexuality is strongly linked to many self-harmful activities. However, I can also provide some links that homosexuals are also harmful to other homosexuals. For example:

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet4.html

I would be surprised if you could argue that violence among consenting adults is not the concern of the state.

Third:

Such laws do not restrict freedoms so I don't have much of a problem with them, other than the question of whether they are an effective use of tax dollars. In this regard, I would think allowing same-sex marriage would encourage monogamy in homosexual relationships, which strikes me as a good thing. Yet it seems an unusually contentious issue.

This is one case where I would like to see some kind of real support for your position that marriage would encourage monogamy. That is a very nice sentiment, but unless there is some substantial proof that changing the definition of marriage, which has existed pretty much throughout the recorded history of mankind, would be of any real benefit, I would suggest that it would be a very bad legislation.

Here are some quotes from the homosexual community itself regarding marriage and monogamous relationships:

"Activist Paula Ettelbrick, currently policy director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, formerly legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund (formerly the Lambda Legal Defense Fund), is tactically "for" same-sex "marriage," but shares these caveats:

Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so.... Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society....

As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women.... In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly.... We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality.{214}"
...
"Former Lambda Legal Defense Fund president Thomas Stoddard also expresses lukewarm support for same-sex "marriages":

I must confess at the outset that I am no fan of the "institution" of marriage as currently constructed and practiced.... Why give it such prominence? Why devote resources to such a distant goal? Because marriage is, I believe, the political issue that most fully tests the dedication of people who are not gay to full equality for gay people, and also the issue most likely to lead ultimately to a world free of discrimination against lesbians and gay men.{215}"
...
"In his 1990 book An End to Shame: Shaping Our Next Sexual Revolution... sociologist Ira Reiss describes... "a true sexual democracy [in which] all of us can achieve a much higher level of well-being -- an ability to satisfy one's sexual interests without guilt or anxiety...."
Reiss points out that extending the social privileges associated with marriage to homosexuals and unmarried couples would be a major step toward the establishment of that "sexual democracy":
We should develop some kind of religious and civic ceremony that will sanctify and recognize a non-marital love relationship between two gays, two lesbians, or two straights. The registration of domestic partners so they may claim legal rights of inheritance and health benefits is a step in this direction which some cities have taken. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation must join the list of forbidden discrimination like race, religion, and creed.
Unlike some... Reiss is refreshingly candid about the totalitarian nature of the reforms he recommends: "To build [sexual] pluralism we must firmly root out the narrow thinking about sex that exists in all of our basic institutions -- family, political, economic, religious and educational. We need to change our whole basic social institutional structure...."{216}"

Full link to the above quotes:

http://www.leaderu.com/marco/marriage/gaymarriage5.html#scrutiny

Here is some information that will shed light on the entire set of ramifications on the redefinition of marriage. This is actually from New Zealand, but there is no material differnce between their treatment of the issue and what is occuring in the US.

http://www.fathersforlife.org/doc/Same-sex_couples_sub_NZEDF.pdf

Fouth:

I said: Is the compulsive gambler a danger to himself? Should we enact laws for his benefit anyway?

Coralville replied: The key word here is compulsive. This term has a medical meaning indicating an illness. I don't think we should enact laws to encourage compulsion.

Again, this was just a leadup question. I thought that I had pretty much debunked the idea that we can get any real truth on the issue of homsexuality as pathology in this environment, we then are risking significant long term effects on the basis of an unkonwn status. If research eventually re-establishes that homosexuality is pathology, where will we be once the laws have been passed?

My final 2 questions were: Should we classify his condition as one needing therapy? Does it hurt him in any way that we do so or is it to his benefit that we classify it so?

So, if we misclassify homosexuality by saying it is not a pathology when, in fact it is, what harm are we doing to the homosexual?

Fifth:

The question is whether a child is better off in an orphanage or temporary foster home than in a stable homosexual relationship. I'm no expert on this so this is just an opinion but I suspect it is the latter. I think the choice should be based on what is best for the child (as opposed to the homosexual couple or for that matter, any religious group.

I have to make a very strong objection on this one. In this case, I think the burden of proof MUST go the other way. If we are going to protect the children, we must be much more certain that we are not doing them MORE harm. It is a very nice sentiment that you have, but without SUBSTANTIAL proof that it would not harm the child we simply should not be hastily going down that path. The number of adoptive capable homosexual couples is not large enough to make a significant impact on the orphan population, but the risks to those children are quite high. I ask you to provide me with some proof that this is demonstatably in the best interest of the children rather than just a keen idea in concept.

Sixth:

I said: When we consider danger, do we consider the high risk sexual activity of homosexuals...

You replied: Sure, in the same way we consider the danger of divorce, wife-beating, and infidelity in heterosexuals, the high rates of alcoholism in Indian reservations, drug use among members of the entertainment industry, etc., etc.

Except if homosexuality is as much a symptom of the problem as the suicide, depression, violence, multiple sexual partners, etc. This goes back to my earlier point. We do not do them any favors by ignoring the potential causes and treatments for homosexuality simply because it is politically expedient to do so. If we cannot...

no this is very important, let me emphasise it a bit more

If we cannot openly and freely research and debate the true causes of homosexuality and the corresponding issues like depression, violnce, drug use and other self-destructive behaviors, we would be doing a disservice to those suffereing from them. People might really believe that they are being a friend to the gay community by pushing for reform and legislation that allowes them to be treated as "normal", but absent the actual scientific substantiation of the claims means we run a huge risk of allowing them to continue in self-destructive behavior that could have been minimized or removed, all in the name of tolerance and diversity. Loving an alcoholic by allowing them to continue in their practice is call co-dependency. Sometimes love means intervening on their behalf, even when they don't want you to.

Here is a link to data regarding the impact of fatherlessness in society and how the lack of a proper father relationship im[acts children and leads to a lot of the issues that seem to be VERY prevalent in homosexuals even IF you completely ignore the homosexual part.

http://www.fathersforlife.org/articles/Baskerville/politicsoffatherhood.htm

Seventh:

I would like to re-ask this series of questions with the focus being on what society's responsibilities are to itself in light of marriage. I recommend you read the New Zealand link above in its entirety if you have not already/

Do laws that encourage the traditional family benefit the country as a whole? Do children benefit from having a mom and a dad? Is there no, little, some, or a lot of effect on children who are raised without one parent? The answer to that question is relavent because "privileges" in this country are things like benifits, and tax breaks and other incentives that help the family. If they are no longer used to help just the family but help any person, pair, or group of people who want to declare themselves a family, then they are of no use and become simply a weird way of government to take money and give it back with no rhyme or reason. If homosexuals can marry, and adopt, does it or does it not impact the children? Who should we be more concerned about while we wait for the facts to come in? The adult homosexuals who want to have children, or the children themselves?

Eight:

I would relaly like to see a well positioned argument as to what is exactly wrong with the way our laws exist now in terms of what rights homosexuals are not getting, what legislation we should pass to address those issues and a clear understanding of both the risks and benefits of said legislation. (I don't mean that you have to write it, links that show it are fine.) Simply saying that discrimination is bad let's pass a law is not going to cut it because it's not that simple.

Ron



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104880 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/13/2004 6:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Eyago,
I thought I was through when I posted. I guess I have to learn from the master.

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Eyago Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104881 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/13/2004 7:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Cevera1,

First, let me say that the amount of time and effort you put into your post is appreciated. I always enjoy discussing issues with someone who takes the time to research their claims and provide logical evidence for their views.

I have enjoyed the condor and the politeness both you and corlaville and am enjoying the exchange of ideas with both of you as well. Thanks

There were two things I felt that you did not emphasize directly in this section. The first being that scientists attack each others theories and research mercilessly. They are the ones that police their own, so to speak. The fact that science can tolerate change, and adapt theories when new data is presented, is one of it's strongest assets. There are no sacred cows. In fact, people who can refute well respected theories and scientific beliefs will soon have fame and fortune on their doorstep.

I felt I had covered the specific point being asked and did not want to quote my entire library verbatim. :-) I did not intend to mislead by not including concepts such as you cite above. Yes, part of the whole vetting process includes the debate among the scientific community. Science does eventually change, but I was trying to debunk the myth that as soon as a good idea comes along everybody recognizes it immediately and all is well. I was trying to show that it takes a long arduous process to bring the truth to the fore. There is inertia to oevercome, and bias, and political influence and many other factors that one does not immediately expect. But "truth will out." So, to explicitly answer a previous point of yours, science does get it right, but not at the frontier level. It takes years of refinement before a new concept makes it into the mainstream.

If research is suspect, where do you get your facts from? If I missed it in your post, please point it out.

In some ways I did not answer it explicitly. My contention was that research into the causes of homosexuality is frontier science and that it was heavily influcend by activism (I strongly affirm that it is from both sides of the issue, I do not want to say that one side holds all the blame). Where do we get our facts from? I contend that we have too few facts to render proper judgments but that in the political arena we are pressured to make those judgments in the form of legislation. My contention is that to make permanent decisions based on speculative science is bad policy.

If we do not know anything at all about homosexuality, why is there such a problem? Are you stating that only science does not have any valid knowledge of homosexuality? Or are you including groups of people who just state their opinion that "homosexuality is wrong". Why would the Pope have any better opinion on the causes of homosexuality; that in fact it isn't genetic? That it's strictly a choice? That all homosexuals need help and that they can be cured?

If he doesn't have these answers, and I'm quite sure he doesn't, why would he speak out publicly against homosexuality without understanding all of the issues involved? Would you agree that to base public policy on peoples 'beliefs' that homosexuality is inherently wrong, who themselves cannot rule out that there might in fact be a genetic link to this behavior, might be very irresponsible?


There are several points to be made here. as mentioned above, I am saying that science does not have sufficient knowledge to state whether homosexuality is genetically caused, or the result of multiple factors or simply a choice, much less able to determine if it is "normal" or not. That is a completely different position than what the Church is saying. The church contends, based on the belief that they have information from an authority that outranks the collective scientific community and is believed to be all-knowing, that the practice of homosexual acts is a sin against God. Whatever the cause of homoeroticism, the acts are a sin. We can debate the rightness or wrongness of the Church's position with respect to scripture or the fairness of God to make a homosexual and then deny him sexual fulillment, but that is a whole different issue. Whatever science concludes, the Church can still affirm doctrinal prohibitions against homosexual acts.

Note that I am not, that I, am not condemning homosexuals or even homosexual acts. However, the scripture that I believe in makes homosexual acts a sin (along with many other sins of which I am personally guilty.) What one does with it is their personal business between them and God, but if they want to tell me that God is OK with it, they will have a hard time. No one is hurt by my belief other than the fact that I will consider them as openly sinning against God and thus I am obligated to remove myself from fellowship with them. That is how I understand the scripture.

So, I can say homsexual acts are wrong without sacrificing my scientific curiosity into the actual causes of it. The treatment of homosexuals in the Church is based on Church doctrine, the treatment of homosexuals in society is based on what is best for the society as a whole, and the treatment of homosexuals by the medical community is based on science. None of them should be automatically contradictory and incompatible.

To address the specific question : "Would you agree that to base public policy on peoples 'beliefs' that homosexuality is inherently wrong, who themselves cannot rule out that there might in fact be a genetic link to this behavior, might be very irresponsible?"

Yes. It is just as irresponsible to base public policy on the 'beliefs' that homosexuality is inherently right, who themselves cannot rule out that there might in fact NOT be a genetic link to this behavior.

The problem is, that public policy is being CHANGED based on that very 'belief'. If you want to change poublic policy from what it is, the burden of proof is on you to show that the change is not detrimental to society as much as it is incumbant upon you to show that it is detrimental to society not to change it. Right now, I have not seen any proof that shows that it is neccessary and even more so that it will NOT harm society.

I know this is a very unpoular view on this forum (even in this board considering that pro-homosexual posts receive more recs than my posts), but I do not apologize for asking someone to back up thier position beyond the sound-bite level.

Ron

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104885 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/13/2004 9:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
"Well, since I made it quite clear my arguments were in reference to homosexuals as well, don't you think it is kind of silly or unfair to attack them as "disingenuous" and suggent I aquaint myself with some knowledge and then say "I am not interested in getting into" that?"

And I was even clearer in my first post in this thread that I was talking specifically about the Muslim issue. Why is it silly when enetering a discussion about the Mets and the Yankees to limit one's own participation to the Mets?

"Severe punishment like eternal damnation? Does this mean you are saying Christianity is a closed system?"

No Christian or group of Christians has it within their power to eternally damn anyone. That is done by the sinner themself and by God. You are once again trying to compare apples and oranges since we are talking about severe punishment inflicted by Muslim governments, i.e., people, and you bring up a punishment inflicted by God. You know this is a critical difference yet you try to make this silly point anyway.

You can have the last word because this exchange has convinced me that you aren't interested in discussion but rather making debating points. And you're not really very good at it.

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: coralville Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104895 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/14/2004 9:30 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
Eyago,

I must say that I am feeling a little frustrated about this discussion thread.

Sorry about your frustration but you have to admit your posts are extremely long, have many questions, and deal with many issues. Being a bit more focused would probably ease the frustration a bit.

My POV on this issue is not all that complicated or profound, largely because I'm not complicated or profound, so I think I can answer your 8-points quickly.

1. Are there any specific laws you are referring to and in what way (if not obvious in the description itself) might they be restrictive? and This is a very important part of the debate when we attempt to legislate a problem away. Where should the focus be?

You first have to demonstrate that homosexuality represents a problem. Your initial post claims we don't know anything about homosexuality because the research is tainted by politics. If that is the case I don't see where any legislation on homosexuality is justified.

2. Earlier you said the issue is whether the impact is to society and themselves. Your current reply limits that (by referring to pedophelia) to only harming society. I have made arguments pointing out that homosexuality is strongly linked to many self-harmful activities. However, I can also provide some links that homosexuals are also harmful to other homosexuals.

And there is research showing homosexuality does not represent an illness. You reject some research for being politically biased but seem to accept opposing research as valid. What's your criteria? In any case, I'm completely in favor of medical treatment for homosexuals and heterosexuals who exhibit self-destructive behavior. I'm also in favor of not forcing treatment on homosexuals and heterosexuals who are not self-destructive.

3. This is one case where I would like to see some kind of real support for your position that marriage would encourage monogamy. That is a very nice sentiment, but unless there is some substantial proof that changing the definition of marriage, which has existed pretty much throughout the recorded history of mankind, would be of any real benefit, I would suggest that it would be a very bad legislation.

Is there similar data for heterosexuals? I could be wrong, but I don't think legislation encouraging marriage among heterosexuals (tax breaks are the notable example) were based on research demonstrating that marriage encouraged monogamy. It was simply assumed and it was a great way to garner votes. I'm making the same assumption. In any case, why shouldn't homosexual couples who share a household have the same benefits as heterosexual couples? I know it goes against the religious beliefs of many here, but so what? I have no problem with churches making their own rules concerning the types of marriages they consider to be valid. But this is America, which has no state religion and therefore whose governance must be sensitive to all faiths (or nonfaiths). The secular laws should be based on secular rationale.

4. So, if we misclassify homosexuality by saying it is not a pathology when, in fact it is, what harm are we doing to the homosexual?

There's this thing called individual freedom. Currently any homosexual who feels the need can seek medical or psychological treatment. Seems like a good system to me.

5. I ask you to provide me with some proof that this is demonstatably in the best interest of the children rather than just a keen idea in concept.

I suppose I could but what would be the point? Wouldn't you simply dismiss it as being politically biased?

6. Except if homosexuality is as much a symptom of the problem as the suicide, depression, violence, multiple sexual partners, etc.

And the medical community has researched this issue for much of the 20th century and come to the conclusion that it is not so. You simply dismiss this research as politically motivated and not credible but seem to accept as credible studies indicating the opposite. Seems arbitrary. In any case, I'll say again the burden of proof is on those who wish to label homosexuality an illness.

7. Too many questions here so I'll just reply arbitrarily...The answer to that question is relavent because "privileges" in this country are things like benifits, and tax breaks and other incentives that help the family. If they are no longer used to help just the family but help any person, pair, or group of people who want to declare themselves a family, then they are of no use and become simply a weird way of government to take money and give it back with no rhyme or reason.

This makes no sense. Traditional families are great and provide many advantages. Unfortunately many people do not have the opportunity to be part of a traditional family. We could call these folks disadvantaged. Therefore, government aid to these folks is aid to the disadvantaged. I have no problem with single parent households receiving tax breaks. I have no problem with homosexual households receiving the same tax breaks as heterosexual households. I have no problem with tax breaks.

8. Simply saying that discrimination is bad let's pass a law is not going to cut it because it's not that simple.

Sorry, I disagree. It is that simple. I don't believe we should discriminate against a class of people simply on the possibility or the supposition that it might be justified. And that is all you've presented, possibilities, suppositions, and mights. If you want to discriminate, it is your burden to justify the injustices.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104898 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/14/2004 10:09 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
If that is the case I don't see where any legislation on homosexuality is justified.

Including legislation banning reparative therapy for homosexuals who want out?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104899 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/14/2004 10:32 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I'm also in favor of not forcing treatment on homosexuals and heterosexuals who are not self-destructive.

Again I ask, who's forcing treatment on homosexuals?

You keep making this statement, and it lessens the effectiveness of your argument, because it makes it sound like you are repeating someone's propaganda rather than your own convictions.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: Eyago Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104908 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/14/2004 12:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Coralville,

Unfortunately, the frustration is still there. My posts are long and invovolved because it is a comprehensive analysis of the whole picture, not the constant parroting of political philosophy. It seems to me that you disregard the entire set of data because it does not support your belief in what aught to be. I think you sidestep questions that you cannot answer and fail to provide alternative supporting information because you do not have it. My expectation is that your position is based primarily on a philosophical approach to your concept of fair and just, supported by what you have heard from like minded people, trusting that the sound-bites you have heard are true and not generally politically motivated. Your idealism with regards to this situation is held with the best intentions and shows that you have a good spirit that wants what is good and right for your fellow man. However, if what you think is good and right is not, in actuallity, as good or as right as you believe it to be, you are not acheiving the long term effect that you want.

I have challenged you to support your assertions because I think you will find that most of what you think you are trying to acheive will end up with results that you did not desire. There is a big danger in placing ideology, no matter how high and noble it seems, above the realities and facts. Communism was a noble ideology too, but it didn't bear out. Without some sort of basis for your position beyond ideology, I will have to maintain that it is unsupportable.

You first have to demonstrate that homosexuality represents a problem. Your initial post claims we don't know anything about homosexuality because the research is tainted by politics. If that is the case I don't see where any legislation on homosexuality is justified.

I think you have this backwards. It is the homosexual lobby and their supporters that want to legislate change. You want change, you should be the one proving the need. Unfortuntely, the proof is lacking so the battle is on ideological grounds and through political activism. Legalizing marraige and giving homosexuals protected status are both legislations proposed. You tell me the justifications for either that don't rely solely on ideology.

And there is research showing homosexuality does not represent an illness. You reject some research for being politically biased but seem to accept opposing research as valid. What's your criteria? In any case, I'm completely in favor of medical treatment for homosexuals and heterosexuals who exhibit self-destructive behavior. I'm also in favor of not forcing treatment on homosexuals and heterosexuals who are not self-destructive.

No, I don't say the research I link to is more valid than others, but I challenged you to produce alternative research so that they can be compared and weighed. Politics does not affect the truth, but it does affect what people preceive to be the truth even when it is not. I am saying that we cannot simply accept that which agrees with our ideology without balancing with other evidence. I contend that we do a disservice if we do not weigh all factors. The fact that there is not much stronger evidence in favor of homosexuality as "normal", we should not base public laws on that evidence. That is the point.

Is there similar data for heterosexuals? I could be wrong, but I don't think legislation encouraging marriage among heterosexuals (tax breaks are the notable example) were based on research demonstrating that marriage encouraged monogamy. It was simply assumed and it was a great way to garner votes. I'm making the same assumption. In any case, why shouldn't homosexual couples who share a household have the same benefits as heterosexual couples? I know it goes against the religious beliefs of many here, but so what? I have no problem with churches making their own rules concerning the types of marriages they consider to be valid. But this is America, which has no state religion and therefore whose governance must be sensitive to all faiths (or nonfaiths). The secular laws should be based on secular rationale.

It was YOUR argument that legalizing homosexual marriage would encourage monogamy. That was not my argument. My point is that there is no basis for it and it runs counter to the desires of much of the homosexual community. Your ideological argument then is without merit and contradictory.

As for tax breaks and rights, your reply here suggests that you did not read the New Zealand defense of heterosexual marriage link that I provided. Read that carefully because it makes a very clear argument about society's role in encouraging and promoting certain standards.

http://www.fathersforlife.org/doc/Same-sex_couples_sub_NZEDF.pdf

There's this thing called individual freedom. Currently any homosexual who feels the need can seek medical or psychological treatment. Seems like a good system to me.

This is somewhat of a different issue. When ideology and politcs intervene to suppress truth it puts those who are affected by it at risk. Please tell me why homosexual activists protest seminars that provide services to help those who want to change? Why do they attempt to get legislation that makes such programs to "heal" homosexuality illegal? Why do they harrass and intimidate ex-gays as betrayers?

I said: 5. I ask you to provide me with some proof that this is demonstatably in the best interest of the children rather than just a keen idea in concept.

You replied: I suppose I could but what would be the point? Wouldn't you simply dismiss it as being politically biased?

This reply troubles me more than anything else. You would sacrifice children on the alter of ideology? Politically motivated or not, this one issue should NEVER be swept away so blithely. Before I allow ONE child to place I would want very clear and convincing proof that it would not do them more harm. Period. Any answer less than that is unacceptable.

Sorry, I disagree. It is that simple. I don't believe we should discriminate against a class of people simply on the possibility or the supposition that it might be justified. And that is all you've presented, possibilities, suppositions, and mights. If you want to discriminate, it is your burden to justify the injustices.

Before I can do that, you need to define the injustices and identify what it is that would be needed to correct those injustices and how those changes will not do more harm than good. You have yet to clearly detail what you want to fix, how to fix it and the benefits and consequences involved. Ideology just isn't enough.

Ron

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: coralville Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104918 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/14/2004 2:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
It seems to me that you disregard the entire set of data because it does not support your belief in what aught to be. I think you sidestep questions that you cannot answer and fail to provide alternative supporting information because you do not have it.

I'm in a time crunch so can only give a short reply. I actually don't have a "belief of what ought to be" with respect to homosexuality and I certainly don't claim to know a whole lot about homosexuality.

The only point I've advocated, and I think I've been pretty consistent on this, is that unless there are compelling reasons to behave otherwise, we should treat homosexuals in society no differently than anyone else. This means to me that they should be treated fairly, hence homosexuals in stable households should have access to the same benefits as heterosexuals in stable households. And unless someone can demonstrate that homosexuality should be considered a disease I don't believe we should label it so.

In short, I think homosexuals should have the right to be who they want to be unless a compelling argument can be made otherwise.

Perhaps some historical perspective is in order. Veterans of this board may remember that I previously posted extensively on the genetics and the theology of homosexuality. I have no real interest in going there again, as I think I got out about as much as I can from those discussions on this board. There is very little new under the sun...


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Eyago Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 104924 of 196399
Subject: Re: When did you choose? Date: 1/14/2004 2:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
coralville,

The only point I've advocated, and I think I've been pretty consistent on this, is that unless there are compelling reasons to behave otherwise, we should treat homosexuals in society no differently than anyone else. This means to me that they should be treated fairly, hence homosexuals in stable households should have access to the same benefits as heterosexuals in stable households. And unless someone can demonstrate that homosexuality should be considered a disease I don't believe we should label it so.

In some ways this speaks of a key difference we have as we look at the idea of "no differently than anyone else." I really don't want to appear to disprespect your desire for fair treatment of all people. I want all people to be allowed to live happy lives, free from prejudice and harrassment. I think that can be acheived without special laws because of 2 reasons.

1. The root cause of discrimination is the issue. If we focus on the root cause within society we achieve much better results. Saves us from having to fight the same battle for each special group.

2. When we set a law to define something, that law is then used to include other groups we had no intention of including originally. Activist courts and progrssive mindsets make that a natural outcome. Therefore, I oppose laws to solve problems that do not require laws for the resolution.

Every special group will advocate for their rights. Why stop at this one? Well, we won't, but that seems irrelevant to some. Maybe the radicals are correct. Someday our sociecty will divest itself of the old taboos and allow sexuality to be free and uninhibitied by artificial social norms, where sex itself is simply a form of personal expression devoid of any familial and procreative overtones. It will be a great day in America when we finally acheive complete sexual liberation.

As to marriage, we disagree on the idea that marraige is an fundamental individual right. The cool thing about this country is that we can disagree without having to kill each other over it.

Ron

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (100) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement