Marriage Debate

as though a person's sexuality, they way they were born,

I have an idea, if you can provide some evidence that a person's sexuality is a result of the way they were born, I'll provide some evidence that sex, children, and marriage are all somehow connected.
 
... as though a person's sexuality, they way they were born, is some sort of vice is absurd.

While I agree it may be WRONG, I'm not convinced that it's ABSURD.

I realize that I cannot speak from personal experience, but my best understanding from interviews, etc. is that both homosexuals and peodophiles believe they were "born that way." That members of those groups did not CHOSE this difference. Nevertheless were do consider peodophilia a vice. So, on that criteria alone I would claim that it cannot be absurd to consider a characteristic a person possesses from birth a vice.

Aaron
 
While I agree it may be WRONG, I'm not convinced that it's ABSURD.

I realize that I cannot speak from personal experience, but my best understanding from interviews, etc. is that both homosexuals and peodophiles believe they were "born that way." That members of those groups did not CHOSE this difference. Nevertheless were do consider peodophilia a vice. So, on that criteria alone I would claim that it cannot be absurd to consider a characteristic a person possesses from birth a vice.

Aaron

Exactly, “Natural = Good” is a dangerous road, and the evidence out there pointing to a pre-birth cause of homosexuality in genes, hormones, and so on, is only really useful to those who reflexively believe that “naturalness” (whatever they mean by that) increases something’s goodness.

Personally, I think being gay and having tried to change is one of the larger reasons I support harsh penalties for known pedophiles. People who’ve been found to be with no post-puberty script in their sexual programming, and with a moral structure that allows rape (I do not believe a child has the wherewithal to consent to sex, and so take any case involving an adult and child as rape), should never be allowed around children.

Aaron, do you still want those two studies on the economics, and/or did you look at the Congressional Budget Report on the subject? I’m sorry, we just moved and I kind of let that go.
 
Is it my imagination, or are the ones who are getting the most freaked about Gay Marriage are those who are fixated on the sexual aspect of it?

Geez, if that were the only reason to get married, there wouldn't be a reason. So much of the time, I'm so wiped out by the end of the day, you couldn't rouse me with a thermonuclear detonation.
 
Is it my imagination, or are the ones who are getting the most freaked about Gay Marriage are those who are fixated on the sexual aspect of it?

Geez, if that were the only reason to get married, there wouldn't be a reason. So much of the time, I'm so wiped out by the end of the day, you couldn't rouse me with a thermonuclear detonation.

Mrs. Roadtoad is obviously not placing the device in the appropriate place. :D
 
I should have said two business partners who did not intend to have sex.
I know several married couples who do not have sex with eachother. They're dedicated life long partners, but they get thier jollies either somewhere else, or not at all. Who are you to tell them otherwise?
 
While I agree it may be WRONG, I'm not convinced that it's ABSURD.

I realize that I cannot speak from personal experience, but my best understanding from interviews, etc. is that both homosexuals and peodophiles believe they were "born that way." That members of those groups did not CHOSE this difference. Nevertheless were do consider peodophilia a vice. So, on that criteria alone I would claim that it cannot be absurd to consider a characteristic a person possesses from birth a vice.

Aaron
You simply cannot compare pedophilia, the predatory sexual act perpetrated on children, with homosexuality, sex between consenting adults.
 
I have an idea, if you can provide some evidence that a person's sexuality is a result of the way they were born, I'll provide some evidence that sex, children, and marriage are all somehow connected.
I've already linked the twin studies on the subject, Meadmaker.

Even asuming your utterly ignorant idea that homosexuality is a choice is correct, who cares? The fact remains that it is sex between consenting adults, and that if two people care to be married, we should not oppose them.
 
Even asuming your utterly ignorant idea that homosexuality is a choice is correct, who cares?

Apparently, you do. You brought it up.

Oh, and I neither said nor implied that homosexuality was a choice. All I did was ask you to post some evidence for your assertion. In doing so, a reasonable reader could infer that I believe it is not known at what point sexuality is determined, whether it is by genetics, neo-natal influence, early childhood physical or social environment, or some other factor that creates it. If you have conclusive evidence, you really should post it. Scot would be interested. The studies he has posted suggest that a great deal more research would be necessary to figure it out.
 
Last edited:
You simply cannot compare pedophilia, the predatory sexual act perpetrated on children, with homosexuality, sex between consenting adults.
Just to clarify, pedophilia is a sexual attraction to children, not the act of molesting them. There are no laws against pedophilia, indeed, the US Supreme Court has ruled that such laws are unconstitutional. It’s when the pedophile acts on his impulses that he can get in trouble with the law.

We now return you to your thread.
 
Aaron, do you still want those two studies on the economics, and/or did you look at the Congressional Budget Report on the subject? I’m sorry, we just moved and I kind of let that go.

I would still be interested if you have them with little effort.

Aaron
 
You simply cannot compare pedophilia, the predatory sexual act perpetrated on children, with homosexuality, sex between consenting adults.

I beg to differ. I'm pretty sure I just did. You may find that offensive, and I don't care. You are free, of course, to show me why I can't make this comparison for the purpose I did.

Consider these two assertions:

1) pedophiles are attracted to children not by choice, but by wiring
2) pedophilia is a vice.

Do you disagree with either assertion? If so why? If not, then you were wrong and it is possible to consider something a person is born with a vice.

Also, I.D. you might want to realize that whether a person is attracted to the same sex, a different sex, or a different age they can remain abstinate or in other ways unfurfilled.

The sexual wiring, as far as I can tell, differs from the norm in homosexuals and pedophiles. Neither is without the free will to NOT act.

Aaron
 
I beg to differ. I'm pretty sure I just did. You may find that offensive, and I don't care. You are free, of course, to show me why I can't make this comparison for the purpose I did.

Consider these two assertions:

1) pedophiles are attracted to children not by choice, but by wiring
2) pedophilia is a vice.

Do you disagree with either assertion? If so why? If not, then you were wrong and it is possible to consider something a person is born with a vice.

Also, I.D. you might want to realize that whether a person is attracted to the same sex, a different sex, or a different age they can remain abstinate or in other ways unfurfilled.

The sexual wiring, as far as I can tell, differs from the norm in homosexuals and pedophiles. Neither is without the free will to NOT act.

Aaron
You could compare shooting puppies and feeding the homeless, but it wouldn't make you look any smarter.

Let's assume for argument's sake that the following is true:

Homosexuality, pedophilia (I am only talking about the attraction, not the act), and a craving for stabbing ugly people with a pitchfork are all genetic, "hard-wired" traits.

Now, while I agree society has a bona fide interest in preventing the acts of the latter 2 above, please show me, as no one has yet to in some 30 pages or so, why the former can not marry a partner of the same sex??
 
I would still be interested if you have them with little effort.

Aaron

I’m only missing the full text of the New Jersey study. I’ll find it if it’s out there, and make a post I can repeat; it’s not like I’ll not need it later…

I beg to differ. I'm pretty sure I just did. You may find that offensive, and I don't care. You are free, of course, to show me why I can't make this comparison for the purpose I did.

Consider these two assertions:

1) pedophiles are attracted to children not by choice, but by wiring
2) pedophilia is a vice.

Do you disagree with either assertion? If so why? If not, then you were wrong and it is possible to consider something a person is born with a vice.

Also, I.D. you might want to realize that whether a person is attracted to the same sex, a different sex, or a different age they can remain abstinate or in other ways unfurfilled.

The sexual wiring, as far as I can tell, differs from the norm in homosexuals and pedophiles. Neither is without the free will to NOT act.

Aaron

I, again, have to agree with the above. You can be gay, straight, or a pedophile (or even a southpaw) all by innate wiring and not act on it.

You have to admit though, by comparing gays to pedophiles you come off as intentionally provocative. Why not compare gays to people only attracted to Caucasian blonds, or older women?

If you wanted something with similar population percentages and genetic influence, you’d be best to go with left-handedness. If you were after the most accurate comparison, by far, it would be in comparing gay men to straight women. They have the same sexual orientation and there are significant differences between attraction to a particular sex and an attraction to a particular age.

The way the comparison to pedophilia becomes apt is if you see them in the same moral realm (And while you, and most sane folks, may think rape of a child not near consensual adult sex, there are many who do; I’ve even heard some local radio hosts say that homosexuality is worse than murder).

Oh, and what Snide said while I was typing. :)
 
You could compare shooting puppies and feeding the homeless, but it wouldn't make you look any smarter.

Let's assume for argument's sake that the following is true:

Homosexuality, pedophilia (I am only talking about the attraction, not the act), and a craving for stabbing ugly people with a pitchfork are all genetic, "hard-wired" traits.

Now, while I agree society has a bona fide interest in preventing the acts of the latter 2 above, please show me, as no one has yet to in some 30 pages or so, why the former can not marry a partner of the same sex??

I don't believe there IS a hardwired trait for a craving of stabbing ugly people with pitchforks. But you're welcome to make that claim and defend it if you like. Pedophilia is the only "born with" trait I know of that is considered a vice. And to make my point I needed one. If you'd like to provide another, I'll use it instead.

Since I've made no claim regarding why SSM should not be allowed I refuse to defend it. You can beg and scream with as many punctuation characters as you like and it will not motivate me to do that.

Aaron
 
Is it my imagination, or are the ones who are getting the most freaked about Gay Marriage are those who are fixated on the sexual aspect of it?


I think you have stumbled on to something here. I wonder if the concept of homosexuality isn't so foreign to some people, that they can't imagine it going beyond sex. No, they aren't into homosexual sex, but at least they can understand how someone could find it satisfying (hey, if sex with yourself works...). OTOH, maybe that is a problem, that they realize that even _they_ could enjoy homosexual sex. They like to receive oral sex, and anal is ok. So what if it is a guy doing the giving or getting?

But when it comes to actual _love_ for someone of the same sex, they can't do even imagine it. Therefore, when they think of homosexuality, they view it in terms they can understand. The idea that there is more to it is unfathomable.

And I say it's not all that silly. I am the first to admit that I can't imagine loving a man like I love my wife. However, I also recognize that I am viewing it from a very specific perspective, and that is influencing my opinion. For example, my wife, otoh, can apparently love a man like I love her, so I can understand that it can happen.
 
I, again, have to agree with the above. You can be gay, straight, or a pedophile (or even a southpaw) all by innate wiring and not act on it.

This seems obvious to me too, but thanks for the support.

You have to admit though, by comparing gays to pedophiles you come off as intentionally provocative.

I'll admit that it comes off provocative, yes. And while I deny it was intentionally so, I'll admit I did it knowingly. Fair enough?

Why not compare gays to people only attracted to Caucasian blonds, or older women?

Because I needed something considered a vice. Again, I'm willing to use a less offensive comparison... but it must be a "born with" trait which is considered a vice. The only one that came to mind for me was pedophilia.

If you wanted something with similar population percentages and genetic influence, you’d be best to go with left-handedness. If you were after the most accurate comparison, by far, it would be in comparing gay men to straight women. They have the same sexual orientation and there are significant differences between attraction to a particular sex and an attraction to a particular age.

Left handedness is not a vice.

The way the comparison to pedophilia becomes apt is if you see them in the same moral realm (And while you, and most sane folks, may think rape of a child not near consensual adult sex, there are many who do; I’ve even heard some local radio hosts say that homosexuality is worse than murder).

Oh, and what Snide said while I was typing. :)


Okay folks... reminder... I was only pointing out that it is not prima facia "absurd" for a "born with" trait to be a vice, as was I.D.'s claim. I provided pedophilia as a counter example. I'm happy to entertain less offensive counter examples, but that's the one I came up with. And I stand by MY claim that pedophilia IS a counter example to I.D's assertion.

Aaron
 
Meadmaker:
Oh, and I neither said nor implied that homosexuality was a choice. All I did was ask you to post some evidence for your assertion. In doing so, a reasonable reader could infer that I believe it is not known at what point sexuality is determined, whether it is by genetics, neo-natal influence, early childhood physical or social environment, or some other factor that creates it. If you have conclusive evidence, you really should post it. Scot would be interested. The studies he has posted suggest that a great deal more research would be necessary to figure it out.

I want to be clear on what I’ve posted. My short spiel:

In past posts, I’ve posted (and can post for those interested) the journal references to these findings:

Many repeated twin studies show a genetic component to homosexuality. I like to compare it to handedness: The monozygote rate above the background is about 1.5 times higher for left-handedness and 10 for homosexuality. If only people cared more about the sinister threat of southpaws… I hear Upchurch is one of’em!!

But that’s not the end of the story. To genes, add crossover phenomena in meiosis. It has been shown the extent and location of crossover adds to the probability a mother may produce a gay child. Thus, that is a near totally random influence on the genes that seems to cause gayness.

Then there are the hormones of the mother. Some research has suggested that certain hormone levels produced by expecting mothers may add to the odds their kid will be gay.

In a similar vein there are correlations to a mother’s immune response to their child, particularly male children. Again, this may practically be a random cause of homosexuality.

Of the peer reviewed journal results I’ve seen and posted, the only possible cause involving “early childhood physical or social environment” with a significant correlation is the number of older brothers a person has. The more older brothers the more chance you are gay. But that may have nothing to do with early childhood environment as older brothers also seem to have significant effects on a mother’s hormones and immune response, which are already linked to homosexuality.

So, the major causes I know of are:

1. Inherited genes.
2. Random crossover.
3. A mother’s hormones.
4. A mother’s immune response.
5. The presence of older brothers.

It’s probably an interplay of all of them and pretty darn complicated.

In the end, I think you’d have to be completely and willfully daft to think someone would want to be attracted to their same sex, put up with the stigma, and not be able to have children with the person they innately couple-up with. I also don’t think it should matter or anyone should care. Gay people exist regardless of how they came into existence. But many do care. :)
 
I don't believe there IS a hardwired trait for a craving of stabbing ugly people with pitchforks. But you're welcome to make that claim and defend it if you like. Pedophilia is the only "born with" trait I know of that is considered a vice. And to make my point I needed one. If you'd like to provide another, I'll use it instead.

Since I've made no claim regarding why SSM should not be allowed I refuse to defend it. You can beg and scream with as many punctuation characters as you like and it will not motivate me to do that.

Aaron

You could bring up other genetically-inclined "vices" such as alcoholism and drug addiction instead. However, the point that the pro-SSM crowd is trying to bring up is that we shouldn't discriminate against born traits that pose no threat to society. Is it that hard to understand that point?
 
Because I needed something considered a vice. Again, I'm willing to use a less offensive comparison... but it must be a "born with" trait which is considered a vice. The only one that came to mind for me was pedophilia.
Tendancy towards alcoholism? That can be genetic and not acted upon.

The problem with that example is that a person with a genetic tendancy towards alcoholism will never feel the urge to take a drink if they never have one in the first place.
 

Back
Top Bottom