Homosexual marriage II

[Lotesse]

Whether or not the gay leopard decies to pretend to be a giraffe for the rest of his life, and lie to both himself and all the other so-called "well-meaning" giraffes about his change of heart in eating urges, does nothing to the crux of this debate - the fight for gays to be granted the right to legal marriage, when straights have these rights and gays do not in a society that brags hypocritically about "equality."

Back to the topic at hand, babe. It is wrong to deny gays the right to get married under the laws and edicts of the land, because a loving couple who wants to commit to one another and start a family should not be discriminated against by their wrongly-labelled "tolerant" government, merely because they deviate from the biological norm. It is greivous discrimination to do so, and your argument that "people can change their homosexual status because I have evidence and I know this for a fact, because I know people who have" does absolutely nothing.

I know only too painfully well the lengths, the insidious psychological mind-game lengths that christian-based or christian-funded organisations and churches will go to to mind-warp the poor, lost "demon-possessed" little lost leopards who need only to be brought to the Light, and the Truth, and the Way of the giraffe, to discover Heaven which will be awarded to the leopards if they change, rather than the Hell they would surely otherwise be sent to; they may be granted Eternal Salvation (from what?? Being a leopard?? ) and granted access to Heaven if they only deny their Sinful Nature and decide, after all this mental, spiritual and psychological manipulation to be something they are not.

This is unbelieveably wicked. This is so wrong. This is one good example of how come iI have such a problem with the Church and her unbearable hypocrisy. Especially the American Fundamentalist faction, of which Bushi is a member, as are most of the Republicans nowadays, sadly.

[brownjenkins]

Think love, not sex.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Think love, not sex.

Yes. Always. True love conquers all the bullsh*t, n'est ce pas? True love, not the false baloney but love. Love, not "sex" Sex is just sometimes a pleasant by-product of passionate love, but passion flares and fades like a fireworks display; true love is everlasting. Love really does conquer all.

[Lief Erikson]

Lotesse, I don't have anything really to add to my response to your points that I didn't already say to Gaffer in post 138. So I'll just say I respect your views, though I disagree with them.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Think love, not sex.

Would you please read post 169? I responded to this point of yours when you first submitted it, though I think my post was lost in the shuffle.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Actually, there have been problems noted with women in office that seem to spread throughout the gender. Most women are nurturing and most men aggressive.

I know this is from page 8 and I've just been lurking around the thread but...

I'd like to say in a very aggressive and completely non-nurturing manner that this is total bollocks.

Also that I really respect Lief. That statement though, which has no basis in anything even resembling fact, I do not respect.

I'm going to either bump an old thread about gender or start a new one to talk about this... I hope you will all join me for a respectful, aggressive, and nurturing discussion.

My houseplants would like to re-assert that I'm not very nurturing.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I know this is from page 8 and I've just been lurking around the thread but...

I'd like to say in a very aggressive and completely non-nurturing manner that this is total bollocks.

I wasn't saying nurturing women couldn't ever be grumpy .

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Also that I really respect Lief. That statement though, which has no basis in anything even resembling fact, I do not respect.

I'm going to either bump an old thread about gender or start a new one to talk about this... I hope you will all join me for a respectful, aggressive, and nurturing discussion.

I'd be glad to. This conversation is definitely related to the subject at hand though, in my view, so I'll just give you my evidence here and now. I'll repeat it on your new thread, when you get it started.

My citation is the political science profession. I've been taught in my college Political Science class that this is accepted throughout the political science profession, and female politicians know it's true as well. That's why there's a dual problem among many female politicians. While many are nurturing and not very aggressive, many others, who are well acquainted with the statistics about women's generally being not very aggressive, tend to attempt to prove that it is not true as regards them. Consequently they become overly aggressive and cause lots of problems because they want to prove that they can be as aggressive or strong a leader as any man.

So that's a reverse kind of problem that has also been noted in the political science profession about women in politics. They tend to be either overly aggressive or overly nurturing, without all that much between the two extremes. That's what's taught in the political science branch, learned through their statistical studies.

One citation I have for it would be Professor Stew Frame. He's the college professor from whom I first heard this. It's worth mentioning that he is personally in favor of women being in politics. He doesn't attempt to deny this statistical data, though.

Another citation is International Politics on the World Stage, eleventh edition, by John T. Rourke, page 67. He doesn't attempt to say whether the observed differences are based on biological differences between men and women or socialization (I have different sources that provide evidence that biology is a key difference between men and women's personalitie), but he definitely makes the point from a number of studies that women tend to be more nurturing and less aggressive than men.

My third citation is Essentials of American Government by Tim Chervenak, pages 346 and 348. Here's a quote from that book:

Poll after poll reveals that women hold very different opinions from men on a variety of issues, as shown in Table 10.1. From the time that the earliest public opinion polls were taken, women have been found to hold more negative views about war and military intervention than do men, and more strongly positive attitudes about issues touching on social welf-are concerns, such as education, juvenile justice, capital punishment, and the environment. [bolds added]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

My houseplants would like to re-assert that I'm not very nurturing.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Relationships, as you so rightly point out, are way more than just sex. If the only difference likely to exist between homosexual and heterosexual relationships was in bed, I wouldn't be making two of the major arguments I have been forwarding. But the relationship between a man and a woman, which involves many different facets of how it functions, is going to logically be significantly different from that which exists between people of the same gender, because biologically the two genders are significantly different in mind as well as body.

I'd say these supposed "significant differences in mind" are far outweighed by differences that come from culture and upbringing. A woman growing up in a place like rural India is vastly different "in mind" than an American woman. In fact, many American women would probably feel like they have more commonality "in mind" with an American man than they do with women from certain cultures around the world. Yet we still allow cross-cultural marriages.

You're not just making too much out of sex. You are painting men and women into a stereotype of commonality by gender that simply doesn't exist. I've met many men and women over the years that don't fall even remotely into any categories of what we expect their gender to be. Sterotypes exist because most people tend to be similar when viewed broadly. But, when seen as individuals, it can be amazing how much variety you find and how some people simply don't fit the stereotype in any way, shape or form.

I think that the more contact you have with gay couples over the years, the less "differences" you will see between them and heterosexual couples. But, the first step is allowing yourself to consider that those differences may not exist in the way you believe they do. You have nothing to lose.

[Lief Erikson]

Thanks for the response, brownjenkins.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I'd say these supposed "significant differences in mind" are far outweighed by differences that come from culture and upbringing. A woman growing up in a place like rural India is vastly different "in mind" than an American woman. In fact, many American women would probably feel like they have more commonality "in mind" with an American man than they do with women from certain cultures around the world. Yet we still allow cross-cultural marriages.

I disagree with you that cultural differences are far more significant than differences of gender. Here are two of the reasons why I disagree.

The first is that gender differences are biologically ingrained. They aren't going to change. People will always be the way they are genetically encoded to be. Cultural differences can change from person to person, though. People who come to America might adopt a more American culture, or they have the choice of maintaining their values and perhaps mingling and getting along fine anyway. They might even marry and maintain cultural differences with their partners. But that is not biological, so people can work through it or change, if they want to. Biology won't change, though.

The second reason why I disagree with you is that men and women do show very strong differences. I've seen these differences ALL OVER the place. There's only one notable exception in my mind right now, one woman I know who doesn't seem to fit any of the expected gender differences. But there are certain factors that could explain that, biologically, without messing with my claim.

According to the Genetics Organization, major and highly similar differences between men and women have been observed across the vast majority of civilizations and cultures in our world. Men have had major differences from women in their roles in society. If men and women were mentally pretty much the same, you would see a roughly equivalent number of societies in the world that are dominated by women, to those in which men have been the leaders, military and aggressive gender. History shows no such sameness. This is a strong evidence that differences between men and women aren't cultural, but are rather biological.

Here's an interesting excerpt about male and female brains differences from a book written by licensed psychotherapist Thayer White MA MFT:
http://www.helpself.com/brain.htm

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

You're not just making too much out of sex. You are painting men and women into a stereotype of commonality by gender that simply doesn't exist.

Would you please respond to my post 186? It wasn't addressed to you but to Nurvingiel, but it covers more arguments and evidence for a major gender distinction between men and women.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

How does your first statement follow from what I said?

Silly Lief, it doesn't . I was merely adding stuff to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The logical conclusion from that is that since people's sexuality can change, it is not likely the result of biology but rather environment.

Yes. Well, it would be wrong to say everyone's sexuality can change but for some people it certainly can. Don't assume that everyone can switch from gay to straight or vice versa just because you know some who have done that.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The example doesn't show that there are a million phases of in-between between three socially constructed categories. For there isn't an in-between shown in my example- only change from one category to another.

No, your example doesn't show that and I never said it did. I added that myself.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

First is that one's own ideas or beliefs as to who should belong to each group aren't necessarily wrong.

Whether they're wrong or not would depend on your own ideas and beliefs. Always remember that everyone else has a different conception of things, based on different ideas.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Second is that the argument also goes both ways. If what you're saying is true, then people here who say that homosexuals can't change and become heterosexual are also simplifying and allowing their beliefs, ideas or prejudices influence them as to who should belong to which group.

Yes they're simplifying. They focus on the people who would be exteremly unlikely to change and that's still part of the truth.

[hectorberlioz]

If you asked me, about what you say Jon - that gayness can't be measured - would seem to point to a conclusion that gayness really is just people thinking this way or that about their sexuality. In short, not REALLY knowing themselves. Or just "playing around".

I don't know if you guys ever read Dr. Ruth (the sex doctor), but she one time wrote in a column that she didn't believe anyone was REALLY bisexual, she said that they were either trying to figure it out, or trying to have the best of both worlds.

[Lief Erikson]

Hmm. Interesting post, Jonathan.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Silly Lief, it doesn't . I was merely adding stuff to the discussion.

Lol! Yes! Er, yes, I knew that all along. Honest.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Yes. Well, it would be wrong to say everyone's sexuality can change but for some people it certainly can. Don't assume that everyone can switch from gay to straight or vice versa just because you know some who have done that.

Interesting. So you're suggesting that some homosexuals might be that way biologically, and others from the environment. Or that it's always both, but with some people environment would dominate (so they can change) whereas with other people biology would dominate. That's an interesting theory.

I still think that Sparta's universal male homosexuality in the military, and the Exodus Organization's discovering that unusual family structures (like having a single parent) are behind virtually all the homosexual experiences that come to them indicate a central environmental role.

But it's true that these examples don't prove that biology doesn't dominate in the cases of some people.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

No, your example doesn't show that and I never said it did. I added that myself.

Yes, my bad .

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Whether they're wrong or not would depend on your own ideas and beliefs. Always remember that everyone else has a different conception of things, based on different ideas.

Yes, everyone has different conceptions of things. But whether or not my ideas are wrong does not depend on what my ideas or beliefs are, but on whether or not they correspond to reality. If I believe you are wearing a yellow T-Shirt right now, that belief is not wrong or right based on my own ideas. It's wrong based on whether or not you actually are wearing a yellow T-Shirt.

I sincerely hope that if I ask you where a nearby hospital is, you won't say, "that depends on your own ideas and beliefs."

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Yes they're simplifying. They focus on the people who would be exteremly unlikely to change and that's still part of the truth.

Hmm. Maybe. You may be right- I don't know .

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

If you asked me, about what you say Jon - that gayness can't be measured - would seem to point to a conclusion that gayness really is just people thinking this way or that about their sexuality. In short, not REALLY knowing themselves. Or just "playing around".

I don't know if you guys ever read Dr. Ruth (the sex doctor), but she one time wrote in a column that she didn't believe anyone was REALLY bisexual, she said that they were either trying to figure it out, or trying to have the best of both worlds.

Whatever the case may be, I don't think it should matter to the legitimacy of gay rights.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Interesting. So you're suggesting that some homosexuals might be that way biologically, and others from the environment. Or that it's always both, but with some people environment would dominate (so they can change) whereas with other people biology would dominate. That's an interesting theory.

Well what I'm suggesting is really that we can't know for sure what is the case with any one individual. And in my mind it's irrelevant - I'd like to see gay marriage legalised no matter how big a role biology and/or environment play.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I still think that Sparta's universal male homosexuality in the military, and the Exodus Organization's discovering that unusual family structures (like having a single parent) are behind virtually all the homosexual experiences that come to them indicate a central environmental role.

Exodus and I don't share the same conception of reality and I can't really take in their discoveries

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yes, everyone has different conceptions of things. But whether or not my ideas are wrong does not depend on what my ideas or beliefs are, but on whether or not they correspond to reality. If I believe you are wearing a yellow T-Shirt right now, that belief is not wrong or right based on my own ideas. It's wrong based on whether or not you actually are wearing a yellow T-Shirt. I sincerely hope that if I ask you where a nearby hospital is, you won't say, "that depends on your own ideas and beliefs."

Prepare for philosophical drivel Ã* la Jonathan:
Of course we have to agree on some things (like what constitutes the colour "yellow"), otherwise we wouldn't be able to communciate at all
But remember that whenever we discribe something in words, we diminish it - we create a model of it. We all have our own model of reality in our heads. Often the model quite agrees with other people's models ("yellow" is the same thing for both of us). Sometimes our models are somewhat different (the concept "god" means one thing for you and another thing for me). And sometimes our models conflict with one another (your religion and whatnot contribute to your stance against gay marriage whereas my liberal worldview makes me favour it).

The point I'm trying to make is this: When our conceptions of reality don't agree, we can't always use arguments that sounds perfectly reasonable in our own worldview to convince the other part that they are wrong. Those arguments might not just fit into their model of reality. Like for me, "because the Bible says so" wouldn't be a convincing argument

So let's not forget we all conceive the world differently - we have all created our own little model of reality. If we remember this, chances are bigger we can all just get along, respect the beliefs of others and exchange ideas in a friendly way without thinking "oh that guy's an idiot" or "Christians drive me mad"

[Rían]

What really bugs me in this whole general topic is the group of people who seem to think valid changes only go one way - it's somehow a "valid" change to go from straight to gay, but somehow NOT valid to go from gay to straight. The people with these viewpoints are the ones that usually shout about tolerance and respecting individuals' decisions, but it seems they're only talking about respecting decisions that they like.

They talk about how you can't change how you're made, and then support a man getting surgery to change into a woman, and support a straight person going gay, but then do NOT support any gay person wanting to change to straight. If a gay person wants to change to straight, then it's somehow "denying" themselves, or they're being deluded or manipulated, but going the other way, it's somehow "being true to themselves" or something like that. If a gay person goes straight, these people say they're lying about the experience, but if a straight person goes gay, somehow they are being truthful about their experience. That whole double-standard thing just really sickens me and makes me angry, especially since it usually comes from those who talk about respecting individual choice.

[Lief Erikson]

I definitely agree with you, RÃ*an. Political correctness, which includes this inconsistency, has a fluffy and sweet exterior, but a very, very ugly underbelly.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Well what I'm suggesting is really that we can't know for sure what is the case with any one individual. And in my mind it's irrelevant - I'd like to see gay marriage legalised no matter how big a role biology and/or environment play.

I agree that this point doesn't make much difference at all as regards homosexual marriage. It's not an argument I've been using against homosexual marriage.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Prepare for philosophical drivel Ã* la Jonathan:
Of course we have to agree on some things (like what constitutes the colour "yellow"), otherwise we wouldn't be able to communciate at all
But remember that whenever we discribe something in words, we diminish it - we create a model of it. We all have our own model of reality in our heads. Often the model quite agrees with other people's models ("yellow" is the same thing for both of us). Sometimes our models are somewhat different (the concept "god" means one thing for you and another thing for me). And sometimes our models conflict with one another (your religion and whatnot contribute to your stance against gay marriage whereas my liberal worldview makes me favour it).

The point I'm trying to make is this: When our conceptions of reality don't agree, we can't always use arguments that sounds perfectly reasonable in our own worldview to convince the other part that they are wrong. Those arguments might not just fit into their model of reality. Like for me, "because the Bible says so" wouldn't be a convincing argument

I completely agree with this.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

So let's not forget we all conceive the world differently - we have all created our own little model of reality. If we remember this, chances are bigger we can all just get along, respect the beliefs of others and exchange ideas in a friendly way without thinking "oh that guy's an idiot" or "Christians drive me mad"

'Fraid it doesn't work for me. I understand that the choices or views of those who disagree with me make complete sense considering their worldview, but sometimes I just feel that the worldview itself is so irrational that holding to it is crazy. Also, sometimes one can understand where an action comes from, and why they do it, but still feel it is evil or destructive for society. I can understand the actions of the Nazis and Aztecs to some extent, but even understanding how they make sense according to their worldview, one still can also understand that they are evil.

Irrationality in worldviews does drive me (privately) bonkers .

I can respect many who disagree with me and respect a number of their views, though.

[Jonathan]

Glad you agree with me

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Irrationality in worldviews does drive me (privately) bonkers .

Haha, well there would be something wrong with us if we didn't go bonkers over people's stupidity from time to time

[littleadanel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What really bugs me in this whole general topic is the group of people who seem to think valid changes only go one way - it's somehow a "valid" change to go from straight to gay, but somehow NOT valid to go from gay to straight. The people with these viewpoints are the ones that usually shout about tolerance and respecting individuals' decisions, but it seems they're only talking about respecting decisions that they like.

They talk about how you can't change how you're made, and then support a man getting surgery to change into a woman, and support a straight person going gay, but then do NOT support any gay person wanting to change to straight. If a gay person wants to change to straight, then it's somehow "denying" themselves, or they're being deluded or manipulated, but going the other way, it's somehow "being true to themselves" or something like that. If a gay person goes straight, these people say they're lying about the experience, but if a straight person goes gay, somehow they are being truthful about their experience. That whole double-standard thing just really sickens me and makes me angry, especially since it usually comes from those who talk about respecting individual choice.

You know, this brought up so many things in me, excuse me if I sound inconsistent but I need to blurt some out.

I think I see the point you're trying to make (about double standards) BUT this is so SO over-simplified. This "gay goes straight - straight goes gay" - what is it, a playground where you choose where to sit?!

I as a straight person won't "go gay", whatever that means, for sure. I can't imagine my life with a woman as I can with a man, and I don't have any desire to do so. And I don't think people just go gay or go back to straight or whatever. I've grown into my sexuality - homosexual people do the same, they grow and discover, it is just harder for them because what they discover in themselves is a deviation from the norm, and many times they are hard pressed to conceal it to be accepted.

All I'm trying to say is, action and orientation aren't the same and as far as action goes, I can kind of undestand your words AND I ####ing respect individual choice of action!! (Just as I already said here.) If a person with homosexual feelings decides not to lead that way of life, great for him/her I say, if s/he feels content and happy and okay with life that way.

And again things are not black and white, and if a man who had homosexual relationships but then settles and leads a happy life with a woman, and if in those moments of thinking that nobody else can see, he's honest to himself and feels content deep inside - well most likely he's bisexual and found his happiness on the side of a woman.

The point is finding our way of life, and not settle with something solely because of the expectations of others, be it about any kind of sexuality, or, well, any aspect of life we think we should lead, because THAT is self-denial. OF COURSE we want what we think is best for our loved ones and try to convince them, but when the decision is made we should accept it, even if it didn't match our expectations...

Right, I'll stop now. This whole thing didn't add anything to the "homosexual marriage"-debate anyway. Meh.

I hope I've at least shown I'm not double standard.

PS. That "man getting surgery to cange to a woman" is SO completely another matter... what precedes such a surgery is a discord between body and mind and gender identity... I don't know much about this but I'm guessing it's much MUCH more complicated and difficult to find a way out. But again, if the individual decision is made, it should be respected.

PS.2. I wouldn't call anyone a liar. Maybe not even if I knew for sure that it was so. For me it's one of the rudest insults that can ever be uttered...

[hectorberlioz]

This is like the Shakespeare thing: people WON'T let Shakespear be Shakespeare.

A: Shakespeare was a good writer.
B: No, he didn't exist and he didn't write those plays.

A: Shakespeare was a moral man.
B: Shakespeare was gay.


So you say, LittleAdanel, that perhaps that gay person who "went straight" is Bisexual. Does that have to be the case, because people don't lie when they say they are gay?

Some people fool themselves one way, others another.

Rian is exactly right, everyone blabbers about how nobody should pretend to be straight if they're gay, but when the gay guy starts noticing that he isn't gay anymore he's "going back" and somehow being dishonest to himself.

And that is a bunch of rot!

Person: "I'm gay!"
College: "Awesome! That's great!"

Person: "I don't think I was gay afterall"
College: "Don't give in to the hatred man! Be yourself!"

I don't think it's black and white, but I do think it's fairly simple. What gets complicated is exploring the thoughts going on in these people's heads.

[The Gaffer]

What is this bizarre and weird world you inhabit??

On the one hand, everywhere you go in your entire life, there are messages about being straight and conforming to the norm, all through your life from when you are born till when you die.

On the other, some PC people somewhere question whether an "out" person is "going back in the closet".

Now, one of these influences is a pea, the other is a planet. Which one do you think?

[hectorberlioz]

Some people can't distinguish a pea from a planet Gaffer...

If you're saying that the questioners who wonder about some person "going back in the closet" don't have influence, then I think you're qrong. Never before in history did we have a way to connect similar people together. Hammy in Chicago might have wondered if there was a guy in London with the same strange balding pattern as he, but he could only wonder. Nowadays all he has to do is enter "Looking for: strange balding pattern men" into mySpace.

My point is simple: there are enough people on both sides of the issue nowadays to yank your arms off if you're caught between a decision.

[The Gaffer]

I never thought you were one of them, Hector!

Go on, take a guess.