09 Jul 15
Originally posted by King TigerIt doesn't change my opinion of you one bit, just as high as ever, but the thing about choice is, for YOU it was a choice. That is not true for every gay person. There can be mis-wiring in the brain that the person cannot control. That was maybe not the case for you but it is for a lot of people.
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?
Originally posted by lemon limeWikipedia is f'ing awesome.
Oh good grief, so it's true... wiki really does have an answer for anything and everything.
Normally I wouldn't feel compelled to promote wiki even as a last resort for those whose personal opinions are dependent on whatever the prevailing winds happen to drop at their feet... but tonight I'll make an exception, and hold my nose and sing the praises of ...[text shortened]... disagrees with me is an abhorrent abomination, and a repugnant and bigoted lemony-lime-a-phobe.
Your objection's overruled.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
09 Jul 15
Originally posted by King TigerI think it is less your professional opinion and more your personal experience that leads you to the conclusion that same sex orientation is a choice. - The (commendable) experiences you shared of your bisexual history certainly allows for 'choice' in that you were clearly attracted to both men and woman. Is the choice really the same though for people who are hard wired to be attracted to just one sex, even if it is their own? (Please think about that).
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?
Sonship gave the example that his natural impulse is to have multiple female partners (or words to that effect) but was able to overcome these impulses and have just one relationship with a women. Well that's all very well and good, but would he similarly be able to overcome an impulse to have any female relationship and to live a life without the focus of his orientation? No female partner, no love,...no marriage? A life of loneliness and inner turmoil. - That is what he is asking a gay person to do. To lock their hard wired sexual orientation away in a drawer. To choose not to be gay, and i'm assuming, magically start fancying members of the opposite sex (or else live a life of solitude).
Originally posted by AppleChessActually, the content of my original post is what shows " 'how untenable and poorly thought out [KT's] position is" not "because someone didn't respond to me" . You misconstrued the meaning of what I wrote.Notice you failed to address the following the first time I posted it. It shows how untenable and poorly thought out your position is. One would think that more could be expected of someone who purports to being "am a MD and PhD and work[ing] in Neurogenetics".
Now you've made yourself an idiot. Just because someone didn't respond to you ...[text shortened]... espond to me to make sure your position isn't 'proven' untenable or poorly thought out....
🙄
Your interpretation makes little sense. Instead of taking the rational course of action double-checking your interpretation when you realized this, you irrationally flew off the handle and called me an idiot.
Seems that a likely reason for your irrational behavior is that you are controlled by an irrational fear and/or hatred of homosexuality. It's called homophobia. Google it. You might learn something about yourself and how that hatred can cause otherwise intelligent people to have irrational thoughts.
Originally posted by sonshipC'mon jaywill. Can you actually answer the questions? You neglected to directly answer either of them. I'll repeat them:
[b] Doesn't seem that homosexuals are precluded from this definition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C'mon ToO. Don't you think already the dictionaries are being looked at for modificatopm to accommodate the trend?
Even if they were, you think it just to deny a group of people from being allowed to ...[text shortened]... ality being abnormal.
Did you ever think something was just going against your conscience?
Do you think it just to deny a group of people from being allowed to be in loving committed relationships because you don't like the idea of a word [marriage] being redefined?
Just answer the question. If you believe that it is just to deny homosexuals the use of the word "marriage", then explicitly state your reasons.
Prior to 1967, not all US states allowed interracial marriage. It's not hard to imagine that some of those who were opposed to interracial marriage also looked upon that as a "redefinition" of marriage. Do you similarly see that as sufficient reason to deny interracial marriages?
Just answer the question. If you believe that it is not just to deny interracial couples the use of the word "marriage", but it is just to deny homosexuals the use of the word "marriage", then explicitly state your reasons.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
10 Jul 15
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI believe Sonship said he was going to be away for a few days.
C'mon jaywill. Can you actually answer the questions? You neglected to directly answer either of them. I'll repeat them:Do you think it just to deny a group of people from being allowed to be in loving committed relationships because you don't like the idea of a word [marriage] being redefined?
Just answer the question. If you believe ...[text shortened]... is just to deny homosexuals the use of the word "marriage", then explicitly state your reasons.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeLet me turn your argument around and challenge you to consider the flip side. What would you think of a Christian wishing to avoided personal responsibility by ascribing blame for his indiscretions to the Devil? In other words, instead of holding himself personally responsible (to God) he could always in effect be saying "The Devil made me do it."
I think it is less your professional opinion and more your personal experience that leads you to the conclusion that same sex orientation is a choice. - The (commendable) experiences you shared of your bisexual history certainly allows for 'choice' in that you were clearly attracted to both men and woman. Is the choice really the same though for peop ...[text shortened]... suming, magically start fancying members of the opposite sex (or else live a life of solitude).
By the same token, someone who believes he has a genetic predisposition for sexual attraction to his own gender could essentially use the same excuse... he could use the secular version of this and say to himself "My genetic predisposition made me do it."
For this comparison to work I must necessarily assume the gay person would be suffering from an assault on his conscience just as the religious person would be, otherwise the comparison makes no sense... because someone who feels no religious compunction for not giving in to carnal desires would be the equivalent of a gay person who is equally comfortable with his own desires.
==========================================================
I'm sticking my neck out a bit here because it was (initially) my intention to keep my thoughts on this subject to myself, and not let myself become a target for reactive fools. But you strike me as someone who is able to do more than react and slavishly abide by popular opinion... so even if it turns out I'm wrong about everything else I'm hoping I can at least be right about this.
==========================================================
My master plan for today is to get in as many naps as it takes to get back to a normal sleep pattern. Retirement isn't nearly as hard to deal with as I thought it might be... just so long as my expectations aren't too high. So if I fail at getting enough sleep today, there's always tomorrow.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Jul 15
The post that was quoted here has been removedThis is the other and bigger reason that I don't like the "sexuality not a choice" argument
for marriage equality.
It tends to [unintentionally] give the impression that "yes, gay people have something wrong
and abnormal with and about them, but they can't help it and we shouldn't condemn them or
discriminate against them for something that they cannot help [and cannot be currently fixed]."
I reject the notion that there is anything wrong with being LGBTQ[etc] and such people have
nothing wrong with them that needs fixing.
If [for example] two men love each other and want to live together and perhaps raise a child
[or children] together and do all the other things, then that's great, good for them, there is absolutely
nothing morally wrong with that. And thus the law should get out of the way and give them the
same support and structure that a man and a woman in the same situation would have.
The idea that they should be discriminated against and legislated against simply because of
the ancient prejudices of the founders of certain popular religions is abhorrent.
And in the USA unconstitutional, SCOTUS [and every reasoned legal scholar] says so.
I understand that this argument has been a powerful tool in changing public opinion and in getting
us to this point. And I understand why the argument is so effective and tempting.
As is described in this article on slate...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/07/republicans_can_still_win_on_gay_marriage_the_gop_should_go_back_to_being.html
[note: I do not agree with everything in this article, however it makes some interesting points and
has information on changing attitudes that are relevant to this post]
But I worry that in the long term it might come at a cost.
Gay rights should not be based on them having some unfixable defect that they should be pitied for.
[and potentially might one day be 'fixable' with the right pills/surgery/etc]
They should come from basic human decency, morality, and fairness. And the recognition that homosexual
love is no different from, and is equal to, heterosexual love. And that both, are in fact, simply love.
11 Jul 15
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeWhat do you think about Bruce Jenner? Was he hard wired or was it just a choice to become a woman instead of a man?
I think it is less your professional opinion and more your personal experience that leads you to the conclusion that same sex orientation is a choice. - The (commendable) experiences you shared of your bisexual history certainly allows for 'choice' in that you were clearly attracted to both men and woman. Is the choice really the same though for peop ...[text shortened]... suming, magically start fancying members of the opposite sex (or else live a life of solitude).
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
11 Jul 15
Originally posted by lemon limeDarn, was hoping i had escaped from this thread. 😉
Let me turn your argument around and challenge you to consider the flip side. What would you think of a Christian wishing to avoided personal responsibility by ascribing blame for his indiscretions to the Devil? In other words, instead of holding himself personally responsible (to God) he could always in effect be saying "The Devil made me do it."
By t ...[text shortened]... pectations aren't too high. So if I fail at getting enough sleep today, there's always tomorrow.
Will though give some thought to your comments and respond later. (The dog needs walking and my wife has devised a worryingly long shopping list).
11 Jul 15
Originally posted by lemon limeIt is not clear from your post whether you are saying the gay person will say:
By the same token, someone who believes he has a genetic predisposition for sexual attraction to his own gender could essentially use the same excuse... he could use the secular version of this and say to himself "My genetic predisposition made me do it."
"My genetic predisposition made me sexually attracted to the same sex"
or
"My genetic predisposition made me act on my sexual attraction to the same sex".
There is a significant difference so I suggest you clarify which you mean.