Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[inked]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Right. Because thats what the religious right tends to do when it comes to homosexuality. Insist its a choice and that they need to change it because they need to be normal like everyone else. Yes you are correct thats very damaging...

As for the homosexual "conversion" programs you site, people will need to note that they consider agreeing to be celibate as "curing" someone of homosexuality when its nothing of the kind. In fact most studies have found that the percentage of individuals who actually state they no longer feel any homosexual feelings and instead desire the opposite sex after this “curing� program is nearly 0%. Meanwhile countless gays like the guy above are lost in the cracks of an intolerant rigid culture in which their very nature is considered an abomination. How bout giving us some programs to "cure" people of being left handed or "cure" people of being non-white skinned while yer at it too. Probably just about as easy…

So, IR, people speaking for themselves when they hold or uphold your view is acceptable. When they speak to uphold a different view than yours it is trash? Or just should be trashed 'cause it doesn't agree with your POV?

Testimonies are just that, a telling of what the individual has experienced. Seems you ought to accord the same respect to each type - I mean to be fair and all that justice stuff.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

It maybe could separate man from animal.. But it hasn't yet, now has it?

it's a daily battle... and some are better at it than others... i've mentioned previously that i don't exactly feel comfortable with the idea of male to male contact... but i do my best to overcome and accept that my feeling on the matter are not necessarily the "right" ones... or, just because they may be right for me... they are necessarily right for others

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by inked

So, IR, people speaking for themselves when they hold or uphold your view is acceptable. When they speak to uphold a different view than yours it is trash? Or just should be trashed 'cause it doesn't agree with your POV?

Hmm. Seems to me, this is precisely what YOU like to do, Inked.

[Rían]

Let's get some programs out there to "cure" people of narrow-mindedness, "cure" them of religious dogma and the compulsion to denigrate those who do not or will not "convert".

Ab-so-LUTELY!!!!!!!

I know some (note- SOME) evolutionists and agnostics and atheists who could really benefit from a program like this, as well as some (note- SOME) Christians and creationists.

As Prof. Diggory says in CS Lewis's The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, "Logic! Why don't they teach logic at these schools?"

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Being gay is??? Oh, yes, I forgot, it's OK to be gay as long as you don't indulge in any of those those pesky behaviours.

A person belongs to an ethnic group at the moment of their conception, and that will never change, regardless of their behavior.

The word "homosexual" by definition implies a behavior in a certain area - i.e., sexuality.

What is the problem about that? Many groups that we discuss are defined by their behavior in a certain area - writer, artist, fascist, etc. etc.

This is one objection that seems to me has no foundation in reality, but rather is founded in trying to win an argument.

Here for example.

Thanks for the link - I see what you mean.
If homosexuals as a group have behaviors that place higher burdens on society, then we need to deal with that. Perhaps in ways like they do in San Francisco, where they target gay bars with literature (and still no one here calls that "gay bashing" or "stereotyping" or "prejudice"). If people with burglar alarms as a group cost the police department some wasted calls, then we need to deal with that, too, and we do, at least in our community (they get the first 3 calls free, then they start getting charged).

I think you are confusing the "conservative-liberal" spectrum with the "supine-argumentative" one. If the gay man was voting to ban religion, my guess is that you would be a wee bit more vocal in your objections.

I would certainly try to explain why I think the gay man is voting the wrong way when it comes to gay marriage, if he was willing to discuss the issue. And I would certainly do the same if he was voting to ban religion. But I'm not all that worried, in one sense, about what laws get passed here - I'll fight for what I think is right, but I still think people should do what THEY think is right. I really do. I think that is best for everyone, in a very important way.

I don't think you are, though some of your views are similar to those of homophobes, hence I guess you find yourself sharing a platform with them from time to time. Would you discourage homophobia amongst such people?

I would discourage hate and fear directed towards any group, yes (can't remember the rest of your definition)

They are, however, rampant contextuophiles.

Sorry; what do you mean by this?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

see... i told you he's an instigator!

He certainly has a right to bring up new, on-topic areas of discussion as do you.

just answering questions?!?

He beat me to the punch - I was just going to bring up the ex-gay issue, because that is one of the things that makes me really angry - how people who do NOT want to act in a homosexual manner anymore so often get ridiculed, vilified and treated like they don't know what they really want by pro-homosexuals yet those going the other way get treated very differently - embraced and encouraged.

As I said before, the very definition of the word "homosexual" talks about a behavior, as do many words that talk about people. It doesn't say this group all act in the same way in all areas of their life; but it DOES say that they like/desire/have urges for homosexual behavior. And if a person is a homosexual, then decides that they don't want to act that way in the sexual aspect of their life anymore, then that's fine, and the groups that help them with this should be lauded! Just like if I, a married woman, start wanting to express my sexuality with other men, and have an affair, but decide for whatever reason that I don't want to act this way anymore. I would still have the DESIRE, but for me, I've decided that I need to not ACT on the desire because for me, I think it's detrimental to those around me and to myself.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

A person belongs to an ethnic group at the moment of their conception, and that will never change, regardless of their behavior.

The word "homosexual" by definition implies a behavior in a certain area - i.e., sexuality.

What is the problem about that? Many groups that we discuss are defined by their behavior in a certain area - writer, artist, fascist, etc. etc.

I was born a writer, although I didn't start writing 'til I learned to read. I was born an artist, but didn't start painting and creating 'til I learned to use my hands and stuff. A person is BORN a homosexual, just as a person is born an artist or is born white instead of any other race or whatever. The fascist thing, that doesn't even belong in the same sentence as "artist," but oh, well, I know you were just tryna make a point! I behave like an artist, because that is what I was born as. Period. It is not a "behavior" that I chose to "engage in," it is just what I am.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

I was born a writer, although I didn't start writing 'til I learned to read. I was born an artist, but didn't start painting and creating 'til I learned to use my hands and stuff. A person is BORN a homosexual, just as a person is born an artist or is born white instead of any other race or whatever. The fascist thing, that doesn't even belong in the same sentence as "artist," but oh, well, I know you were just tryna make a point! I behave like an artist, because that is what I was born as. Period. It is not a "behavior" that I chose to "engage in," it is just what I am.

Then don't condemn ANYONE for ANY behavior, if you're going to be consistent here

And even if I'm BORN to have sexual attraction to many other guys, I can CHOOSE to act on that desire or not, depending upon whether I think it's right or not. It may be harder or easier, depending on the strength of the desire that I was BORN with - but if you're going to say that whatever you're born with, that's OK to act on, then I think it will be fairly easy to show problems with that idea, don't you?

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Then don't condemn ANYONE for ANY behavior, if you're going to be consistent here

I do not, and never have even come CLOSE to condemning anyone for their behaviour, Rian. That seems to be Inked's special talent. And yours, too, by default, since you so dearly love to fight his battles for him, and "clarify" everything he says. He cannot speak 4 himself? Come on, he is a PhD, for crying out loud! You ought to check yourself, Rian, because you know full well that condemnation is not something I do or ever have done.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And even if I'm BORN to have sexual attraction to many other guys, I can CHOOSE to act on that desire or not, depending upon whether I think it's right or not. It may be harder or easier, depending on the strength of the desire that I was BORN with - but if you're going to say that whatever you're born with, that's OK to act on, then I think it will be fairly easy to show problems with that idea, don't you?

Whatever one is born to do, is not only O.K. to act upon, but goes false to one's own nature and constitutes living a LIE to do anything BUT live who you were born to be. Why should one resist themselves? That is the biggest crime of all - to be false to oneself.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

I do not, and never have even come CLOSE to condemning anyone for their behaviour, Rian.

Shall I quote the posts where you do that?

Seriously, if you're going to make that claim, then are you in favor of repealing all laws?

That seems to be Inked's special talent. And yours, too, by default, since you so dearly love to fight his battles for him, and "clarify" everything he says.

I would fight for ANYONE, on ANY side of an issue, that I think is being treated unfairly. ANYONE!

He cannot speak 4 himself? Come on, he is a PhD, for crying out loud!

Yes, he can, and if I see him, or ANYONE, being treated unfairly (which I think he is, when his very THOUGHTS are being spoken for him) then I'll fight for them.

You ought to check yourself, Rian, because you know full well that condemnation is not something I do or ever have done.

What about your post a few posts up, where you wanted to establish programs for certain people? Are you condemning their behavior? Do you think it's wrong? If they're just being who they are, then why condemn them?

[Spock]

Be civil to each other.

Debate the issues.

Do not denegrate fellow Mooters.

...Ph.D. simply means "piled higher and deeper" so don't even go there.

[Rían]

If you're talking about me, could you please PM me, because I don't see how I'm violating any of those things

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

A person belongs to an ethnic group at the moment of their conception, and that will never change, regardless of their behavior.

The word "homosexual" by definition implies a behavior in a certain area - i.e., sexuality.

What is the problem about that? Many groups that we discuss are defined by their behavior in a certain area - writer, artist, fascist, etc. etc.

This is one objection that seems to me has no foundation in reality, but rather is founded in trying to win an argument.

In that case I can only assume that you have never known a gay person.

Homosexuality is not a choice. It is just the way people are. The "causes" of them being that way are irrelevant. That is why the ethnic analogy is far more apposite than the political one.

It is interesting that the vast, vast majority of this thread is by straight people arguing over whether gays deserve equality. Occasionally, some of our GLB mooters chip in, mostly in very eloquent and moving ways, but their voices are very much drowned out by the argument between the censorious and the liberal. Imagine how you would feel if you did a "find and replace" on this thread, replacing "gay" or "homosexual" with "Christian".

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Sorry; what do you mean by this?

Data is helpful only when interpreted. That means we need to view it in context. If that context is "homosexuality is a choice, these people don't have to behave that way and they shouldn't because it is sinful/morally wrong" then that data has a very different impact than if it is in the context of "homosexuals, and homosexual love, deserve to be treated with the same respect and love that everbody else gets".

Does that make sense?

[Nurvingiel]

Gay is a behaviour that can define a group, such as artists, writers, and fascists?

So... who likes to do it missionary style? Hand up please... okay, all of you, stand over there. Thank you. You're not allowed to marry or adopt children.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

As I said before, the very definition of the word "homosexual" talks about a behavior, as do many words that talk about people. It doesn't say this group all act in the same way in all areas of their life; but it DOES say that they like/desire/have urges for homosexual behavior. And if a person is a homosexual, then decides that they don't want to act that way in the sexual aspect of their life anymore, then that's fine, and the groups that help them with this should be lauded! Just like if I, a married woman, start wanting to express my sexuality with other men, and have an affair, but decide for whatever reason that I don't want to act this way anymore. I would still have the DESIRE, but for me, I've decided that I need to not ACT on the desire because for me, I think it's detrimental to those around me and to myself.

it's not that simple... as i've explained in the past, what choices you make in life are largely influenced by your upbringing... there are some you simply can not make, and might as well be genetic

[inked]

Originally Posted by Spock

Be civil to each other.

Debate the issues.

Do not denegrate fellow Mooters.

...Ph.D. simply means "piled higher and deeper" so don't even go there.

Actually, Spock,

BS = bulls**t

MS = more s**t

MD = more and deeper

PhD = piled higher and deeper

One might argue that an MD = PhD as both are doctorates so one must conclude that more and deeper is piled higher and deeper.

But, truly, to contend for the "reality" of a non-existent "fact" on the basis of "science" is merely scientism and not verifiable, empirical, reproducible dealing with life in the manner alleged to be scientific!... unless one has an accumulation of b******t equivalent to the above levels. I am not sure of the tonnage required at each level ... nor whether it should be metric or empire denotations!

Any clues?

[inked]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Hmm. Seems to me, this is precisely what YOU like to do, Inked.

I confess I maintain a consistent data-based approach to the phenomenon. I also note the allegations of various behaviours being inborn or innate and therefore excusable in some instances but not in others, according to whether one is, say, a Pedophile or an Homosexual or a Kleptomaniac or a serial killer. I mean, all behaviours can be reduced to biologic groundson simple reductionist principles (as quoted earlier). If biologic grounds are an excuse for any behaviour then why aren't they an excuse for all? Wasn't Ted Bundy born that way? Or Osama bin laden?

To "feel" an inevitability about being a writer or artist is no less biologic than any other behaviour. So then we come to ranking behaviours on various criteria. The most despicable behaviour being to confront the zeitgest with data, I surmise (or would I have greater validity if I said so I feel?)

So, I think it's pretty clear that the excusing of specific behaviours on the grounds of biologic necessity is a functional excuse without basis in genetics or science or psychiatry. People choose to act on impulses. What separates humans from animals is the (alleged) choice of exercising the will over the impulse. (You do know the definition of stress, right?)

That consistency seems to be my major problem here. I know, I know (IR loaned me the mindlink!) you are thinking "What a waste! So hobbled! and such a Goblin! I seem to have taken on the role of resident Saruman or Orc when I am actually Gandalf or a Hobbit!

[Spock]

Originally Posted by inked

Actually, Spock,

I'm long time familiar with those but didn't see the need to be pedantic.

Nor to lecture.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

That consistency seems to be my major problem here. I know, I know (IR loaned me the mindlink!) you are thinking "What a waste! So hobbled! and such a Goblin! I seem to have taken on the role of resident Saruman or Orc when I am actually Gandalf or a Hobbit!

ted sandyman