NationStates Jolt Archive

I hate to say this Fassitude... And belive me, I REALLY hate to say it... But I agree with you.

http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/artikel_793305.svd

A poll conducted by Sifo/SvD has shown, in line with previous national and European polls, that a large majority - in this case 71% - support gay marriages in Sweden. A representative for the Christian Democrats, who've been pushing for a referendum on the matter (because nothing says "religion of love" quite like mob rule over minority civil rights) as yet another way among many they've resorted to in the past of postponing the inevitable, says: "något förvånad är jag" ("I am somewhat surprised").

Bitch, please! Every other party in the Riksdag (that is 94% of it) and thus every other party in the coalition government have decided to support a gender neutral marriage law to supersede the since the 90s available civil unions (which are nowadays different from marriages only in name, especially now that the Church of Sweden blesses them and performs the ceremonies voluntarily), an overwhelming majority of referral instances have supported it, the Prime Minister as well as the opposition have flagged for the introduction of a gender neutral marriage law this year and polls have shown over and over again that gay marriages are supported among the people, yet she is "somewhat surprised". :rolleyes:

Such a disconnect with reality cannot possibly come effortlessly, so she must have worked on it out of sheer desperation. I only wonder how much time out of her day it takes her to delude herself into thinking she has popular support for her bigotry. They must be hearing the steam roller approaching to crush their feeble bulwarks by the day.

Good. I wish we could get such numbers in the US.

Such a disconnect with reality cannot possibly come effortlessly, so she must have worked on it out of sheer desperation. I only wonder how much time out of her day it takes her to delude herself into thinking she has popular support for her bigotry. They must be hearing the steam roller approaching to crush their feeble bulwarks by the day.

Perhaps less time working on her self-delusion and more time working on her make-up are in order. :p

This debate is so fucking stale. People need to get married on their own terms in their own ways, and the government needs to stay the fuck out of everyone's mairrage. Everyone wins, except for the justices of the peace who are gonna be unemployed.

Never underestimate the human capacity for self-delusion, Fass. All of the information you cite has been made available (indeed, unavoidable) to her for all this time, but her internal filtering system has prevented her from willingly acknowledging it - until it is placed in a situation so confrontingly and completelythat she has to look at it consciously and accept what is the actual reality.

It's the fundamental reason why Political Correctness is such a very, very bad idea for our societies and peoples. In avoiding the controversial and the distressing, we allow each other to wallow in our delusions. If those delusions are never challenged, they will never change - until reality steps forward and offers a much harder bitchslapping than you'd get in any honest debate.

I hate to say this Fassitude... And belive me, I REALLY hate to say it... But I agree with you.

On the general maleficence of the Christian Democrats, or?

The Christian Democrats need to sit down, shut up, and face the facts: modern day Sweden just simply doesn't want to enforce Christian morality on its people anymore. So they need to figure out how to cope or else they'll disappear as a political party altogether.

Which I think Fass would be perfectly fine with.

People need to get married on their own terms in their own ways, and the government needs to stay the fuck out of everyone's mairrage.

No, no it doesn't, seeing as marriage is a matter for the government. "Justice of the peace"? No such thing exists in Sweden.

Perhaps less time working on her self-delusion and more time working on her make-up are in order. :p

Do bear in mind that is an official Riksdag image of her, thus her at her most tarted up. This is what she looks like when not:

http://www.foretagarna.se/temp/Thumbnails/474748729.jpg

Ugh.

It would have happened sooner if the SDP were still in power.

Do bear in mind that is an official Riksdag image of her, thus her at her most tarted up. This is what she looks like when not:

http://www.foretagarna.se/temp/Thumbnails/474748729.jpg

Ugh.

Hey! I just saw her in Cloverfield! :D

((okay, that wasn't fair. I should be ashamed of myself.))

So...29% of swedes are still bigots?

So...29% of swedes are still bigots?

No. 29% of people in Sweden believe that homosexuality is wrong and should not be encouraged.

That does not make them bigots. Like yourself, I disagree with them - but calling them names isn't going to help the problem.

That does not make them bigots.

Yes, it does. There is no reason for that position other than bigotry.

It would have happened sooner if the SDP were still in power.

All their support parties supported gay marriages and the Social Democrats were thus unencumbered to pass a law during their mandate of 2002-2006 (and were expected to, but failed to act, the cunts), but they dragged their feet, only coming to an official decision of support at the end of 2005 and for some reason initiating a government investigation into the matter that took a year and a half to complete. While the Christian Democrats are the ones to blame mostly for the delay as they have been holding back the current government, the Social Democrats weren't exactly hurrying things along.

No. 29% of people in Sweden believe that homosexuality is wrong and should not be encouraged.

That does not make them bigots. Like yourself, I disagree with them - but calling them names isn't going to help the problem.

ie; Bigots.

That does not make them bigots.

Yes, it does.

Yes, it does. There is no reason for that position other than bigotry.

Of course there is. Most varieties of Christianity have at best an ambivalent position on homosexuality; Islam is pretty severe in it's condemnations, as are a number of other religions, so religious belief is a perfect example of a non-bigot anti-gay position.

Of course there is. Most varieties of Christianity have at best an ambivalent position on homosexuality; Islam is pretty severe in it's condemnations, as are a number of other religions, so religious belief is a perfect example of a non-bigot anti-gay position.

No, it isn't. There is nothing about a religious argument that makes it unbigoted - on the contrary, it tends to be even more bigoted because it is religious.

ie; Bigots.

No. Bigotry is the dislike of someone simply for what they are - ie, in this case, disliking someone simply for being gay. Someone who dislikes homosexuality as a concept isn't being bigoted, they are opposing a social concept.

Someone who dislikes homosexuality as a concept isn't being bigoted

Yes, he is. My, you're easily refuted.

Yes, he is.

I cannot agree, Fass. Disliking a concept just isn't the same as irrationally disliking a person because of a concept.

And I'm only easily refuted if you choose not to actually support your argument.

No. Bigotry is the dislike of someone simply for what they are - ie, in this case, disliking someone simply for being gay. Someone who dislikes homosexuality as a concept isn't being bigoted, they are opposing a social concept.

It's not a social concept. It's a biological concept that is part of the overall concept of sexuality.

It's not a social concept. It's a biological concept that is part of the overall concept of sexuality.

I agree with that, Kyronea. Many don't.

I cannot agree, Fass.

That's because you're wrong.

Disliking a concept just isn't the same as irrationally disliking a person because of a concept.

Pretending that the "concept" is separable from people is as idiotic as pretending that "blackness" is separate from black people. Pretending that the "dislike" of the "concept" isn't irrational, or that it is somehow less bigoted because one is foolish enough to think it is separable from people, is quite frankly risibly ludicrous. I laughed out loud at the nonsensical nature of your "argument" - that's how absurd it is.

And I'm only easily refuted if you choose not to actually support your argument.

You have no argument, all you have is poppycock. Thus no need for me to support anything.

So...29% of swedes are still bigots?


As opposed to the US where the number is more around 50%.



The fact that gay marriage is even an issue saddens me:headbang:

No. Bigotry is the dislike of someone simply for what they are - ie, in this case, disliking someone simply for being gay. Someone who dislikes homosexuality as a concept isn't being bigoted, they are opposing a social concept.
No, homophobic is inherently discriminatory and bigoted because it hates certain people because of the sexuality they were born with, it's no different than hating someone because they are black. Homosexuality isn't a social concept which people choose.

That's because you're wrong.



Pretending that the "concept" is separable from people is as idiotic as pretending that "blackness" is separate from black people. Pretending that the "dislike" of the "concept" isn't irrational, or that it is somehow less bigoted because one is foolish enough to think it is separable from people, is quite frankly risibly ludicrous. I laughed out loud at the nonsensical nature of your "argument" - that's how absurd it is.

Clearly, you have no desire to actually consider my argument, else you would not have twisted it so entirely. Thus, continuing this dialogue is pointless.

Clearly, you have no desire to actually consider my argument, else you would not have twisted it so entirely. Thus, continuing this dialogue is pointless.

No, Fass is absolutely correct, it's nonsensical and irrational to dislike the innate sexuality of an individual, it's also guilt by association because you lob all homosexuals into a homogeneous group which all heterosexuals cannot be placed in obviously. This is just more of the 'homosexuality is an immoral lifestyle' crap we are used to hearing from right-wing crazies around here.

That 29% is actually rather saddening, I thought Swedes were actually rather more progressive than that.:(

Clearly, you have no desire to actually consider my argument,

As already stated, you have no argument, and I don't give credence to gobbledegook.

else you would not have twisted it so entirely.

The sad thing for you is that wasn't twisting. That was cutting through your heap of bull.

Thus, continuing this dialogue is pointless.

Quite, as pointless as your "argument".

That 29% is actually rather saddening, I thought Swedes were actually rather more progressive than that.:(

It takes time to kill old religious and political influences. Marginalisation is part of the process, which is arduous and unrelenting.

Of course there is. Most varieties of Christianity have at best an ambivalent position on homosexuality; Islam is pretty severe in it's condemnations, as are a number of other religions, so religious belief is a perfect example of a non-bigot anti-gay position.

No. Religious belief is a perfect example of a source for the bigotry that underlies the anti-gay position.

Someone who dislikes homosexuality as a concept isn't being bigoted, they are opposing a social concept.

"Someone who dislikes blackness as a concept isn't being bigoted..."

:rolleyes:

Sweden has just dropped a notch in awesomeness.

Good. I wish we could get such numbers in the US.We need to establish rules that if/when gay marriage is legalized religion should have the right to whom they can marry as freedom of religion should be respected still. Aka, marriage in religion is more about traditional pratices and the establishment of religious marriages should not be attacked.

Though of course a religion decides to have same sex marriage there is no problem.:p

Also, I want gay to be able to be used as a synonym for happy again.;)

We need to establish rules that if/when gay marriage is legalized religion should have the right to whom they can marry as freedom of religion should be respected still.

No, we don't. Those "rules" are already firmly established.

Civil marriage and religious marriage are not the same as it is. Plenty of people have civil marriages that aren't recognized by religions.

'so religious belief is a perfect example of a non-bigot anti-gay position.'

I am so tempted to sig this.

Sweden has just dropped a notch in awesomeness.

I'm sure your opinion of them ranks very high on their list of concerns... undoubtedly, as a consequence of your disapproval, they will now organize the firing squads. :rolleyes:

This debate is so fucking stale. People need to get married on their own terms in their own ways, and the government needs to stay the fuck out of everyone's mairrage. Everyone wins, except for the justices of the peace who are gonna be unemployed.

Actually, heterosexual couples commonly use Justices of the Peace.

I have no reason to think that a similar percentage of homosexual couples would not use the same method should they attain the Nation-wide right (in the US).

I would like to go on record stating that I disagree with state-recogonized marriage. I think that there should be no distinction between hetero-, or homosexual couples as far as legal recognition goes, however, I think that marriage should be done away with entirely as far as the state is concerned, and that if a couple wants to proclaim financial unity, they can get a Civil Union (which would carry the same advantages, and disadvantages as marriage does now). Should people still choose to get 'married' in addition to (or seperate from, and excluding) a Civil Union, then that couple should address their religious institution.

That way we satisfy all points of view... except probably the homophobes....

I cannot agree, Fass. Disliking a concept just isn't the same as irrationally disliking a person because of a concept.

And I'm only easily refuted if you choose not to actually support your argument.

I can honestly say that I agree with you, and support you're argument.

Actually, heterosexual couples commonly use Justices of the Peace.

I have no reason to think that a similar percentage of homosexual couples would not use the same method should they attain the Nation-wide right (in the US).

I would like to go on record stating that I disagree with state-recogonized marriage. I think that there should be no distinction between hetero-, or homosexual couples as far as legal recognition goes, however, I think that marriage should be done away with entirely as far as the state is concerned, and that if a couple wants to proclaim financial unity, they can get a Civil Union (which would carry the same advantages, and disadvantages as marriage does now). Should people still choose to get 'married' in addition to (or seperate from, and excluding) a Civil Union, then that couple should address their religious institution.

That way we satisfy all points of view... except probably the homophobes....
No. This encourages the idea that marriage is somehow something religion cooked up, which is ridiculous. The term should stay marriage.

However, legal marriages should definitely be separate from religious marriages.

No, homophobic is inherently discriminatory and bigoted because it hates certain people because of the sexuality they were born with, it's no different than hating someone because they are black. Homosexuality isn't a social concept which people choose.

Two points:

1: Dodec. never mentioned homophobes. One can oppose the 'amoral force' that is homosexuality, without 'hating' or 'fearing' or 'dispising' homosexual people. I hate murder, however I do not hate murderers, I am not bigoted, even if their crimes are caused by mental defects that they were borns with. (no, I am not making any comparison between homosexuality and murder, it was the first idea that came to mind in which an 'act' or 'concept' is different from the people who 'do' or facilitate these 'acts' or 'concepts')

2: Nothing has ever proven, or even specifically suggests that homosexuality is something that people are born with. I think it has been definitively proven that black people are born black, please do not treat the two as exactly the same, because they are not, blackness isn't an 'act' or social concept. They are not equal.

However, legal marriages should definitely be separate from religious marriages.

Actually, marriage is traditionally a religious institution, and I as a spiritual person would prefer that the state gets it's grubby little fingers off of an institution that I would prefer handled by my church (I would get a 'Unified' to my wife regardless, because I think that there should be a state-recognized institute that mirrors what is now called marriage).

But that's my opinoin, and I'm aware that reasonable as it is, it won't happen.

Actually, marriage is traditionally a religious institution, and I as a spiritual person would prefer that the state gets it's grubby little fingers off of an institution that I would prefer handled by my church (I would get a 'Unified' to my wife regardless, because I think that there should be a state-recognized institute that mirrors what is now called marriage).

But that's my opinoin, and I'm aware that reasonable as it is, it won't happen.

No it isn't. It originated as something secular and has stayed secular for the most part throughout history. The intertwining with religion has more been about power and the fact that the law generally rested within the church more than any sort of religious aspect, though religious aspects did develop over time as a result of this.

We need to establish rules that if/when gay marriage is legalized religion should have the right to whom they can marry as freedom of religion should be respected still. Aka, marriage in religion is more about traditional pratices and the establishment of religious marriages should not be attacked.

Though of course a religion decides to have same sex marriage there is no problem.:p

Also, I want gay to be able to be used as a synonym for happy again.;)

I think they would be able to anyway, for example; I am getting married in May, the church has certain rules before they will sanction a marriage (including a marriage counseling series, and an attendance of at least 50% leading up to the Wedding), the church has the right to refuse a marriage for any grounds, so long as it does not interfere with a couples rights... if I were unwilling to submit to my churches rules... there are other 'laxer' institutions that no doubt would give me the partial commitment that I would be seemingly seeking.

As it is, I will enjoy saving like $100 on my marriage license because I took pre-marital counseling (which is somehting they do as the State of MN, they give you a marriage license discount if you go through counseling... sweet.)

No it isn't. It originated as something secular and has stayed secular for the most part throughout history. The intertwining with religion has more been about power and the fact that the law generally rested within the church more than any sort of religious aspect, though religious aspects did develop over time as a result of this.

Any dangling shred of evidence to support this?

Seriously, at all?

(because nothing says "religion of love" quite like mob rule over minority civil rights)

You confuse Christian love of sinners with blindly allowing things that Christians do not approve of. Then again, you don't take the time to garner the facts about the particular issue of Christianity, so it doesn't surprise me that you would make such an asinine comment.

But that is neither here nor there.

As far as this thread, I was shocked to see that such a large group of Swedes are still anti-gay marriage.

Actually, marriage is traditionally a religious institution, and I as a spiritual person would prefer that the state gets it's grubby little fingers off of an institution that I would prefer handled by my church (I would get a 'Unified' to my wife regardless, because I think that there should be a state-recognized institute that mirrors what is now called marriage).

But that's my opinoin, and I'm aware that reasonable as it is, it won't happen.

Why? So that a thousand years from now people go "keep your government out of my civil union!". Living with someone permenatly is not only tradition/religous or a about love. There is a legal and financial aspect to it and I see no reason to change it from being referred to as "marriage".

Two points:

1: Dodec. never mentioned homophobes. One can oppose the 'amoral force' that is homosexuality, without 'hating' or 'fearing' or 'dispising' homosexual people. I hate murder, however I do not hate murderers, I am not bigoted, even if their crimes are caused by mental defects that they were borns with. (no, I am not making any comparison between homosexuality and murder, it was the first idea that came to mind in which an 'act' or 'concept' is different from the people who 'do' or facilitate these 'acts' or 'concepts')

2: Nothing has ever proven, or even specifically suggests that homosexuality is something that people are born with. I think it has been definitively proven that black people are born black, please do not treat the two as exactly the same, because they are not, blackness isn't an 'act' or social concept. They are not equal.

Of course homosexuals are born gay, as far as I am concerned anything to the contrary is just bigotry under a different veil.

Even if you think homosexuality is a wrong "social concept" and say you don't hate homosexuals there is absolutely no reason to oppose same-sex marriage. This concept does nothing to harm you, or society in general.

Of course homosexuals are born gay, as far as I am concerned anything to the contrary is just bigotry under a different veil.

Oh. Believing that it is a result of how they were raised/childhood experiences (and not a choice of their own) is bigotry?

So, because some people who commit murder are born with mental defects, then to think that some people aren'r born to commit murder is the same as being bigoted against people?

Thats pretty stupid.

Any dangling shred of evidence to support this?

Seriously, at all?

Plenty. I suggest looking up the sources cited in the Wikipedia page, the About page, and of course through Google. I would do it myself for you but I am currently really busy with something and thus cannot spend lots of time researching something just to prove a point in a minor debate.

Plenty. I suggest looking up the sources cited in the Wikipedia page, the About page, and of course through Google. I would do it myself for you but I am currently really busy with something and thus cannot spend lots of time researching something just to prove a point in a minor debate.

I did both, and found no evidence to suggest is started as a secular institute. In fact, the Bible (in parts that are at least three thousand years old) use marriage as a religious institution. Cite me sources older than that, and I will dig deeper.

Furthermore, why does your church--assuming you're a Christian--deserve a monopoly on marriage? There are other religions in the US who have a marriage institutions as well.

Of course homosexuals are born gay, as far as I am concerned anything to the contrary is just bigotry under a different veil.

It doesn't matter if they're born gay or not. If it's a choice, it is every bit a reasonable choice as which invisible man to believe in. We aren't supposed to discriminate based on that, so I don't see a problem.

It's all a smokescreen to disguise prejudice.

Even if you think homosexuality is a wrong "social concept" and say you don't hate homosexuals there is absolutely no reason to oppose same-sex marriage. This concept does nothing to harm you, or society in general.

While this may certainly be true, it is the belief that it will harm society, or out of the interest of keeping the 'sanctity' of marriage protected that keeps many religiously minded people in opposition of homosexual marriage.

Oh. Believing that it is a result of how they were raised/childhood experiences (and not a choice of their own) is bigotry?

So, because some people who commit murder are born with mental defects, then to think that some people aren'r born to commit murder is the same as being bigoted against people?

Thats pretty stupid.

If homosexuality if the result of childhood experiences, I guess than that you could produce for me some evidence which proves a common link between people of similar childhood experiences who are now all homosexual.

As far as I can see, your promoting the same 'gay people turn their children gay!!111' crap that the regular variety of trolls and bigots spew.

Furthermore, why does your church--assuming you're a Christian--deserve a monopoly on marriage? There are other religions in the US who have a marriage institutions as well.

Assuming you are asking me, I am not saying that my particular church should have all marital rights, but rather that they should be forfeited by the state (allowing religious institutions - or quasi-religious philosophical institutions perhaps - to govern for themselves what they as an individual institution would 'allow' or 'sanction')

I did both, and found no evidence to suggest is started as a secular institute. In fact, the Bible (in parts that are at least three thousand years old) use marriage as a religious institution. Cite me sources older than that, and I will dig deeper.

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html

If homosexuality if the result of childhood experiences, I guess than that you could produce for me some evidence which proves a common link between people of similar childhood experiences who are now all homosexual.

As far as I can see, your promoting the same 'gay people turn their children gay!!111' crap that the regular variety of trolls and bigots spew.

I'm not at all, one of my best friends in high school was raised by his gay moms, he was straight, proverbially even as an arrow perhaps.

I am suggesting that for whatever reason an upbringing may well affect a childs sexual orientation, and that it need not be the result of homosexual parentage.

Two points:

1: Dodec. never mentioned homophobes. One can oppose the 'amoral force' that is homosexuality, without 'hating' or 'fearing' or 'dispising' homosexual people. I hate murder, however I do not hate murderers, I am not bigoted, even if their crimes are caused by mental defects that they were borns with. (no, I am not making any comparison between homosexuality and murder, it was the first idea that came to mind in which an 'act' or 'concept' is different from the people who 'do' or facilitate these 'acts' or 'concepts')

2: Nothing has ever proven, or even specifically suggests that homosexuality is something that people are born with. I think it has been definitively proven that black people are born black, please do not treat the two as exactly the same, because they are not, blackness isn't an 'act' or social concept. They are not equal.


Except that we've found that animals are gay, and well, animals lack the ability to choose to only have sex with other men, and it goes directly against their instinct, which is what animals are all about. So yeah, we have plenty to suggest that being gay is someting people are born with. Unless you only know things about homosexuality from waht your preacher tells you...

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html

Still saw nothing to suggest that ancitent Hebrew religious tradition of over three thousand years was influence by a prior, seculor institution.

Except that we've found that animals are gay, and well, animals lack the ability to choose to only have sex with other men, and it goes directly against their instinct, which is what animals are all about. So yeah, we have plenty to suggest that being gay is someting people are born with. Unless you only know things about homosexuality from waht your preacher tells you...

Animals have been proven gay? I've never heard of any such idea.

I know that on occasion animals resort to what would appear to be homosexuality, however, I also am not stupid enough to think that it has genuine basis in sexual orientation.

Also note I never once suggested homosexuality is a choice.

I'm not at all, one of my best friends in high school was raised by his gay moms, he was straight, proverbially even as an arrow perhaps.

I am suggesting that for whatever reason an upbringing may well affect a childs sexual orientation, and that it need not be the result of homosexual parentage.
Well, do you have any scientific minds who have offered arguments to this theory of yours, that sexuality is decided in a child's upbringing? And what different factors about this upbringing cause homo or heterosexuality later in life?

Well, do you have any scientific minds who have offered arguments to this theory of yours, that sexuality is decided in a child's upbringing? And what different factors about this upbringing cause homo or heterosexuality later in life?

Not definitively no, I have also seen no research that disagrees with the idea though.

Animals have been proven gay? I've never heard of any such idea.

I know that on occasion animals resort to what would appear to be homosexuality, however, I also am not stupid enough to think that it has genuine basis in sexual orientation.

Also note I never once suggested homosexuality is a choice.


8% (roughly) of all Rams prefer sex exclusivly with other rams.

8% (roughly) of all Rams prefer sex exclusivly with other rams.

That is undebatable scientific proof?

Wow, the definition of 'proof' has definately gotten more lax.

Not definitively no, I have also seen no research that disagrees with the idea though.
Then what gives credence to your claim that homosexuality is an 'amoral' thing, surely you don't think that people are born amoral do you?

8% (roughly) of all Rams prefer sex exclusivly with other rams.

Also, you should credit your sig, John Milton deserves it.

Then what gives credence to your claim that homosexuality is an 'amoral' thing, surely you don't think that people are born amoral do you?

When did I claim it was amoral?

I hope Sweden steps into the civilized world of dark green soon...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/World_homosexuality_laws.png

You guys need to stop arguing over whether or not homosexuality is innate or a product of upbringing/environment.

Because, you know what? It has fuck all to do with anything.

You don't see anyone throwing a fit about trying to determine if being left-handed is a result of upbringing, or if you're born as a leftie. It'd be stupid, pointless, and a waste of time, because it doesn't matter. And either way, it'd be bigotry and retarded to be leftophobe, or to hate left-handedness as a concept.

Now let's stop bickering get ready to welcome Sweden in the select club of countries who don't discriminate people based on arbitrary character traits that have no bearing on their ability to enter a loving, sustained, healthy long-term relationship with another consenting human being of legal age.

You guys need to stop arguing over whether or not homosexuality is innate or a product of upbringing/environment.

Because, you know what? It has fuck all to do with anything.

You don't see anyone throwing a fit about trying to determine if being left-handed is a result of upbringing, or if you're born as a leftie. It'd be stupid, pointless, and a waste of time, because it doesn't matter. And either way, it'd be bigotry and retarded to be leftophobe, or to hate left-handedness as a concept.

Now let's stop bickering get ready to welcome Sweden in the select club of countries who don't discriminate people based on arbitrary character traits that have no bearing on their ability to enter a loving, sustained, healthy long-term relationship with another consenting human being of legal age.

Oh, come now. You can't expect the people on this board to suddenly start being rational, can you? :p

So, if I have gay friends, support gay marriage and still disagree with homosexuality, does that still make me a bigot?

So, if I have gay friends, support gay marriage and still disagree with homosexuality, does that still make me a bigot?

Yes, just like having black friends doesn't stop one from being able to be racist.

And just like being for left-handed people's right for marriage, but disagreeing with left-handedness is bigotry.

Actually, I'd even go so far as to take it a bit further: not only is it bigoted, but it's pretty stupid, because it's not consistent. Unless by "Disagree" you only mean "not for me".

That's exactly what I mean. I fully support anyone's right to be in a relationship with whomever they so choose, even if I happen to think it's icky. :D I'd even go so far as to be a best man at a gay wedding if I were asked, I'm just not going to go to the parade, you know? I guess my position is that what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is their own business and even if I have reservations about it myself, that doesn't mean that I get to say that they can't do it. I can't remember which stand up comic said it, but "If what you do does not hurt you and does not hurt me, then I have no right to stop you from doing it." Or something to that effect.

Then you don't disagree with homosexuality. You just happen to be one of those weird persons called "heterosexuals". You know, the silly ones who dig people of the opposite sex.

Yes, just like having black friends doesn't stop one from being able to be racist.

And just like being for left-handed people's right for marriage, but disagreeing with left-handedness is bigotry.

Actually, I'd even go so far as to take it a bit further: not only is it bigoted, but it's pretty stupid, because it's not consistent. Unless by "Disagree" you only mean "not for me".

That's exactly what I mean. I fully support anyone's right to be in a relationship with whomever they so choose, even if I happen to think it's icky. :D I'd even go so far as to be a best man at a gay wedding if I were asked, I'm just not going to go to the parade, you know? I guess my position is that what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is their own business and even if I have reservations about it myself, that doesn't mean that I get to say that they can't do it. I can't remember which stand up comic said it, but "If what you do does not hurt you and does not hurt me, then I have no right to stop you from doing it." Or something to that effect.

Then you don't disagree with homosexuality. You just happen to be one of those weird persons called "heterosexuals". You know, the silly ones who dig people of the opposite sex.

It's going to be a lot of fun to tell my friends that I'm the least "bigoted" one. That doesn't happen too often.

Oh, come now. You can't expect the people on this board to suddenly start being rational, can you? :p

So, if I have gay friends, support gay marriage and still disagree with homosexuality, does that still make me a bigot?

No, you would then not be a bigot.

From dictionary.com a bigot is:

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion

If one tolerates homosexuals, but opposes their lifestyle, he is not engaging in bigotry, because he is not being utterly intolerant.

It follows Augustines saying: "Interfice errorem, diligere errantem." ("Kill the sin, love the sinner") It is the same way that Christians love an adulterer, but hate adultery.

It's a simple, and non-contradictory idea.

At least Sweden is winning in the game of anti-bigotry, in that sense anyway.

29% will hopefully be corrected or picked off in someway. Or just die of old age. :p


Now, can some of the Swedes get over to America to help us? We seem rather incapable of seeing reason, what with our heads being stuck in the sand and all.

Thank you. That's what I figured, but it seems like the general position on these fora is religious=bigot.

Yeah... it's a shame when they all use the beacon of reason and rationality, then wipe their feces out of their anus's with both of them.

At least Sweden is winning in the game of anti-bigotry, in that sense anyway.

29% will hopefully be corrected or picked off in someway. Or just die of old age. :p


Now, can some of the Swedes get over to America to help us? We seem rather incapable of seeing reason, what with our heads being stuck in the sand and all.

Was that an Iraq reference? :p

No, you would then not be a bigot.

From dictionary.com a bigot is:

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion

If one tolerates homosexuals, but opposes their lifestyle, he is not engaging in bigotry, because he is not being utterly intolerant.

It follows Augustines saying: "Interfice errorem, diligere errantem." ("Kill the sin, love the sinner") It is the same way that Christians love an adulterer, but hate adultery.

It's a simple, and non-contradictory idea.

Thank you. That's what I figured, but it seems like the general position on these fora is religious=bigot.

How can you disagree with homosexuality? I mean am I going to tell a black person that I disagree with his blackness?

How can you disagree with homosexuality? I mean am I going to tell a black person that I disagree with his blackness?

to recap, they are not equivalent.

How can you disagree with homosexuality? I mean am I going to tell a black person that I disagree with his blackness?

The same way someone can disagree with NAMBLA. Sexuality is genetic, right?

Personally I think consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they want but calling someone bigoted who disagrees with homosexuality uses a very broad definition of the word which would make everyone who has their own opinion a bigot.

I can disagree with homosexuality because at this time, I have not seen any evidence that suggests that homosexuality in humans is a trait present from birth, unlike skin pigmentation. I have heard that it does sometimes occur in certain animal species, such as among rams, as was mentioned earlier in this thread. I am, however, willing to be convinced by scientific evidence. If you have such evidence, I would be most willing to read it.

The evidence to support rams alleged homosexuality was tenuously stretched to be called proof of homosexualtiy in nature

How can you disagree with homosexuality? I mean am I going to tell a black person that I disagree with his blackness?

I can disagree with homosexuality because at this time, I have not seen any evidence that suggests that homosexuality in humans is a trait present from birth, unlike skin pigmentation. I have heard that it does sometimes occur in certain animal species, such as among rams, as was mentioned earlier in this thread. I am, however, willing to be convinced by scientific evidence. If you have such evidence, I would be most willing to read it.

Was that an Iraq reference? :p

I did not mean it in such a way, but it IS a decent fit. Good catch. :)


I can disagree with homosexuality because at this time, I have not seen any evidence that suggests that homosexuality in humans is a trait present from birth, unlike skin pigmentation. I have heard that it does sometimes occur in certain animal species, such as among rams, as was mentioned earlier in this thread. I am, however, willing to be convinced by scientific evidence. If you have such evidence, I would be most willing to read it.

There is quite a bit of scientific evidence. Unfortunately I cannot direct you to it because I don't have many links.

I recently found this (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/opinion/17pinker.html), though.

The evidence to support rams alleged homosexuality was tenuously stretched to be called proof of homosexualtiy in nature

I kind of figured that, plus it's hearsay on my end, as I haven't looked into it at all. Which is why I said, "I've heard ." I've seen dogs playing dominance games that involve the dogs trying to mount each other to establish who's the alpha male, but that doesn't mean that said canines are "homosexual."

Right, it also suggests that the human mind would be the same as animal minds....

Humans are animals. Sorry to burst your bubble, but we aren't that special.

Secondly, human brains are only minimally different from other animals, and most of the difference comes from the pre-frontal cortex.

I kind of figured that, plus it's hearsay on my end, as I haven't looked into it at all. Which is why I said, "I've heard ." I've seen dogs playing dominance games that involve the dogs trying to mount each other to establish who's the alpha male, but that doesn't mean that said canines are "homosexual."

Right, it also suggests that the human mind would be the same as animal minds....

That merely suggests that it is a biological difference. Which does not need to suggest 'born with' after all, many biological responses can be variable even after we are born.

A response kinda happens when it's been encoded by genetics and DNA. If it didn't they kinda wouldn't be gay.


But, try this for a thought. When did you choose to be straight? When you answer me that, let me know. It was never a choice for me at any point in my life.

I did not mean it in such a way, but it IS a decent fit. Good catch. :)




There is quite a bit of scientific evidence. Unfortunately I cannot direct you to it because I don't have many links.

I recently found this (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/opinion/17pinker.html), though.

That merely suggests that it is a biological difference. Which does not need to suggest 'born with' after all, many biological responses can be variable even after we are born.

Humans are animals. Sorry to burst your bubble, but we aren't that special.

Secondly, human brains are only minimally different from other animals, and most of the difference comes from the pre-frontal cortex.

I honestly disagree with you finding that humans are animals, but my argument is from a biblical perspective.

Also, it is very clear that the human mind is different.

Show me the great Empires of the Dolphins, or Gorillas (some of the smarter animals)

I honestly disagree with you finding that humans are animals, but my argument is from a biblical perspective.

Also, it is very clear that the human mind is different.

Show me the great Empires of the Dolphins, or Gorillas (some of the smarter animals)

You apply human meanings to another animal and expect the same thing? Well, heck, at least equate it to the right animals. In the regard to empires, find an anthill. There is your Empire of the Ants of [wherever you found it].

Dolphins are only 'smart' in how we perceive them. All understanding is based off of us. Also note that Dolphins have never started any war, and I'm confident Gorillas don't do more than minor conflicts. Clearly, they are even smarter than humans. :)

As far as bibical knowledge... I won't even go there. Different debate.

First off, only fools continue to argue that homosexuality is entirely choice, I am not doing so.

Good. That's half the battle.

Merely because one isn't born with it doesn't mean it is their choice, I feel that it is the general life experience/conditions of their growing up. (no, not a gay parents=gay children stand either).

Such as. . .? Now I'm genuinely curious to hear about what kind of circumstances would make someone want to live a life of suffering, misunderstanding, marginalization, and outright hatred. Please, do tell.

A response kinda happens when it's been encoded by genetics and DNA. If it didn't they kinda wouldn't be gay.


But, try this for a thought. When did you choose to be straight? When you answer me that, let me know. It was never a choice for me at any point in my life.

First off, only fools continue to argue that homosexuality is entirely choice, I am not doing so.

Merely because one isn't born with it doesn't mean it is their choice, I feel that it is the general life experience/conditions of their growing up. (no, not a gay parents=gay children stand either).

That's interesting. Not exactly proof, but definitely worth looking into. Thanks for the link. I'll see if I can't find some of that research, then. (Imagine, a Christian willing to look at evidence of something that Christians don't like.)

I almost want to admire you for that trait alone. It isn't a common one, I'll put it that way. :D

I did not mean it in such a way, but it IS a decent fit. Good catch. :)

Thanks. :)


There is quite a bit of scientific evidence. Unfortunately I cannot direct you to it because I don't have many links.

I recently found this (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/opinion/17pinker.html), though.

That's interesting. Not exactly proof, but definitely worth looking into. Thanks for the link. I'll see if I can't find some of that research, then. (Imagine, a Christian willing to look at evidence of something that Christians don't like.)

(Imagine, a Christian willing to look at evidence of something that Christians don't like.)

But aren't Christians merely seekers after knowledge, similar to many others, just of a different ilk?

A response kinda happens when it's been encoded by genetics and DNA. If it didn't they kinda wouldn't be gay.


But, try this for a thought. When did you choose to be straight? When you answer me that, let me know. It was never a choice for me at any point in my life.

While I don't know of anyone who chose to be straight, I do know that all of my gay friends, including one who is now in a very committed lesbian relationship, have never claimed to have been born gay. They've all said to me that it was a conscious choice to live a homosexual life. In the case of my lesbian friend, it's because her ex-husband was a complete ass and wanted nothing to do with their daughter. After him, she swore off men entirely. Just an example, for what it's worth. For my part, I figure it's a bit of both. Obviously there is some sort of physiological reason behind homosexuality. I don't know what it is, but it's certainly there.

I almost want to admire you for that trait alone. It isn't a common one, I'll put it that way. :D

That was more gently put than I've seen elsewhere on NSG. :) It's more common than you think, just not on the internet. At least, not that I've seen anyway.

But aren't Christians merely seekers after knowledge, similar to many others, just of a different ilk?

That's the theory, but the practice seems to be lost on a lot of Christians. They seem to forget that faith doesn't have to be blind.

That's the theory, but the practice seems to be lost on a lot of Christians. They seem to forget that faith doesn't have to be blind.

Yeah, it's sad.

But aren't Christians merely seekers after knowledge, similar to many others, just of a different ilk?

If you wanna get technical, anyone calling themselves Christian, by definition, are just a follower of Christ and his teachings. Knowledge or anything else is kinda... not.


That was more gently put than I've seen elsewhere on NSG. :) It's more common than you think, just not on the internet. At least, not that I've seen anyway.

I try to be graceful and tactful unless the issue I'm debating really irks me. But yes, it seems like internet anonymity tends to make hate-spewing flare up like wild-fire during a dry summer.

I've yet to encounter much tolerance outside the internet either, but that's probably just because of where I live.

If you wanna get technical, anyone calling themselves Christian, by definition, are just a follower of Christ and his teachings. Knowledge or anything else is kinda... not.
.

Christians can't seek knowledge because they follow a teaching?

That doesnt make sense....

Christians can't seek knowledge because they follow a teaching?

That doesnt make sense....

I did not say they cannot. I merely stated that a Christian is a follower of Christ. A follower of Christ is not inherently a seeker of knowledge, but arguably humans are. So it would preclude being human, rather than Christian.

If you wanna get technical, anyone calling themselves Christian, by definition, are just a follower of Christ and his teachings. Knowledge or anything else is kinda... not.

Unfortunately, that can be the case among deeply fundamentalist Christians. Those of us who realize that the world doesn't work like it did in 1st century Palestine or Israel or whatever you want to call it also realize that science isn't "teh ebil." Most of the Christians that I interact with on a more or less daily basis are very interested in science and the gathering of knowledge. I guess it depends on the types of Christians you come into contact with. It seems that the most vocal ones historically are the ones who think that questioning is bad. Most of us realize that only by questioning, yes even questioning the Bible, can one really figure out what one believes and why. It's unfortunate that the Christians you tend to encounter are more anal than is necessary. Christians as a whole do need to realize that not everything in science is an evil scheme to bring down our faith.:headbang: We do overreact a lot. Sorry about that.

[/rant]

Unfortunately, that can be the case among deeply fundamentalist Christians. Those of us who realize that the world doesn't work like it did in 1st century Palestine or Israel or whatever you want to call it also realize that science isn't "teh ebil." Most of the Christians that I interact with on a more or less daily basis are very interested in science and the gathering of knowledge. I guess it depends on the types of Christians you come into contact with. It seems that the most vocal ones historically are the ones who think that questioning is bad. Most of us realize that only by questioning, yes even questioning the Bible, can one really figure out what one believes and why. It's unfortunate that the Christians you tend to encounter are more anal than is necessary. Christians as a whole do need to realize that not everything in science is an evil scheme to bring down our faith.:headbang: We do overreact a lot. Sorry about that.

[/rant]

Fundamentalists put the 'Fun' in it, as far as I'm concerned. :p

But I'm already finding myself liking you. Blind faith I despise, but since you actually think about it, that's fantastic. It is a bad rap most religious get, not just Christians so I can't say I blame you. Dogma is inherently like that, I think.

But, as I said before, being Christian doesn't mean you cannot seek knowledge.

Oh... umm, ok.

Splitting hairs, but I guess I understand what you were attempting to communicate.

I do hope you are not suggesting that religion is inseparable from humanity. Outside of that, I probably should've communicated it better in the first place.

I did not say they cannot. I merely stated that a Christian is a follower of Christ. A follower of Christ is not inherently a seeker of knowledge, but arguably humans are. So it would preclude being human, rather than Christian.

Oh... umm, ok.

Splitting hairs, but I guess I understand what you were attempting to communicate.

[Pretending that the "concept" is separable from people is as idiotic as pretending that "blackness" is separate from black people. :QUOTE]

The concept is separable from the people. 50 years ago blacks were considered to be ignorant savages. Does that make them ignorant savages? You say homosexuality is natural. I say, show me the proof. I actually don't care one way or the other about gay marriage, but I dispise how both sides of the argument are quick to adhere derogatory labels to the other side. Proponants of gay marriage claim to be open minded, but they like to throw dirt as much as their opponants, and their arguments hold as much water. Eventually society will change, so quick yelling and screaming and blocking traffic. I have to get to work. :headbang:

Fundamentalists put the 'Fun' in it, as far as I'm concerned. :p

But I'm already finding myself liking you.

You dont like me?

:(

I did not say they cannot. I merely stated that a Christian is a follower of Christ. A follower of Christ is not inherently a seeker of knowledge, but arguably humans are. So it would preclude being human, rather than Christian.

Thanks for clarifying. Your original post did kinda come across like Christians don't seek knowledge because of their teachings. Maybe I'm just used to being defensive. :D



But I'm already finding myself liking you.

Aww, shucks. :)

You dont like me?

:(

I just think you're silly. :p


Thanks for clarifying. Your original post did kinda come across like Christians don't seek knowledge because of their teachings. Maybe I'm just used to being defensive. :D

Most likely just use to being defensive. Believe me when I say that if I mean to insult, you will be aware of it. :D


Aww, shucks. :)

:fluffle:

Should I leave you two alone?

:D

I just think you're silly. :p

Thanks... I think?

:fluffle:

Should I leave you two alone?

I do believe you've just made my night. :D

I try.

:D

Ok... I'll catch you later....

*leaves*

*Peeks through windows*

Most likely just use to being defensive. Believe me when I say that if I mean to insult, you will be aware of it. :D


Noted. I hope I'll never have to find out.



:fluffle:



I do believe you've just made my night. :D

I do hope you are not suggesting that religion is inseparable from humanity. Outside of that, I probably should've communicated it better in the first place.

No, I meant the dissection of the direct meaning of christian, my point was only that Christians are instructed to seek wisdom, and knowledge, and that was my point, you fired back with the defenition of religion, we were kind of on two different planes I think.

No. 29% of people in Sweden believe that homosexuality is wrong and should not be encouraged.

No, that 29% believe that homosexual citizens do not deserve equal treatment under the law. Contrary to what your racist, homophobic, sexist, or otherwise assholish friends may have told you, it is quite possible to disapprove of something without legally oppressing anybody.


That does not make them bigots.
Yes, it does.

I can disagree with homosexuality because at this time, I have not seen any evidence that suggests that homosexuality in humans is a trait present from birth, unlike skin pigmentation. I have heard that it does sometimes occur in certain animal species, such as among rams, as was mentioned earlier in this thread. I am, however, willing to be convinced by scientific evidence. If you have such evidence, I would be most willing to read it.
Brutal honesty time:

If you claim that you haven't seen any evidence for human sexuality being largely governed by our biology, then you're either lying or you've been intentionally avoiding learning anything. Particularly if you're on the internet.

Further, if you've made up your mind that you disagree with homosexuality without having done any of the damn research on this subject, then you're either lazy or you've already made up your mind and aren't actually interested in learning about the subject because you simply want to dislike homosexuality for your own reasons.

In none of these situations will it be productive for anybody else to do your homework for you. If you are somehow an honest person who is genuinely interested in learning about reality, crack a fucking book. Click a couple of Google links. Show that you're a human by using that big beautiful frontal lobe of yours, and quit demanding that other people spoon-feed your every important tidbit of information.

You guys need to stop arguing over whether or not homosexuality is innate or a product of upbringing/environment.

Because, you know what? It has fuck all to do with anything.

You don't see anyone throwing a fit about trying to determine if being left-handed is a result of upbringing, or if you're born as a leftie. It'd be stupid, pointless, and a waste of time, because it doesn't matter. And either way, it'd be bigotry and retarded to be leftophobe, or to hate left-handedness as a concept.

You know that I agree with these sentiments, but I have to say that I do think this argument has value. Why? Because I have seen it get through to people.

I have seen that little light go on above somebody's head when they finally get it. When they finally realize that homosexuals don't wake up and suddenly decide to be gay, but that homosexuals are just like everybody else and have an orientation that they can't consciously control. The key here is that it creates a framework for empathy. The homophobe can finally put himself/herself in the shoes of a gay person, because they no longer see gay people as hedonistic sluts who choose to fuck people of their own sex, but rather as average folk who happen to be attracted in a slightly different direction.

I like getting through to people. It doesn't always work, but anything that has even a moderate success rate is worth it in my book.

You don't see anyone throwing a fit about trying to determine if being left-handed is a result of upbringing, or if you're born as a leftie. It'd be stupid, pointless, and a waste of time, because it doesn't matter. And either way, it'd be bigotry and retarded to be leftophobe, or to hate left-handedness as a concept.

Go back about 50-100 years: hatred of lefthanded people was quite common until then. Kids that wrote with the left hand in schools were physically encouraged (read: hit with a rod) to use the correct hand. Lefthandedness was seen as having a relation with Satan.

Hence the negative connotation we have with the latin word for left: sinister.

I'm just surprised that it's 29%...that seems pretty high for a country like Sweden.

Brutal honesty time:

If you claim that you haven't seen any evidence for human sexuality being largely governed by our biology, then you're either lying or you've been intentionally avoiding learning anything. Particularly if you're on the internet.

Further, if you've made up your mind that you disagree with homosexuality without having done any of the damn research on this subject, then you're either lazy or you've already made up your mind and aren't actually interested in learning about the subject because you simply want to dislike homosexuality for your own reasons.

In none of these situations will it be productive for anybody else to do your homework for you. If you are somehow an honest person who is genuinely interested in learning about reality, crack a fucking book. Click a couple of Google links. Show that you're a human by using that big beautiful frontal lobe of yours, and quit demanding that other people spoon-feed your every important tidbit of information.

Google probably won't help you out here...and i suspect thats where most of your own research has come from. Try some medical journals on human sexuality. Though most believe there is a gene responsible for homosexuality, they are yet to find it. And most sexologists will tell you that there are bigger influences when it comes to sexuality.
Its hardly making up your mind to disagree with homosexuality. Me saying, I think homosexuality is a choice, doesn't mean that I disagree with that choice...or that I think they should be treated as 2nd class citizens.
And its weird that people keep bringing up christians...like thats the only world religion that thinks its wrong....even gentle old buddhism thinks its immoral.
But I am disappointed that people continue to use religion as an excuse to deny people's rights to marriage. But at the same time, I think people have to be respectful to religion, and not demand that gay marriage take place within a church.

Google probably won't help you out here...

Helpful Googled links:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199706/homosexuality-biology/4 (Homosexuality and biology info)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm (Basic info)
http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html (A FAQ section on homosexuality from the American Psychological Association
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/ (For a philosophical perspective on sexuality)

I found these by Googling "homosexuality." The more you know.


and i suspect thats where most of your own research has come from.

Fail.

When you assume, you make an ass out of...well, mostly just yourself.


Try some medical journals on human sexuality. Though most believe there is a gene responsible for homosexuality, they are yet to find it.

Fail.

Indeed, I can't think of any reputable scientific source which asserts that there is a gene responsible for human homosexuality. Nobody who has the most fundamental understanding of genetics or human sexuality would claim something so patently ridiculous.

And most sexologists will tell you that there are bigger influences when it comes to sexuality.

Fail.

Most reputable researchers will honestly admit that genetics are a major influence, but that we simply don't know what the most important determining factors are (yet). Genetics is definitely a factor, as evidenced by studies of identical twins, but it is just as obviously not the only factor. We are certainly in no position to decide which factor is the "biggest," given that we don't even know what all the factors are.

Again, anybody with even the most cursory understanding of genetics or human sexuality would know this. And would have known it for years.


Its hardly making up your mind to disagree with homosexuality. Me saying, I think homosexuality is a choice, doesn't mean that I disagree with that choice...or that I think they should be treated as 2nd class citizens.

No, it just means that you haven't bothered to learn the basic facts about human sexuality before making up your mind. That makes you lazy and/or stupid, though not necessarily a bigot.


And its weird that people keep bringing up christians...like thats the only world religion that thinks its wrong....even gentle old buddhism thinks its immoral.

Read the thread. Plenty of people have pointed out that there are a number of CHRISTIAN denominations that have no problem with homosexuality.

Religion is often used as an excuse for bad behavior. People who are stupid, lazy, or bigoted often love using God as a shield for their personal idiocy.


But I am disappointed that people continue to use religion as an excuse to deny people's rights to marriage. But at the same time, I think people have to be respectful to religion, and not demand that gay marriage take place within a church.
Nobody has to be respectful of religion. Indeed, I don't particularly think religion deserves respect.

Religion deserves tolerance. People who choose to be religious deserve the same fundamental respect given to any human. I believe in respecting a person's right to be religious, just as I respect a person's right to make any other personal philosophical choice in their life. But there's nothing about choosing religion in particular which merits respect.

The fact that you place "respecting religion" in this context immediately after "respecting people's rights" is pretty telling. Nobody is arguing that any religion should be forced to host gay marriages. Stop pretending they are. That is a bullshit homophobe talking point. Ignore it.

Piu alla vita, you have been Bottle-pwnt.

Johnny B Goode, I know where you live!

Nobody has to be respectful of religion. Indeed, I don't particularly think religion deserves respect.

Religion deserves tolerance. People who choose to be religious deserve the same fundamental respect given to any human. I believe in respecting a person's right to be religious, just as I respect a person's right to make any other personal philosophical choice in their life. But there's nothing about choosing religion in particular which merits respect.

The fact that you place "respecting religion" in this context immediately after "respecting people's rights" is pretty telling. Nobody is arguing that any religion should be forced to host gay marriages. Stop pretending they are. That is a bullshit homophobe talking point. Ignore it.

Piu alla vita, you have been Bottle-pwnt.

Helpful Googled links:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199706/homosexuality-biology/4 (Homosexuality and biology info)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm (Basic info)
http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html (A FAQ section on homosexuality from the American Psychological Association
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/ (For a philosophical perspective on sexuality)

I found these by Googling "homosexuality." The more you know.

Indeed, I can't think of any reputable scientific source which asserts that there is a gene responsible for human homosexuality. Nobody who has the most fundamental understanding of genetics or human sexuality would claim something so patently ridiculous.

Most reputable researchers will honestly admit that genetics are a major influence, but that we simply don't know what the most important determining factors are (yet). Genetics is definitely a factor, as evidenced by studies of identical twins, but it is just as obviously not the only factor. We are certainly in no position to decide which factor is the "biggest," given that we don't even know what all the factors are.

Again, anybody with even the most cursory understanding of genetics or human sexuality would know this. And would have known it for years.


No, it just means that you haven't bothered to learn the basic facts about human sexuality before making up your mind. That makes you lazy and/or stupid, though not necessarily a bigot.


Read the thread. Plenty of people have pointed out that there are a number of CHRISTIAN denominations that have no problem with homosexuality.

Religion is often used as an excuse for bad behavior. People who are stupid, lazy, or bigoted often love using God as a shield for their personal idiocy.


Nobody has to be respectful of religion. Indeed, I don't particularly think religion deserves respect.

Religion deserves tolerance. People who choose to be religious deserve the same fundamental respect given to any human. I believe in respecting a person's right to be religious, just as I respect a person's right to make any other personal philosophical choice in their life. But there's nothing about choosing religion in particular which merits respect.

The fact that you place "respecting religion" in this context immediately after "respecting people's rights" is pretty telling. Nobody is arguing that any religion should be forced to host gay marriages. Stop pretending they are. That is a bullshit homophobe talking point. Ignore it.

1st website: Okay, try googling HUMAN sexuality next time. These flies are very interesting but have nothing to do with human genes.
For the only study that mentioned humans, the study said that it was highly attributed to genes. Which isn't exactly conclusive, and I would need to see a lot more studies done...preferably with more than 11 people in the study.

2nd website: Very basic info. Good descriptions on views of sexuality. But nothing based on science.

3rd website: Again....this spoke of various THEORIES. Do you get that word? THEORY..it means something that is yet to be proven. And it covered all sorts of theories. Not just biological, but environmental.

4th website: Great definitions for homosexuality...and the history. But again, no scientific facts.
try some medical journals instead of believing every little thing you read off the internet.

And ummm....in regards to any "reputable scientific source which asserts that there is a gene responsible for human homosexuality. Nobody who has the most fundamental understanding of genetics or human sexuality would claim something so patently ridiculous."
the only reputable study you showed me (1st website) was about isolating the specific gene responsible for homosexuality in fruit flies. And in confirming whether in fact humans have a gene for homosexuality, through testing homosexuality in different twin types.....so....ummm.....you kinda just insulted yourself hey....

And I never said that genetics were always going to be ruled out. But until they prove that they are responsible, I will stick with the 'biggest' factor being choice. Not a 'oh, today i feel like being gay' choice. But a number of social and psychological factors over a long period of time. There is no proof that you are born gay.

Thankyou for not calling me a bigot. Because I'm not. :)
Lazy and/or stupid...mostly yes, but on this topic, no. I have a health science degree, they MADE me study it. And the info given, wasn't from a 'homosexuality' google and pick random sites from there. Perhaps the lazy and/or stupid one...isn't actually me....

I have read the thread. There are denominations that have no problem with homosexuality....but I don't see how they can ignore something plainly written out in the bible. Maybe its a pick and choose christianity.

And my point with respect...is that these religions have been going in some cases for thousands of years....and now, because 'we say so' they should be forced to accomodate things outside their doctrine. And they aren't forced, but there is a LOT of pressure on them. Churches in particular. And I don't think that its a homophobe point. Its a legitimate argument that you can't have things both ways.

And my point with respect...is that these religions have been going in some cases for thousands of years....and now, because 'we say so' they should be forced to accomodate things outside their doctrine. And they aren't forced, but there is a LOT of pressure on them. Churches in particular. And I don't think that its a homophobe point. Its a legitimate argument that you can't have things both ways.

Nope not logical I'm afraid. Why is it that because something is old we must respect it?

Yes of course the morals of any group should change to accommodate the the newer moral understanding, especially if that newer moral understanding is preaching equality for all.

Religion and religious bodies, are fastly approaching a crux point, where if they don't decide to move and change now, they will eventually die out. Look at it this way, thing what would happen to a firm of chimney cleaners who refused to stop sending kids up the chimneys, how long would that firm last in the face of newer technologies, and fairer busines practices?

The Catholic church looks doomed from were I stand, Long live the C of E!

While this may certainly be true, it is the belief that it will harm society, or out of the interest of keeping the 'sanctity' of marriage protected that keeps many religiously minded people in opposition of homosexual marriage.

O.K. Well I have a belief that religion harms society. Let's ban it.

O.K. Well I have a belief that religion harms society. Let's ban it.

And my religion states that straight marriage is an abomination. How dare people engage in such marriages ! Think of the sanctity ! Combat the religions that oppose !

The same way someone can disagree with NAMBLA.

We don't arbitrarily distinguish between kinds of relationships when it comes to NAMBLA. We don't say brown-haired people can violate age of consent laws and black-haired people can't; if we did, that would be bigoted. Instead, we choose a relevant factor that connects directly to a reasonable standard: the possibility of consent.

Opponents of homosexuality don't. The closest any of them have come to such a standard is procreation, but the problem there is that their foundation for procreative sex's superiority is bound up with (among other things) heteronormativity.

Nope not logical I'm afraid. Why is it that because something is old we must respect it?

Yes of course the morals of any group should change to accommodate the the newer moral understanding, especially if that newer moral understanding is preaching equality for all.

Religion and religious bodies, are fastly approaching a crux point, where if they don't decide to move and change now, they will eventually die out. Look at it this way, thing what would happen to a firm of chimney cleaners who refused to stop sending kids up the chimneys, how long would that firm last in the face of newer technologies, and fairer busines practices?

The Catholic church looks doomed from were I stand, Long live the C of E!

Well, in regards to homosexuality....since genetics is not the biggest factor, and social/psychological influences are...then it can be summed down to choices. And all choices are either moral or immoral.
No, something old doesn't = respect....but something valued by most people in society, does.
I don't know whether the catholic church will die out or not. But I think we as a society need to decide where we're going regardless. Cause no offence....but our society, without the same religious zeal....isn't exactly a bowl of cherries. Anyway, thats just my opinion. :)

Well, in regards to homosexuality....since genetics is not the biggest factor, and social/psychological influences are...then it can be summed down to choices. And all choices are either moral or immoral.

Moral, immoral or amoral ;)

But not having children seems like a very moral choice to me then. Let us see:

1. We are rapidly approaching a shortage of fuels, our food distribution systems are currently unable to provide sufficient food to all humans (over a billion go to bed hungry each day) and the pressure we exert on on our environment is staggering. Reducing the amount of humans (at least for now) is a good idea; and choosing to not reproduce yourself is somewhat more ethical than forcing others to do so (or even exterminating them).
2. Would you really wish to let a child grow up in a world in decay ?
3. A lot of children would be better of if they were adopted by people in western countries instead of being left to die of malnutrition and diseases. By not having children of your own you can afford to adopt.

So... now that we have removed the "but they will not make baaabbbbiieees" argument, what else can be immoral ?

50 years ago blacks were considered to be ignorant savages. Does that make them ignorant savages?

That has exactly what to do with anything?

You say homosexuality is natural. I say, show me the proof.

Well, there's the extensively-documented fact that it's been found in nature, for one.

I actually don't care one way or the other about gay marriage,

Nice to know that you find equality to be of so little importance.

Proponants of gay marriage claim to be open minded, but they like to throw dirt as much as their opponants,

Big difference: we're right about them. They're wrong about us. ;)

and their arguments hold as much water.

No. Our arguments are overwhelmingly, irrefutably better than theirs.

Eventually society will change, so quick yelling and screaming and blocking traffic.

"Eventually" is not good enough. Especially when it means "stop fighting"... because then "eventually" fades into "never."

You know, today is MLK Day... ever read the Letter from a Birmingham Jail (http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html)?

I'm just surprised that it's 29%...that seems pretty high for a country like Sweden.

For opposition to same-sex marriage? Why? It's probably one of the lowest numbers anywhere on the planet. Especially since same-sex marriage isn't legal yet; support will go up after it has been for a while.

Moral, immoral or amoral ;)

But not having children seems like a very moral choice to me then. Let us see:

1. We are rapidly approaching a shortage of fuels, our food distribution systems are currently unable to provide sufficient food to all humans (over a billion go to bed hungry each day) and the pressure we exert on on our environment is staggering. Reducing the amount of humans (at least for now) is a good idea; and choosing to not reproduce yourself is somewhat more ethical than forcing others to do so (or even exterminating them).
2. Would you really wish to let a child grow up in a world in decay ?
3. A lot of children would be better of if they were adopted by people in western countries instead of being left to die of malnutrition and diseases. By not having children of your own you can afford to adopt.

So... now that we have removed the "but they will not make baaabbbbiieees" argument, what else can be immoral ?

I'm not sure I understand. Did you just say that to stop having more kids we should be gay? Or that being gay and not having kids is more moral than being straight and having kids?
Cause wouldn't the moral choice in regards to the environment be to stop making selfish decisions which destroy the environment? not sterilize the human race?

And I'm not sure whether you've noticed this, but there's actually a lot more going on with sex than just biology. Perhaps religion deemed it immoral because of the emotional/spiritual implications? In the same way it deemed sex outside of marriage as immoral? I dunno.

I'm not sure I understand. Did you just say that to stop having more kids we should be gay? Or that being gay and not having kids is more moral than being straight and having kids?

The second one is very defensible yes.
The post was mostly based on the fact that "they cannot make babies" is the only argument opponents tend to make; aside from irrelevant nonsense like "it is icky" or "it is not normal" or "it is not natural". Irrelevant , since none of those last things is important to determine if something is "right", "wrong" or "neutral".

And I'm not sure whether you've noticed this, but there's actually a lot more going on with sex than just biology. Perhaps religion deemed it immoral because of the emotional/spiritual implications? In the same way it deemed sex outside of marriage as immoral? I dunno.

Possibly. Pity people cannot give a decent explanation why their religion deems it immoral. As long as they stop at "God says so" and cannot finish "God says so because..." I will have to dismiss their opinion as baseless and unimportant.

1st website: Okay, try googling HUMAN sexuality next time. These flies are very interesting but have nothing to do with human genes.
For the only study that mentioned humans, the study said that it was highly attributed to genes. Which isn't exactly conclusive, and I would need to see a lot more studies done...preferably with more than 11 people in the study.
I'm no more than an amateur when it comes to genetics, but I was under the impression that genes were, well, genes, and that they were pretty much species-independent. I may be wrong, of course, but that was my interpretation of the results when the findings about the eyeless gene causing growth of the 'correct' eye for different species were published.

I know that at the bacterial level, genes can be swapped around between species pretty freely and have the same effects no matter what species they end up in. Come to think of it, was the whole concept of splicing an 'antifreeze' gene from cold water fish into food crops not more of the same idea? If that's the case, I'd expect any other genetically triggered traits to function in similar ways, i.e. across species divides, and, if this is true, it sort of neuters that objection of yours.

3rd website: Again....this spoke of various THEORIES. Do you get that word? THEORY..it means something that is yet to be proven. And it covered all sorts of theories. Not just biological, but environmental.

You do know what a scientific theory is, do you ?

-snip-

Too bad we don't have that in the US, the land of lost civil rights.

Possibly. Pity people cannot give a decent explanation why their religion deems it immoral. As long as they stop at "God says so" and cannot finish "God says so because..." I will have to dismiss their opinion as baseless and unimportant.

Want me to try? I can only do christianity though.
Well, cover biology first i guess. Sex back in bible days between men wouldn't have had the same hygiene precautions we have now. Disease isn't a new thing. That goes for pre-martial sex as well. The idea of marriage was to keep disease to a minimum, because both parties would be faithful.
Psychological/emotional...I can only speak about pre-martial sex. I'm not gay, haven't had a gay experience, so think it'd be pretty damn mean to make stuff up. Plus, you guys would slam me :)
I get really annoyed at people who treat sex like its just a biological act and doesn't impact on someone's emotions/spirit. People who do have, have obviously never been raped. Try telling the molestered child, that it was just biology. Doesn't matter how old you are, when sex goes bad, it affects you. It can (bad) create feelings of inadequacy, isolation, low self-worth etc etc. Thats not to say that being within marriage is going to change any of that, but its the safest option regarding emotions. Break ups can be just devastating for people.
I think, when it comes to religion...God doesn't just say, No! because he's got nothing better to do...but the welfare of people is his priority. Rules are usually there to protect people, not inhibit them.
Anyway, sorry for getting off topic.

Want me to try? I can only do christianity though.
Well, cover biology first i guess. Sex back in bible days between men wouldn't have had the same hygiene precautions we have now. Disease isn't a new thing. That goes for pre-martial sex as well. The idea of marriage was to keep disease to a minimum, because both parties would be faithful.
Psychological/emotional...I can only speak about pre-martial sex. I'm not gay, haven't had a gay experience, so think it'd be pretty damn mean to make stuff up. Plus, you guys would slam me :)
I get really annoyed at people who treat sex like its just a biological act and doesn't impact on someone's emotions/spirit. People who do have, have obviously never been raped. Try telling the molestered child, that it was just biology. Doesn't matter how old you are, when sex goes bad, it affects you. It can (bad) create feelings of inadequacy, isolation, low self-worth etc etc. Thats not to say that being within marriage is going to change any of that, but its the safest option regarding emotions. Break ups can be just devastating for people.
I think, when it comes to religion...God doesn't just say, No! because he's got nothing better to do...but the welfare of people is his priority. Rules are usually there to protect people, not inhibit them.
Anyway, sorry for getting off topic.

So, it is your contention that the homosexual person - who is only attracted to a long-term romantic relationship with a member of the same sex, is somehow helped by a prohibition on seeking out that relationship? That it is emotionally and spiritually better for that person to be ostracized and kept from finding such a companion?

We do share genes with other animals, especially apes etc. But we don't have the same biological makeup as a fruit fly. And they are yet to isolate that gene in humans. But we also have genes which are unique to us. I was more just a little annoyed at what was given to me as proof that sexuality is dependant on genetics.

Well, cover biology first i guess. Sex back in bible days between men wouldn't have had the same hygiene precautions we have now.

Nor between women and men. So why didn't God ban it for everyone?

And what about today?

Thats not to say that being within marriage is going to change any of that, but its the safest option regarding emotions. Break ups can be just devastating for people.

And marriages don't ever break up?

Well, in regards to homosexuality....since genetics is not the biggest factor, and social/psychological influences are...then it can be summed down to choices. And all choices are either moral or immoral.
No, something old doesn't = respect....but something valued by most people in society, does.
I don't know whether the catholic church will die out or not. But I think we as a society need to decide where we're going regardless. Cause no offence....but our society, without the same religious zeal....isn't exactly a bowl of cherries. Anyway, thats just my opinion. :)


So in this post you change stance and are now going with the old 'it's not normal' route instead?

You say that if it is valued by most people in society then it is moral? That is fine I can agree with that, I hold to a similar belief when it comes to what society judges moral or not. So then going by title of this thread it would seem that the majority of people indeed see nothing immoral about same sex marriages.

The truth of the matter though, is morality does change, if the church(and I mean all of them) does not change with the majority of the population, then they will die out.

Again an example. Less than a 100 years ago in America, it was considered right and proper by the majority of society that black people could not use the same public facilities as white people.

Now-a-days that is still held to be true by a tiny minority. What is the ethical stance to take here, which morality is ethically correct; the old or the new?

We do share genes with other animals, especially apes etc. But we don't have the same biological makeup as a fruit fly.
Again, it was my impression that we do indeed use the same genetic mechanisms as all other species. As far as I was aware that was one of the fundamental ways that DNA works.
But we also have genes which are unique to us. I was more just a little annoyed at what was given to me as proof that sexuality is dependant on genetics.
The 'proof' looked OK to me, although I the way that I read Bottle's post that contained the links it wasn't presented as proof per se, but as an opening for familiarising yourself with current thinking on genetics.

Your problem with it seems to me to be that it doesn't fit with your worldview that tells you that we humans are somehow removed from 'the animals'. Of course, as per the disclaimer in my earlier post, I'm no genetics guru, so I may well be way off base on this one, anyway.

Again, it was my impression that we do indeed use the same genetic mechanisms as all other species. As far as I was aware that was one of the fundamental ways that DNA works.

The same mechanisms, yes. And we do share many genes with drosophila (fruitflies). They are a good window into our own genetics - a good place to start when we are looking for genetic contributions with certain traits. We do not, however, share all genes with any given species. Even our closest genetic relatives have distinct genetic differences.

There is no evidence for a single "gay gene" in human beings, nor does it make sense to expect one. Sexuality in human beings is a complex trait and, like most complex traits, we would expect it to be controlled by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Even something as simple as skin color is determined by at least 5 different genes, in addition to factors like exposure to sunlight, diet, etc. There is evidence of genetic influence on sexuality, evidence of developmental factors like hormone balance in the womb, evidence of maternal factors influenced by the number of male children she has already had, and so on.

Some of that evidence comes from studies in other mammalian species and some of it comes from studies in human beings.

The same mechanisms, yes. And we do share many genes with drosophila (fruitflies). They are a good window into our own genetics - a good place to start when we are looking for genetic contributions with certain traits. We do not, however, share all genes with any given species. Even our closest genetic relatives have distinct genetic differences.
My apologies if I was unclear. I did not intend any assertion that humans possessed exactly the same sequence of genes as fruit flies (since if we did, we'd be fruit flies), which I why I carefully used the phrase 'mechanisms'.

My point was that genetic predispositions towards certain traits in any organism suggests that parallel traits extant in other organisms are also likely to have a genetic root. I am not championing the idea of a singular "gay gene", by any means - simply drawing attention to the fact that it's intellectually dishonest to attempt to treat humans as being somehow different to all the other DNA-built beasties of the world ;)

Brutal honesty time:

If you claim that you haven't seen any evidence for human sexuality being largely governed by our biology, then you're either lying or you've been intentionally avoiding learning anything. Particularly if you're on the internet.

Further, if you've made up your mind that you disagree with homosexuality without having done any of the damn research on this subject, then you're either lazy or you've already made up your mind and aren't actually interested in learning about the subject because you simply want to dislike homosexuality for your own reasons.

In none of these situations will it be productive for anybody else to do your homework for you. If you are somehow an honest person who is genuinely interested in learning about reality, crack a fucking book. Click a couple of Google links. Show that you're a human by using that big beautiful frontal lobe of yours, and quit demanding that other people spoon-feed your every important tidbit of information.

Actually Bottle, if you went on to read him clarifying his stance he never said it wasn't biological, only that he didn't know, of, but probably didn't seek evidence one way or another. I think it was closer to not relevant to him enough to spend time doing research, he never once claimed mass hatred of homosexuals, or anything to that degree.

So, all of your posts up through this one fail.

Johnny B Goode, I know where you live!

Do tell, then.

Go back about 50-100 years: hatred of lefthanded people was quite common until then. Kids that wrote with the left hand in schools were physically encouraged (read: hit with a rod) to use the correct hand. Lefthandedness was seen as having a relation with Satan.

Precisely. And who today doesn't realize how fucking stupid that was? There's a reason I chose to draw this parallel, because both situations are very similar in nature.

My bet is that in a couple of decades everyone will back and shake their heads at the sheer stupidity of making a mountain out of the proverbial molehill that sexual orientation is.

We don't arbitrarily distinguish between kinds of relationships when it comes to NAMBLA. We don't say brown-haired people can violate age of consent laws and black-haired people can't; if we did, that would be bigoted. Instead, we choose a relevant factor that connects directly to a reasonable standard: the possibility of consent.

Opponents of homosexuality don't. The closest any of them have come to such a standard is procreation, but the problem there is that their foundation for procreative sex's superiority is bound up with (among other things) heteronormativity.

Please explain your definition of 'bigot' then. To me it just seems an epithet that is thrown in place of educated discourse. If a bigot is just a person intolerant of views they do not hold then why not just have a conversation of two people saying the word to each other? To me it seems many who use the word are in fact, by the definition, bigots.

Additionally, I am also curious how you would define consent. What level of intelligence is required to grant consent? We are speaking of moral consent I would assume instead of the legal sense since homosexuality is a crime in some jurisdictions. Should someone be able to petition a court to get a waiver for age of consent laws?

As an aside: I know that underage people find their way into clubs. Do you condemn those who pursue these illegal activities and report them to the police when you find them?

Please explain your definition of Bigot then.

A bigot is someone who hates or posits the inferiority of something arbitrarily, generally in reference to a class of people (a "race", an ethnicity, a nationality, a sexual orientation, a religion, and so forth.)

If a bigot is just a person intolerant of views they do not hold

Prejudiced against. Not intolerant of.

I can be intolerant of views that I am not prejudiced against if, having given them a fair hearing, I realize that they are unreasonable and immoral.

Additionally, I am also curious how you would define consent.

We can argue over exactly where and how to draw the line, but so what?

As an aside: I know that underage people find their way into clubs. Do you condemn those who pursue these illegal activities and report them to the police when you find them?

I'm not sure I'd condemn anyone for reporting illegality, at least in ordinary contexts.

Please explain your definition of 'bigot' then. To me it just seems an epithet that is thrown in place of educated discourse. If a bigot is just a person intolerant of views they do not hold then why not just have a conversation of two people saying the word to each other? To me it seems many who use the word are in fact, by the definition, bigots.

Additionally, I am also curious how you would define consent. What level of intelligence is required to grant consent? We are speaking of moral consent I would assume instead of in a legal sense since homosexuality is a crime in some jurisdictions. Should someone be able to petition a court to get a waiver for age of consent laws?

As an aside: I know that underage people find their way into clubs. Do you condemn those who pursue these illegal activities and report them to the police when you find them?

1)
"Main Entry:
big·ot Listen to the pronunciation of bigot
Pronunciation:
\ˈbi-gət\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French, hypocrite, bigot
Date:
1660

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance." You can add sexual orientation in there to get the appropriate definition in this context.

2) Consent is an issue of understanding, not intelligence. While things are a bit blurry here because everyone is different in the age and level to which they come to understand sexual relations and their impact, age of consent laws are established, I believed, as a better safe than sorry thing. It's much more on the side of sanity to have some people wait a couple years before they're legally able to be petitioned for sex, rather than to have others suffer psychological or emotional trauma because they entered into a relationship they did not fully comprehend due to their age.

3) It's a bouncer's job (and a bartender's) to keep underage people from entering and drinking at an establishment. I am not aware of the existence of random people that go around asking clubbers their age, but if they did, that's their business and I don't particularly care.

I got my definition from here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot), which is why I asked for yours. I really don't see how calling all religious people who hold the view that homosexuality is a sin and wrong are doing anything different than those who hold that "X" religion is inherently wrong.

The religious people believe in their hearts that homosexuality is a choice, immoral and wrong. Why are they called bigots if from their perspective they are doing the very same thing that you are doing from yours - giving a fair hearing and realizing that the activity is immoral and unreasonable.

You are right on the consent issue it's an unnecessary tangent.

Well, in regards to homosexuality....since genetics is not the biggest factor, and social/psychological influences are...then it can be summed down to choices. And all choices are either moral or immoral.
No, something old doesn't = respect....but something valued by most people in society, does.
I don't know whether the catholic church will die out or not. But I think we as a society need to decide where we're going regardless. Cause no offence....but our society, without the same religious zeal....isn't exactly a bowl of cherries. Anyway, thats just my opinion. :)

According to my psych textbook (An Introduction to Brain and Behavior, 2nd edition, Whishaw):

The likelihood of a gay man having a gay brother is:
25% for fraternal twins.
50% for identical twins.

And

The hypothalamus of homosexual males differs from those in both males and females.

And as a child you cant choose the environment you grow in, can you?

I got my definition from here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot), which is why I asked for yours. I really don't see how calling all religious people who hold the view that homosexuality is a sin and wrong are doing anything different than those who hold that "X" religion is inherently wrong.

No, it's not the same, because not all religious people try to use their religion as shield to justify their prejudiced views. A lot of religious people don't make judgments or try to tell others how wrong their life is for not following the same precepts they follow themselves.


The religious people believe in their hearts that homosexuality is a choice, immoral and wrong. Why are they called bigots if from their perspective they are doing the very same thing that you are doing from yours - giving a fair hearing and realizing that the activity is immoral and unreasonable.

They're called bigots because they're holding out their prejudiced, unjustified views for all to see and hypocritically trying to make it seem as though it wasn't prejudice.

Nobody in this thread did any sweeping generalizations saying how "Religious people were immoral and unreasonable".

I hold no intolerance nor any prejudice towards religion or religious people in general. What I do not tolerate, though, is prejudice. Especially the kind that tries to shelter behind something else, be it religion, ideology, traditions, etc. to justify itself.

A Pope once said that black-skinned people only had 2/5th of a soul. The Catholic Church, who was administering schools here in Quebec, was one of the first institutions to force left-handed children to write right-handed. Those are two of countless examples of people using religion to try and justify prejudice against a certain sub-class or subgroup of people. Both of those, thankfully, have since then been proven to be stupid and bigoted. The same goes with sexual orientation; trying to justify denying people rights because of sexual orientation will one day seem as stupid and bigoted as preventing interracial marriage, or clubbing a left-handed child's hand with a ruler until he learns to use the other one to write.

I got my definition from here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot), which is why I asked for yours. I really don't see how calling all religious people who hold the view that homosexuality is a sin and wrong are doing anything different than those who hold that "X" religion is inherently wrong.

One is a biological trait. It's like saying that left-handedness or blue eyes or black skin is "wrong" or sinful.

If I say that I think a particular religious viewpoint is wrong, it it because I have examined it and found it, in some way, to be incorrect. If I say that being left-handed is wrong, is that really the same thing?

The religious people believe in their hearts that homosexuality is a choice,

Then they haven't really examined their views. I have yet to meet a person who made that claim and could actually pinpoint the moment at which they chose to be attracted exclusively to members of the opposite sex. They can never tell me when they were neither homosexual nor heterosexual and actually chose one or the other.

I really don't see how calling all religious people who hold the view that homosexuality is a sin and wrong are doing anything different than those who hold that "X" religion is inherently wrong.

They may or may not. It depends on the reasoning behind the position that the given religion is inherently wrong.

The religious people believe in their hearts that homosexuality is a choice, immoral and wrong.

I'm sure that plenty of KKK members believed in their hearts that Blacks were inferior. So?

Why are they called bigots if from their perspective they are doing the very same thing that you are doing from yours

This is not a question of what they are doing "from their perspective." It's a question of what they're actually doing. What they're actually doing is arbitrarily differentiating between same-sex sexual attraction and behavior and opposite-sex sexual attraction and behavior. That's bigoted.

I honestly disagree with you finding that humans are animals,


-Biota
|-Eukaryota
|-Animalia
|-Bilateria
|-Deuterostomia
|-Chordata
|-Craniata
|-Vertebrata
|-Gnathostomata
|-Tetrapoda
|-Amniota
|-Synapsida
|-Therapsida
|-Mammalia
|-Theria
|-Eutheria
|-Euarchontoglires
|-Euarchonta
|-Primates
|-Haplorrhini
|-Simiiformes
|-Catarrhini
|-Hominoidea
|-Hominidae
|-Homininae
|-Hominini
|-Hominina
|-Homo
|-H. sapiens
|-H. s. sapiens


We're animals.

[Well, there's the extensively-documented fact that it's been found in nature, for one.]

The question is whether homosexuality is a choice or biological, with no proof from either side of the equation. Animals are products of their environment as well as followers of their nature.

[Nice to know that you find equality to be of so little importance.]

Given the issues faced by mankind today, such as, but not limited to, genocide and starvation, the issue of whether or not a homosexual couple can have a piece of paper that states they are married is low on my priority list.

[Big difference: we're right about them. They're wrong about us. ;)]

Thank you for proving my point.

["Eventually" is not good enough. Especially when it means "stop fighting"... because then "eventually" fades into "never." [/URL]?

Not true, considering that the issue here is gay marrige, where the actual benefits that would be achevied by homosexuals is minuscule, the real issue is acceptance. Homosexuals have achevied a level of acceptance unheard of since classical times. Don't you realize that being combative about the issue mobilizes the opposing forces? Oh well. Why am I arguing about this issue anyway? One quick question: my local political correction officers (also known as my college teachers) have informed me that the term "homosexual" is now considered to be derogatory. Not that I care, but for curiosities’ sake what is the new term? :confused:

This is not a question of what they are doing "from their perspective." It's a question of what they're actually doing. What they're actually doing is arbitrarily differentiating between same-sex sexual attraction and behavior and opposite-sex sexual attraction and behavior. That's bigoted.

What you're actually doing is arbitrarily* differentiating between your opinion and behavior and their opinion and behavior. You are using your own measuring stick to define someone else just as you are upset that they are doing to you. No one has proven that human sexuality is purely genetic. Just as no one has proven that it is purely a learned behavior. Until then both sides are acting on faith and either both sides are bigoted or neither.


*Neither are arbitrarily decided - most people who decide their opinions don't just wake up one day and decide. Many of them have done a lot of reflecting and do use logic, the problem is that both sides disagree on premises.

No one has proven that human sexuality is purely genetic. Just as no one has proven that it is purely a learned behavior. Until then both sides are acting on faith and either both sides are bigoted or neither.

Sexuality is not a behavior. It is a trait. So it can't really be a "learned behavior."

Meanwhile, why assume that it must be purely genetic or purely something else? Such a position is really rather untenable.

Sexuality is not a behavior. It is a trait. So it can't really be a "learned behavior."

Meanwhile, why assume that it must be purely genetic or purely something else? Such a position is really rather untenable.

My point is that there is no real tenable position. That's why people shouldn't be calling others bigots if they disagree with them.

My point is that there is no real tenable position. That's why people shouldn't be calling others bigots if they disagree with them.
Fuck that. I'll call bigots on their bigotry if I feel like it. A racist is a racist, an homophobe is an homophobe, a sexist is a sexist, and so on.

I don't give a damn what the rationale behind the prejudice is; it's still prejudice, and I'm still exposing it for what it is. There is no excuse. Half-assing around the issue, trying to paint it like it's actually only an enlightened disagreement on some abstract philosophical or theological notion does not cut it.

There is, quite simply, no valid ground other than homophobia or base ignorance for not supporting equal rights for everybody. There is no valid ground for feeling superior or morally superior to a subgroup of people due to your beliefs, religious or otherwise. This is not a mere "point of view" or a question of perspective; it's bigotry. Plain, simple, obvious bigotry.

My point is that there is no real tenable position. That's why people shouldn't be calling others bigots if they disagree with them.

Why is the question if it is chosen, genetic, a combination or something else entirely relevant to the debate and the bigot calling ?

Is there an objective reason to dislike homosexuals y/n ?
Is there an objective reason to do not allow homosexuals to marry y/n ?

Those are the questions that determine if you are right to call anti-gays bigots.

-Biota
|-Eukaryota
|-Animalia
|-Bilateria
|-Deuterostomia
|-Chordata
|-Craniata
|-Vertebrata
|-Gnathostomata
|-Tetrapoda
|-Amniota
|-Synapsida
|-Therapsida
|-Mammalia
|-Theria
|-Eutheria
|-Euarchontoglires
|-Euarchonta
|-Primates
|-Haplorrhini
|-Simiiformes
|-Catarrhini
|-Hominoidea
|-Hominidae
|-Homininae
|-Hominini
|-Hominina
|-Homo
|-H. sapiens
|-H. s. sapiens


We're animals.

I maintain my disagreement. However, had you at one point learned to read a whole idea, you would have realized that I am not arguing based on any scientific merit (nor indeed, am I arguing that we are scientifically not humans). I stated that I feel, through Biblical explanation, that humans are set apart from, and above, animals, this is a theological/philosophical standpoint... not a scientific one, so your claim continues to have no merit against my point at all.

Why is the question if it is chosen, genetic, a combination or something else entirely relevant to the debate and the bigot calling ?

Is there an objective reason to dislike homosexuals y/n ?
Is there an objective reason to do not allow homosexuals to marry y/n ?

Those are the questions that determine if you are right to call anti-gays bigots.

Because several have stated that 'they can't choose the way they are' - Perhaps it is irrelevant.

As to the other two questions :

It really depends on the answer's definition of objective (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+objective+opinion&btnG=Search).

(It's also my understanding many people who dislike homosexuals are not following their faith very well.)

What you're actually doing is arbitrarily* differentiating between your opinion and behavior and their opinion and behavior.

No, my differentiation is not arbitrary at all.

No one has proven that human sexuality is purely genetic. Just as no one has proven that it is purely a learned behavior.

So fucking what? That has nothing--nothing whatsoever--to do with the question of same-sex marriage.

Neither are arbitrarily decided - most people who decide their opinions don't just wake up one day and decide. Many of them have done a lot of reflecting and do use logic,

You can think about an issue and still make arbitrary judgments. "Arbitrary" does not mean "whimsical."

the problem is that both sides disagree on premises.

Which premises?

I maintain my disagreement. However, had you at one point learned to read a whole idea, you would have realized that I am not arguing based on any scientific merit (nor indeed, am I arguing that we are scientifically not humans). I stated that I feel, through Biblical explanation, that humans are set apart from, and above, animals, this is a theological/philosophical standpoint... not a scientific one, so your claim continues to have no merit against my point at all.
Well, my religion says that trying to deny scientific reality using theology or philosophy is stupid and inane.

Pastafarianism FTW!

As to the other two questions :

It really depends on the answer's definition of objective (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+objective+opinion&btnG=Search).


Fair enough. Shall we change objective to "how well they can back it up with reasoning" ?
Or, we could just wait until some opponents provide us with what they personally think is objective. "It is icky" obviously is not.

Fair enough. Shall we change objective to "how well they can back it up with reasoning" ?
Or, we could just wait until some opponents provide us with what they personally think is objective. "It is icky" obviously is not.

As I had stated, if two parties disagree on premises it is difficult if not impossible to reconcile them. Calling each other 'bigots' is not conductive to an educated discussion.

I maintain my disagreement. However, had you at one point learned to read a whole idea, you would have realized that I am not arguing based on any scientific merit (nor indeed, am I arguing that we are scientifically not humans). I stated that I feel, through Biblical explanation, that humans are set apart from, and above, animals, this is a theological/philosophical standpoint... not a scientific one, so your claim continues to have no merit against my point at all.

When dealing with a matter of biology, a biblical stance is, quite frankly, worthless. Which is why I didn't bother with it, because it's totally irrelevant.

As I had stated, if two parties disagree on premises it is difficult if not impossible to reconcile them. Calling each other 'bigots' is not conductive to an educated discussion.

Examining the premises would be the first step.

Examining the premises would be the first step.

Start by proving to them that you exist - then disprove their belief in a higher power or the rules in a book that were written down.

Start by proving to them that you exist - then disprove their belief in a higher power or the rules in a book that were written down.

Why the second part ? If people wish to follow the rules of what they believe is God - fine. But then I wish to understand Gods reasoning.

Why the second part ? If people wish to follow the rules of what they believe is God - fine. But then I wish to understand Gods reasoning.

Me too mom, me too. The second part is my point along the lines of the fact that some believe their own premises or ideals to be superior - they think that gives them the right to use fancy ad hominems like, 'bigot' 'fag' et cetera.

God has nothing to do in this issue. Unless you live in a theocracy.

I did both, and found no evidence to suggest is started as a secular institute. In fact, the Bible (in parts that are at least three thousand years old) use marriage as a religious institution. Cite me sources older than that, and I will dig deeper.

Cite me sources more factual/reliable/non-biased and I will support your arguement.

Before someone accuses me of religious hatred for my comment I am far from being any bigot. I'm not saying that ALL people of faith are like this but there are many passages in the Bible that promote hatred and aggression against people of other faiths and beliefs. It is meant to be the word of Christ yet was written by people who merely followed him, published several hundreds of years later and has so many versions used by the many faiths that follow them.

Again, I do not mean to criticise religion but it is horrendous to think people quote it to justify their opinions.

The religious people believe in their hearts that homosexuality is a choice
If they actually wanted to KNOW whether it was a choice, they could ASK me. I would tell them I have no idea how I came to be as I am, but at no time was there any "choice" about it.
Forming a belief without any knowledge is "prejudice". Holding firmly onto a prejudice, as an excuse for doing hurt to other people, is "bigotry".

If they actually wanted to KNOW whether it was a choice, they could ASK me. I would tell them I have no idea how I came to be as I am, but at no time was there any "choice" about it.
Forming a belief without any knowledge is "prejudice". Holding firmly onto a prejudice, as an excuse for doing hurt to other people, is "bigotry".

So you formed the idea of your sexuality without any knowledge since you don't know how you came to be as you are? Now you hold onto this idea for an excuse to call other people prejudiced bigots? There is no need for that. You can disagree with someone without using epithets.

So you formed the idea of your sexuality without any knowledge since you don't know how you came to be as you are?
HUH??? I know all about what arouses me and what does not. I do not know what the underlying mechanisms are which cause me to be aroused by males and not by females; I have taken no position on issues of whether genetic factors predominate, or hormonal factors or whatever. I do know, however, quite directly, that no such thing as a "choice" was involved in it. Since it is my own consciousness, I would know in that direct cogito ergo sum sense of "know", if any such thing were true.
Now you hold onto this idea for an excuse to call other people prejudiced bigots? There is no need for that. You can disagree with someone without using epithets.
Oh yes there most decidedly IS a need to call prejudiced bigots what they are. Someone who forms beliefs about me, without knowing the first thing about me, is prejudiced. Someone who cannot be shaken from those beliefs when I, the person who actually knows, tells them they are wrong, is just being bigoted. There is no point in arguing with bigots: beliefs that are not founded in reason in the first place are not going to be removed by argument. It is helpful however when talking to others to point out who the bigots are and warn against wasting any time with them.

Oh yes there most decidedly IS a need to call prejudiced bigots what they are. Someone who forms beliefs about me, without knowing the first thing about me, is prejudiced. Someone who cannot be shaken from those beliefs when I, the person who actually knows, tells them they are wrong, is just being bigoted. There is no point in arguing with bigots: beliefs that are not founded in reason in the first place are not going to be removed by argument. It is helpful however when talking to others to point out who the bigots are and warn against wasting any time with them.

And logically you cannot prove that someone else exists let alone if their god or beliefs are true or not. So they could just as easily call you a bigot as you are calling them. They can just as easily say that they know the truth as you can. You don't know the first thing about that other person, you are not going to be shaken from your beliefs. Plus, calling someone a bigot is a fantastic way to get them to see your point.

So they could just as easily call you a bigot as you are calling them.

They have been, except they've been using the word "Sodomites" or "Sinners" instead.

They can just as easily say that they know the truth as you can. You don't know the first thing about that other person, you are not going to be shaken from your beliefs.
Again, they have been, for several centuries now. And now it's my turn to point them as bigots because they won't listen to science, reason, and reality, content as they are in their delusions of self-importance and moral high ground.

The religious ones who aren't homophobic or otherwise prejudiced I have no problems with, and those people I do not call bigots, because they are not.

Those who would like to hide behind God or Religion, Doctrine or Ideology or what-have-you to try to justify their prejudice? I'll call them fucking bigots because they are, and I'll not feel guilty about it at all, because payback's a bitch and they earned every last bit of this kharmic reversal. The wisest of them will realize they've been acting stupidly, apologize, and will be left well alone. Those who keep obstinately to their illogical, immoral beliefs? They're bigots and be called on it.

They can just as easily say that they know the truth as you can.
No. I know what is in my own head. They don't. This ought to be a very simple point, but apparently it isn't.
Plus, calling someone a bigot is a fantastic way to get them to see your point.
There is no way to get bigots to see your point. Did you even bother to read my post? I call someone a bigot when I have concluded that neither I nor anybody else ought to be wasting any further time on them.

When dealing with a matter of biology, a biblical stance is, quite frankly, worthless. Which is why I didn't bother with it, because it's totally irrelevant.

Then our two arguments are incompatable, and your post was equally worthless.

They have been, except they've been using the word "Sodomites" or "Sinners" instead.

Again, they have been, for several centuries now. And now it's my turn to point them as bigots because they won't listen to science, reason, and reality, content as they are in their delusions of self-importance and moral high ground.

The religious ones who aren't homophobic or otherwise prejudiced I have no problems with, and those people I do not call bigots, because they are not.

Those who would like to hide behind God or Religion, Doctrine or Ideology or what-have-you to try to justify their prejudice? I'll call them fucking bigots because they are, and I'll not feel guilty about it at all, because payback's a bitch and they earned every last bit of this kharmic reversal. The wisest of them will realize they've been acting stupidly, apologize, and will be left well alone. Those who keep obstinately to their illogical, immoral beliefs? They're bigots and be called on it.

You're one of the most outspoken bigots I have ever heard first hand... Ironic isn't it?

Calling me a bigot will not magically make one out of me.

I know that, I was referring to your outspoken tolerance for those who are religious, that makes you a bigot.

You're one of the most outspoken bigots I have ever heard first hand... Ironic isn't it?

Calling me a bigot will not magically make one out of me.

Equal rights and a life free of prejudice for all. It's a simple concept. Those who don't believe humans all deserve equal treatment, and that no human group is inherently superior to others are bigots. That's it.

I believe all humans deserve equal treatment. I believe no group is inherently superior to any other.

And I won't just sit by while people try to hide behind God or Religion to justify homophobia. It's that simple. There are religious persons out there who aren't homophobic. There are religious people who are homophobic, but recognize it and do not try to hide behind belief or religion to excuse it.

And there are hypocrites who try to justify treating people differently by using religion as a shield to avoid other people from calling their bullshit bullshit. It just doesn't work with me.

Equal rights and a life free of prejudice for all. It's a simple concept. Those who don't believe humans all deserve equal treatment, and that no human group is inherently superior to others are bigots. That's it.

I believe all humans deserve equal treatment. I believe no group is inherently superior to any other.

And I won't just sit by while people try to hide behind God or Religion to justify homophobia. It's that simple. There are religious persons out there who aren't homophobic. There are religious people who are homophobic, but recognize it and do not try to hide behind belief or religion to excuse it.

And there are hypocrites who try to justify treating people differently by using religion as a shield to avoid other people from calling their bullshit bullshit. It just doesn't work with me.

So it's ok for people to believe an ideal, however if that ideal stems from religion it is inherently wrong? Sorry but that is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Militant peacemongering does not work either... keep trying though, that way, when you land on your face, maybe you'll have learned something.

They have been, except they've been using the word "Sodomites" or "Sinners" instead.

I'll call them fucking bigots because they are, and I'll not feel guilty about it at all, because payback's a bitch and they earned every last bit of this kharmic reversal.

So then it was acceptable for them to do it because it all equals out in the end?


No. I know what is in my own head. They don't. This ought to be a very simple point, but apparently it isn't.

There is no way to get bigots to see your point. Did you even bother to read my post? I call someone a bigot when I have concluded that neither I nor anybody else ought to be wasting any further time on them.

You said that you think that people who are bigots should be called that. My point was that they could just as easily call you a bigot. (Or a sodomite, sinner, fag, insert random insulting word here) What does two people calling each other names help solve? It makes you feel better at the cost of someone who already dislikes the idea of your sexuality having their beliefs reinforced. How many children do you plan to have? I bet they are going to have a bunch and remember you when they are teaching those kids about the world.

So it's ok for people to believe an ideal, however if that ideal stems from religion it is inherently wrong? Sorry but that is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
??? He said nothing of the sort, and your misunderstanding has got to be THE stupidest thing I've heard today.

What does two people calling each other names help solve?
Recognizing what is true. When you find one of these bigots on the board, there is no point in arguing. Just move on. That is what the word "bigot" means: somebody who cannot be persuaded. It is useful to recognize those people and to point them out.

It makes you feel better....
Quite the opposite, actually.

You confuse Christian love of sinners with blindly allowing things that Christians do not approve of. Then again, you don't take the time to garner the facts about the particular issue of Christianity, so it doesn't surprise me that you would make such an asinine comment.

But that is neither here nor there.

I once heard a quote that said "love the sinner, hate the sin? I don't need your compassion. Hate the sinner, cause I love the sin." but thats neither here nor there, your post just made me think of it.

So it's ok for people to believe an ideal, however if that ideal stems from religion it is inherently wrong? Sorry but that is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

No, it's okay for people to believe in an ideal if that ideal is not based upon inherent superiority, moral or otherwise. It's okay for them to believe in it if they're not trying to judge and bully others, shoving said ideal down their throat.

Mein Kampft was not based on religion, and it was still a shitty, bigoted ideal.

Religion =/= Systematic bigotry, and Bigotry =/= Systematically derived from religious beliefs.

However, in those cases where both go hand in hand, religion does not absolve one from being a bigot.

No, it's okay for people to believe in an ideal if that ideal is not based upon inherent superiority, moral or otherwise. It's okay for them to believe in it if they're not trying to judge and bully others, shoving said ideal down their throat.

Mein Kampft was not based on religion, and it was still a shitty, bigoted ideal.

Religion =/= Systematic bigotry, and Bigotry =/= Systematically derived from religious beliefs.

However, in those cases where both go hand in hand, religion does not absolve one from being a bigot.

Unless of course some unaccessible objective morality would contradict you point, but that is irrelevant to the current discussion.

What excuses your bigotry to make you somehow so righteous?

I once heard a quote that said "love the sinner, hate the sin? I don't need your compassion. Hate the sinner, cause I love the sin."

:)

That expresses it perfectly.

Unless of course some unaccessible objective morality would contradict you point, but that is irrelevant to the current discussion.

What excuses your bigotry to make you somehow so righteous?
How about you actually read his posts, because that don't say anything even remotely close to what you're arguing against.

Anyone who is anti-gay: :upyours:


being gay whether people choce to be or born with it... IT DOSNT MATTER. whats wrong with it??? it goes agent nature, so do organ transplants. Religion? :upyours: seaperation of church and state.

You said that you think that people who are bigots should be called that. My point was that they could just as easily call you a bigot. (Or a sodomite, sinner, fag, insert random insulting word here) What does two people calling each other names help solve? It makes you feel better at the cost of someone who already dislikes the idea of your sexuality having their beliefs reinforced. How many children do you plan to have? I bet they are going to have a bunch and remember you when they are teaching those kids about the world.
By that standard, if you see someone saying something racist, you wouldn't call him racist?

By that standard, if you saw a man behave in a sexist manner, you wouldn't call him sexist?

You'd rather sweep prejudice under the rug and discuss it like : "Say, old chap, I have a bit of a disagreement over your comment on our coloured friend being inferior"?

Racism, sexism, xenophobia, and all the other manners of prejudice had to be confronted and called out for what they were before they could be rooted out of our societies. Homophobia is no different, and requires exactly the same type of action.

By that standard, if you see someone saying something racist, you wouldn't call him racist?

By that standard, if you saw a man behave in a sexist manner, you wouldn't call him sexist?

You'd rather sweep prejudice under the rug and discuss it like : "Say, old chap, I have a bit of a disagreement over your comment on our coloured friend being inferior"?

Racism, sexism, xenophobia, and all the other manners of prejudice had to be confronted and called out for what they were before they could be rooted out of our societies. Homophobia is no different, and requires exactly the same type of action.

Yes, let's get the thought police to work stamping out all manners of anything we disagree with.

If it's one of my subordinates I will pull them to the side and let them know that it is unacceptable in the work place. If it continues they will lose their job. If it's outside of work I can disagree and debate without using epithets. I don't think it's 'sweeping it under the rug' to disagree and have a respectful debate. Perhaps you would prefer if we all just took ten steps, turned and fired?

Anyone who is anti-gay: :upyours:


being gay whether people choce to be or born with it... IT DOSNT MATTER. whats wrong with it??? it goes agent nature, so do organ transplants. Religion? :upyours: seaperation of church and state.

Organ transplants go agent nature! ZOMG, u totally doesnt afraid of noone!

The Christian Democrats need to sit down, shut up, and face the facts: modern day Sweden just simply doesn't want to enforce Christian morality on its people anymore. So they need to figure out how to cope or else they'll disappear as a political party altogether.

Which I think Fass would be perfectly fine with.

Is everyone in Sweden still born into the Lutheran Church? That always struck me as weird.

Yes, let's get the thought police to work stamping out all manners of anything we disagree with.

If it's one of my subordinates I will pull them to the side and let them know that it is unacceptable in the work place. If it continues they will lose their job. If it's outside of work I can disagree and debate without using epithets. I don't think it's 'sweeping it under the rug' to disagree and have a respectful debate. Perhaps you would prefer if we all just took ten steps, turned and fired?

So just because "racist" or "bigot" are epithets, you refuse to use them even when they accurately describe the situation, for fear of offending sensibilities?

If I hear someone say something along the lines of "Blacks are an inferior race", I tell him this is a racist statement. If a man says "Women ought to go back to their kitchens", I tell him he's a sexist. If a person says "I think homosexuality is against the natural order and a sin against God", I call him a homophobe. All those are bigots.

Only one way to deal with bigots; confront them on their beliefs and stop them from hiding in their little delusions that they're not really being bigots, they're just having an opinion.Because, hey, nobody likes being called a bigot, especially when it's true.

Seriously, it's pretty obvious from your comments that you haven't ever been on the wrong side of prejudice. I have, as have many others, for many different reasons and justifications.

Boo.

It's bad enough we let those people have special rights, but let them get married and defile the institution? If America ever federalizes such policies, it just proves how corrupt our nation has become.

So just because "racist" or "bigot" are epithets, you refuse to use them even when they accurately describe the situation, for fear of offending sensibilities?

If I hear someone say something along the lines of "Blacks are an inferior race", I tell him this is a racist statement. If a man says "Women ought to go back to their kitchens", I tell him he's a sexist. If a person says "I think homosexuality is against the natural order and a sin against God", I call him a homophobe. All those are bigots.

Only one way to deal with bigots; confront them on their beliefs and stop them from hiding in their little delusions that they're not really being bigots, they're just having an opinion.Because, hey, nobody likes being called a bigot, especially when it's true.

Seriously, it's pretty obvious from your comments that you haven't ever been on the wrong side of prejudice. I have, as have many others, for many different reasons and justifications.

I choose not to use them in intellectual discourse because they are ad hominem attacks. Does that make it right when they call you one? If it's true? The fact that they think that what you do is immoral and unjustified? I think neither are acceptable. And you are very unlikely to change their minds about it by calling them those names. In fact - you will likely make it worse.

And if you want a personal story about prejudice Skaladora, PM me we can discuss it further.

I choose not to use them in intellectual discourse because they are ad hominem attacks. Does that make it right when they call you one? If it's true? The fact that they think that what you do is immoral and unjustified? I think neither are acceptable. And you are very unlikely to change their minds about it by calling them those names. In fact - you will likely make it worse.

Sometimes a good dose reality slapping you in the face is what is needed to confront these people to what they are, or how they're acting.

Calling someone a bigot after they have behaved or said things that tells you they are is not the same as being prejudiced against an entire subclass of people based on preconceived ideas towards them, in a sweeping generalization or blanket statement about them. See my post on the last page for the distinction between saying "Religious folks are homophobic bigots" and saying "Just because you're religious does not mean you can't be called a bigot if you are one".

As for changing their mind about it, I believe I would know, being a five-year volunteer worker visiting classes to answer student's questions about sexual orientation, and sexual diversity in general. Pointing out homophobia as a problem, the consequences this problem brings to our society and the individual it marginalizes, and reminding them that prejudice is never justified no matter the reason works very well at getting rid of this prejudice.

So much, in fact, that our NPO is being asked by elementary schools to visit their classes and schools (where homophobia is a problem) when we only used to visit high schools a few years back.


And if you want a personal story about prejudice Skaladora, PM me we can discuss it further.
I wasn't so much digging for a personal story as much as underlying a point: it's very easy to be all academic and tolerant of bigotry when you're not the one who's being targeted with the prejudice.

When you're the one who's being denied rights, held in contempt, or otherwise harassed, then niceties such as avoiding epithets become unessential. The blacks didn't get equal rights by being nice and gently asking for them, "pretty please with sugar on top". The women didn't get their voting rights by being submissive to their husbands. They did it by being loud, by pointing the hypocrisy, and by saying that they weren't willing to put up with the bullshit anymore.

Are we willing to put up with the bullshit about religion being an excuse to be a bigot(in the widest meaning of the word, not just about homophobia)? I know I'm not.

I choose not to use them in intellectual discourse because they are ad hominem attacks.

No, they aren't... bigotry is not an irrelevant characteristic of the argument at all.

I just had a brilliant idea. Lets take the word "marriage" out of official circulation altogether and stick with the words "civil union" for all government recognized unions. Let the religious take their little marriage ball and go home while homosexual unions have the same rights as heterosexuals. Takers anyone?

It's bad enough we let those people have special rights,

Which "special rights"?

but let them get married and defile the institution?

I don't think we can "defile the institution" any more than its sexist and otherwise oppressive history has already defiled it... if anything, by making it more equal and open, we'll be participating in its redemption. ;)

Sometimes a good dose reality slapping you in the face is what is needed to confront these people to what they are, or how they're acting.


The problem is that the blacks who run around crying, 'racist' and the women who run around complaining about the patriarchy lose their credibility to the people they are trying to supposedly effect. Unless they are only trying to affect other blacks/women. That attitude is very divisive and doesn't change anyone else's mind. Do the people you call bigot usually say, "Oh I'm sorry, I'm such a bigot, please forgive my benighted thoughts!" Or do you just end up having a fist fight?

(NPO?)

No, they aren't... bigotry is not an irrelevant characteristic of the argument at all.

But I think the term is used too loosely these days, sometimes giving people an unjustified moral highground.

But I think the term is used too loosely these days

When?

When?

Like calling someone a bigot for disliking the teachings of the Quran, or saying that they are dangerous or violent teachings.

Which "special rights"?

That horrible right to not be burned at the stake like GAWD tells us to do.

Like calling someone a bigot for disliking the teachings of the Quran, or saying that they are dangerous or violent teachings.

Agreed, then.

Though someone who always rants about the evils of the Quran and never bothers to apply the same standards to the Bible might be suspect.

The problem is that the blacks who run around crying, 'racist' and the women who run around complaining about the patriarchy lose their credibility to the people they are trying to supposedly effect.

Yes, well, the privileged have never been too keen on giving up their privilege. Unfortunate fact of life. Doesn't mean we should stop struggling.

Yes, well, the privileged have never been too keen on giving up their privilege. Unfortunate fact of life. Doesn't mean we should stop struggling.

Maybe you should start flying planes into buildings, that will get their attention.

You don't have to stop struggling to respect others.

Agreed, then.

Though someone who always rants about the evils of the Quran and never bothers to apply the same standards to the Bible might be suspect.

Yeah, but it's kind of annoying going into debate saying that the Quran is this and that when people respond constantly with "but it also says that in the Bible you bigot waaaaahhh" where I have to waste time explaining that I'm aware of what the Bible says, and it's irrelevant to whether or not the Quran itself is this and that.

The problem is that the blacks who run around crying, 'racist' and the women who run around complaining about the patriarchy lose their credibility to the people they are trying to supposedly effect. Unless they are only trying to affect other blacks/women. That attitude is very divisive and doesn't change anyone else's mind. Do the people you call bigot usually say, "Oh I'm sorry, I'm such a bigot, please forgive my benighted thoughts!" Or do you just end up having a fist fight?

Look up the history of the fights for equal rights, or women's liberation.

If it takes a couple of fist fights, then it takes a couple of fist fights. If it takes a bit of yelling, if it takes a bit of protesting, if it takes a bit of fucking up the status quo? Then that's what we need to do.

They won't change their mind any more if you're being nice to them. Trust me, it's been tried.



(NPO?)
Nonprofit organisation

You don't have to stop struggling to respect others.

We also don't have to respect others if they blatantly disrespect us.

Maybe you should start flying planes into buildings, that will get their attention.

You don't have to stop struggling to respect others.

For someone who claims to respect others, you sure say a whole lot of incredibly sick, disgusting, and offensive things.

Maybe you should start flying planes into buildings, that will get their attention.

While I am not opposed to violence, I am opposed to terrorism.

You don't have to stop struggling to respect others.

I respect everyone. Being honest to people is very respectful. When they're being bigoted, pointing out their bigotry is respectful both in that it's honest and in that you're (hopefully) disturbing them enough that they might actually be inclined to modify their views, and thereby better themselves... something that "being nice" rarely accomplishes.

We also don't have to respect others if they blatantly disrespect us.

That will increase hostilities more than decrease them and ensure that you won't get respected. Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, I'm afraid.

That will increase hostilities more than decrease them and ensure that you won't get respected. Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, I'm afraid.

Contrary to those who use religion as a means to justify prejudice, I, being an agnostic, feel no compelling need to "turn the other cheek".

Like Soheran said, the privileged seldom let go of their privileges to the benefit of making those privileges accessible by all, even when you go asking them nicely.

Increase the hostilities all they want, prejudice and bigotry is wrong, and that's that. Sometimes it's a good idea to fight for a worthy cause. And I'm not talking about only fighting homophobia for my own selfish personal benefit: I've also been know to stand up in the bus and shout down a racist asshole verbally abusing a black person who had done nothing to deserve the contemptuous comments.

Contrary to those who use religion as a means to justify prejudice, I, being an agnostic, feel no compelling need to "turn the other cheek".


It's not about "turning the other cheek" and letting injustices slide. It's more of how can you demand respect of someone when you fail to respect them yourself?

It's not about "turning the other cheek" and letting injustices slide. It's more of how can you demand respect of someone when you fail to respect them yourself?

I would never demand that anyone else be nice to me when I'm being blatantly and unashamedly bigoted. To the contrary, they should confront me about it and point it out as loudly and insultingly as necessary.

I do demand that others not hate me or judge me inferior on the basis of my sexual orientation, but then, I do the same for others.

Indeed, some of my best friends are straight. :)

It's not about "turning the other cheek" and letting injustices slide. It's more of how can you demand respect of someone when you fail to respect them yourself?

Every person ought to demand respect of someone else when that other person behaves rudely towards you.

If someone shoves you out of the way in a line, you tell them they're being rude and that you're owed the same respect everyone else gets. And telling that rude person who shoved you aside that it was a rude thing to do is not a "lack of respect" toward him/her. It's being honest and making sure nobody tramples you because you don't defend yourself.

It's not about "turning the other cheek" and letting injustices slide. It's more of how can you demand respect of someone when you fail to respect them yourself?

Because they are not deserving respect?

Because they are not deserving respect?

Perhaps.

Boo.

It's bad enough we let those people have special rights,

Ah yes, "special rights." As in "The rights that are the basic freedoms of every American: Life, liberty, and the pursiut of happiness." How terrible that we are allowed to have freedom from discrimination. How much it must pain you that you are no longer allowed to beat someone up for being a "fag." I'm sure this hurts you to no end, that we have finally recieved equal protection under hate-crimes clauses.

but let them get married and defile the institution? If America ever federalizes such policies, it just proves how corrupt our nation has become.

Oh of course, of course. Because granting a terrible minority from recieving equal treatment as you just goes to show you how unfair and wrong this nation is becoming. Of course

Boo.

It's bad enough we let those people have special rights,Really? Which ones do they have that you don't?
but let them get married and defile the institution? Why, it would be like letting the church conduct the ceremony as opposed to having them marry in the town square so everyone knows!
If America ever federalizes such policies, it just proves how corrupt our nation has become.What? The gays have more money now?

Really? Which ones do they have that you don't?
Why, it would be like letting the church conduct the ceremony as opposed to having them marry in the town square so everyone knows!
What? The gays have more money now?

Perhaps he's referring to their right to exist. Which apparently is a special right now. So much for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Calling me a bigot will not magically make one out of me.

Equal rights and a life free of prejudice for all. It's a simple concept. Those who don't believe humans all deserve equal treatment, and that no human group is inherently superior to others are bigots. That's it.

I believe all humans deserve equal treatment. I believe no group is inherently superior to any other.

And I won't just sit by while people try to hide behind God or Religion to justify homophobia. It's that simple. There are religious persons out there who aren't homophobic. There are religious people who are homophobic, but recognize it and do not try to hide behind belief or religion to excuse it.

And there are hypocrites who try to justify treating people differently by using religion as a shield to avoid other people from calling their bullshit bullshit. It just doesn't work with me.

You're entitled to your views. But that so isn't what he was saying. He was saying that by all that spew you ranted about religion and how people use it to hate people, is self-defeating. You can't call someone a bigot, and then say things which are outright prejudice against people of faith.

??? He said nothing of the sort, and your misunderstanding has got to be THE stupidest thing I've heard today.

No. Made perfect sense to me.

By that standard, if you see someone saying something racist, you wouldn't call him racist?

By that standard, if you saw a man behave in a sexist manner, you wouldn't call him sexist?

You'd rather sweep prejudice under the rug and discuss it like : "Say, old chap, I have a bit of a disagreement over your comment on our coloured friend being inferior"?

On behalf of our Champion White Hetero Dude, allow me to say:

"Yup."

See, when you're a member of the privileged class, acknowledging prejudice also means acknowledging your own unearned privileged status. And this often leads to people asking why you deserve such unearned privileges, while others do not. And this often leads people to start expecting you to live by the same rules as everybody else, instead of getting to enjoy unearned privilege. Which means that you don't get as many free perks any more. Which is, like, TOTALLY OPPRESSION.

No, better that the women and the non-whites and the gays just shut up and respect their betters. After all, they're never going to win the hearts and minds of white hetero dudes by getting all uppity, are they?

If history has taught us anything, it's that white hetero dudes always dispense justice to the underclasses in time, without any need for the underclasses to rise up and demand their equality. Amirite?

1st website: Okay, try googling HUMAN sexuality next time. These flies are very interesting but have nothing to do with human genes.

Lrn2genetics.


For the only study that mentioned humans, the study said that it was highly attributed to genes. Which isn't exactly conclusive, and I would need to see a lot more studies done...preferably with more than 11 people in the study.

Feel free to do your own damn research, in that case.


2nd website: Very basic info. Good descriptions on views of sexuality. But nothing based on science.

Fail.


3rd website: Again....this spoke of various THEORIES. Do you get that word? THEORY..it means something that is yet to be proven. And it covered all sorts of theories. Not just biological, but environmental.

Fail.

If you can't even be bothered to acquaint yourself with what "theory" means in science, or about how "proof" figures in when it comes to scientific theories, then kindly do all scientists a favor and quit pretending that you have the least idea what you're talking about.


4th website: Great definitions for homosexuality...and the history. But again, no scientific facts.
try some medical journals instead of believing every little thing you read off the internet.

Or, just for funzies, how about you do some leg work of your own instead of demanding to be spoon-fed?


And ummm....in regards to any "reputable scientific source which asserts that there is a gene responsible for human homosexuality. Nobody who has the most fundamental understanding of genetics or human sexuality would claim something so patently ridiculous."
the only reputable study you showed me (1st website) was about isolating the specific gene responsible for homosexuality in fruit flies.

Oh, I'm sorry, was I supposed to find YOU sources to back up YOUR claims?

If you want to make the idiotic claim that there is a single gene responsible for human sexual orientation, you have fun with that. Find your own sources.


And in confirming whether in fact humans have a gene for homosexuality, through testing homosexuality in different twin types.....so....ummm.....you kinda just insulted yourself hey....

Fail.


And I never said that genetics were always going to be ruled out. But until they prove that they are responsible, I will stick with the 'biggest' factor being choice.

Yeah, books are all heavy and stuff. Lifting them is hard and reading them gives you headaches. Better to just stick with your initial assumptions instead of studying and stuff.


Not a 'oh, today i feel like being gay' choice. But a number of social and psychological factors over a long period of time. There is no proof that you are born gay.

Fail.


Thankyou for not calling me a bigot. Because I'm not. :)

Funny, that's just what the bigots say...


Lazy and/or stupid...mostly yes, but on this topic, no. I have a health science degree, they MADE me study it.

So you have a "health science" degree, but you don't know what a scientific theory is?

Good Old Coney Island College - Go Whitefish!


And the info given, wasn't from a 'homosexuality' google and pick random sites from there. Perhaps the lazy and/or stupid one...isn't actually me....

Perhaps you should quit with the passive-aggressive act and just do some reading, mmm?

My point was simply that there is plenty of information out there. I Googled a word and posted links. Took me 15 seconds, tops. That's how long it took me to prove you wrong.

Now, if you want BETTER links, then you can find them. If you don't like somebody's sources, FIND YOUR OWN.

I'm sick and goddam tired of lazy homophobes and ignorant yahoos making grand pronouncements about "science" when they can't even be bothered to do some minimal reading of their own.

If you're not a lazy homophobe or an ignorant yahoo, then don't act like one. We have plenty of them around here as it is. We don't need another. Read a book, present novel information, do SOMETHING other than post your uninformed and factually unsound personal opinions. Come on, surprise me!


I have read the thread. There are denominations that have no problem with homosexuality....but I don't see how they can ignore something plainly written out in the bible. Maybe its a pick and choose christianity.

Kind of like how the homophobes ignore the bits about not wearing clothing of mixed fabrics?


And my point with respect...is that these religions have been going in some cases for thousands of years....and now, because 'we say so' they should be forced to accomodate things outside their doctrine. And they aren't forced, but there is a LOT of pressure on them. Churches in particular. And I don't think that its a homophobe point. Its a legitimate argument that you can't have things both ways.
"Christianity is, like, really old and stuff. We should totally respect it."

You know what belief system is even older than Christianity? Racism. You know what organized practice is older than Christianity? Slavery.

Which "special rights"?

They're allowed to be gay and not get killed, right? That's pretty fucking special, if you look at our history!

;)

"Christianity is, like, really old and stuff. We should totally respect it."

You know what belief system is even older than Christianity? Racism. You know what organized practice is older than Christianity? Slavery.Not to mention the "oldest trade"...

Lrn2genetics.
Or, just for funzies, how about you do some leg work of your own instead of demanding to be spoon-fed?

Oh, I'm sorry, was I supposed to find YOU sources to back up YOUR claims?

Yeah, books are all heavy and stuff. Lifting them is hard and reading them gives you headaches. Better to just stick with your initial assumptions instead of studying and stuff.

Funny, that's just what the bigots say...

Perhaps you should quit with the passive-aggressive act and just do some reading, mmm?

My point was simply that there is plenty of information out there. I Googled a word and posted links. Took me 15 seconds, tops. That's how long it took me to prove you wrong.

Now, if you want BETTER links, then you can find them. If you don't like somebody's sources, FIND YOUR OWN.

I'm sick and goddam tired of lazy homophobes and ignorant yahoos making grand pronouncements about "science" when they can't even be bothered to do some minimal reading of their own.

If you're not a lazy homophobe or an ignorant yahoo, then don't act like one. We have plenty of them around here as it is. We don't need another. Read a book, present novel information, do SOMETHING other than post your uninformed and factually unsound personal opinions. Come on, surprise me!

"Christianity is, like, really old and stuff. We should totally respect it."

You know what belief system is even older than Christianity? Racism. You know what organized practice is older than Christianity? Slavery.

How do I respond to this? :)

No, you weren't meant to find sources to back up my claims. You were meant to back up yours!! lol And you didn't.

Okay I completely agree with there being lots of crap information out there. Thankyou for providing examples which were mostly irrelevant to the debate.

Thankyou! For doing a 15 sec search in order to prove yourself right. I guess you're trying to beat me in the lazy, stupid department too? :)

And..I never said that genetics wasn't responsible...if YOU ACTUALLY READ MY POSTS....but I did say there is no conclusive evidence and there are a lot of contributing factors. Mostly around social/psychological factors...and I said that based on that, I believed it to be a choice.
And then went on to say I had no problem with someone choosing to be gay, or choosing gay marriage. So don't call me a homophobe.
And since you have only provided "uninformed and factually unsound personal opinions", oh wait, backed up by google....perhaps you could take your own advice. Or learn how to debate with a bit more integrity. Instead of someone saying, Nah I don't think thats right...and you going..."Fail....Fail....Fail...Google sites...Bigot...Lazy....homophobe...stupid....fail...". Its not exactly intelligent and it makes you look like a bit of a loose cannon.
And in response to the christianity post....try reading the posts I was responding to!! Instead of taking things out of context. I used christianity, because I am a christian and felt it would be inappropriate for me to act like i'm an authority on another belief. But the response was towards religion in general. Which, has been part of every civilisation. Therefore, we obviously value it.

Lrn2genetics.
Or, just for funzies, how about you do some leg work of your own instead of demanding to be spoon-fed?

Oh, I'm sorry, was I supposed to find YOU sources to back up YOUR claims?

Yeah, books are all heavy and stuff. Lifting them is hard and reading them gives you headaches. Better to just stick with your initial assumptions instead of studying and stuff.

Funny, that's just what the bigots say...

Perhaps you should quit with the passive-aggressive act and just do some reading, mmm?

My point was simply that there is plenty of information out there. I Googled a word and posted links. Took me 15 seconds, tops. That's how long it took me to prove you wrong.

Now, if you want BETTER links, then you can find them. If you don't like somebody's sources, FIND YOUR OWN.

I'm sick and goddam tired of lazy homophobes and ignorant yahoos making grand pronouncements about "science" when they can't even be bothered to do some minimal reading of their own.

If you're not a lazy homophobe or an ignorant yahoo, then don't act like one. We have plenty of them around here as it is. We don't need another. Read a book, present novel information, do SOMETHING other than post your uninformed and factually unsound personal opinions. Come on, surprise me!

"Christianity is, like, really old and stuff. We should totally respect it."

You know what belief system is even older than Christianity? Racism. You know what organized practice is older than Christianity? Slavery.

How do I respond to this? :)

No, you weren't meant to find sources to back up my claims. You were meant to back up yours!! lol And you didn't.

Okay I completely agree with there being lots of crap information out there. Thankyou for providing examples which were mostly irrelevant to the debate.

Thankyou! For doing a 15 sec search in order to prove yourself right. I guess you're trying to beat me in the lazy, stupid department too? :)

And..I never said that genetics wasn't responsible...if YOU ACTUALLY READ MY POSTS....but I did say there is no conclusive evidence and there are a lot of contributing factors. Mostly around social/psychological factors...and I said that based on that, I believed it to be a choice. And that it is a slow process.And then went on to say I had no problem with someone choosing to be gay, or choosing gay marriage. So don't call me a homophobe.
And since you have only provided "uninformed and factually unsound personal opinions", oh wait, backed up by google....perhaps you could take your own advice. Or learn how to debate with a bit more integrity. Instead of someone saying, Nah I don't think thats right...and you going..."Fail....Fail....Fail...Google sites...Bigot...Lazy....homophobe...stupid....fail...". Its not exactly intelligent and it makes you look like a bit of a loose cannon.
And in response to the christianity post....try reading the posts I was responding to!! Instead of taking things out of context. I used christianity, because I am a christian and felt it would be inappropriate for me to act like i'm an authority on another belief. But the response was towards religion in general. Which, has been part of every civilisation. Therefore, we obviously value it.

How do I respond to this? :)

No, you weren't meant to find sources to back up my claims. You were meant to back up yours!! lol And you didn't.

My "claim" in this case was basically that anybody who actually cares about this subject should at least lift a finger long enough to click a Google link. You replied, "Google probably won't help you out here." I replied by posting Google links on this topic.

You have since shifted the target to claim that my links didn't answer YOUR question, but that's simply a dishonest tactic on your part and doesn't really have anything to do with my claims.


Okay I completely agree with there being lots of crap information out there. Thankyou for providing examples which were mostly irrelevant to the debate.

What debate? What do you think you're debating?


Thankyou! For doing a 15 sec search in order to prove yourself right. I guess you're trying to beat me in the lazy, stupid department too? :)

Interesting. So, taking the required 15 seconds to back up my position makes me no different from a person who declines to do so?


And..I never said that genetics wasn't responsible...if YOU ACTUALLY READ MY POSTS....but I did say there is no conclusive evidence and there are a lot of contributing factors.

And I said that you are mistaken about the evidence and you misunderstand the science.

Now that we've summed up, can we move on?


Mostly around social/psychological factors...and I said that based on that, I believed it to be a choice.

And I (and others) have pointed out how the influence of social/psychological factors cannot be rationally equated to "homosexuality is a choice."

Again, nice summary, but do you have anything new to share?


And then went on to say I had no problem with someone choosing to be gay, or choosing gay marriage. So don't call me a homophobe.

Like I said, you may not be a homophobe, you're just uninformed and don't seem to care enough to get informed. I find that lame. But I don't mind watching other people be lame, particularly when they are trying to use their lameness to back up discriminatory politics, because I like seeing discrimination and lameness openly associated.


Or learn how to debate with a bit more integrity. Instead of someone saying, Nah I don't think thats right...and you going..."Fail....Fail....Fail...Google sites...Bigot...Lazy....homophobe...stupid....fail...". Its not exactly intelligent and it makes you look like a bit of a loose cannon.

I apply the Golden Rule. I reply to your posts with as much substance as they merit. So far you've made lots of statements of opinion and made no effort to support them with evidence of any kind. It's cute that you want to hold me to a higher standard than you hold yourself, but I don't yet see any reason why I should cater to you in that regard.

If you want more substantive response, please feel free to present something of substance. Until you do, there's not much to say to you other than...Fail.


And in response to the christianity post....try reading the posts I was responding to!!
Instead of taking things out of context. I used christianity, because I am a christian and felt it would be inappropriate for me to act like i'm an authority on another belief. But the response was towards religion in general. Which, has been part of every civilisation. Therefore, we obviously value it.
"We" just as obviously also "value" slavery, since it's been a part of just about every civilization in our history until the very, very modern era (and that's subject to debate).

Mostly around social/psychological factors...and I said that based on that, I believed it to be a choice. And that it is a slow process.And then went on to say I had no problem with someone choosing to be gay, or choosing gay marriage. So don't call me a homophobe.
And since you have only provided "uninformed and factually unsound personal opinions", oh wait, backed up by google....perhaps you could take your own advice. Or learn how to debate with a bit more integrity. Instead of someone saying, Nah I don't think thats right...and you going..."Fail....Fail....Fail...Google sites...Bigot...Lazy....homophobe...stupid....fail...". Its not exactly intelligent and it makes you look like a bit of a loose cannon.
And in response to the christianity post....try reading the posts I was responding to!! Instead of taking things out of context. I used christianity, because I am a christian and felt it would be inappropriate for me to act like i'm an authority on another belief. But the response was towards religion in general. Which, has been part of every civilisation. Therefore, we obviously value it.

Heh but the truth of the matter is that most knowledgeable people in the field now believe that sexual orientation is not simply a choice.

I can safely assume that you are heterosexual? How about choosing to be sexually stimulated by the naked body of a person your own gender, try doing that and let me know if it works.

You are right on one thing though, lack of responding to context seems endemic here. Though you won't find me often taking Bottle's corner in things(mostly religious based) she is in fact one of the most reliable and sensible people I have met here, and so I can't really see that charge sticking to her.

I think though that you are working hard to show that your faith based 'ill feeling' about homosexuality has a grounding in rationality, and I commend you for it, but lets face it on this score the bible has it emphatically wrong.

But the response was towards religion in general. Which, has been part of every civilisation. Therefore, we obviously value it.

Well, apart from the civilisations it wasn't part of, but don't let that get in your way! I'm fairly certain that at least a number of pacific nations (isolated so that missionaries couldn't spread their lies) had no concept of religion.

I think though that you are working hard to show that your faith based 'ill feeling' about homosexuality has a grounding in rationality, and I commend you for it, but lets face it on this score the bible has it emphatically wrong.
This sentence really got my attention.

I lose patience very quickly on this subject, because it's one we have hashed over so many times. When it comes to people making blatantly ignorant statements about "science" when they clearly don't have the foggiest idea what they're talking about, I don't have any patience to begin with.

It's good to be reminded that most people are trying to sort out their gut feelings on this subject, and make those gut feelings fit with reality. The fact that people at least feel the need to include science and scientific evidence in their thought process is a step in the right direction.

If people want to talk about the science of human sexuality, I'm all for it. I like that subject. I'm a professional nerd. Talk nerdy to me.