Preserved Topic: is sexual orientation a choice? (Page 2 of 3)

Ramasax:

Ok, we might have different dictionaries. The definition of Bigot (Bigott in my language) I've got says nothing about the level of tolerance, but rather means a narrowminded person.

On the other hand, tolerance is a span as well. But you did write:

quote:

---

I will never accept people of the same sex getting it on.

---

which did lead me to the conclusion that you're not totally tolerant towards them...

bigot: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own (WordNet)

I wouldn't say Ramasax is behaving prejudicially or intolerantly regarding homosexuality. He is merely unsupportive of such acts and will probably do all he can to separate himself from homosexuals in his immediate territory.

Also note that labeling someone a bigot is an act of bigotry too.

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 02-09-2004).]

Thank you very much for that last sentence, meta.

. . : slicePuzzle

*sigh*

What did you miss in my post, meta?

The part where I said "..in my language.." or the "rather means a narrowminded person"?
I thought that might have explained that english isn't my first language and that I might have interpretered the word differently than Ramasax?

However, a neutral third-party that describes someone as a bigot is not dogmatic for the definition of bigot is objective in that sense.

This isn't to say bigotry is wrong or right. After all, what is right or wrong is dependent on who's edition of morality to which you subscribe. For example, all religions are inherently dogmatic.

"The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed, the passion is the measure of the holder's lack of rational conviction." -- Bertrand Russell.

Advance notice: I don't care if you don't like my quotes.

Nimraw:

I didn't miss anything in your post. I was and am helping you and Ramasax out.

narrow-minded: lacking tolerance or flexibility or breadth of view (WordNet)

quote:

---

I wouldn't say Ramasax is behaving prejudicially or intolerantly regarding homosexuality. He is merely unsupportive of such acts and will probably do all he can to separate himself from homosexuals in his immediate territory.

---

Thanks Meta, although this is not entirely true. I have no problem with homosexuals in my immediate territory. They don't make me uncomfortable at all. I will however do anything possible to separate myself from exposure to their version of sex, which to me, is just plain wrong.

I am not prejudicial toward anyone personally, but I am allowed to disagree with something. And if disagreeing with something makes me narrowminded, then I guess I am a bigot in your language Nimraw.

In any case, I don't want anyone here to think I am a bigot (the classic definitition re: Archie Bunker). I am not against homosexuals as individuals, just the act, as any heterosexual should be. If I said something that lead you to believe otherwise, I am sorry, I am a person with strong opinions and that tends to come out wrong sometimes in moments of emotion. Hey, nobody's perfect.



[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 02-10-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 02-10-2004).]

Tao runs in and jumps out of the closet yelling
"I'm a male lesbian"
Now I don't have to keep that dammed secret anymore.

:::tao:::

Lesbian in a man's body?

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

quote:

---

Bitching and whining by InI:

Metatard, your spamming is not welcome: want to make sense, do so, make a point of yours,
don't quote passages from some book.. assuming you got what it takes to do so.

I am not whinning, nor bitching at you: I am urging you to try and make less a fool of yourself,
by not quoting extensively something that sounds like the bible of some sect.

You don't want my hand on this one, and well, I don't want your bullshit quotes, but no bitching there,
just a matter of stating my point of view.

---

Merely a matter of stating your point of view? Sure, you've established your suggestive opinion quite negatively with inflammatory remarks, unsupported assertions, logical fallacies, nescience, bigotry, and I suppose, even foolishness.

Works for me.
::tao::

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

meta, the word "all" was inserted by you, not used by me. i in no way share the opinion you stated of homosexuality with regards to theists and nontheists, my apologies if that's how it came off. i do, however, because of my belief in God, see the world as much more black and white than most people do (where it consists of varying shades of gray). imo homosexuality is wrong (and no, i don't go around condemning gays and yes, i do have gay acquaintances and have had gay friends in the past) and goes against God's will so i will always consider it a faith issue in certain respects.

and jestah, you certainly can't tell anything with regards to a person's beliefs and their celibacy, but more often than not an individual's reasons for lack of premarital sex are strongly influenced by their religious preferences.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Ignoring InI as Kevin suggested...

Fig:
Your exact quote...

quote:

---

i do think it comes down to a faith issue and that God can change a person.

---

Even without "all", you still refer that lack of faith in your "God" is the primary reason for homosexuality. For example, if I said, "InI's obnoxiousness comes down to his adolescence," what would you have been led to think? That I think InI is obnoxious because he is just a kid? Or that InI is obnoxious and him being a kid is one of many reasons? In any case, I agree with you aside from the references to "God" and "His wishes." Homosexuality is not a new, modern age, condition. I won't go as far as to say it is wrong for I feel that homosexuality could be useful as a rational objector to overpopulation despite the incredibly atomlike minority that it affects. It's also strange that such a condition, as small as it is, attracts such a large panel of critics. Or perhaps it's not that strange at all...

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 02-10-2004).]

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

I think that it is not a choice of who you are attracted to, but a choice of whether or not you want to act on it. I know some people who are homosexuals. Some of them wish they weren't and some are perfectly fine with their sexual orientation.
It is not like someone is going to wake up one day and say "Hey I think I will be gay today." And by you saying do they choose to do this, just makes it sound all the more wrong. I personally dont care what sexual preference anyone has. And I dont really see what the big deal is about homosexuals, like why heterosexuals have such problems with them. But it is just my opinion, and if someone took offense to this, well I apologizes.

BiGCaC

My main problem is with the marriage thing. They want to have all the benefits of a married couple when it comes to taxes and other legal crap, give it to them, but call it something else. The word marriage has for thousands of years described a union between a man & woman, and it should stay that way. Can't we keep some things sacred and meaningful? Probably not, regardless of the fact that the majority of people oppose it.

This world is going to hell in a handbasket.

You have a point there about the marriage idea. And most countries and some states do have another name for it. It is called "Civil Union" I do believe.

BiGCaC

Call it a civil union, that's fine with me. I just think the idea of what marriage is, something that has existed for thousands of years and has deep meaning to many people, should be protected.

It may just be a word, but you just can't go redefining traditions and values to make a small minority happy. I guarantee if you took a vote on the issue, the majority will oppose such a move, at least that is what all the polls I have seen, from both the left and right, indicate.

I have a great respect for words, and tend to use quite a lot of them. But let's not make them more important than people, OK?

I agree with that statement a great deal Norm.

I think it applies equally well to both sides.

I think it is just as absurd for gay couples to push so hard for the silly title of "marriage" as it is for hardcore conservatives to rail flatulently against the idea.

If you are in love, and you are comitted to each other, then what does the title matter? Do you gain anything by having a legal document saying so...? Nope.

As far as tax benefits and the like - I think marriage should have nothing to do with it for hetero or homo sexuals. I think it should be a matter of children, and lave the adults (and their sexual preference) out of it.



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 02-24-2004).]

Ok norm, then let's not let the wants of a select few outweight the beliefs of the majority. Ok? Just because somebody wants something doesn't mean they should get it or are entitled to it. That is just assinine, and it is that type of thinking that is taking this world even further into the shitter.

Have a little respect for the institution of marriage. A word is not more important than a group of people, the meaning behind the word I is though. Remember, there is a large religious background to this word, and they have rights too, at least for now. I am sure that will change in this post-modern liberal society where everybody thinks they are entitled to everything regardless of how it affects others.

I kind of agree with both Ram and norm here.

I can understand why it might be seen as offensive with same sex marriage from a religious standpoint.
I guess there aere different beliefs to that aspect as well, but it makes "sense" that there are people that find it offensive and against the teaching of their religion. I understand why there are churches that refuses to conduct such ceremonies.

However from a humanitarian standpoint I think it's a disgrace that the parties in a same sex "registred partnership" (as it's called up here) are unable to get the same legal/financial privileges as a traditional married couple.

I firmly believe that religion and state should be very far separated in this matter, and the nitty grittys of taxes, insurance and whatever should not be any different. That's not exclusive to homosexual couples but applies to unwed hetero couples as well.

BTW I read an article where they had interviewed quite a few same-sex couples, and one comment from one guy regarding the semantics really stuck in my mind:
"I don't care if they call it marriage or not, but could someone plese come up with a better official term than "registred partnership". That makes me feel lika an intern or a lab rat".

Ah seperate but equal rights ...hmm where have I heard that one before.






.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

quote:

---

...are unable to get the same legal/financial privileges as a traditional married couple.

---

Which is one of the reasons I feel those privileges should be applied to families rather than "married couples". I don't see any reason to treat a couple special just because they've made their relationship a matter of legal record.

Give benefits to people who are raising children, and leave it at that.

I have to agree 100% with DL on this. The state should only intervene in our personal lives when it has a legitimate reason to do so. Raising the next generation of its citizens concerns the state. Who wants to sleep with whom and under what kind of agreements or any such like not related to the rearing of children does not concern the state and it should leave that up to the individuals to choose.

[edit]

quote:

---

Ah seperate but equal rights ...hmm where have I heard that one before.

---

Unfortunately, bit, these days we hear that more and more from the "new racists". The concept of integration and racial harmony has fallen out of favor by many of the organizations that I looked up to from the 60s and the civil rights movement. Now we hear things like "black babies belong with black mothers" and "children need people of their own color as role models". I abhor this type of thinking when it comes from "traditional racists" like the KKK as much as I do the "new racists".

. . : slicePuzzle
:FAQ:
[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 02-24-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-13-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-13-2004).]

haha bitdamaged, you make a point, although I think you are using a bad analogy. I never heard of any signs that said straights only or no gays. No straight bars, although there are gay bars...they separate themselves.

The church, who is against their way of life, will not turn them away, or should not. The only thing they will not do is marry them, as they have a right to deny, because it is against their beliefs. I am sure some of the more easygoing denominations will take it upon themselves to modify God's word to their liking, but that doesn't make it right.

Private organizations such as the boy scouts also have this right.

<ramble>
I wonder, what will the world be like when there are no longer any boundaries to right and wrong? If you think about it, total separation of church and state is preposterous considering many of the laws we have are based in some way on religion. Maybe we should scrap them all and start over. No God, no right and wrong, no repercussions for ones actions, yadda yadda. I know you are probably thinking I am full of shit, but all you need to do is take an honest look at the world we are living in. The downward spiral of human immorality increases exponentially with every passing decade, yet so many are blinded to it. Of course, I am always a pessimist when it comes to humanity. We are truly a disgusting race when viewed as a whole.
</ramble>

quote:

---

The downward spiral of human immorality increases exponentially with every passing decade, yet so many are blinded to it.

---

As I have pointed out time and time again, that is complete and total bullshit.

If that is honestly what you think, you need to do some *serious* brushing up on your world history - from ancient to modern. If anything, the world is at one of the "moral high points" in human history.

That is a totally subjective opinion, as is mine DL. Unless you can point me toward some un-biased resources that would prove me wrong and maybe change this opinion.

All I know is that as a whole our race has done some pretty atrocious things in recent years(ie the last century) which make the problems of old look like small potatoes. We have not always had the capabilities of total global annihlation. We have not always sucked out the brains of babies under the guise of human rights. We are, as a whole, morally defunct.

sorry, but i've gotta get this offa my chest....

i'm about sick of hearing people rally for the 'sacitity' and 'institution' of marriage. maybe if the people preaching this actually practiced it, the divorce rate in this country wouldn't be as high as it is. the majority of these people proclaiming how we need to 'respect' marriage are the same ones who are bonin' the babysitter, sectretary, alter boy or whore on the corner!

legally and financially, i think gay couples should have the same rights as hetero married couples.

quote:

---

Give benefits to people who are raising children, and leave it at that.

---

so, people who are smart enough to not breed should get no benefits?

quote:

---

They want to have all the benefits of a married couple when it comes to taxes and other legal crap, give it to them, but call it something else

---

... seperate yet equal.

heck what are you going to do give homosexual couples all the rights of marriage and then force them to call it something else? Run around and say "hey you're not reeeeaallly married" because you didn't get married in a church. Um just like all the other folks who aren't Christian or Catholic.


If this, this, and this represents the downfall of humanity then so be it.

Lacuna I think Bugs' is only referring to the rights we give the parents of children because they have children, not all rights.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.


[This message has been edited by bitdamaged (edited 02-25-2004).]

quote:

---

i'm about sick of hearing people rally for the 'sacitity' and 'institution' of marriage. maybe if the people preaching this actually practiced it, the divorce rate in this country wouldn't be as high as it is. the majority of these people proclaiming how we need to 'respect' marriage are the same ones who are bonin' the babysitter, sectretary, alter boy or whore on the corner!

---

A bit judgemental doncha think? I notice how that statement is only directed at men as well, lovely. Today's 'enlightened' woman isn't exactly all peaches & cream.

You fail to take into account the drastic changes in society over the past 60 years.

Not every marriage falls apart because of the evil evil man, some people just drift apart because they never have time together, and when they do, realize they don't have a lot in common anymore.

Marriage IS an institution, but in this day and age where religion is being systematically removed from everything, including that institution, we are seeing higher divorce rates. This is logic to me, probably bs to you, and that is fine. There is no accountability anymore. Please also take into account the new strains that modern society puts on marriages that weren't there for most of history.

In the past 60 years, women have gained independence that they never had before This was a good thing, but this quick changeover, in my eyes has also drastically changed marriage. Today's society demands more of us, as couples, and as individuals. The stay at home mom is a thing of the past, and many couples must both work to keep their families afloat. Not only do many couples drift apart, but this also in turn leads to children having less guidance and getting their noses in where they otherwise not go. This leads to what we have today, a generation of youth raised by TV, video games, and the internet. Their main idols are cocky sports figures or swearing rappers. Nice up-bringing, and it will show in the next 20 years. Families are weakening, and without family to guide the youth who is going to do it? The schools, government? I think not. They have already proven their incompetence I believe.

Where does this lead us? Maybe homosexual couples can help remedy all the disfunctional families out there. They want the title of marriage regardless of the impact on society and not to mention those children they will be adopting. And don't tell me teenagers won't be given a damn hard time (both mental and physical abuse for a good part of their childhood) when they introduce Dad & Dad to their friends. If you ask me homosexuals are being selfish.

Also, if a straight child is raised by homosexuals, they will, regardless of their genetic makeup, be steered toward homosexuality themselves. Whether or not you believe homosexutality is a choice or not now, for a large part of the future population, it will be just that.

A few generations of that, and where does that lead us? Sex becomes nothing but sex, no creation involved. We all come from test tubes. That is bullshit. Whether you believe in God or science, they are both very specific about the purposes of men and women. You try and put 2 male plugs together, you get nothing. Plug it into the hole in the wall, and you get light. ame basic concept. Nature itself shows us that male and female are counterparts that need to be together, and human technology should never uinterfere with such a vital natural law.

To a lot of people, a large part of marriage is religious. This does not cover everyone in this Godless world though. Remove God from everything, and the sanctity of marriage disappears. Then what is it but a legal document that means pretty much NOTHING AT ALL!

Although I disagree with it beause I am disgraceful bigot , I know gay couples will have the right eventually, so let's see how they do at it before we judge the heteros. Actually I will be quite anxious to see those stats.

I don't know, I guess my way of thinking is a thing of the past. Oh well. I'd rather stick to my guns and believe in what I think is right than change my views & beliefs every time society demands it of me.



[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 02-25-2004).]

quote:

---

The church, who is against their way of life, will not turn them away, or should not.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

The only thing they will not do is marry them, as they have a right to deny, because it is against their beliefs.

---

Agreed, but that´s beside the point. I think no homosexual couple is expecting the church to "marry" them (or whatever they call it).

quote:

---

I am sure some of the more easygoing denominations will take it upon themselves to modify God's word to their liking, but that doesn't make it right.

---

Whose modification, or even translation of God´s word IS right? Have you ever translated an ancient Latin or greek text? Then you know there is much freedom for the translator to give a potentially ambivlent statement a rigorous meaning. Whose translation/modification is right?

quote:

---

I wonder, what will the world be like when there are no longer any boundaries to right and wrong?

---

Yeah, it would be all like the poor starving and freezing to death in the streets while the rich are having orgies and politicians are lying to the people ... oh wait, that´s what we have right now, don´t we?

quote:

---

If you think about it, total separation of church and state is preposterous considering many of the laws we have are based in some way on religion.

---

I think the basic laws, upon which all the other are built, such as "don´t kill", "don´t steal" can be traced back to the perfectly reasonable necessity of a functioning society without any need for a higher power.

quote:

---

Maybe we should scrap them all and start over. No God, no right and wrong, no repercussions for ones actions, yadda yadda.

---

Once again, it seems that the basic rules of christian religion (the ten commandments) coincide with the rules that any intelligent being would accept as necessary for a functioning society. So, whoever is willing to accept a functioning society as necessary, should be able to follow these commandments, out of reason, without believing in any god whatsoever. Of course in times or regions when you couldn´t/can´t expect people to follow that reasoning, telling them they´ll go to hell if they don´t obey is an efficient way of creating a functioning society.

quote:

---

I know you are probably thinking I am full of shit

---

No comment.

quote:

---

but all you need to do is take an honest look at the world we are living in. The downward spiral of human immorality increases exponentially with every passing decade, yet so many are blinded to it.

---

I´m not shure about that. I think humanity is as immoral as ever. The tools to inflict injustice, pain and suffering on one another have become more elaborate and efficient. And religion, just as love, hatred, patriotism or greed is just another motivation for people to do good as well as bad things.

quote:

---

Whose modification, or even translation of God´s word IS right? Have you ever translated an ancient Latin or greek text? Then you know there is much freedom for the translator to give a potentially ambivlent statement a rigorous meaning. Whose translation/modification is right?

---

It has nothing to do with translation but the way each denomination decided to interpret/ignore many passages. It is people, sinful people who are flawed, not the Word or God.

quote:

---

Yeah, it would be all like the poor starving and freezing to death in the streets while the rich are having orgies and politicians are lying to the people ... oh wait, that´s what we have right now, don´t we?

---

What, you think it isn't going to get worse?

quote:

---

Once again, it seems that the basic rules of christian religion (the ten commandments) coincide with the rules that any intelligent being would accept as necessary for a functioning society.

---

How do you know this? Yeah, I know what you're thinking, how do I know otherwise? I don't, you don't, no sense in really discussing it I guess.

quote:

---

No comment.

---

Now, I set myself up for that one didn't I, lol.

Ramasax

[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 02-25-2004).]

whoa there hoss! bit of a guilty conscience? i was not singling out men there, aside from the alter boy one. whores, secretaries and babysitters come in both genders last i looked (otherwise ya better tell DL he can't be a whore anymore).
i firmly believe that being a male in today's society is quite difficult. the male role in the family unit is not what it used to be, but you surely can't blame bra burning, equal rights and a shit economy for the divorce rate. there have always been strains on marriage....always will be, but how does the gay couple down the road getting married 'strain' your marriage?
all i'm trying to say, is fix your own house before you start telling people how to fix theirs. how is it that the majority of people in this country subscribe to one religion or another, yet society and the 'institution of marriage', according to you, is in serious decline? the bulk of the responsibility for that would fall on the majority would it not?
and please....taking religion out of "everything" doesn't keep you or anyone else from going to church or following the bible of your choosen God from the comforts of your own home!
ya know, you tout accountability, yet have loads of blame to lay on outside things for these failures. so tell me, where does this accountability start? with who?

Lucana:

Since it was decided earlier that words with countless generations of tradition behind them must be honored, in order to preserve the moral fabric of our society, I must protest your suggesting that men can be Whores.

While a man can earn a living as a Prostitute, he cannot, as unfair as it may seem, be a Whore. We are also excluded by gender from ever becoming Waitresses, Ballerinas, or even Den Mothers.....

Ok, just replied to you Lacuna, pressed submit and forgot to enter my user/pass and all was lost.

Quick summary.

First off, no guilty conscience. You didn't mention poolguys, the milkman, or the cable tv guy, so in listing professions filled with primariliy women I assumed you were speaking of men being the ones tempted into infidelity by women. As far as the altar boy, I thought you were talking about priests. That is a whole other issue, and I think we would all agree there, or at least I would hope so.

The gay couple down the road doesn't strain my marriage. It does however undermine the very fabric of family, long-standing beliefs, yada yadda blah blah. Not to mention that it goes against biology and nature.

I am not blaming bra burning for anything, I am just trying to show the changes that have, IMO, put even greater strains on marriage as it was for a very long time.

Accountability starts with the individual. Each individual holds themselves accountable to different authorities. If they hold no fear or reverence for that authority, be it God or man, there is one less factor in the accountability equation. Where do we get our consciences from? Is it the laws of man that make us think about right or wrong? It surely has nothing to do with instinct. "Why not?," will become a very common rationalization. I am not saying right away, just down the road.

Anyways, I know you all disagree with me for the most part, so I will simply agree to disagree here. I think we could all talk on this subject until we are blue in the face it would not matter.

edit: norm: I believe the correct term is manwhore. Or if you prefer: Casanova, chaser, debauchee, dissolute man, Don Juan, gigolo, lech, lecher, libertine, Lothario, make-out artist, philanderer, playboy, player, profligate, rascal, roué, seducer, sensualist, sport, swinger, tomcat, voluptuary, wolf, womanizer

And I am sure that if a man really wanted to, he could attain and hold the title of waitress, if hereally wanted to...



[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 02-25-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 02-25-2004).]

quote:

---

That is a totally subjective opinion, as is mine DL. Unless you can point me toward some un-biased resources that would prove me wrong and maybe change this opinion.

---

Visit your local library and spend a few weeks perusing the "history" section. . .

quote:

---

All I know is that as a whole our race has done some pretty atrocious things in recent years(ie the last century) which make the problems of old look like small potatoes.

---

Examples, please.

quote:

---

We have not always had the capabilities of total global annihlation.

---

No, we used to have to do it face to face with the blood and guts of your enemy dripping down your face as you hacked men women and children to peices in the name of Empirical expansion, moving into conquewrable territories and killing or enslaving everybody in sight (literally).

quote:

---

We have not always sucked out the brains of babies under the guise of human rights.

---

Ok. . .are you referring to abortion? I am unsure. I don't get your reference to human rights either.

Either way, no - we may not have sucked their brains out, but I can assure you that in most civilizations there have been long standing accepted rights of parents to kill their living child - up to various ages, for various reasons, under various circumstances. In Rome it was a father's right to kill his son any time up to the age of 12 years, for little or no reason. In colonial America (in fact, in the old blue laws of Connecticut, where I live) a child up to the age of 16 could be put to death for disobeying their parents. And the list goes on and on and on and on...

quote:

---

We are, as a whole, morally defunct.

---

Yup. And religion and "tradition" have often been the CAUSE of our immoral bevhaviour as opposed to the end of it.

But some of the things we have now that we have never had - worldwide organizations comprised of many nations acting as a limited form of international congress. Human rights organizations policing the world bringing attention, aid, and funding to areas of the world in need of it. Democratic governments which allow the average man a relatively free and easy life in comparison with the average man of medieval Europe (for instance). Charitable institutions every where you look, doing everything possible to help starving, homeless, abused, displaced, sick and elderly people. Laws prohibiting slavery, child labor, domestic violence, etc.
And most importantly - the very concept of "human rights" itself.

Many of these things are in stark comparison to the daily life of the average person at any point in the history of human "civilization".

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 02-25-2004).]

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 02-26-2004).]

Lacuna - All I am saying is that the fact that two people decide to legally endorse their relationship is no reason for them to be given tax breaks - gay or straight.

Other than that I agree with everything you've said here so far. . .

Especially the whore part.