On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote: A. It's an anomaly, since the vast majority of all mammals on earth including humans are heterosexual and the components of sex cater towards reproduction.
The vast majority of humans are right-handed. Should a left-hander be disagreed upon his usage of hands? He/she could have been "nurtured" to learn to use the right hand more often.
If homosexuality would be disadvantageous to reproduction, why is a percentage of mammals (including humans) still gay? Probably it does have a purpose.
On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote: B. People begin to cultivate sexual preference even before sexual hormones are activated during puberty and that the vast majority of our behaviors and tendencies are influenced by culture. - Thus, as our societies become more accepting of homosexuals and promote homosexuality it is reasonable to postulate that an increase in homosexuality would occur as a result of that (another great opinion).
Whats wrong with acceptance and cultivation of gay culture??
1) Is underpopulation an issue? 2) Can't gay couples adopt kids and still do something for parentless kids?
Because I am religious. And that is part of my reasoning for the popularization of Paul's doctrine, with whom originated the New Testament idea that homosexuality is a "sin," if you will. A modern take on an age old doctrine.
1. Overpopulation is an issue - part of the cultural shift of sex to predominantly an act of pleasure, the use of birth control... 2. I have no problem with gay couples adopting children. I have no right to say what people can or cannot do in their personal life.
Even if you religious, does that mean that Paul could not be wrong? Never?
How do you define sin? How could it be a sin when two humans love each other?
On June 25 2013 16:36 gruff wrote: Sure science can't say exactly what makes someone gay but it can say with a fair amount of certaintly that it's not 100 % a choice.
I 100% agree with you here, and this is a big part of the issue, for me at least. On a personal level I don't think it's a choice, but from a legal perspective, if it's not 100% definitive in any one direction, then the "Choice or No Choice" argument is irrelevant to me as neither side can technically be "correct" seeing as how no legal precedent has been set to eliminate the need for scientific proof.
Basically, there is your personal opinion, and your opinion based on the legal constraints and contextual landmarks of the situation. Too often I think that people misconstrue these, as it's difficult to understand how someone who could on a personal level support gay rights, but outwardly convey a message of seeming intolerance because of a lack of support
On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote: A. It's an anomaly, since the vast majority of all mammals on earth including humans are heterosexual and the components of sex cater towards reproduction.
The vast majority of humans are right-handed. Should a left-hander be disagreed upon his usage of hands? He/she could have been "nurtured" to learn to use the right hand more often.
If homosexuality would be disadvantageous to reproduction, why is a percentage of mammals (including humans) still gay? Probably it does have a purpose.
On June 25 2013 02:50 Qwyn wrote: B. People begin to cultivate sexual preference even before sexual hormones are activated during puberty and that the vast majority of our behaviors and tendencies are influenced by culture. - Thus, as our societies become more accepting of homosexuals and promote homosexuality it is reasonable to postulate that an increase in homosexuality would occur as a result of that (another great opinion).
Whats wrong with acceptance and cultivation of gay culture??
1) Is underpopulation an issue? 2) Can't gay couples adopt kids and still do something for parentless kids?
Because I am religious. And that is part of my reasoning for the popularization of Paul's doctrine, with whom originated the New Testament idea that homosexuality is a "sin," if you will. A modern take on an age old doctrine.
1. Overpopulation is an issue - part of the cultural shift of sex to predominantly an act of pleasure, the use of birth control... 2. I have no problem with gay couples adopting children. I have no right to say what people can or cannot do in their personal life.
Even if you religious, does that mean that Paul could not be wrong? Never?
How do you define sin? How could it be a sin when two humans love each other?
A sin is something either immoral, or something against a religious law. (not all items of religious law are questions of morality.)
So something can both be morally neutral, or good and a sin at the same time. From there an individual just has to ask themselves what they are interested in, questions of religious law, or questions of morality, or both. I myself find the former to be without merit, and I find consensual homosexuality to be at worst morally neutral. For me that makes supporting equal rights on this issue is a no brainer.
It is very important for us to not conflate "sin" with morality.
On June 25 2013 16:36 gruff wrote: Sure science can't say exactly what makes someone gay but it can say with a fair amount of certaintly that it's not 100 % a choice.
I 100% agree with you here, and this is a big part of the issue, for me at least. On a personal level I don't think it's a choice, but from a legal perspective, if it's not 100% definitive in any one direction, then the "Choice or No Choice" argument is irrelevant to me as neither side can technically be "correct" seeing as how no legal precedent has been set to eliminate the need for scientific proof.
Basically, there is your personal opinion, and your opinion based on the legal constraints and contextual landmarks of the situation. Too often I think that people misconstrue these, as it's difficult to understand how someone who could on a personal level support gay rights, but outwardly convey a message of seeming intolerance because of a lack of support
The choice or lack thereof is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The rules can be written without commenting on choice.
Gah you're so confusing to me parks. I don't have any idea what you're saying other than "this is the way it's written down currently in the laws". That's an accurate statement of fact but it's not an opinion, and maybe your knowledge of law informs how your opinion shapes in the end but "this is how it's written down currently in the laws" is not an opinion in itself.
On June 25 2013 15:04 Sententia wrote: You're incorrect here. I mean it depends on how you define definitive, as in do we have the same strength as a mathematical proof? No, but it's pretty damn conclusive evidence.
While there are many prevailing theories on how you become gay, there is no definitive answer. I'm not saying this to dismiss being gay and support anti-gay rights, I say this because it's factually correct, and until legislation is passed or the scientific/psychological community finds consensus on a cause, it can't be said that it is 100% the choice or not the choice of the individual to be gay
I understand there are many theories and no definitive answers, it could have a lot to do with genetics, it could be heavily related to upbringing, or certain differences in the way the brain functions, etc. The fact is, and this is what I was referring to in the quote you have from me, none of the best theories have to do with choice. I assumed you'd understood this already and were just being pithy for some reason.
Regardless of which theory proves out or if it ends up being a combination of these that we more clearly define in the future, none of it has to do with choice, and given the years and years of medical and statistical evidence and theoretical conjecture we've given to this subject I don't think it's a rushed conclusion at all. We're past the point where choice factors into this debate.
On June 25 2013 15:04 Sententia wrote: Regardless of whether people can choose to be gay the issue doesn't change. If a woman chooses to have a relationship with another woman, or if she simply can't have a real relationship with a man, either way she deserves the same rights as everyone else. You misunderstand the term discrimination if you think it doesn't apply to both situations.
While there are many degrees to which there is discrimination, in legal terms in the United States, as long as the cause of the issue is one that is avoidable (aka not race/gender/height/age/weight/nationality and sometimes religion) it is acceptable for one to show an opinion on moral issues. When enough people have the same opinion, and the minority group is one that is by choice and capable of voicing their own opinion, then usually the laws will reflect this. Currently the Constitution says no to gay marriage, and it is my right, as it is yours, as an American to vote in a way that we see fit, and have the majority come to a decision. That is all I mean by discrimination, that there is going to almost always be some present, but it's whether or not there is an illegal amount of it happening.
It doesn't matter how much discrimination exists or whatever you're saying, what matters is actions. You can't force someone to not think discriminatory thoughts, that's a feature unfortunately inherent to the human race through our years of social evolution, what you can do is punish discriminatory actions, for example using words like nigger or faggot.
And sure we could make certain discriminatory actions illegal, but right now we're not even trying to do that, we're trying to remove the discrimination that the system itself enforces. Right now the system itself is treating some people unfairly, it's de jure prejudice.
On June 25 2013 15:04 Sententia wrote: I can't believe you're comparing gay rights to hard drugs and murder, are you fucking serious? Obviously people who use the argument you quoted are doing it in the context of a fucking civil rights movement, not the trial for a murderer.
You have some thinking to do if these are the "technically correct" arguments you were referring to.
While I in no way want to insinuate that I put being gay on the same "moral acceptability level", it is on the same level in a legal sense currently. Many of the laws we have are dictated by a cultural morality, and are given the punishment or benefits that we see fit. If as many people in the US that are involved in the LGBT movement suddenly decided that the death penalty was wrong, it would be lobbied and debated for months until enough people felt that a change would be needed. When this happens, the State changes the law, and unless all but a few states go one direction and a few sour apples refuse to change (circa the Black Rights Movement), the Supreme Court need not be involved.
This is what I mean by technically correct, as within the context of the laws and procedures in the country I reside, what I have stated is correct.
If you consider 'technically correct' to mean that is what the law currently says, then sure I guess you're right. Right now by law a gay person is less than a normal person, but don't you realize how you sound like a bigot when you say that view is 'technically correct'? You're throwing a confusing spin on the debate by not using the most applicable words. It would better represent your view to say that this discrimination is 'currently inherent to US law' not 'technically correct'.
Unless you mean to imply you believe the current state of the law is how we should judge our morals or future changes to the law, which would be a terrible mistake. Laws by their nature being written in the past and slow-moving will always, always be behind whatever the current debate is on how they need to be changed, it doesn't matter if we're talking about civil rights or sports-ball or whatever the hell.
I said this to another member, but not to you, so I'll state it for you so that we're both understood here. I personally am of the opinion that being gay is not a choice, but that unless it can be scientifically proven that this is the case, or legislation is passed stating this opinion after being voted upon by the Government, I do not see this part of the argument as relevant, as neither side can technically be correct.
I'm sorry that I haven't been careful to mention that I'm a US citizen and am using the context of the Constitution for my argument, it's difficult to remember to put that every time I mention a legal thing when I'm thinking of so many ideas to write down. For further reference, my entire argument on here is based on my legal opinion, not personal opinion, and I am using the laws of the United States to base my "technically correct" arguments on. I apologize for the confusion here.
As for the unfair part, this is one of the inherent flaws of a legal system in general. When rules involving restrictions are introduced, those affected by the rules are going to deem them unfair. Why should I have to wait until I'm 18 to go to the military? Why must I wait until I'm 21 until I can drink? How come I'm not entitled to that benefit the government decided to give out to a select group of people. I personally have made the decision that I will follow the laws of the United States to the letter as I put a much higher importance on the Constitution than most sane people do. The wonderful, yet scary, thing about the Constitution is that it is the highest power in the US, absolutely nothing is above it, nothing. This means that when gay rights are passed, they will be Amended into the Constitution and be absolute law until our society, the US, decides that it needs to be changed. The con to this is that no matter what the Amendment is, it is law. If our society comes together, and says that, for example, Women shouldn't be allowed to vote, and that got put into the Constitution, that would be the law.
Basically, nothing is above the law in my opinion, and I know I am different than most on this. The benefits gained from the system by adhering strictly to it far outweigh the occasional, periodic injustices that sometimes occur in my opinion. To some this makes me heartless, or inconsiderate of others. To me there is nothing more foundational than agreeing on a set of rules and guidelines (Constitution), then following them and allowing the flexibility hopefully included within to change what we see fit
On June 25 2013 08:27 Elroi wrote: I was in Paris a couple of weeks ago and I was frightened by all the hate against gay people I saw there because of the recent legalization of gay marriage.
I was extremely surprised of the reaction in France. I guess I just had a much too rosy picture of that "liberal" nation.
Yeah, they are about as progressive as all of Europe on that front. Which is to say they are just as super racist and homophobic as the US is. No on is special, every nation has its flaws.
I am actually midly offended that you would compare US to a country such as Denmark in this regard. US is literally decades, yes decades, behind when it comes to homosexuals rights. 24 years to be exact.
On June 25 2013 16:36 gruff wrote: Sure science can't say exactly what makes someone gay but it can say with a fair amount of certaintly that it's not 100 % a choice.
I 100% agree with you here, and this is a big part of the issue, for me at least. On a personal level I don't think it's a choice, but from a legal perspective, if it's not 100% definitive in any one direction, then the "Choice or No Choice" argument is irrelevant to me as neither side can technically be "correct" seeing as how no legal precedent has been set to eliminate the need for scientific proof.
Basically, there is your personal opinion, and your opinion based on the legal constraints and contextual landmarks of the situation. Too often I think that people misconstrue these, as it's difficult to understand how someone who could on a personal level support gay rights, but outwardly convey a message of seeming intolerance because of a lack of support
The choice or lack thereof is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The rules can be written without commenting on choice.
Gah you're so confusing to me parks. I don't have any idea what you're saying other than "this is the way it's written down currently in the laws". That's an accurate statement of fact but it's not an opinion, and maybe your knowledge of law informs how your opinion shapes in the end but "this is how it's written down currently in the laws" is not an opinion in itself.
I understand how this could be annoying to some, but to me being correct trumps what I personally believe in, but that is my philosophical belief, and is not relevant to the current topic.
This brings up the most important part of the debate in my head: What should the actual debate be over? To me, the time of debating the pros and cons of homosexuality is over, as it is pretty obvious to those who are unopposed to changing their opinion when information becomes present, that even if it is "wrong", it doesn't harm people, even those who are themselves gay.
It should be HOW are we going to get this passed, not SHOULD we. This is where people who I normally would side with get me to present an opinion that appears to be anti-gay, because while I agree with the end result, the reasoning I am either against or deem to be incorrect or misleading. The process should never be outweighed by the result in my opinion, but once again, I am different than most on this
On June 25 2013 01:47 opisska wrote: Having a high-profile webpage means that you have a easy way to promote whatever agenda you choose. I like the fact that TL is very restrictive when it comes to using this and a like that one of the few things they have actually chosen to put forward is something that is something that is so clearly postive.
Guys, you can argue the whole day, it doesn't change a damned thing. Promoting equality and personal freedom can never be wrong, it is really that simple. To any arguments about how unnatural, wrong or whatever homosexuality is, I just say
who gives a shit?
Err, it can very much be "wrong". Like, promoting religious equality of ritualistic cannibalism is generally perceived as wrong in western society, and we still heavily look down on polygamy. Wrong in society just means the majority thinks the other way. There is no objective right or wrong, just different philosophies on life. Even if I personally think individual freedom is the most important thing in life, it doesn't mean my opinion is any more valid than someone who thinks working for the "greater good" of humanity as a whole is a preferable choice.
I said "personal freedom". If someone wants to be eaten by another guy, be my guest. Of course, I will be against promoting such behaviour as an organized religion (as much as I am not a fan of any organized religion at all), because that is very likely to force people to let tehemselves be eaten, which is the oposite of personal freedom. As for polygamy, I have nothing against it, as long as everyone is involved by their own decision. As a matter of fact, I live have been living in a polygamous relationship for many years (or is it polyandrous in English? when a woman has two men?).
Honestly, I don't care what your glorious "society" considers wrong. "Society" is just a glorified way of saying "average people" and an average person is an idiot, so I am definitely not going to base my ethics on what he has to say. I also don't agree with your idea that anything that anyone chooses as moral is equaly valid - I see it that way only up to the point when that guy starts telling the others what they should do. So in my book, you are free to work for the greater good of the society, but don't go and force the others to help you.
I'm fine with gay marriages and all that stuff, nor does it move me in any way if TL wants to sport rainbows for a week, but I do think that children should be brought up by a man and a woman if at all possible.
Too often that tends to not happen due to divorces or husbands working 24/7 and such. So I guess you can throw in gay adoptions while at it, I guess two loving parents can get the job done even if they share gender.
damn some people really like making their opinions heard regarding a bit of colour change on the banner. thanks for doing this tl, it's been pretty entertaining reading this thread. Not all that surprising given how often homosexual slurs are used in the gaming community
I see this as recognition of the times we live in as opposed to TL shoving their agenda down your throat. They get that some of you don't want politics here, but there's a difference between not doing something when it is uncalled for and not doing something because it makes your viewership squeamish.
You guys are making it sounds way more dramatically than it is. Transgenders are probably still refused by in the world. But gays really have no problem getting jobs and living their lives peacefully. At least not in Belgium. I have a feeling gay men even get jobs easier, a lot of people find them on average hard workers. Being from another ethnic group makes it 3 times harder than being gay I feel like.
This page deserves a better lesbian joke but I couldn't find a better one. Two lesbians turn in for the night. One lesbian turns to the other and says. "I want to be frank with you." The other lesbian says "I thought it was my turn to be frank."
On June 25 2013 18:14 Koshi wrote: You guys are making it sounds way more dramatically than it is. Transgenders are probably still refused by in the world. But gays really have no problem getting jobs and living their lives peacefully. At least not in Belgium. I have a feeling gay men even get jobs easier, a lot of people find them on average hard workers. Being from another ethnic group makes it 3 times harder than being gay I feel like.
This page deserves a better lesbian joke but I couldn't find a better one. Two lesbians turn in for the night. One lesbian turns to the other and says. "I want to be frank with you." The other lesbian says "I thought it was my turn to be frank."
To be honest, i dont know how i feel about transgender at all, its not "wrong" and its their right to do whatever they want, but i dont feel comfortable with it, and i dont know how i would react if i ever met one. Its an odd situation really, i know there's nothing wrong with it, but i cant help but feel uncomfortable.
Im not bothered by gays / lesbians however, they fuck the same sex, so wut, they aint doing it in my bed. (unfortunately, regarding the lesbian side of things.)
Alot of people have different viewpoints though, i'd name stereotypes but whats the point, everybody knows them and it would only get me warned.
They are however, completely wrong and in some cases sickeningly bad people, a previous co-worker of mine springs to mind, my brother is EVILLLLLLL because god says so, yet she's never met him. Condemning someone without knowing their face and calling them evil. Yeah, sure sounds like you're in the right.
Some people just have warped minds for whatever reason, that lady was one of them.
I don't know what RParks is on about, the overwhelming consensus is that being gay is not a choice. I don't think you'll find any reputable scientist who says it is. Pretty established as 'fact', really.
On June 25 2013 18:39 marvellosity wrote: I don't know what RParks is on about, the overwhelming consensus is that being gay is not a choice. I don't think you'll find any reputable scientist who says it is. Pretty established as 'fact', really.
I didn't say it was a choice, I said it wasn't conclusive that it wasn't a choice, and so using it as fact for one side then dismissing the knowledge when used for the other side of the argument is disingenuous
EPT
