Maggie Gallagher giving up on optimism

[zsdersw]

Exactly our point. Your justification of it not being on the same level is dictated by what the media/society tells you. In real life scientifically, it is on the same level. Your mind is simply dictated based on what the liberal media tells you.

You didn't say "scientifically".

You've been all over the map in this thread, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by talking about the scientific similarity between uncommon sexual desires.

EDIT: And no, my justification of it not being on the same level is not dictated by the media or the broader society. It is dictated by the basic legal concept that informed consent is required.

 

[zsdersw]

I would drop the bit about pedophilia since even if you win you are not going to end up looking good.

You've never cared about not looking good before, why start now?

 

[Retro Rob]

I think what I am trying to say Charles and z, though this isn't an indictment on either of you, that scientific research probably as an unintended consequence, given people a valid excuse for engaging in certain behavior. For the record, you guys are sincere about your views on the subject.

It can be a form of mind control in the sense that it makes you think you have no control because everything's "natural".

I don't necessarily believe that.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

You didn't say "scientifically".

You've been all over the map in this thread, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by talking about the scientific similarity between uncommon sexual desires.

EDIT: And no, my justification of it not being on the same level is not dictated by the media or the broader society. It is dictated by the basic legal concept that informed consent is required.

Could you please inform me, whom makes the "basic legal concept"?

 

[zsdersw]

Could you please inform me, whom makes the "basic legal concept"?

Intelligence, which is a product of evolution.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Intelligence, which is a product of evolution.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA thats funny. No seriously, please answer the question.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

I think what I am trying to say Charles and z, though this isn't an indictment on either of you, that scientific research probably as an unintended consequence, given people a valid excuse for engaging in certain behavior. For the record, you guys are sincere about your views on the subject.

It can be a form of mind control in the sense that it makes you think you have no control because everything's "natural".

I don't necessarily believe that.

This is really only an 'excuse' if the reason something was socially unacceptable was because it was deemed unnatural in the first place. In which case it's not an excuse at all, but a total undermining of the rationale for deeming something unacceptable in the first place.

 

[zsdersw]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA thats funny. No seriously, please answer the question.

I did. Intelligence forms and is responsible for everything we as a species have created... including civilization and government.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I think what I am trying to say Charles and z, though this isn't an indictment on either of you, that scientific research probably as an unintended consequence, given people a valid excuse for engaging in certain behavior. For the record, you guys are sincere about your views on the subject.

Appreciate that, and I think you're being sincere as well. But your views seem to be wrapped up in a lot of premises you don't appear able to escape from.

For example, the phrase "valid excuse". Why is an "excuse" required at all?

Let's also remember that the only reason that gays use scientific research to argue that they are born the way they are, is because of opponents of gay rights who, for years, tried to claim that it was just a "lifestyle choice".

 

[Retro Rob]

Appreciate that, and I think you're being sincere as well. But your views seem to be wrapped up in a lot of premises you don't appear able to escape from.

For example, the phrase "valid excuse". Why is an "excuse" required at all?

Let's also remember that the only reason that gays use scientific research to argue that they are born the way they are, is because of opponents of gay rights who, for years, tried to claim that it was just a "lifestyle choice".

I completely understand that.

I don't think it's soley based on choice myself, but I think partially it is. I'm sure you've heard of gay men leading presumably hetero lives (married to a woman, kids etc). I never could understand how a homosexual male can choose to be with a woman for whatever reason, but CANT "choose" to be with a man, know what Im saying?

If choice has nothing to do with it, then how can a woman come into the picture at all, if he's naturally attracted to men? Should he without a shred of hesitation or "choice", be with a male?

I know you're probably going to say he's gay anyway due to the attraction, but I'd like to counter and ask that if a guy never was with a man, how could the public know his orientation unless he acted it out?

 

[zsdersw]

I completely understand that.

I don't think it's soley based on choice myself, but I think partially it is. I'm sure you've heard of gay men leading presumably hetero lives (married to a woman, kids etc). I never could understand how a homosexual male can choose to be with a woman for whatever reason, but CANT "choose" to be with a man, know what Im saying?

If choice has nothing to do with it, then how can a woman come into the picture at all, if he's naturally attracted to men? Should he without a shred of hesitation or "choice", be with a male?

I know you're probably going to say he's gay anyway due to the attraction, but I'd like to counter and ask that if a guy never was with a man, how could the public know his orientation unless he acted it out?

Desires are not a matter of choice. Actions are. The things that influence the action choices we make are many. The things that influence our desires are few.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Look at it this way.

Could you force yourself to be attracted to men instead of women? Probably not.

Could you force yourself to pretend to be attracted to men instead of women? Most likely.

Also remember that there are people who are attracted to both sexes.

Orientation is about attraction, not behavior. Nobody is saying gays couldn't prevent themselves from acting on their impulses -- at least some of them. The question is why they should be required to do so?

By the same token, you could force yourself to be celibate -- lots of people do it. But is it right for society to insist that you should?

 

[Retro Rob]

Look at it this way.

Could you force yourself to be attracted to men instead of women? Probably not.

Could you force yourself to pretend to be attracted to men instead of women? Most likely.

Also remember that there are people who are attracted to both sexes.

Orientation is about attraction, not behavior. Nobody is saying gays couldn't prevent themselves from acting on their impulses -- at least some of them. The question is why they should be required to do so?

By the same token, you could force yourself to be celibate -- lots of people do it. But is it right for society to insist that you should?

You've basically asked what I was about to ask; is it right to do so? We don't have the right to answer that for anyone. You also answered the second part as well.

I think humans are extraordinary beings, and I don't like to minimize that by saying we're controlled by something we can control, or that are actions are dictated by something. Our freedom to reason and choose based on sound reason is something out animal counterparts don't have.

Basically my whole point.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Okay, so the obvious question then is: What is the "sound reason" behind making millions of lives miserable by forcing gays to deny their sexual orientation?

I think you're also overstating your point about the degree to which humans have self-control. Especially in the area of sex. If we were as good at it as you say, we wouldn't have such a huge chunk of the population engaged in extramarital affairs.

 

[Retro Rob]

Okay, so the obvious question then is: What is the "sound reason" behind making millions of lives miserable by forcing gays to deny their sexual orientation?

I think you're also overstating your point about the degree to which humans have self-control. Especially in the area of sex. If we were as good at it as you say, we wouldn't have such a huge chunk of the population engaged in extramarital affairs.

Well it's up to them.


I'm not at all overstating it. People simply may not see a reason to exercise self control, or simply don't want to or they may not put much value on doing so. Many people do the opposite. It's not hard, wasn't for me. Wasn't for my closest friends, nor my wife and I. In fact, we didn't live together nor engage in any sexual activity during our year of courtship/engagement prior to marriage.

No we're not the standard by any means. But it's not hard nor unreasonable to do so and stay faithful.

 

[GreenMeters]

Answer the question:

What is the "sound reason" behind making millions of lives miserable by forcing gays to deny their sexual orientation?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Well it's up to them.

What's up to whom?

But it's not hard nor unreasonable to do so and stay faithful.

It's not hard for you. That doesn't mean it's not hard for everyone else.

Millions of people succumb to temptation every year.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

On an aside, if your concern is that the science is politically motivated, that's something you can reasonably rule out. Homosexuality is an interesting subject for evolutionary biology free of any politics. It's one of many behaviors ranging from bird warning calls to sterile workers in the insect kingdom that you'd expect natural selection to work against.

Birds who make noise and draw attention to themselves when predators are around should get eaten and taken out of the gene pool. Non-breeding members of a species should also get rooted out of the gene pool, since they're not passing on their genes - but this doesn't seem to actually happen. "Why not?" is one of the most interesting questions in Biology.

 

[Retro Rob]

Answer the question:

Answer it yourself.

 

[GreenMeters]

There is no sound reason. Now you answer it:

What is the "sound reason" behind making millions of lives miserable by forcing gays to deny their sexual orientation?

 

[Retro Rob]

What's up to whom?



It's not hard for you. That doesn't mean it's not hard for everyone else.

Millions of people succumb to temptation every year.

It's up to lawmakers and the people wishing to have a legal SSM marriage federally.

Secondly, you can't paint the board brush and say that we aren't extraordinary because some fall to temptation.

 

[Retro Rob]

There is no sound reason. Now you answer it:

Peace, idiot.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It's up to lawmakers and the people wishing to have a legal SSM marriage federally.

You're ducking the issue.

You claimed this: "Our freedom to reason and choose based on sound reason is something out animal counterparts don't have."

And so, again, the question is what the "sound reason" is why gays should choose to make themselves miserable.

Secondly, you can't paint the board brush and say that we aren't extraordinary because some fall to temptation.

Yes, actually, I can. Your argument largely revolves around claiming that gays can simply choose to deny their sexual desires, and that's been proven throughout history to be an unrealistic standard. If heterosexuals can't live up to it, there's no reason to expect homosexuals to do so.

(And heterosexuals only have to limit themselves to one, not zero.)

 

[GreenMeters]

Peace, idiot.

You've been polluting this thread with disingenuous, bigoted, rambling nonsense. Every post from you has been a stream-of-consciousness mess that has failed to make any point for provide a basis for any assumption. You've dodged, you've projected, engaged in fallacy and non-sequitur, but you are unwilling or--more likely--unable to say WHY discrimination against homosexuals is OK.

So answer the damn question:

What is the "sound reason" behind making millions of lives miserable by forcing gays to deny their sexual orientation?

 

[Retro Rob]

You're ducking the issue.

You claimed this: "Our freedom to reason and choose based on sound reason is something out animal counterparts don't have."

And so, again, the question is what the "sound reason" is why gays should choose to make themselves miserable.

You're taking that out if context. That wasn't meant to be directed at homosexuals but humans in general. And I am right about that - that's the one of the buggest fundamental difference between us an animals. That's all I was implying.

Yes, actually, I can. Your argument largely revolves around claiming that gays can simply choose to deny their sexual desires, and that's been proven throughout history to be an unrealistic standard. If heterosexuals can't live up to it, there's no reason to expect homosexuals to do so.

(And heterosexuals only have to limit themselves to one, not zero.)

Actually I thought we switched topics when I stated my piece about extraordinary humans. I was no longer speaking of homosexual persons, but desires generally. You even engaged me in that topic. My bad then.