Sarah Palin and gays, and the RNC ticket

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
22,376
5,337
146
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Choosing to be a Christian or to live in the south are choices. You could be a Muslim, agnostic, atheist, Catholic, Jew, etc and you can certainly move. You can't stop being gay. Ask Ted Haggard.

C'mon man. You've never seen or heard of a gay person turning straight? I can quote all kinds of anecdotal evidence. I'm pretty sure there's even been a study a few years ago indicating something like this.

I think rightiswrong is not correct. Gay people do turn straight. It happens all the time. I know people that have done it, and the most often used excuse is "I was confused"

And "straight" people turn gay, but they were all along.

The binary distinction between gay and straight leaves a lot of people standing at various points in the middle. The Kinsey scale which suggests sexuality is falls on a continuum is the best attempt I've seen to describe the reality of the situation. The programs that claim to successfully re-orient gay people to straight are pretty much religious horseshit. All they do is make these people bury their desires even deeper and they'll certainly re-emerge at a later date and do even more harm.

You also can't disregard the various social pressures to be totally straight. I know a number of men that married, fathered multiple children, then divorced and came out later in life acknowledging that they were never straight and slept with men on the side during their marriages.
The Kinsey scale does not fit well with the "You're either with us or against us" crowd:)

 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
I haven't read all of the comments in this thread which is just dripping with bigotry and ignorance, and no "bigot" is not a new word, your ilk has been around for a while.

1. Being gay is not a choice or a disease.

2. Gay people don't want or need your help. They don't need to be saved, they just want to live their lives as they see fit.

3. They are people and their relationships deserve the same legal protection and benefits as hetero relationships.

It's as simple as that. I know the religious right and their anti-gay allies see this as another group that needs "saving", but what they really saving from are the morality police and their hypocritical and wholly fabricated set of "values".
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
Originally posted by: ayabe
I haven't read all of the comments in this thread which is just dripping with bigotry and ignorance, and no "bigot" is not a new word, your ilk has been around for a while.

1. Being gay is not a choice or a disease.

2. Gay people don't want or need your help. They don't need to be saved, they just want to live their lives as they see fit.

3. They are people and their relationships deserve the same legal protection and benefits as hetero relationships.

It's as simple as that. I know the religious right and their anti-gay allies see this as another group that needs "saving", but what they really saving from are the morality police and their hypocritical and wholly fabricated set of "values".

SAVE TEH GAYS!!! THEY ARE TOO CONFUSED TO MAKE TEH CHOIZES.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Choosing to be a Christian or to live in the south are choices. You could be a Muslim, agnostic, atheist, Catholic, Jew, etc and you can certainly move. You can't stop being gay. Ask Ted Haggard.

C'mon man. You've never seen or heard of a gay person turning straight? I can quote all kinds of anecdotal evidence. I'm pretty sure there's even been a study a few years ago indicating something like this.

I think rightiswrong is not correct. Gay people do turn straight. It happens all the time. I know people that have done it, and the most often used excuse is "I was confused"

Or...they are so insecure that they are unable to handle the pressures being placed on them by their family and/or friends, church, whatever that they thought it would be easier in the long run to deny themselves their natural feelings of attraction.

Oh, and for every case of "someone turning straight", there are just as many cases of others saying that they were "living a lie" and "turning gay". A choice I'm sure that we all will have to make one day, right?

Oh okay. So people who were gay and sincerely believe they turned straight are either lying or deluding themselves.

Basically, they're only gay if we say they are, and if we say they are, they can't turn straight again, because according to our definition that's impossible.

This is sheer foolishness.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,997
37,169
136
Originally posted by: skyking
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Choosing to be a Christian or to live in the south are choices. You could be a Muslim, agnostic, atheist, Catholic, Jew, etc and you can certainly move. You can't stop being gay. Ask Ted Haggard.

C'mon man. You've never seen or heard of a gay person turning straight? I can quote all kinds of anecdotal evidence. I'm pretty sure there's even been a study a few years ago indicating something like this.

I think rightiswrong is not correct. Gay people do turn straight. It happens all the time. I know people that have done it, and the most often used excuse is "I was confused"

And "straight" people turn gay, but they were all along.

The binary distinction between gay and straight leaves a lot of people standing at various points in the middle. The Kinsey scale which suggests sexuality is falls on a continuum is the best attempt I've seen to describe the reality of the situation. The programs that claim to successfully re-orient gay people to straight are pretty much religious horseshit. All they do is make these people bury their desires even deeper and they'll certainly re-emerge at a later date and do even more harm.

You also can't disregard the various social pressures to be totally straight. I know a number of men that married, fathered multiple children, then divorced and came out later in life acknowledging that they were never straight and slept with men on the side during their marriages.
The Kinsey scale does not fit well with the "You're either with us or against us" crowd:)

Most people aren't comfortable with issues that aren't black and white as they require more in depth consideration. It's much easier to pick one side, stick your fingers in your ears, and hum loudly to avoid thinking.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Damn those faggy greeks and their democracy, that's go liberal and gay.


Theocracy now, the "real man's" choice.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: skyking
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Choosing to be a Christian or to live in the south are choices. You could be a Muslim, agnostic, atheist, Catholic, Jew, etc and you can certainly move. You can't stop being gay. Ask Ted Haggard.

C'mon man. You've never seen or heard of a gay person turning straight? I can quote all kinds of anecdotal evidence. I'm pretty sure there's even been a study a few years ago indicating something like this.

I think rightiswrong is not correct. Gay people do turn straight. It happens all the time. I know people that have done it, and the most often used excuse is "I was confused"

And "straight" people turn gay, but they were all along.

The binary distinction between gay and straight leaves a lot of people standing at various points in the middle. The Kinsey scale which suggests sexuality is falls on a continuum is the best attempt I've seen to describe the reality of the situation. The programs that claim to successfully re-orient gay people to straight are pretty much religious horseshit. All they do is make these people bury their desires even deeper and they'll certainly re-emerge at a later date and do even more harm.

You also can't disregard the various social pressures to be totally straight. I know a number of men that married, fathered multiple children, then divorced and came out later in life acknowledging that they were never straight and slept with men on the side during their marriages.
The Kinsey scale does not fit well with the "You're either with us or against us" crowd:)

Most people aren't comfortable with issues that aren't black and white as they require more in depth consideration. It's much easier to pick one side, stick your fingers in your ears, and hum loudly to avoid thinking.


I've thought about it indepth. I think it's a function of someones natural design being out of balance and they aren't functioning properly. If they were, they'd be attracted to the opposite sex "as designed". If you don't think men and women were designed to be attracted to each other, as the whole penis vagina thing is as clear as black and white, you're pretty screwy.
 

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
22,376
5,337
146
you are linking sexual attraction to procreation, and humans are far more complicated than that.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

I've thought about it indepth. I think it's a function of someones natural design being out of balance and they aren't functioning properly. If they were, they'd be attracted to the opposite sex "as designed". If you don't think men and women were designed to be attracted to each other, as the whole penis vagina thing is as clear as black and white, you're pretty screwy.

Then how do you explain homosexuality's presence throughout the animal kingdom? If there isn't an evolutionary advantage to it, it seems unlikely that it would be so widespread. More likely it just points to a gap in our understanding.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: Corbett
Let's see :

Black People - Born that way
Women - Born than way
Gays - Jury is still out (though I personally believe they are NOT born that way)

[/thread]

It doesn't matter what you believe, though, the only thing that matters is the truth. But we all know how well versed your type is in scientific studies. Besides, even if we lived in a parallel universe where homosexuality was a choice... Well, that STILL wouldn't give you any kind of right to tell them what to do because they're not harming anyone, and they're happy.

Gays will have rights, whether you like it or not. Same to you, andy04.
 

mxyzptlk

Golden Member
Apr 18, 2008
1,888
0
0
There is no rational argument against gay marriage. Lets end the discrimination. Glad to see this thread, I've seen a few similiar threads at different messages boards online. I believe we're on the cusp of a new civil rights movement, and I think it's cool. I want to firmly plant myself on the *right* side so I can tell my grandkids "I was there. I marched alongside the fags and the queers" :)
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

I've thought about it indepth. I think it's a function of someones natural design being out of balance and they aren't functioning properly. If they were, they'd be attracted to the opposite sex "as designed". If you don't think men and women were designed to be attracted to each other, as the whole penis vagina thing is as clear as black and white, you're pretty screwy.

Then how do you explain homosexuality's presence throughout the animal kingdom? If there isn't an evolutionary advantage to it, it seems unlikely that it would be so widespread. More likely it just points to a gap in our understanding.

what is the evolutionary advantage to it? I guess I just don't like to clump humans in with the rest of the animals.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: Craig234
While it's good that so much of the right - and I usually consider Keith far right - has arrived at the point of supporting gay unions, it's still wrong to dwar the line there.

What is your opposition to civil unions if they are equivalent to marriage under the law?

By "crusading" the point to redefine marriage, which is both deeply historical and religious in nature in this country, you only create enemies to civil unions that would grant parity. You are encouraging a group of people to go to the polls against civil unions who would otherwise likely just stay home and not vote on the issue of civil unions either way.

Here's my view. On the substantive issue, the dividing line is that the religious part of marriage is protected in the church. Catholics don't have to have gay marriages.

On the civil side of marriage, that's part of equality, and gays need full equality, period, and the politics of 'but bigots will concede some things if you compromise' is not enough.

The issue IMO is symbolic - it's the bigots recognizing they have no leg to stand on to defend denying civil union equal rights, but they really would like to keep something that says, however symbolically, that they're still better than gays, still superior to them, and that gays still don't get full equality with them, and that something is the word marriage.

I used to actually have the same opinion you express, that the important thing was the material equality, and that if we could get that for gays, who cares about a word - but I came to realize that's the point, if it's 'who cares about a word', then why deny the word to gays, and why shouldn't the opponents of gay marriage be the ones to have to say 'it's just a word' and not make an issue of it? I realized that it's nothing but a symbol of bigotry to deny the equality on the word marriage as well.

And so, I think that has to be done, too, not to have that linger as second-clas treatment.

A big part of what marriage 'means' in society is for couples to be publically recognized.

To make gays have a second-class relationship status is unjustified discrimination.

Now you tell me, why *shouldn't* gays get the word marriage for civil marriages, other than the threat of people to vote against even more justice if they can't block some?

This is the best, most reasoned response to this issue.

Unfortunately the government is already engaged in using the term "marriage" to apply to civil unions. And that is NOT going to change unless the American public is willing to spend oodles of cash to change all of teh various laws, contracts, and regulations that are impacted by a change in "terms"

What anti-gay people should concern themselves with is not keeping gays out of marriage, but keeping gays out of their churches. Thats all they can really do. Anything else and you run the risk of alienating the minority and their rights and choosing your own rights instead, thats not how America works.

As for people that want to club seals and then have sex with them and then eat them, well...take it to the court. See how far you get with that. :)
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,997
37,169
136
Originally posted by: skyking
you are linking sexual attraction to procreation, and humans are far more complicated than that.

yep
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Oh okay. So people who were gay and sincerely believe they turned straight are either lying or deluding themselves.

Basically, they're only gay if we say they are, and if we say they are, they can't turn straight again, because according to our definition that's impossible.

This is sheer foolishness.

Only if by this you mean your own post's position.

You should do some research before opening your mouth. Are you aware that the social stigma against gays - and that's greatly magnified in a powerful church culture - causes huge pressure on many gay people to not want to be gay, to try not to be gay? I've read countless stories of the extreme tensions, the agony of them trying not to feel the attractions they feel. A lot of them marry the opposite sex either trying to pretend, or to hope it'll 'fix' them. Many of them desperately want to be 'fixed' because of the pressure.

And this is a big reason the suicide rate among teen gays who are dealing with this is sky high.

I've personally known women who were devastated by divorces from marriages with gay men who were trying to be 'straight', sometimes with religious connections.

If a gun were held to your head, would you be able to commit a gay sex act? As far as arousal, as disgusting as it might sound, think about the physical side - a hand is a hand, a mouth is a mouth, and when you really want it to work, like gays who want to not be gay do, it can 'work'. Gays are often doing something similar.

As I've said from the OP, I'm talking about gays generally, and there are exceptions, as human sexuality is a complicated thing, affected by many factors.

But that doesn't change that there is an issue of homosexuality as a natural condition and the issue of what's moral, just, fair for people who are homosexual.

As for your statement that people who think they've successfull undergone 'coversion therapy - well, do some research into that and see how well it workd long term. With the sprectrum of human sexuality, there are a variety of situations, from some who may have had 'confused sexuality' with environmental pressures, to some who indeed are under pressure and want to think they've 'changed', to those who benefit from 'conditioning', to the many who 'revert' and say it never worked, etc.

You should read some real research on the issue, not just your off the cuff speculation.

On conditioning, I'll mention an anecdote, some radio show with 'Dr. Drew' on sex had a vet call in and say that his time in Iraq had something involving him being around latrines where now back at home, he could only become sexually aroused if the smell of feces were present, and he was worried about how to get 'fixed'. Dr. Drew said that it was a common type of situation where environmental conditioning happens - things get linked to arousal that affect a person - and it'd almost certainly wear off within months.

When someone subjects themself to a program using conditioning and intense methods that use current sexuality research to try to force a change in sexual orientation, of course it can have some effect (I wonder how well a reverse program might work, but it's never been tried). But that's far from proving that 'homosexuality is just a choice' and that this 'therapy', an innocent sounding word that doesn't mean just saying "now, think about it, why do you want the same sex, not a pretty girl", actually 'cures' the 'problem'.

What's sad is how these poor victims of societal (broad or church or family) pressure are put through this, and how the bigots abuse science to try to get the political result wanted.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: skyking
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Choosing to be a Christian or to live in the south are choices. You could be a Muslim, agnostic, atheist, Catholic, Jew, etc and you can certainly move. You can't stop being gay. Ask Ted Haggard.

C'mon man. You've never seen or heard of a gay person turning straight? I can quote all kinds of anecdotal evidence. I'm pretty sure there's even been a study a few years ago indicating something like this.

I think rightiswrong is not correct. Gay people do turn straight. It happens all the time. I know people that have done it, and the most often used excuse is "I was confused"

And "straight" people turn gay, but they were all along.

The binary distinction between gay and straight leaves a lot of people standing at various points in the middle. The Kinsey scale which suggests sexuality is falls on a continuum is the best attempt I've seen to describe the reality of the situation. The programs that claim to successfully re-orient gay people to straight are pretty much religious horseshit. All they do is make these people bury their desires even deeper and they'll certainly re-emerge at a later date and do even more harm.

You also can't disregard the various social pressures to be totally straight. I know a number of men that married, fathered multiple children, then divorced and came out later in life acknowledging that they were never straight and slept with men on the side during their marriages.
The Kinsey scale does not fit well with the "You're either with us or against us" crowd:)

Most people aren't comfortable with issues that aren't black and white as they require more in depth consideration. It's much easier to pick one side, stick your fingers in your ears, and hum loudly to avoid thinking.


I've thought about it indepth. I think it's a function of someones natural design being out of balance and they aren't functioning properly. If they were, they'd be attracted to the opposite sex "as designed". If you don't think men and women were designed to be attracted to each other, as the whole penis vagina thing is as clear as black and white, you're pretty screwy.

You can say the same thing about people who are born impotent, or blind, or gay animals for that matter. The mechanisms of human sexuality are tricky.

It's a very common sensical argument to say that the biological imperative for reproduction suggests that homosexuality means something is broken.

But that doesn't change the issue of justice for homosexuals, who want their relationships and not to be second class citizens. We don't ban the impotent from marriage.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: skyking
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Choosing to be a Christian or to live in the south are choices. You could be a Muslim, agnostic, atheist, Catholic, Jew, etc and you can certainly move. You can't stop being gay. Ask Ted Haggard.

C'mon man. You've never seen or heard of a gay person turning straight? I can quote all kinds of anecdotal evidence. I'm pretty sure there's even been a study a few years ago indicating something like this.

I think rightiswrong is not correct. Gay people do turn straight. It happens all the time. I know people that have done it, and the most often used excuse is "I was confused"

And "straight" people turn gay, but they were all along.

The binary distinction between gay and straight leaves a lot of people standing at various points in the middle. The Kinsey scale which suggests sexuality is falls on a continuum is the best attempt I've seen to describe the reality of the situation. The programs that claim to successfully re-orient gay people to straight are pretty much religious horseshit. All they do is make these people bury their desires even deeper and they'll certainly re-emerge at a later date and do even more harm.

You also can't disregard the various social pressures to be totally straight. I know a number of men that married, fathered multiple children, then divorced and came out later in life acknowledging that they were never straight and slept with men on the side during their marriages.
The Kinsey scale does not fit well with the "You're either with us or against us" crowd:)

Most people aren't comfortable with issues that aren't black and white as they require more in depth consideration. It's much easier to pick one side, stick your fingers in your ears, and hum loudly to avoid thinking.


I've thought about it indepth. I think it's a function of someones natural design being out of balance and they aren't functioning properly. If they were, they'd be attracted to the opposite sex "as designed". If you don't think men and women were designed to be attracted to each other, as the whole penis vagina thing is as clear as black and white, you're pretty screwy.

You can say the same thing about people who are born impotent, or blind, or gay animals for that matter. The mechanisms of human sexuality are tricky.

It's a very common sensical argument to say that the biological imperative for reproduction suggests that homosexuality means something is broken.

But that doesn't change the issue of justice for homosexuals, who want their relationships and not to be second class citizens. We don't ban the impotent from marriage.

Like I said earlier (and im not much of a debater here so i doubt every one reads what I say closely), I naturally feel like "gay" people are "sick" in a sense.. Just like people who are depressed, drug addicted, etc. HOWEVER, I don't think we should deny them any rights.

The only issue I have with marriage is that is has always been a religious thing that the government decided would sanction too. I think gay people should be able to get every right as normal people in regards to unions.

I'm semi-religious, but by no means a bible thumper. But I still don't think gay people should get "married" in regards to the original definition of marriage. But I also don't think they should get screwed out of the benefits of the government perks of "marriage" which is why I think the government should view it all as unions. I think we should remove the term marriage from government all together and replace it with unions.

 

Mani

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2001
4,808
1
0
Originally posted by: andy04
Originally posted by: DuffmanOhYeah
Originally posted by: Craig234
we are right to recognize the nature of homosexuality as a natural condition affecting a small percent of people in all times and societies

You say it as though it is a disease, not a choice.

sadly thats exactly what it is...

And how would you know? First-hand experience?
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Oh okay. So people who were gay and sincerely believe they turned straight are either lying or deluding themselves.

Basically, they're only gay if we say they are, and if we say they are, they can't turn straight again, because according to our definition that's impossible.

This is sheer foolishness.

Only if by this you mean your own post's position.

You should do some research before opening your mouth. Are you aware that the social stigma against gays - and that's greatly magnified in a powerful church culture - causes huge pressure on many gay people to not want to be gay, to try not to be gay? I've read countless stories of the extreme tensions, the agony of them trying not to feel the attractions they feel. A lot of them marry the opposite sex either trying to pretend, or to hope it'll 'fix' them. Many of them desperately want to be 'fixed' because of the pressure.

And this is a big reason the suicide rate among teen gays who are dealing with this is sky high.

I've personally known women who were devastated by divorces from marriages with gay men who were trying to be 'straight', sometimes with religious connections.

If a gun were held to your head, would you be able to commit a gay sex act? As far as arousal, as disgusting as it might sound, think about the physical side - a hand is a hand, a mouth is a mouth, and when you really want it to work, like gays who want to not be gay do, it can 'work'. Gays are often doing something similar.

As I've said from the OP, I'm talking about gays generally, and there are exceptions, as human sexuality is a complicated thing, affected by many factors.

But that doesn't change that there is an issue of homosexuality as a natural condition and the issue of what's moral, just, fair for people who are homosexual.

Again, you are ultimately saying that any gay person who renounces his or her homosexuality is either lying or deluding him or herself.

That seems blindly idealistic. Evidence against your claim is in plain sight, and you dismiss them as being dishonest and deluded.

No wonder the definition of bigotry was cited earlier in this thread.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

I've thought about it indepth. I think it's a function of someones natural design being out of balance and they aren't functioning properly. If they were, they'd be attracted to the opposite sex "as designed". If you don't think men and women were designed to be attracted to each other, as the whole penis vagina thing is as clear as black and white, you're pretty screwy.

Then how do you explain homosexuality's presence throughout the animal kingdom? If there isn't an evolutionary advantage to it, it seems unlikely that it would be so widespread. More likely it just points to a gap in our understanding.

what is the evolutionary advantage to it? I guess I just don't like to clump humans in with the rest of the animals.

I'm a little embarrassed to say that a decent and relatively succinct explanation I found for it was on Yahoo Answers, but so be it. Obviously this is largely speculation, but it is at least informed speculation. My basic point though is that genes that confer no advantage tend to get weeded out pretty mercilessly... and this one has obviously not.

Don't hate me.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
59,208
13,801
136
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I've thought about it indepth. I think it's a function of someones natural design being out of balance and they aren't functioning properly. If they were, they'd be attracted to the opposite sex "as designed". If you don't think men and women were designed to be attracted to each other, as the whole penis vagina thing is as clear as black and white, you're pretty screwy.

The flaw there is that anal sex still works pretty well for dudes, by "natural design". Is there any other way to get to the prostate?
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
59,208
13,801
136
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Again, you are ultimately saying that any gay person who renounces his or her homosexuality is either lying or deluding him or herself.

That seems blindly idealistic. Evidence against your claim is in plain sight, and you dismiss them as being dishonest and deluded.

No wonder the definition of bigotry was cited earlier in this thread.

The fact is, as previously stated in the thread, it's not a black and white thing, but rather a rainbow spectrum of sexuality :p
So it's possible that gays that renounce their homosexuality ARE lying or deluding themselves, and it's also possible they'll never have another homosexual encounter, and it's possible that they may have occasional homosexual encounters, and it's possible that they'll go back to homosexuality.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Again, you are ultimately saying that any gay person who renounces his or her homosexuality is either lying or deluding him or herself.

Where are these people who have "renounced" their homosexuality outside of Ted Haggard's church? Maybe in places of acceptance like NYC or SF people don't feel the need to be "cured"? Aside from the "numerous" close personal friends of Techboy who have converted to heterosexuality, that this occurs is a myth. Take any claimed convert, tie a bell to their dick and show them a playgirl, you'll be humming jingle bells in 10 seconds.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Like I said earlier (and im not much of a debater here so i doubt every one reads what I say closely), I naturally feel like "gay" people are "sick" in a sense.. Just like people who are depressed, drug addicted, etc. HOWEVER, I don't think we should deny them any rights.

The only issue I have with marriage is that is has always been a religious thing that the government decided would sanction too. I think gay people should be able to get every right as normal people in regards to unions.

I'm semi-religious, but by no means a bible thumper. But I still don't think gay people should get "married" in regards to the original definition of marriage. But I also don't think they should get screwed out of the benefits of the government perks of "marriage" which is why I think the government should view it all as unions. I think we should remove the term marriage from government all together and replace it with unions.

In regards to the first paragraph, are you really claiming that it is a sickness? If so, what is the cure?

Homosexuality is no more of a sickness than heterosexuality is. It is akin to being born with blue eyes instead of brown. The more dominant gene takes control and dictates the sexual preferences for the individual.

Marriage has not allows been a religious thing either. As a matter of fact, it started out as a political/governmental arrangement to solve disputes over property. Religion didn't enter into the picture until much later.

http://psychologytoday.com/art...o-20050506-000006.html

If you truly want to go by the "original definition", then you need to drop all of the objections based on religion.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Atreus21

Again, you are ultimately saying that any gay person who renounces his or her homosexuality is either lying or deluding him or herself.

That seems blindly idealistic. Evidence against your claim is in plain sight, and you dismiss them as being dishonest and deluded.

No wonder the definition of bigotry was cited earlier in this thread.

I'm saying that the issues of human sexuality involed are more complicated than is suited to a debate here, and you should do some research before you spout your opinion.

As I said, human sexuality is complex and there are a variety of scenarios. Many parts of sexual attraction are environmental - take a look at fetishes. Why don't you explain to me why the members of NAAFA are so often fixated on fat partners for sexual attraction? Why don't you explain the phenomenen of transvestites? Of transsexuals? I can go on.

You're putting things in extremely misleading boxes from oversimplification.

The point I've made all along and I make now, is what I said, that there is a naturally occuring condition of homosexuality. Not every person who has any same-sex experience has that exact same condition - there are a lot of situations. But that condition does exist, and they deserve equality.

You want to simplify every person who somehow identifies they're gay like they're the same, and every experience in the 'conversion therapy' like it is.

We're not talking about an infection and an antibiotic here.

You seem to be trying to imply that saying a lot of the people in those programs are deluding themselves is somehow condescending and ignoring the 'evidence in plain sight', but in fact, there's good reason to say just that - and you need only ask many of them later, who will tell you just that. But you won't, because actual researc is too much hassle, it seems. But common sense would suggest that people who *desperately* want not to be gay, who think that they're the same as a murderer or rapist for feeling gay attractions, might just get a bit warped in that program. But you don't seem too interested in the actual research.

What's *your* point in trying to make such an issue of the variety of situations - are you trying to say that every gay person is deluded and just needs a bit of 'therapy' to 'fix' them? No, you're trying to take a small percent of cases that can be different than gays generally, and pretend that it 'disproves homosexuality as a natural condition'. It's dishonest and harmful.