"Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It's Bad"?!
- Thread starter shagdrum
- Start date
from shagdrum
"So it is "beyond their control"...so what? I am sure that many rapists, serial killers, pedophiles, etc. can make the same claim. Is society supposed to change their standards to allow for their proclivities? NAMBLA would love that! "
yes. they ARE quite the same thing, aren't they.
homosexuality is a religiously forbidden thing, yours are societly forbidden.
from shagdrum
"The gay community is different from other communities (like the native american community) in that someone isn't often born and raised in the gay community. More often they are born into a family with a predisposition to being self-destructive; a broken household, or a single parent, drug use in the house, questionable people around the children, domestic violence, whatever. They become gay as a result of some of those emotionally scaring and/or psychologically traumatizing experiences in that childhood. "
this is the life quite commonly found in native reserves, yet there is no higher incidence of homosexuality among them. if you think these are the factors for people becoming gay, then the gay population would be well above what it is now as a percentage. and it wouldn't explain the many who come from normal idealistic or religious backgrounds. even with strong religious backgrounds, and the moral implications that go with it, some people are just gay. they may hide or run from it for some time, but it comes out.
and you still haven't made any reference to elton john. he stayed drunk and high and even got married to try and run away from his gay fact.
"So it is "beyond their control"...so what? I am sure that many rapists, serial killers, pedophiles, etc. can make the same claim. Is society supposed to change their standards to allow for their proclivities? NAMBLA would love that! "
yes. they ARE quite the same thing, aren't they.
homosexuality is a religiously forbidden thing, yours are societly forbidden.
from shagdrum
"The gay community is different from other communities (like the native american community) in that someone isn't often born and raised in the gay community. More often they are born into a family with a predisposition to being self-destructive; a broken household, or a single parent, drug use in the house, questionable people around the children, domestic violence, whatever. They become gay as a result of some of those emotionally scaring and/or psychologically traumatizing experiences in that childhood. "
this is the life quite commonly found in native reserves, yet there is no higher incidence of homosexuality among them. if you think these are the factors for people becoming gay, then the gay population would be well above what it is now as a percentage. and it wouldn't explain the many who come from normal idealistic or religious backgrounds. even with strong religious backgrounds, and the moral implications that go with it, some people are just gay. they may hide or run from it for some time, but it comes out.
and you still haven't made any reference to elton john. he stayed drunk and high and even got married to try and run away from his gay fact.
squidnomore
LVC Member
Sigh.
Round and round the argument they go, where they'll stop nobody knows.
Homosexuality exists in nature. Animals do it. Therefore it is "natural" and "god made it that way".
For the religious zealots; read your bible carefully. It hates gays (kill them) but says nothing of lesbians. Why? Because they liked them too. Most will support gay marriage; if the chicks are hot. And have blatant hypocrisy or the Girls Gone Wild videos wouldn't be so very popular.
Have a couple of hot chicks kissing in a bar and the place goes wild with cheers. A couple of unattractive gals or guys do the same and it's an abomination. How convenient. Kill the queers but spring wood when it's gals. Homosexuality cannot be both hot and toxic. Duh.
Brittney's 55 hour marriage, cheating spouses with blind eye partners, or the annulment of the Kennedy marriage after 20 years and two kids isn't tainted by letting a loving couple have their union recognized and legally enriched.
Did any of those affect your unions?
No.
Neither will gay marriage.
Not so very long ago the same tired arguments were used against inter-faith and inter-racial marriages. The world was coming to an end, people would be marrying animals and children, the entire society was going to morally decay and crumble into dust.
Stop the hypocrisy. Let them marry. They are entitled to be as miserable as the rest of us.
Round and round the argument they go, where they'll stop nobody knows.
Homosexuality exists in nature. Animals do it. Therefore it is "natural" and "god made it that way".
For the religious zealots; read your bible carefully. It hates gays (kill them) but says nothing of lesbians. Why? Because they liked them too. Most will support gay marriage; if the chicks are hot. And have blatant hypocrisy or the Girls Gone Wild videos wouldn't be so very popular.
Have a couple of hot chicks kissing in a bar and the place goes wild with cheers. A couple of unattractive gals or guys do the same and it's an abomination. How convenient. Kill the queers but spring wood when it's gals. Homosexuality cannot be both hot and toxic. Duh.
Brittney's 55 hour marriage, cheating spouses with blind eye partners, or the annulment of the Kennedy marriage after 20 years and two kids isn't tainted by letting a loving couple have their union recognized and legally enriched.
Did any of those affect your unions?
No.
Neither will gay marriage.
Not so very long ago the same tired arguments were used against inter-faith and inter-racial marriages. The world was coming to an end, people would be marrying animals and children, the entire society was going to morally decay and crumble into dust.
Stop the hypocrisy. Let them marry. They are entitled to be as miserable as the rest of us.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Non sequitur. Humans murder each other too, yet the Ten Commandments clearly says not to murder. Which way ya wanna go with that one?
Contradicts your own quote above.
squidnomore
LVC Member
No. The argument is that it isn't "natural". Unfortunately for the haters, the evidence shows it is. Making rules about it doesn't change nature. Or dudes digging the FFM videos.
It does not contradict. If a man lie with another man, kill him. Nothing is ever said of woman with woman. Once again man, who wrote the passages, has hypocrisy. Their version of homosexual was male/male only.
BTW, if you are a "true Christian", ergo "only" follow the NT and don't have to kill the gays since that's OT, you don't have 10 commandments.
Nice try.
Actually, all those things ("rapists, serial killers, pedophiles, etc." and homosexuality) have all traditionally been morally forbidden to various degrees by society. Homosexuality is not as morally repugnant to society today as it used to be, but gay marriage (or more accurately, redefining marriage to allow for homosexuality) is strongly against the morals of society.
You are trying to force a distinction where none exists. All laws are essentially enforced societal morals. homosexuality is immoral to most of society today (which is why they refuse to redefine marriage), and all the other things listed (rape, muder, pedophilia, etc.) are morally forbidden as well (to a much larger degree) , which is why it is codified in law and made illegal.
Where to begin...
comparing the native american community to the whole of society is a false analogy because the native american community is not representative of society as a whole. Cultural morals, income standards, etc all come into play. In fact, the native american community has a different view of homosexuality, calling homosexuals "two-spirits". Even if it wasn't a false analogy, it would still be fallacious because it is fallacy of composition argument (basically, infering something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole). According to the 2000 U.S. census, Native Americans only make up 0.9% of the total U.S. population.
It is actually kind of funny that you mention Native American in the context of a discussion of gay marriage. Most of the homosexuals I know are Native Americans. I used to live in Lawrence, Ks. In addition to K.U., there is another college called Haskell Indian Nations University that, as you would guess, is a Native American college. One of my closest friends I met in Lawrence and she is a lesbian who attended Haskell. Most of the homosexuals I know are through her. I can tell you that there is actually a rather strong Native American homosexual community in Lawrence, Ks.
Weather that is reflected in the Native American community as a whole or not, I cannot logically say. What I do know is that getting accurate statistics on homosexuality in all of society is very difficult. The homosexuals in U.S. society as a whole only amount to 1.51% according to some of the better statistics. Finding the homosexual population of the Native American community (0.9% of the total U.S. population) is next to impossible. The claim that the gay population in the native american community is on par with society as a whole (no higher incidence of homosexuality among them [the native american community]) is one I have no doubt that you are just throwing out there without any basis.
Talk about jumping to a conclusion! That is a patently absurd statement. Just because someone has some factors that can indirectly play a part in someone becoming homosexual, it doesn't follow that they will become homosexual, which is what your response here inherently assumes. My argument never even implied that. Talk about misleading vividness.
I only said that homosexuality was determined by psychological factors. I provided some speculation as to what those could be, but you are assuming I am saying that those are necessary, and I never did. You are smart enough to realize that. This seems like another disingenuous attempt to obfuscate and misrepresent my argument. It focuses on, and exaggerates the incidental aspects of my argument, substituting that for the main part of my argument.
Very few people (if anyone) have a "normal idealistic" background. We do live in the real world. There are always negatives. Some people have less negatives then others, but they are still there. Even if the basic family is solid and not an issue, what about extended family, people they have to interact with at school or in life, etc. They are not immune from psychologically traumatizing experiences. Neither are people in a "religious background" (which I doubt you know much about anyway).
You are arguing an abstract here. Using some unrealistic, idealized idea (idealistic background) to counter my argument. Hypotheticals based in wishful thinking in no way counter any aspect of my argument. That is like saying some aspect of nature is wrong because you saw otherwise in a movie. It is a red herring.
You really are getting caught up on the incidentals and losing perspective. None of this in any way counters my main argument.
Yeah, I intentionally ignored it because it is irrelevant; another red herring. Elton John's sexuality (and the reasons behind it) says nothing about the gay community as a whole. To argue that is another fallacy of composition. You wanna keep pushin it, fine, I will discuss it...
You claim Elton John was basically self-delusional when he was heterosexual. When he dated women, got married, etc., he was really trying to "run away from his gay fact". Well that is a rather self-serving spin, isn't it.
By your own admission, Sir. Elton John had a capacity for self-destructive behavior and self delusion ("he stayed drunk and high...to run away from his gay fact").
Considering the fact that sexuality has been shown to have a strong psychological component, a heterosexual predisposition has been proven to be genetic and natural and a homosexual predisposition has not been reliably shown to be in any way to be genetic or natural it is illogical to conclude that Elton John was being self-delusional when he was heterosexual. It is more logical to conclude that Sir Elton John is being self-delusional when he claims he is gay.
You realize that the few decent claims you made in that post have been discredited in this thread already.
It is rude to force us to retread old ground in this thread. Read the thread, and if you have anything new to offer (other then spin) post that.
Most of your post is simply groundless spin that is too vague to bother trying to disprove here.
If you are going to post in this thread trying to argue a position, please make specific, disprovable arguments, and respond to the specific arguments being made here. Vague spin and substance-lacking rhetoric do nothing but drag down the debate and distract from it.
Again, read the previous posts. The idea that being gay is in some way "genetic" or "biological" has already been discredited in this thread. If you are going to continue making that argument, you need to prove it, not just assert it. The evidence does not support your position.
Weather or not there is actual hypocrisy in this example is questionable (in part because your claim is awful vague). Either way, it is irrelevant. Weather or not someone is hypocritical doesn't say anything about the validity of the claim the person is making. You are focusing on the person making the argument and not the argument itself. Your argument is fallacious and invalid.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
I think the jury is still out on that one, Shaggy.
ScienceDaily (Jun. 17, 2008) — Swedish researchers have found that some physical attributes of the homosexual brain resemble those found in the opposite sex, according to an article published online (June 16) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Some psychological tests have shown differences between men and women in the extent to which they employ the brain’s hemispheres in verbal tasks. Other research has hinted that homosexuals may exhibit the tendencies of the opposite sex in brain behavior unrelated to sexual activity.
Ivanka Savic and Per Lindström, of the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, now report that the brains of heterosexual men and homosexual women are slightly asymmetric—the right hemisphere is larger than the left—and the brains of gay men and straight women are not.
Full Story:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm
Though I realize this will fall on deaf ears to the religious group, because if homosexuality isn't indeed a choice, how can it be a sin?
ford nut
Local nut case
Sir Elton might be a bad example.
I have a close friend whos little brother went the same route....but without the booze and the drugs.
Its a family of three brothers and two sisters, also a lutheran family that was at church every sunday.
This little brother was always a little different, nobody thought gay, just a little light in his loafers.
As we all grew up he went on and got married like the rest of us trying to follow what the society norms are, they even had a child.
Guess what it didnt work he was gay and suppressed it for years, he was the only one in his family to be gay.
Now he is divorced and living with a man he is in love with and has never been happier.
Weird huh ?
The only abuse in his life was the abuse he put himself thru trying to be something he never was.
He was born that way, and tryed like hell not to be...well thats what he tells me anyway.
I agree 100% :I
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Proverbs 14:12
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
The problem with most studies like this is that they are usually not repeatable and thus, not verifiable. Judging by date on the link (june 18, 2008) this is most likely a recent study. I will be interested to see if another scientist can repeat (and thus, independently verify) the findings of this study.
I would wonder if the study ran into the same problems of Simon LeVay's study. While LeVay's study was not repeatable, there was the other issue of not accounting for AIDS (and certain treatment for AIDS) reducing testosterone levels in men. "...of nineteen homosexual subjects used in the study, all had died of complications of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)." LeVay also didn't have full medical history on the individuals he examined. HE was left to assume the sexuality of the non-AIDS victims in his study.
In addition...
In referring to his own research, Mark Breedlove asserted, "These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case--that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it. It is possible that differences in sexual behavior cause differences in the brain."
It will be interesting to see what (if anything) comes of this research.
Yeah, I think so.
Yeah, all but one of the homosexuals I know either come from a dysfunctional family or were abused in their past (sexually and/or otherwise). The one thing in your story that would give me pause is is that you implied the guy kinda stood out as a little different.
I know another kid who came from a broken house (parents divorced). His dad (who had custody) took him to church every Sunday, and the kid was afforded a very normal life. The kid always wanted attention from his mom though. His mom was (to but it nicely) a crack whore. She had many drug problems and was arrested for prostitution on multiple occasions. However, this kid wasn't around her except on a few ocassions as was very sheltered from those aspect of her. In school (my mother was his third grade teacher, as well as his family and mine being rather close), the kid always seemed very effeminate. The kids would sometimes joke about it. Not surprisingly, he is now a homosexual. He effectively unconsciously made himself into the daughter he thought his mother always wanted.
I know that the case of your friend and the case of my friend are two different things entirely. The point I am making, is that for my friend, the big psychological factor for him was obviously some sever parent issues. It wasn't so much a dysfunctional family type thing, as his actual immediate family (the people he lived with and celebrated special occasions with) was very normal, but there was still a definite psychological factor there. I would wonder if there might be something in your friends childhood that might be that psychological factor.
For something like that, there doesn't need to be a broken household. Maybe one parent is gone away on business a lot or doesn't give one child as much attention as another. My point is that, just because someone has what is considered a "normal" childhood, that doesn't mean that there are no psychological factors there. It just means they may not be as obvious.
BTW, My question about your friend is purely rhetorical. You and your friends background are none of my business, and I am not looking to pry.
from shagdrum
"He effectively unconsciously made himself into the daughter he thought his mother always wanted."
talk about jumping to conclusions on your own. you have no evidence whatsoever to back that one up. my example of elton john is viable, because he has admitted he recognizes that he always has been gay. societal norms and pressures make many gays try and fall into expected patterns, which lead to life of denial and quite often excess in thought numbing practices.
from shagdrum
"More often they are born into a family with a predisposition to being self-destructive; a broken household, or a single parent, drug use in the house, questionable people around the children, domestic violence, whatever. They become gay as a result of some of those emotionally scaring and/or psychologically traumatizing experiences in that childhood. "
more often than not? and this is verifiable, or a personal view? this was the basis of my last arguement that you short quoted me on in your reply. there is no evidence whatsoever that the majority of gays come from these environments. that would be your personal view that you admit to.
from shagdrum
"Yeah, all but one of the homosexuals I know either come from a dysfunctional family or were abused in their past "
so your view on how gays are "created" would be your own personal view and have nothing in evidence to conclusively back your claim up. the majority of gays will admit that they have always been that way. sexually attracted by the same. since as far back as they can remember.
"He effectively unconsciously made himself into the daughter he thought his mother always wanted."
talk about jumping to conclusions on your own. you have no evidence whatsoever to back that one up. my example of elton john is viable, because he has admitted he recognizes that he always has been gay. societal norms and pressures make many gays try and fall into expected patterns, which lead to life of denial and quite often excess in thought numbing practices.
from shagdrum
"More often they are born into a family with a predisposition to being self-destructive; a broken household, or a single parent, drug use in the house, questionable people around the children, domestic violence, whatever. They become gay as a result of some of those emotionally scaring and/or psychologically traumatizing experiences in that childhood. "
more often than not? and this is verifiable, or a personal view? this was the basis of my last arguement that you short quoted me on in your reply. there is no evidence whatsoever that the majority of gays come from these environments. that would be your personal view that you admit to.
from shagdrum
"Yeah, all but one of the homosexuals I know either come from a dysfunctional family or were abused in their past "
so your view on how gays are "created" would be your own personal view and have nothing in evidence to conclusively back your claim up. the majority of gays will admit that they have always been that way. sexually attracted by the same. since as far back as they can remember.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Speaking of nothing in evidence to conclusively back your claim up...
Just curious what qualifies you to speak for the majority of gays.
ford nut
Local nut case
I know of no abuse.
Family life was as good or better then my own.
IMHO he was born that way.
I also know alot of people that have been abused...my father being one of them, that are not gay.
abuse does not = gay.
I don't know a lot of gays he is just one story.
A Friend from highschool married a woman pratcied a gay "lifestyle" so I would never say all gays are born that way.
She was in a abusive marriage with kids, got divorced started to eat at the Y.
She had a few girl friends...this went on for over 5 years.
My friend had no idea about her history, asked her out.
They dated for 2 years, got married, that was 7 years ago.
So you tell me is she gay or did she just want to try something different ?
Is she BI ? I have no idea I dont care.
My point is I can agree with you that some do choose.
But from what I learned not all just make a choice, its who they are.
To think you can just fix it with a little down home religion is a pipe dream.
As far as gay marriage the far right better get ready for it because its comming.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25218048/
Because I think most moderates just dont care.
Wow. You really are reaching. Are you that desperate?
You are telling me what I do or do not know in regards to a friend I grew up with! You have a lot of never.
It really says a lot about you that you would try and argue with me on a subject that is rather personal and that I have a exceedingly large amount of direct, first hand knowledge about while you have none. This reinforces my perception that when you have a strong opinion on an issue, you become exceedingly stubborn and lose all intellectual integrity in regards to that subject.
I only presented some of the facts that I felt were relevant to the issue I was responding to. There is much more info I could've offered, but I didn't feel it was necessary or was too revealing on my friends part and didn't want to post it for all it to read. Rest assured that the conclusion I drew is accurate. Anyone who grew up with him or knows him would confirm that; even his brothers and his father.
Your example is nothing more then spin on your part based ultimately on a non sequitur.
It is rather interesting that you are willing to take Elton John at his word; someone who, by your own admission, spent a large part of his life abusing drugs and alcohol and was at one point very self-delusional, but in regards to my friend, you refuse to take me at my word, when you have no indication of substance abuse or self-delusion.
Ahh, more distortion. That's suprising...
Here is the full quote:
The gay community is different from other communities (like the native american community) in that someone isn't often born and raised in the gay community. More often they are born into a family with a predisposition to being self-destructive; a broken household, or a single parent, drug use in the house, questionable people around the children, domestic violence, whatever. They become gay as a result of some of those emotionally scaring and/or psychologically traumatizing experiences in that childhood.
I never said "more often then not", and when I did use the term "more often" it was in direct reference to the previous sentence.
You are again showing a sever lack of any intellectual integrity by intentionally editing my quote to take it out of context and mischaracterize my argument to set up a straw man to knock over.
I was responding to your analogy of the gay community and the Native American community; pointing out what made it a false analogy. A big difference is that you are not born into the gay community, as homosexuals cannot reproduce. There may be exceptions to that, which are usually very circumstantial (woman got pregnant then became lesbian in a relationship before the kid was born), which I was acknowledging. More ofter then being born into the gay community, they are born into a family that tends to be dysfunctional in some fashion. I was never saying that a majority of homosexuals were born into a dysfunctional family.
More distortion and exaggeration of what I have been arguing. My own experience with homosexuals does inform my views on homosexuals. But I don't make logical leaps. I see certain trends among the homosexuals I know, it is logical to assume that trend is the same for a large number of people in the gay community and a factor. But I don't jump to a conclusion based just on that observation. That may or may not reflect the majority. Research tends to clarify that. I will give you a quote from a previous post of mine in this thread that you seem to want to conveniently ignore...
This problem of self-delusion or being dishonest to ones self in this area [loev, sex and relationships] is inherent in every category, from Bill Gates level to the homeless man on the street. It is even worse in people who are self-destructive.Considering the higher level of drug use in the gay community then in the normal population (here, here and here), the higher incidents of disease often from activities engaged in by homosexuals (here, here, here, here, here and here), the higher risk of suffering from psychiatric problems ( here and here) and the higher rates of violence and murder ( here, here and here), it can strongly be argued that a large portion (if not a majority) of the gay community is very self-destructive (in some manner) and is more prone to being dishonest with themselves in the areas of love, sex and relationships then even the normal population.
We also know that sexuality (among other things) is heavily influenced, psychologically, by your childhood and the experiences therein. As you can see, I have provided strong evidence already in this thread for my views. You on the other had have not. More incidental examples, flawed research, distortion and spin then anything else. You are more interested in proving me wrong and being right then in reality or the truth here; which is why you use so many logical fallacies to make your argument, have double standards in regards to who you will and won't believe and in general exhibit a complete lack of any intellectual integrity in regards to this issue.
I know of no abuse.
Family life was as good or better then my own.
IMHO he was born that way.
I also know alot of people that have been abused...my father being one of them, that are not gay.
abuse does not = gay.
I don't know a lot of gays he is just one story.
A Friend from high school married a woman practiced a gay "lifestyle" so I would never say all gays are born that way.
She was in a abusive marriage with kids, got divorced started to eat at the Y.
She had a few girl friends...this went on for over 5 years.
My friend had no idea about her history, asked her out.
They dated for 2 years, got married, that was 7 years ago.
So you tell me is she gay or did she just want to try something different ?
Is she BI ? I have no idea I dont care.
My point is I can agree with you that some do choose.
But from what I learned not all just make a choice, its who they are.
To think you can just fix it with a little down home religion is a pipe dream.
As far as gay marriage the far right better get ready for it because its comming.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25218048/
Because I think most moderates just dont care.
Most of society here in America is against redefining marriage to include homosexuals. Whenever an amendment has been put up for banning gay marriage or redefining marriage to allow for gay marriage, the result has always fallen on the side of banning gay marriage.
My argument isn't that homosexuality is a conscious choice (it is probably to some, but that is rare). My argument is that it is not biological, but psychological; usually and unconscious thing. There is a lot of verifiable evidence that shows that (as I have pointed out it this thread, and am too lazy after my last post to go back and find to repost).
In regards to gay marriage, that lesbian friend of my is now looking to get "married" to her partner up in Washington D.C. (she lives there now). I unfortunately cannot afford to go (poor college student), but I am happy for her. I have no problem with gays committing to each other and calling that a marriage, as that is what that is to those two individuals. My problem with gay marriage comes at redefining marriage at a societal level. There have been very negative consequences shown to be attached to doing that, as have been pointed out in this thread. I make a strong distinction between the individual level and the societal level due, in large part to that.
ford nut
Local nut case
Most of society here in America is against redefining marriage to include homosexuals. Whenever an amendment has been put up for banning gay marriage or redefining marriage to allow for gay marriage, the result has always fallen on the side of banning gay marriage.
My argument isn't that homosexuality is a conscious choice (it is probably to some, but that is rare). My argument is that it is not biological, but psychological; usually and unconscious thing. There is a lot of verifiable evidence that shows that (as I have pointed out it this thread, and am too lazy after my last post to go back and find to repost).
In regards to gay marriage, that lesbian friend of my is now looking to get "married" to her partner up in Washington D.C. (she lives there now). I unfortunately cannot afford to go (poor college student), but I am happy for her. I have no problem with gays committing to each other and calling that a marriage, as that is what that is to those two individuals. My problem with gay marriage comes at redefining marriage at a societal level. There have been very negative consequences shown to be attached to doing that, as have been pointed out in this thread. I make a strong distinction between the individual level and the societal level due, in large part to that.
No need to repost I have read the whole thread.
I haven't seen any proof that is 100% positive why someone is gay.
I don't doubt there is more then one reason.
Why someone is gay is irrelevant.
Society changes as individuals accept change as you have.
It will change and has already started thats why gays are flying to Cal.
It is relevant when it comes to claiming certain rights. If someone is born a certain way, the case for claiming certain rights is rather strong. If, on the other hand, someone is not born that way, that claim is very weak.
In fact, the homosexual community has been pushing the idea that being gay is natural and one is born with it, under the assumption that society will be more accepting of gays and of the gay rights agenda if it is viewed as biological and natural. Homosexual, gay rights activist, and scientist Simon LeVay admitted as much when he said, "...people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights."
The political agenda more as much as anything effect the views of what causes homosexuality. Dr. Tahir I. Jaz, M.D., Winnipeg, Canada states: "The increasing claims of being "born that way" parallels the rising political activism of homosexual organizations, who politicize the issue of homosexual origins . In the 1970s, approximately ten percent of homosexuals claimed to be "born homosexual" according to a large scale survey....However, in a survey in the 1980s, with the homosexual rights movement increasingly becoming active, thirty-five percent claimed to be born that way."
As you can see, "why someone is gay" has become politicized, and has become a part of the current debate on this issue.
I doubt that society will change any time soon on this issue. Right now, society is not changing, unelected individuals (judgees) are forcing change to their own agenda on society. When society is left to choose they consistently reject gay marriage here in America.
Bob Hubbard
Dedicated LVC Member
I think it's time to put this "baby" to bed.
Obviously arguements among contridicting forces can never be won.
Let the homophobes continue hating gays, and those who like them continue liking them.
You can post here till the next millinium, and opinions won't change.
Why not just move on , and leave it at that.
Bob.
Obviously arguements among contridicting forces can never be won.
Let the homophobes continue hating gays, and those who like them continue liking them.
You can post here till the next millinium, and opinions won't change.
Why not just move on , and leave it at that.
Bob.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Since when did you become a forum moderator?
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
It's more than just hating or liking issue, I couldn't care less if people hate homosexuals, they're free to do so. But when you use that hate to deny equality, that is an issue.
Bob Hubbard
Dedicated LVC Member
It appears you like to argue just for the sake of arguement.
Bob Hubbard
Dedicated LVC Member
I wholehartedly agree with your point of view, but as long as there are biggots in this world, there will never be equality.
Bob.