Truth - the New Hate Speech

Originally posted by King Tiger
[quote]What I can tell you is this, that at the moment we are not in a position to conclude genetics have anything to do with sexual orientation prior to birth or even after birth.

Bull****

The massive majority of males find females sexually attractive.
The massive majority of females find males sexually attractive.

That it should be thus consistently over hundreds of thousands of years [just dealing with modern humans]
just by human 'choice' and not as some ingrained trait is so statistically improbable as to require massive
amounts of evidence to counter it.

No such evidence exists.

It is thus overwhelmingly likely a-priori that sexual orientation IS indeed pre-determined [quite probably with
some degree of flexibility] even without knowing how.

There is also quite a bit of evidence in support of that idea.

Not least this.

If sexuality is a choice, prove it by changing yours.

Let me know how you get on with that.

Originally posted by vistesd
I can’t comment on such things as genetic predispositions. But, I often wonder how heterosexual people who claim that homosexuality is a choice, chose to be heterosexual rather than homosexual themselves. What alternative urges, moral prescriptions and such did they consciously weigh in making the decision? I don’t recall ever receiving a direct an ...[text shortened]... question is whether the distribution itself is different for heterosexuals than for homosexuals.

Exactly.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Bull****

The massive majority of males find females sexually attractive.
The massive majority of females find males sexually attractive.

That it should be thus consistently over hundreds of thousands of years [just dealing with modern humans]
just by human 'choice' and not as some ingrained trait is so statistically improbable as to require mass ...[text shortened]...
If sexuality is a choice, prove it by changing yours.

Let me know how you get on with that.

I'm looking forward to hearing King Tiger's thrashing of you coming.

Dude, in context you might have seen king tiger is talking about same-sex orientation. Unless I'm very wrong, which I doubt I am, I don't think he is talking about opposite sex-orientation.

Grow a few braincells and read the entire context idiot.

Originally posted by King Tiger

I raised a rhetorical question which I think is a valid question that ought to be answered. I did not suggest they are the same or even similar. My simple point is this-often individuals will grant the right to choose to women yet on the flip side argue choice has nothing to do with sexual orientation. My simple point was, 'do we need to be con ...[text shortened]... urden of proof is on them to convince me why it should be choice here and not choice there.

I think you are highly confused.

If a woman is pregnant then, because we have the technology to detect and terminate the pregnancy,
she has the option [where legal] to end the pregnancy. And being a thinking agent can make a choice
as to whether to do that. Based on whatever factors she deems relevant.
The arguments about abortion are generally about whether women should have the right to make that choice.
Nobody [sane] disputes that it's possible to make that choice.

Contrast this with sexual orientation.
If the question is "Should people be allowed to choose what their sexual orientation is?" then I absolutely say
yes they should be able to. And to do so without any discrimination based on their choice.
However, the point that is generally made is that sexuality is NOT a choice, that those who are gay did not choose
to be that way, and cannot simply choose not to be. Despite in many cases, often due to the abuse and hate they
receive from the bigoted, wishing sincerely to be able to 'stop being gay'. And similarly those of us who are not gay,
we didn't choose that either, and cannot willingly change our own sexual orientation.
It's not an argument I am fond of, but it's one often made, that we should not discriminate against people for aspects
of themselves that they have no control over. Such as their race, gender, and yes sexual orientation.
But those making this argument are not trying to prevent people from making a choice if it is indeed possible.
They are not trying to make it illegal, or claim that it is immoral, to choose any particular sexual orientation.
They are pointing out that the available evidence strongly points to it NOT being a choice.


So given that these two situations are totally different, wtf are you talking about??

I feel the burden of proof is on them to convince me why it should be choice here and not choice there.

That might just be something we should care about if we were trying to convince anyone that there SHOULDN'T be
a choice about your sexual orientation. As opposed to simply pointing out that there ISN'T any apparent ability to choose.

For someone who is being such an ass about how educated and smart you are on this topic you should really
have a better grasp on what you are talking about.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I think you are highly confused.

If a woman is pregnant then, because we have the technology to detect and terminate the pregnancy,
she has the option [where legal] to end the pregnancy. And being a thinking agent can make a choice
as to whether to do that. Based on whatever factors she deems relevant.
The arguments about abortion are generally a ...[text shortened]... art you are on this topic you should really
have a better grasp on what you are talking about.

I guess I should make it clear then since you are getting tied up in a wad over this.

In my professional opinion, I believe same-sex orientation is a choice.

And, per me saying we have little to no evidence I was referring strictly to same-sex orientation (you need to read the entire context before you respond-otherwise, you don't walk away looking too good).

Also, I'm not confused. Rather, we are approaching a question from an entirely different basis. It seems to me you wish to suggest it isn't a choice. I suggest it is. Hence, what I say makes sense if you accept my premise. If you don't accept it, well, you'll find it probably highly confusing.

fyi, for those of you who dare me to prove same-sex orientation is a choice. I already have by my existential experience. I became a Christian in my 20s. Had my first girlfriend in my 20s. I had my first boyfriend when I was 17.

I suspect that will blow some of your brains. Whatever your opinion is of me, I really don't care.

I am going to stop for a while being in this forum and thread. Responding to some of you and combating ignorance is getting to be a waste of time.

A lot of you speak of that which you do not know.

Edit: You are disillusion if you think I feel I'm being taken apart. I've received over 10 PMs from individuals thanking me for my clarity and presence in this forum. How many have you received?

Originally posted by JPhitzer
I'm looking forward to hearing King Tiger's thrashing of you coming.

Dude, in context you might have seen king tiger is talking about same-sex orientation. Unless I'm very wrong, which I doubt I am, I don't think he is talking about opposite sex-orientation.

Grow a few braincells and read the entire context idiot.

You are going to be disappointed, he's the one being taken apart.

As are you....

Sexual orientation is sexual orientation.

If you want to claim that sexual orientation is not predetermined for gay's then it cannot
be predetermined for strait people either.
As I pointed out, it's highly unlikely that throughout nature where sexual reproduction exists
with males seeking out and mating with females and vice versa massively dominating in any
species where that is the norm, that this vitally important behaviour is not strongly predetermined
by biology as an evolutionary survival trait.

By focusing solely on the minority group you are missing huge amounts of evidence gained
from the majority. And an approach that takes the majority into account will be much more
powerful that one that only focusses on the minority.

So you ARE in fact very wrong.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You are going to be disappointed, he's the one being taken apart.

As are you....

Sexual orientation is sexual orientation.

If you want to claim that sexual orientation is not predetermined for gay's then it cannot
be predetermined for strait people either.
As I pointed out, it's highly unlikely that throughout nature where sexual reproduction ...[text shortened]... h more
powerful that one that only focusses on the minority.

So you ARE in fact very wrong.

Ahhhh, king tiger was pretty nice to you in his response.

I think you are very wrong. My opinion is he's owned you and most everyone in this thread.

Fyi, I'm an atheist and really don't agree with king tiger, yet I'm rational enough to engage his points. Unlike you.

I don't think you are in a position to determine that he's been taken apart. Not in my view. He's manhandled you and you are butthurt over it.

Originally posted by King Tiger
I guess I should make it clear then since you are getting tied up in a wad over this.

In my professional opinion, I believe same-sex orientation is a choice.

And, per me saying we have little to no evidence I was referring strictly to same-sex orientation (you need to read the entire context before you respond-otherwise, you don't walk away lookin ...[text shortened]... m individuals thanking me for my clarity and presence in this forum. How many have you received?

fyi, for those of you who dare me to prove same-sex orientation is a choice. I already have by my existential experience. I became a Christian in my 20s. Had my first girlfriend in my 20s. I had my first boyfriend when I was 17.

So you are saying you once were gay but no longer are?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Since you seem to be quite confused and exhibiting symptoms thereof, the following is the definition of homophobia:

: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia

I'm assuming you know what 'fear' is, and what the normal causes of fear are... fear of death and dying, fear of pain or personal injury, fear of rejection, fear of failure, fear of loneliness, etc. etc. And also I assume you know that phobias are defined as irrational fears. The definition you cited calls homophobia an irrational fear, so what can I assume from this?

I can assume it's a relatively rare phobia, because not everyone who demonstrates an aversion to homosexuality can legitimately be diagnosed as having an irrational fear [or 'phobia'].

Or I can assume this is a legitimate phobia that has been misused in the popular culture. The problem however with making this particular assumption is that right out of the gate, from the moment the term was first coined, it has been used as a weapon for silencing critics. This is why I regard it as a purposeful lie and not a legitimate phobia. And because of how this terminology has always been used (starting from when it was first coined) I can see how the fear 'homophobia' was initially intended to instill has actually contributed to a legitimate phobia known as 'Alethephobia'.

I'm old enough to be aware of when the terms 'homophobia' and 'homophobe' first showed up, and noted how those terms were being used. And judging from how it's been used I must assume it's either a widespread phobia (phobias are usually restricted to special circumstances) or it's a completely made up and fake 'fear', purposefully designed to silence critics of the gay lifestyle.

Use your head. If someone told you that you were 'Christaphobe' because you opposed Christians and Christian belief, would you think this was a legitimate charge? If the terms 'Christaphobia' and 'Christaphobe' entered into normal conversation, and caught on so that the definition became popular and widely acceptable, would this be enough to convince you this is a real phobia?

It's a fair question... do you think a majority of thinking people could be convinced that anyone critical of Christians actually suffers from an irrational fear, and accomplish this by simply coining a new word?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Since you seem to be quite confused and exhibiting symptoms thereof, the following is the definition of homophobia:

: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia

So in other words, you're telling me that if it's in the dictionary then it must be true...

Really? 😛

Originally posted by King Tiger
I guess I should make it clear then since you are getting tied up in a wad over this.

In my professional opinion, I believe same-sex orientation is a choice.

And, per me saying we have little to no evidence I was referring strictly to same-sex orientation (you need to read the entire context before you respond-otherwise, you don't walk away lookin ...[text shortened]... gnorance is getting to be a waste of time.

A lot of you speak of that which you do not know.

I did read the entire post. I understood the entire post. I disagreed with the post.

The fact that I think your arguments suck is because they suck, not because I fail to understand them.

In my professional opinion, I believe same-sex orientation is a choice.

Your belief is neither evidence nor convincing. I don't care what 'your professional opinion is' I care if you
make good arguments and provide good evidence.
You have done neither.

And you have just given me strong reason to be even more highly suspect of your 'opinion'.
You are biased in the strongest sense.

I suspect that will blow some of your brains. Whatever your opinion is of me, I really don't care.

Nope, brain not blown.

Firstly, gay and strait are not the only two orientations, you could also be bi-sexual.
Secondly, there have been plenty of people who have 'been converted to straitness' [typically by religion] and
then later discovered that they really hadn't and thus were deluding themselves. Happens often in places
with lots of bigotry and discrimination against gays.
Thirdly, anyone who knows anything about biology and the brain knows that there is a lot of variation and adaptability
and plasticity between and within members of a species. This improves survivability. Thus its possible that some
people could choose [still highly unlikely] and it's also possible that people can change even without choosing to.
Change does not prove choice. There was a time when I hated broccoli, then I suddenly didn't. I didn't choose to
suddenly stop hating broccoli, but I did nonetheless.
This is one of the reasons I don't like the "it's not a choice" argument. Because I don't care, people should be able
to love whoever they want [as long as we are talking about consenting adults] without being discriminated against
and it doesn't matter if it's a choice or not. However, the evidence is still overwhelming that sexual orientation is not
a choice. [for the vast majority of people].

It seems to me you wish to suggest it isn't a choice. I suggest it is.

Again, you are confused, and miss the point.

Saying that "it isn't a choice" is not at all the same as saying that "you shouldn't have the choice".

Anti-choice anti-abortion arguments are about removing a choice that is known to exist.

Saying that being gay [or not] is not a choice but innate is saying that the choice doesn't exist.
Not that people shouldn't exercise a choice that does exist.

That you cannot see the difference has me questioning your intellect.

I am going to stop for a while being in this forum and thread. Responding to some of you and combating ignorance
is getting to be a waste of time.

A lot of you speak of that which you do not know

Suits me, you are an arrogant idiot.

But perhaps in your own time you might want to consider rechecking your arguments here, because they suck.
Even if you are actually right, you have done nothing to convince anyone not already convinced.

Originally posted by JPhitzer
Ahhhh, king tiger was pretty nice to you in his response.

I think you are very wrong. My opinion is he's owned you and most everyone in this thread.

Fyi, I'm an atheist and really don't agree with king tiger, yet I'm rational enough to engage his points. Unlike you.

I don't think you are in a position to determine that he's been taken apart. Not in my view. He's manhandled you and you are butthurt over it.

Actually I am in a position to tell.

His arguments were just plain wrong.

It's like knowing that someone claiming 2+2=5 is wrong, I don't need external validation to know I'm right.

And if you think his pathetic jibes are sufficient to make me butthurt...

Heh, you've never met me.

Originally posted by vistesd
I can’t comment on such things as genetic predispositions. But, I often wonder how heterosexual people who claim that homosexuality is a choice, chose to be heterosexual rather than homosexual themselves. What alternative urges, moral prescriptions and such did they consciously weigh in making the decision? I don’t recall ever receiving a direct an ...[text shortened]... question is whether the distribution itself is different for heterosexuals than for homosexuals.

I often wonder how heterosexual people who claim that homosexuality is a choice, chose to be heterosexual rather than homosexual themselves.

That's a bit like asking, 'Why is propagation of a species dependent on the natural evolutionary process of coupling a male with a female?' LOL... I don't know why that made me laugh, but it did. Sometimes I feel foolish stating the obvious, or pointing out something that should be self evident, but what the hey... I've got nothing better to do at the moment.

Marriage is simply a social convention for acknowledging this particular kind of union, for the purpose of encouraging a stable environment for growing children. 'Marriage' as a social convention between a man and another man (or women with another women) is unnecessary, because it doesn't serve the purpose of propagation. Marriage (as a social construct) specifically exists to provide a measure of stability based on the demands of nature. So whether you believe God created people as male and female, or if you believe this is a feature of reproduction that evolved, either way it's always been understood what the purpose of marriage is or is supposed to be.

Gay couples cannot by themselves reproduce, so the institution of marriage (by definition) between gays is reduced to nothing more than nonsensical window dressing. Legalized unions between gays already exists for insurance purposes and for all of the usual legal perks allowed married couples. So why would gays want to insist on being married as though they were a straight couple? What purpose can be served (for them) by mimicking a heterosexual union?

Other than promoting some thin (and completely unnecessary) appearance of respectability, a so called 'marriage' between gays can't actually do anything for them that any civil union couldn't do. So I suspect this has more to do with putting up an appearance of respectability than anything else. It obviously has nothing to do with the reality of insuring propagation of the species or with any legal rights afforded straight couples, because they already have access to same rights as straight couples.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have stated my conditions for watching the video. I notice no takers thus far.
My position isn't silly regardless of whether or not I am arguing the point you wish me to argue. If anything you are at least conceding that my points are correct.

[b] although most people who are asked their opinion on the number have assumed the number in the teens to mid-20's
So, every fifth person? I guess such people don't think it through.[/b]

So, every fifth person? I guess such people don't think it through.
Those who conduct polls and report their findings thought it significant to include and I mentioned it for similar reasons.

With most people of the opinion that the homosexual population was at least in the teens and as high as the mid-20's, your response is a lack of thoroughness in thought by those people.
But I believe it significant for a very different reason.
I am persuaded that part of the brilliance of the homosexual agenda campaign was its pervasiveness: the issue was relentlessly put before the public by the media along every conceivable route.
They pushed the question so tirelessly, it actually became a hot-button topic in politics:
"Where do you stand on abortion?"
"Where do you stand on gun control?"
"Where do you stand on gay marriage?"

Early on, the movement had literally no hope to speak of, with the overwhelming majority of people siding with traditional marriage.
But the campaign marched on with a pursuit which can only be described as militant.
Subtly militant, but militant, nonetheless.
They were going to make it the popular choice to make: those who got on board early would be considered in the same approving light as civil rights supporters from fifty and sixty years ago.
Slowly but surely, they got to the game changers, to the influential leaders whose opinions and statements would get others to fall in line.

The momentum soon swayed in their favor and the rest is where we are today.

To the layperson who doesn't get too involved in politics or other controversial topics, the full on assault of the campaign left those folks with an opinion that this topic (rights based on one's sexual conduct) must be pretty pervasive, since it's always being talked about in every form of media.

I find that very interesting.

Originally posted by King Tiger
Edit: You are disillusion if you think I feel I'm being taken apart. I've received over 10 PMs from individuals thanking me for my clarity and presence in this forum. How many have you received?

Really. 10? That's amazing!

I must confess there was a moment when I was beginning to doubt you. I mean, your answers seemed so poorly thought out, your appeal to your chess rating, the ad hominems, running away at the first sight of danger whilst claiming intellectual superiority etc.

Googefudge's ideas seemed so well argued, logical and consistent. I was worried for a minute as he seemed to be completely ownng you.

But now I know that 10 bigots/Christians took the trouble to PM you to say 'hey, I agree with you - great argument!', that settles it as far as I am concerned.

Good job, duchess.