Then I should clarify my prior statement. Laws *can* affect a society for the better. They can also be detrimental. One instance of laws affecting society for the better, even against the judgement of the society at large, are the laws that gave women the right to vote. Much of the public was against it at the time. The same goes for the emancipation proclamation. Sure there were millions in the south who did not like their slaves being set free, and I'm sure there were some in the north who didn't like the idea of freed black people running wild, it was still a very progressive law that enabled our society to move one step beyond our barbaric past.
I don't think you are looking at this issue of the woman vote rightly. First off half of the population is women, where did they all go when it came to the issue. Are you suggesting that all men and a large portion of women were opposed to the idea? To look at the implement of the law and then suggest that "most were against it at the time" is simply silly. There was indeed considerable support for the law to be implemented.
We are not taking about the disenfranchisement of women but rather the behavior of homosexuals whom believe they ought to have the same outcome as heterosexuals. It isn't a matter of skin color or gender but rather of behavior. Now obviously both blacks and women can attribute their dilemma to genetic predispositions but on the matter of homosexuality you are saying that genes that have not been discovered yet cause you to act in a certain manner.... Your genetic predisposition somehow causes you to behave unusually so and the government ought to create special laws for the protection of or even the promotion of homosexuality. Even without objective proof of homosexuality is genetic..... But there is all sorts of evidence that suggest possibly it is learned or can be. I don't think the government should make a ruling on the issue until the gene is discovered until then people ought to be able to make their own moral judgements on homosexual behavior.
1) The reason why I "keep referring to" 100 years in the past is because that is a time that is relatively close to today, and it is easy to illustrate the black and white barbarism that the human race possessed then. There were no shades of gray.
Back then blacks were abused day in and day out, just for being black. In fact the law sanctioned it. Today blacks are pulled over more often than whites in what is called racial profiling. One is definitively evil while another is closer to a shade of gray, thus harder to debate because you can find so many "well this and that and what about something other" situations that don't exist for the abuses under Jim Crow.
The "shades of grey" on the issue of homosexuality come from the fact that we don't know if it is a genetic affliction or not. While the matter of skin color is clearly more a matter of genetics where this behavior has yet to be linked to genes. Your argument gives allot of credibility to the study of genetics if true. Also if true is disqualifies a mass of fairly well accepted left wing Sociological theory particularly socialization theories.
The matter of racial profiling in terms of the law are difficult. Clearly there is a case for the argument of using the method of racial profiling to help with law enforcement. Case in point is terrorism. Clearly it helps investigators spot potential trouble but surely they do put allot of innocents through grief.
2) Historically the argument can be made that the Irish were treated like shit for a *very* long time in this country. You are correct. However, the Irish were not abused daily on the same level as blacks were. The Irish were generally hated early on, like every other group that came to this country, because they were *immigrants* and no other reason. As they were "absorbed" by this society, the animosity against them began to decrease.
Witness the animosity that many people have toward mexican immigrants today as an example. There has always been a sense of "You're not welcome here!" toward immigrants, simply because they are outsiders trying to fit in.
However, I was born in this country, as were most of the other gay men and women in this country. We're citizens already. We've grown up in this culture. We *are* this culture. And yet we're ostracized because of the circumstances of our birth, our being. You can't compare us to the immigrant situation. But you can certainly compare us to other groups who grow up in this country and were historically treated as second class citizens, i.e. blacks and women.
You simply write off the animosity held towards them by suggesting they were "absorbed" but there was not one bit of government enforcement of this. There was already a steadfast growth in the anti racist movement well before the government made any sorts of implements towards racists. The civil war was to end slavery. Further the stigma of being Irish would have followed these people around to say that they lost all racial strife upon exiting the immigration situation is silly. I certainly wouldn't compare blacks and womens cause of the past to the homosexual dilemma based on the argument that being "gay" is genetic and therefore our behavior is a result of genes. If that is the case then we can attribute allot more human behavior on genes then the left would like to admit.
3) I don't look down on women who stay home and are caretakers of their family. Frankly I'm pleased when anyone can be involved in the vocation of their choice. I know I am involved in my job of choice, and certainly, work doesn't feel like work when you love your job. I would wish that on anyone. It's a fantastic feeling to have.
However, the sheer fact that a woman has the *choice* to work at home, or outside the home today, is what is key to me. For centuries, women were not allowed anything *but* tending to the home and the children. That is the key difference between the situation that women find themselves in today. Frankly I get upset with some feminists, and especially men (some husbands), who look down on homemakers, or say that homemaking isn't a real job, because certainly it is.
Thats good because allot of women choose to do just that .... if it can be afforded. In terms of vocations it becomes a bit more complex for women then men. Simply put when a women becomes a mother there is a strong tendency for them to be a mother rather then say a CEO. But there are even more complex problems for women in the labour market, military, police roles, firemen- fireperson
, construction and so on that their gender does not accommodate them generally as well. So what happens, it seems, is that women enter the work place and choose to go into higher paying areas of occupation rather then the slovenly work of labour and the like. Although many are taking low paying service industry jobs like for example food servers, cashiers etc.(but men don't or can't compete for these positions usually in the past held by women anyhow.)
Further, I do think that you are making working in a place of your choosing seem a bit more rewarding then it really is. Most jobs in the real world are not that rewarding at all and when you get your pay check it is gone shortly afterwards. I personally have never liked
any job to the point where I found it that rewarding. I have always found that after I get what I think I want in the work place there is always something else that becomes a matter. Mostly time/money/stress from work are the largest issues. There is always pressure to perform better/faster/cheaper. This isn't to say that I don't think working hard has its rewards but keeping the bills paid and scraping by the skin of your teeth are hardly things to glorify. In other words I don't think that women were really missing out on much by not being a part of the labour market in the past. Also the injection of such a large force of labour has reduced the value of males labours. Now it seems that rather then have one parent work and the other stay at home being primary care giver to their children we must have both out of the home just in most cases to make ends meet. My home situation is case in point.
I find it ironic the way now women have the choice to go to work ... it seems we have no choice at all financially speaking but to both work. I would also mention that I do think being a mother of children and looking after the home is a fair bit of work, but to appeal to the state for some sort of monies to compensate them for looking after what is theirs is not realistic. I don't know if that is what you were suggesting but not too long ago there was a movement to do just that. Still feminist rave on about this, personally I think the idea is preposterous and reeks of welfare state mentality.
Now, I agree that children are better off when they have two parents as opposed to one. Hell, children are better off when they are raised by their entire family. I was raised by my mother and a man who was as close to my father as anyone could get even though he wasn't my biological father, my grandparents, my uncles and aunts, my cousins, my pastor, etc etc etc. I had an *enormous* support system growing up. Biology has nothing to do with the efficacy of raising children. There are foster parents out there who simply destroy their biological counterparts in terms of raising children. If someone is loving and capable, it shouldn't matter if they are the child's biological parents or not.
Yeah well we do agree on the two parent matter. The one of each gender is an even better solution. On the biological aspect I believe it would simply be the optimal situation where the people whom were responsible for bringing the children into the world were also responsible for their own childrens well being. In terms of the parenting situation I certainly would have to say unambiguously that indeed one parent of each gender ought to be present. Also there are so many heterosexual couples out there that are already on a waiting list looking to adopt..
Now I will grant you that in the past, human societies were very patriarchal. In almost every society we know of, women were subjugated and kept indoors to basically be baby factories and raise children. Now, some societies respected the female more than others, but in almost every society, women were kept as the "lesser" gender.
Universally humans are patriarchal and I don't disagree with your above statement at all. 100% agreement.
However, this can be attributed more to the hunter/gatherer aspect of our species that was pretty prevalant up until the advent of the industrial revolution. Before the industrial revolution, only the strongest could go out and hunt for food, wage war, kill animals for clothing, etc etc etc. And who, biologically, tended to be the strongest? Males. So I agree with you that the structure of our societies indeed grew *moreso*, not entirely, because of the demands of nature, rather than nurture. However, because of the fact that our society today is no longer hunter/gatherer, it negates the biological advantage in terms of strength, that men have over women, on average. A woman is just as capable of going off into battle today. A woman is just as capable of working a fork lift. A woman is just as capable of sitting in a board meeting and leading.
Um, I think that for thousands of years before the industrial revolution humans were living in an agrarian society which means that agriculture was the primary source of subsistence. This puts hunting and gathering societies well in the past before the advent of agrarian societies we would have hunters and gatherers. But that is besides the point, I understand.
You are generalizing when you say that women are just as capable as men in the workforce. As I already mentioned it is not always more prudent to have women employed in certain areas. The simple fact of the matter is that men in general are considerably more strong then females from the get go. This is not a socialized difference and while I do realize that in many occupations such as nursing, doctors, teaching even managerial positions suit women they are not as physically able to do allot of work. Some attitudes such as women ought to only be homemakers are absolutely outlandish but if you are objectively looking at the physical differences men are more appropriate for employment.
There are plenty of extreme hard labour jobs out there that
most women would not be well suited for. We ought
not to have "normalization" tests for potential women soldiers and an all together different and more difficult set of criteria for potential male soldiers. Same would apply to a firemens position. Now I am not arguing to lower that standard for everyone so that all can easily attain the positions but rather they ought not to expect any less of a soldier or firefighter simply because they are female. Consider in the situation of policing a women is often if by themselves in a very percarious position of dealing with males that are dangerous. These are only a few situations were we can apply certain disadvantages women face in the workplace off the top of my head. There shouldn't be a quota in place to insure that women are employed simply because there are none employed and political pressure is on these employers to have women on regardless of the job at hand.
We have been moving from a physical labor society to an information society for a few centuries now, but especially in the past 100 years with the advent of the industrial revolution when physical labor was replaced by machinery, the assembly line, and today, computers. *That* is one of the main reasons why it is no longer required for us to be a patriarchal society. We have advanced to the point where we no longer have to be dominated by the needs of our biology as much as in the past. Obviously we are still very much influenced by our biology because of the fact that on an evolutionary timescale, the past few centuries have been a blip. But we are rapidly moving past the limitations of the past. It's one of the main reasons why we, as a society, have much more material wealth today than in the past. It's because 50% of the population is now allowed to work, obviously.
I do think it is interesting though how what used to be considered wealthy is now poor. Consider that in the early 20th century and late 1800s you were farely well if you had a wood stove in your kitchen with pots and pans. Today however that isn't even a consideration as it is assumed that it is there as well as the pots and pans, washer, dryer, vacuums, televisions, carpets, stereos, phones, computers ..... on and on. The material wealth is staggering if you think about it. All this certainly flys in the face of that the old left wing saying
the rich get richer and the poor get poorer this is absolutely wrong.... Rather it says
when the rich become richer the poor will become more wealthy. Kind of contradictory isn't it? But that is what we see. The next time you hear someone say "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" set them straight would you?
I am not sure if your logic on why society is patriarchal is 100% though. There are a lot of factors as to why. Males are more aggressive then females over all and often make a bid for leadership positions this is likely do to the fact that males produce considerably higher levels of testosterone. But I would suggest to you that monogamy is patriarchal as well and is a result of the unwillingness of males to look after/pay for another mans children, particularly in the past. The simple fact of the matter is that the natural family is inherently tied to the arrangement of monogamy via the life long commitment of child rearing. This may indeed explain why societies are universally Patriarchal. The universally preferred method of relationships brings on the arrangement of Patriarchy. Now even though I see mens work value being cut down because of the injection of females into the work place I don't think that we will see Patriarchy disappear any time soon as a result though. The biological drive of females to have dominant males, strength as well as intelligence will always create a situation where males seek leadership and power, women like these things in a mate and their children.
4) I never said that laws equate morals. I said that one of the first steps to changing a society is through its laws.
Ok so you indorse coorsive government laws in a top down model, but I already knew that Natoma. I was maybe looking for an advanced argument there sorry I read more into what you were saying then you were but that is a good thing..
5) The fact that you equate homosexuality with an affliction already shows that no matter what comes out you're still going to be the same bigoted person you are today. You've already made up your mind.
No, show me the gene that causes the homosexual behavior and you will get acceptance.
6) I know that I was born gay the same way I know you were born straight. Actually who knows. You might be a repressed homosexual in real life. there are certainly enough examples of the worst gay bashers and homophobes actually being gay themselves and doing whatever they can to repress it, which sometimes comes out in vehemently anti-social ways such as the attitude you display sabastian.
It makes sense to be born able to reproduce as all life does try to reproduce it is one of the defining characteristics of life. I am afraid I don't "bash" gays. While I do think that their sexuality is disgusting I don't go around beating up people or anything of the sort. I would certainly hope that you are not a heterosexual "basher" because you think heterosexuality is disgusting. Further my opposition to the homosexual consistutional rights grab has more to do with attacking the left wing social agenda and protecting the integrity of the traditional/natural family. I refuse to be put on some sort of defensive mode simply because you are using another sort of intimidation to stifle the debate and continue on with your political agenda as if everyone is in agreement that indeed you are deserving of your political ends. Your constant labeling of bigotry, "homophobia" and even more advanced intimidation of suggesting that indeed someone because they oppose you is themselves possibly homosexual the more they protest the more it is possible idea will not work with me. It is shallow and pathetic.
7) Here's some food for thought sabastian. Let's say that you do indeed choose to be gay. Let's say I grant you that. That must mean that the entire world is bisexual, and that *everyone* has homosexual attractions, desires, and leanings, as well as heterosexual attractions, desires, and leanings. The difference is that most people choose to follow their heterosexual attractions and a minority choose to follow their homosexual attractions.
You cannot argue that homosexuality is something you choose and on the flip side of the coin state that heterosexuality is natural. A choice involves two options at the least. The two arguments are completely diametrical. Either homosexuals and heterosexuals choose their sexuality, which means that we're all bisexual and we made the choice to be with the opposite or the same sex, or we're born that way.
Are you really ready to admit that you're equally attracted to guys as you are to girls sabastian? I mean, I know how I feel, and I know that I'm not attracted to women, so I guess I must be a freak for not fitting into your "Choice" scenario of equal attraction to both males and females. Right?
lol, ok. It was you whom suggested that
some homosexuals can choose to be with the other sex and it was you whom also in the same breath said
some heterosexuals can choose to be with the same sex. Now what I did was suggest that indeed if they can do this then you are not talking about heterosexuals or homosexuals but a bisexual. I did not say that homosexuals choose to be homosexual but that the existence of bisexuals lends credence to the possibility that homosexuals are not necessarily biologically inclined. If you do choose to be homosexual, this is far worse then you being genetically inclined. This is why you would deny the existance of bisexuality isn't it? For all I know there are no real homosexuals and all we have are some people whom are genetic bisexuals that are able to choose.
Funny thing is though Natoma I don't think you would really admit to choosing your sexuality simply to suggest that I might be also.... or would you?
For me I don't know if you are born, made or homosexual by choice. As far as I am concerned there really is no choice in it for me so how could there be one for you? I don't know. Certainly the genetic problem is a possibility. Possibly it is a matter of socialization. Or it could be that you choose, just how it is that you choose .... I don't know and wouldn't pretend to. But until you can absolutely prove that there is a "gay" gene that forces you to behave like you do then there is no grounds for law making to be done as no one knows why you behave the way that you do and there are allot of scientist that don't know why ether.
My view is that any human population could be made under extreme conditions homosexual. Imagine a group of young children with no prior sexual knowledge raised on an island by a homosexual. It is likely these children would take some fancy to homosexuality. In other words I believe that it is quite possible to train a young person to like homosexuality. Now what prevents that sort of thing from occurring on a large scale are the social mores against it. Natural societies suppress homosexual behavior so that such unusual conditions don't come to be... There may also be, in very small numbers of course, people with a predisposition to choose homosexual behavior. Some may be predisposed I suppose to drink in the way an alcoholic may be predisposed to drink if drink is close by. But nothing except some personal desire makes the bottle be brought to his lips. After all society has all sorts of people with predispositions of all kinds ...necrophilism, lesbianism, suicide, overeating, stealing, homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, bad tempers the list is nearly endless. Society has always been like this and it isn't likely going to change anytime in the near future. I think it is possible that we always end up in some sort of conflict of expertise where biased experts with opposite political agendas fight on for an eternity which really seems like a dead end. That is unless you can produce the genetic evidence to prove that homosexuality is a genetic affliction.
I believe that a baby is "human" once it is capable of living outside the womb. As far as I know, fetuses are capable of living outside the womb, albeit with the help of prenatal womb-like machinery, late in the 2nd trimester. Btw, I'm sorry that you lost a child to abortion and were not notified, given the chance, to have input on the decision. I believe you were robbed of your right to fatherhood by that act, and you have a right to be upset.
Where do you get the grounds for your belief that a baby is human once it is capable of living outside of the womb, the feminist manifesto ? Come on.... I have seen babes in ultra sounds, moving around kicking. Their central nervous system is well developed they can hear voices. I actually remember hearing my mothers voice while I was inside her. I also can remember hearing another voice from outside that I can only assume was my fathers .... Moms voice was louder I can only assume that was because I was inside of her. It sounds funny to say it but I remember it quite vividly actually as well as a continuous heart beat. Do you know the baby trys to escape from the forceps the doctors use to break the child into peaces. I saw a video once on this type of common abortion. It is sick. Partial birth abortions another sick method where the childs head is only partially out and the abortionist quickly jab a hollo tube into the childs skull and then the brain is sucked out. Thankfully the republicans have ended partial birth abortions truly a barbaric medical standard. My sakes it makes my stomach turn to think about it.
I am afraid that I was notified and it didn't matter what I had to say about the arrangement, thank you for that acknowledgement. It was even worse then that though not only did I lose my daughter but also it felt like a rejection of me. It was a fairly traumatic event. I don't think I will ever get over it.
Personally, my mother told me that she contemplated abortion, and was even pressured by some family and friends to have an abortion because they felt she was too young at the time to raise a child. She was 23. Thankfully she chose to keep and raise me, but I do not begrudge her or feel in any way shape or form less loved because she contemplated it. Quite the contrary, I feel even more loved because she decided that she wanted to have and raise me. And frankly she did a damn good job of it. I have no fault with her parenting.
So I believe I have a more personal track on what I'm talking about when it comes to being on the *receiving* end of abortion sabastian. I'm not degrading the pain you feel or saying that it's any less, but considering I could have been one of the aborted, I think my stance on this matter maybe carries a little more weight. I generally don't share things such as that because they are indeed so personal, but in this case I felt that you needed to know where I'm coming from with regard to my stance. I'm not some oblivious "nose stuck in the air" high minded idealist who doesn't see the reality of what is going on.
No and I didn't get that sense. There are allot of them "nose stuck in the air" high minded idealist whom wont even listen to what you have to say...
1) Worldnetdaily is most certainly a christian fundamentalist website. Ann Coulter, for example, is one of the most right wing christian fundamentalists in the world. She's the "Rush Limbaugh" of fundies on the web. Besides, if you don't think they're christian fundamentalists, you must not think Al-Jazeera has an overly islamic, anti-american slant.
Hrm I didn't get that sense even after I went back to the site. Besides I just picked it out of google anyhow.
2) The link for this thread was merely reporting the *news* of the United States and the UN vote, *not* trying to form some scientific study with "gay funded" participants. Big difference. If the news of the United States abstaining from this vote was on the worldnetdaily website, I wouldn't have an issue with it. That's the news.
There's a big difference between scientific studies that are commissioned by a bigoted group explicitly looking to find proof for their bigotry, and a renouned scientific journal commissioning the same study for the explicit furthering of science. One tries to be impartial. The other does not.
Frankly, I would be skeptical if I were you if I had given a link to the studies regarding homosexuality and pedophilia if it had come from the National Gay and Lesbian organization as well, because it would be in their best interests for the events of the study to come out in a certain manner.
The Journal of Pediatrics has no such interest, which is why I trust their judgement more than worldnetdaily and the doctors associated with them.
But there was a PDF. I am not sure if you had the time to bother with it or not.
http://drjudithreisman.org/whitep/regent.pdf
3) I agree that homosexuality can produce abnormal behavior. The incidence of suicide is more than 5 times higher among homosexual children and teens than their heterosexual counterparts. Depression, anti-social behavior, substance abuse. They are all higher among gay teens. Then again, it's not surprising considering the amount of self-loathing and resentment and hatred gay teens develop because of the society they grow up in.
Considering I grew up in a *heavily* christian family and surrounding, not to mention the society I grew up in (black community, very macho, anti-gay), I spent the better part of my teens and early 20s going through constant depression. When I was 16 I contemplated suicide and was *this* close to going through with it because I couldn't take the mental and emotional abuse anymore.
And I wasn't even out of the closet!
So you're definitely correct there, as those psychiatrists were. Homosexuality, due to societal pressures, biases, and hatreds, can most certainly induce abnormal behavior.
We don't know why it produces the abnormal behavior there is some genetic connection so it is difficult to say if it is a social or genetic matter. I know that my sister is Scitso with a Manic-depressive bi-polar disorder this runs in the family on my fathers side. Surely all of these problems would be subsiding now that the environment is so pro homosexual? Don't know any of the figures but I am willing to bet that indeed the problem is not so much that everyone else thinks homosexuals have problems but they themselves feel different and don't like that knowing most everyone else is normal. This in itself would cause some serious internal strife correct me if I am wrong.
I'm trying to clean my own country first before I go to any others. What's the use of fighting for the rights of others in other countries when I don't even have my own rights here at home? I find no use for it, and that is why I concentrate on the home front first and foremost. Simple.
I know that those countries are not in the best of shape, but ours is certainly far from perfect. Since I live *here*, this is the place that I'm trying to change first and foremost.
The matter is that your country doesn't need any more cleaning up IMO. The problem with the critical mind is that it will try to fix everything and then once everything is fixed it will look and find more problems to fix. My favorite saying to apply here is "if it isn't broken don't fix it."
2) You rail against gay people as "chaps on a float of a giant erect penis." Jesus Sabastian. Not every gay person does that! There are straight people out there who go on Jerry Springer and tell the world about how they f*cked their brother, killed their boss, aborted their child, and on top of that, they're currently sleeping with another man and they want to tell their husband about it indignantly, with the "Roooh Roooh Roooh" and "Woof Woof Woof" of the audience behind them.
Hey I don't like that garbage anymore then you do. But the matter is that this is coming from the garbage morality the left preaches. "if it feels good do it" mentality. Left thinkers like to sit back and watch how easily a once highly moral society can be turned into a sprawling mess on the stage on a cable broadcast channel. They want to create a situation where the traditional family is no longer able to be responsible enough to look after itself so that the government is given permission to swoop down and rescue people from themselves. They really like to destabilize the current environment as much as possible so that people will say "thats enough, do something about it." I have even seen university professors in sociology incourage it in their students. Just pathetic. Springer is known to have paid slobs come on his show and the crowd are a bunch of morons in my opinion. Oh I gotta say it .... the same people who like Jerry Springer like watching WWFgarbage as well. Bah, mostly I watch the news(always have.) discovery channel and I like a few sit coms.
EDIT: I hear J. Springer is running for the Democrates, funny that.
Also, you *think* that there aren't any gay people in your family. With your attitude it's any wonder that they wouldn't want to come out, especially if your attitude is the prevailing attitude in your family. It's attitudes like yours that kept me in the closet to my family for so long. The funny thing is, quite a few of the homophobic people in my family turned around once they realized "one of their own" is gay. You might be surprised.
Listen I don't go around looking for "gays" or trying to sniff them out or go on tangents to
anyone in my family about "gays". There simply isn't any. I am not going to even bother replying to any more suggestions that there are some sercret "gays" in my family I have told you this mulitiple times now. It is simply rediculus speculation.
3) Gay people are biologically capable of having kids you know . There are many gay people who have come out in their later years after raising families.
Then they couldn't be biologically homosexual could they?
Sabastian, ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. One person's beauty is another person's hag. There is no room for interpretation with racism and homophobia. I'll leave the distinction at that and move on to the next.
Is that right? Now I am going to cheat here a bit Natoma, sorry.
Who here thinks that this woman is ugly?...
http://207.44.134.36:8080/images0/240b.jpg
Here's a site:
PBS.org
They speak of quite a few studies done on this matter. I'd consider PBS to be quite objective.
Public Broadcasting System is fairly unbiased but I read the article and found nothing that suggest conclusively that the differences were a result of genes but rather they clearly give a number of possibilities as to why they were different including this only three paragraphs from the bottom.
A second idea is that the hypothetical gene acts indirectly, through personality or temperament, rather clan directly on sexual-object choice. For example, people who are genetically self-reliant might be more likely to acknowledge and act on same-sex feelings than are people who are dependent on the approval of others.
In other words they don't know, just like us. Likely they should have addressed this possibility a little bit more closely in this document. I wouldn't get excited over the prospect simply because they see it runs in families like many recessive genes do. But they really didn't conclude that either.. The last line should have said... we don't know.
p.s.: Science is *built* upon theory sabastian. You take an assumption and then, through scientific method, qualitatively prove it, or at least get enough proof to say "yes, we believe this is correct."
Think about it. That means that Galileo's belief that the earth revolved around the sun was not legitimate science, it was speculation. Einstein's theories must not have been legitimate science, only speculation. Speculation does not automatically negate legitimacy. That's a basic truism of science.
Science is trial and error. Most every experiment includes assumptions which may or may not be right. This is the achilleas heal of the scientific method and it isn't my creation but rather a credible philosophical argument that I have applied to the "science" of Sociology as a result of their basic premise in socialization theories that their is no such thing a human nature and our behavior is a product of our environment. Indeed they tried to erase what was on the board and even attempted to rewrite overtop of it.
You obviously don't understand human sexuality sabastian. Many studies have been completed by scientifically objective bodies such as The Journal of Sex Research, The Journal of Clinincal Psychology, The Journal of Human Sexuality, etc etc etc, that show that human beings are for the most part not exclusively heterosexual or homosexual.
Oh yet another intimidation tactic ... the suggestion of ignorance. I am certain that indeed there are far more heterosexuals that are entirely and exclusively heterosexual. While on the other hand you would find at all the places that you point out there are very few exclusive homosexuals. The really are not comparable. The percentage disparities would be staggeringly different. lol... If they are not exclusive they are not either homosexual or heterosexual but bisexual. The percentages of exclusively heterosexual people clearly stand for the vast majority of the worlds population, don't play games here. Exclusive homosexuals only account for less then 1% of the population.
That innate human ability to appreciate attractiveness in both sexes is because of our sexuality. Current scientific numbers place exclusive homosexuality and heterosexuality as only 2% to 10% of the human population. Everyone else is somewhere in between. Our current definitions of sexuality are merely that way because they are convenient descriptors, but they are certainly flawed.
lol, this is a pile of crap. This is how I believe the measurement goes. Your familiar with the bell cure correct? Well lets put a gender on each end. The less then 1% of exclusive homosexuals represented on one side and exclusive lesbians on the other. In the center you would most certainly have the vast majority of heterosexuals representing the largest portion of the population with bisexuals of each extreme on either side. It would not be that bisexuals represent the majority as you are suggesting at all. This is purely a hypothetical measurement ideal and is highly speculative. If you were to measure it that is how you would do it in my opinion.
It doesn't defy the biological explanation I gave earlier because you can be born gay or straight and still have sex with someone of the same sex or opposite sex. If you close your eyes and receive a blow job sabastian, and you never open them, you can get off and not even realize it's a guy's mouth rather than a girls. It's the psychological/mental orientation that defines us overall.
But this is not how we go about things is it? We don't separate the psychological from the physical. When we are looking for a mate we don't do it with our eyes closed do we? And yes it does defy the explanation of homosexuality being a genetic affliction and lends credence to the possibility that you are indeed making a choice. To choose to be homosexual are not grounds for government legislation of this morality.
Frankly the idea of having sex with a woman turns my stomach, but that doesn't mean that all gay men have that reaction. I'm sure the idea of having sex with a man turns your stomach sabastian, but that doesn't mean that all straight men have that reaction. You'd be surprised by the responses people would give if this society weren't so repressive of sexuality.
Oh you heterosexual basher...
I don't know nor do you know what sorts of responses people would give but if you are suggesting that in a pro homosexual environment there would be pro homosexual statements attitudes.... this lends more credence to the learned or made homosexual.
1) Sodomy is defined as anal *and* oral sex in most states Sabastian. Let's get that part straight.
Oh, heh, learn something new everyday.
2) Anal sex most certainly does not occur while there is feces present anymore than vaginal sex occurs when a woman is menstruating *shudder*. It's called cleansing. Unless of course you happen to be into the uterine-tissue-and-blood-on-the-penis fetish *puke*.
Man, I don't think you could fool anyone with the statement that there are no feces present in the anus. Trace amounts would always be present and bowel movements are something that occur daily. Where menstruation is on a monthly cycle. Comparing the anus to the vagina is silly. lol, your reaction is appreciated though I don't think that there are many out there that really like sex in that time period. lol *puke*.
. The rectum is not for sex biologically at all while the vagina is specially suited for it..
3) The mouth is also used only for speaking, eating/drinking, and breathing. What's the use of kissing then? I mean, kissing is pretty disgusting when you think about it. Our mouths are *full* of bacteria. When you swap saliva with someone else, you're also swapping old food they missed when they brushed their teeth, plaque, and a hell of a lot of germs.
Definitely disgusting when you think about it eh?
Yeah, certainly the spread of STDs to the mouth and throat area are becoming more and more of a problem with the proliferation of oral sex.
http://www.alice.columbia.edu/highlight/page3.html Looks like you will have to use a condom for that as well, where oral sex used to be touted as something that was safe it is now becoming more risky. Funny that. Some viruses like HPV are not inhibited by the use of condoms.
http://www.geocities.com/thehpvvirus/condoms.html
4) People that seek out particular porn generally do so because they already *have* those inner feelings. However, as you've stated, people also start off not knowing things sexually. In some cases when they see something new, it turns them on and they incorporate it in their sex life. In other cases they see something new and know they don't like it, and discard it as a sexual option.
I've watched movies with sadomasochism. I definitely am not turned on by it. I'm sure if you watched gay porn, unless you're a closet case, you wouldn't be turned on it. I don't get turned on my heterosexual porn either. Well that's not true. When the guy is hot. But seriously, straight porn is all about the women. 9 times out of 10 they have some 60yr old fat tub of lard screwing some 20 year old and it works cause all the straight men looking at the porn are looking at the women. . But I digress.
Consider a young man wants to see a naked woman.... any half way decent looking woman would suffice. But when they finally do get to view one she is having anal sex for example. I believe what happens is that repeated exposure to soft porn lends way to more and more graphic and hard core porn as a result of a desensitization of the reader to simply for example a naked woman. Perversity is progressive and what used to be suitable with soft porn is no longer as exciting to the persons in question and they seek out more perverse ideas and porn. In other words if exposure to soft pornography was kept to a minimum the person in question would most certainly be excited by most any woman at all. But this is not what is happening and great many people are becoming more and more desensitized to porn and subsequently the types of sex or even sexuality that they want to experience are possibly becoming more varied. It starts off out of innocents and curiosity made becomes more perverse from there. That is my opinion.
I'm sure the majority didn't want equal rights for blacks in the 60's, or equal rights for women in the 70's. Certainly doesn't mean the decision to give address those rights was wrong.
I think you are exagerating things here. In the 60s and 70s there were all sorts of people(majority) whom thought that racism was wrong. There were not any laws disinfranchising women or blacks in the time you are talking about AFAIK.
The major downside to homosexuality is society's reaction, particularly people like you. But gay children and teens don't need schools to teach them that.
Yes they do and they should if they do teach about homosexuality.
Uhm, people have been getting divorced for millennia. There have been impoverished single parents just as long, and there have been well off single parents too. And btw, my mom was basically a single parent in terms of my legal guardian, but I would hardly call the situation I grew up in impoverished. Way to generalize. And man, STDs have been around since the dawn of time and are not and have not been limited only to those who are single. Come on now, you can come up with something better than that can't you?
The mushroom of divorce rates sense the sexual revolution and "free sex" are not really something you can say ever existed in the past.
The alarming increase in STDs that has accompanied the increase in sexual promiscuity sense the "sexual revolution" and "free sex" also cannot be wrote off as a epidemic that always existed in equally devastating numbers before the "sexual revolution". There simply was not nearly the levels of promiscuity before that we have now and certainly the millions killed by AIDS should not be overlooked but it seems that somehow it is. But that is just the numbers of AIDS victims consider the plight of millions of others infected with a whole variety of different incurable diseases and you can only conclude that we have to stop proliferating the idea that promiscuous sex is something that is ok. We can't give that message out though BTW if at the same time we are sporting condoms as some sort of protection. Rather we ought to be suggesting abstinence or considerably less sex with multiple partners and the message should be clear and unambiguous for their sake.
I seriously doubt that Sabastian. Either you keep your opinions to yourself, you're deluding yourself, or you're outright lying. No gay person would put up with your closed minded bigotry for long anymore than any self respecting woman would put up with a male chauvinist or a black person would put up with a white supremacist.
Well I am openly sexist. I think men and women are different. I am racist in that I believe blacks have a better set of genes. I
never keep my opinions to myself.....
and your right I know very few "gays" and hence my joke that "some of my best friends are "gay". But that isn't because I wouldn't have a conversation with one, I simply don't know any, oh with the exception of yourself of course. Imagine that.
3) I couldn't be bothered to be married in a christian church or any church for that matter. I could just as easily go down to city hall. It's the *right* to marry that is deserved. The venue is of little circumstance, just as it is to heterosexual couples.
Thats nice but I am not interested in what you are doing personally but rather what the gay movement is doing on a national scale. I am not interested in persectuting anyone what I am interested in is debating the political motives of the left. It just so happens that on the list of left wing political agenda is the homosexual agenda. The problem is that you want to use charter or constitutional law to evolke the government into providing speacial protective rights to homosexuals not over skin color or gender but actions and behavior with special regards to sexuality. I submit to you that other special interest groups will use that precedent to achieve some sort of likewise protection including poligymist, pedophiles, sexual sadist, sexual masochist and whom ever else that wants to argue that they are discrimanated against.
4) Infertile couples have the right to adopt. They can't reproduce. Your point?
My point on this is that adoptive parents ought to be at the very least a heterosexual couple that represents both mother and father figures and are best to give the adopted children the assemblance of a normal natural family.
I really have had enough of these long posts. It takes a considerable bit of my time to reply and it is time that I really don't have. I realize that I had a hand in perpetuating them so... but from here on out I will not respond to these massive posts I simply don't have the time. The last couple of days I have been working allot so the response was belated sorry for that.
On that note Natoma, over the past few days I really have become struck at how victimized you portray yourself and feel that this discussion is not good for you. I would submit an idea to you that possibly the fact that you see yourself as a victim of not only of racism but human sexuality is not a healthy mentality. Now please don't get me wrong here, I am not trying to be crass, but rather sensitive believe it or not. I suggest that you cease this self victimization and not focus on it and just try to be happy my friend. Stop trying to change the world if it will change it will do it in good time. MrSkywalker has a point when he says there is no one here that can do anything for your plight.
