Gay Marriage

[Aly Fell]

Lobsters, don't forget lobsters! LOBSTERS R TEH ABOMINASHUNZZZZ!!!!111!!

......................

[stgodd]

LMAO^^^
------
Anyway, here are my thoughts on the whole "Homosexuality isnt natural" thing (kinda).

I think there are issues with the views and opinions on both sides. Though homosexuality IS obviously natural it isnt biologically correct, I get the impression many people in support of homosexuals think homosexuality is biologically correct and this confuses me. People arent meant to be sexualy attracted to the same sex. The evidence for this is that the reproductive organs arent compatible for reproduction.

I see homosexuality as a disorder in the same way dyslexia, epilepsy or aspergers are disorders. In an Ideal biological state the human body isnt meant to be like this but these issues shouldnt effect the individuals rights in any way.

I'm sure I'm gona get people calling me a bigot now but whatever.

[Lhune]

People arent meant to be sexualy attracted to the same sex. The evidence for this is that the reproductive organs arent compatible for reproduction.

It's not "evidence" as much as your personal explanation. Who are you to say that they aren't "meant" to be attracted to each other; for all you know homosexuality could be nature's way of keeping a population in check, just for example. The biological motivations and implications of homosexuality simply aren't fully understood yet, there could be a very good reason. It could also just be a disorder. But you can't go ahead and draw that conclusion based on nothing other than your own observations; we simply don't know.

[s.ketch]

The confusion arises from conflating sexual organs and sexuality with magnets.

[Arshes Nei]

Well for one we're gregarious creatures that do not have sex solely for procreation.

[stgodd]

for all you know homosexuality could be nature's way of keeping a population in check

This theory is illogical.
This would imply that the human body has some sort of biological abilty to subconciously know what the population is. For homosexuality to be nature's way of keeping a population in check you would assume that people living in poverty would be far more likely to be homosexual and that if the mother and baby are healthy and eating sufficiently the chances of the child becoming homosexual would be almost nothing. From all evidence I have seen this is simply not true.

But you can't go ahead and draw that conclusion based on nothing other than your own observations.

In my opinion the reasons why it isnt accepted as a disorder is because of how they were treated in the past and because homosexuals are offended by it. In the past It has been labled as a disorder and homosexuals have been castrated and sent to mental hospitals. Then there were campains to remove homosexuality from the disorder list because of the unfair treatment. Homosexuality is not officialy classed as a disorder due to human rights issues and politics, but from a scientific perspective I belive it is a disorder.

Yes I have come to this conclusion through my own observations, but how else do i do it?

[Lhune]

Well for one we're gregarious creatures that do not have sex solely for procreation.

That's not really an argument for homosexuality though, since same-sex attraction also occurs in animals that do have sex solely for procreation.

Yes I have come to this conclusion through my own observations, but how else do i do it?

You can't. It seems though that for some reason people find it difficult to accept that certain things don't have an answer (yet).

[s.ketch]

This theory is illogical.
This would imply that the human body has some sort of biological abilty to subconciously know what the population is. For homosexuality to be nature's way of keeping a population in check you would assume that people living in poverty would be far more likely to be homosexual and that if the mother and baby are healthy and eating sufficiently the chances of the child becoming homosexual would be almost nothing.

Unless it's simply part of humanity no matter what the population is. One that's been here long before modern humans. Then part of the species would always be homosexual.

[stgodd]

Unless it's simply part of humanity no matter what the population is.

If this is true homosexuality must be the worst population control ever because its not working.

[s.ketch]

Well, I hear our bodies don't unconsciously know when the population is out of control.

[Kamber Parrk]

rem92: There are only religious or dogmatic reasons to marginalize or adopt intolerant attitudes towards homosexuals. Don't try to fool anyone, yourself included, with this idea that "nature" has any sort of articulated intention. A belief in an overriding transcendent will that dictates what organisms 'should' and shouldn't do regardless of how they're behaviorally hardwired or conditioned by environment is a dogmatic conviction not a scientific one. In nature, something just is until it isn't.

Yes and no.

In the U.S., anyway, the issue of "Gay Marriage" is yet another subset of what some have dubbed the Culture War.

Hispanic Catholics, Black Evangelicals, and Mormons were a driving force against Gay Marriage in California. (Even though the first two of these groups are traditional Democrat voters and huge supporters of various forms of socialism-lite American style).

Thus, the issue is a wedge within the American Left.

And, this wedge is exploited by those in the rank-and-file Right, many of whom, IMO, really don't care about the issue all that much.

The term "Dog In a Manger" comes to mind. . .

[Ohaeri]

In my opinion the reasons why it isnt accepted as a disorder is because of how they were treated in the past and because homosexuals are offended by it. In the past It has been labled as a disorder and homosexuals have been castrated and sent to mental hospitals. Then there were campains to remove homosexuality from the disorder list because of the unfair treatment. Homosexuality is not officialy classed as a disorder due to human rights issues and politics, but from a scientific perspective I belive it is a disorder.

Usually people believe things are disorders because they are harmful to the people who have the disorders. Because replicated, peer-reviewed journal articles about controlled studies with random assignment, many subjects, large effect sizes, and statistical significance found that the evidence is against homosexuality being inherently harmful, it was removed from the list of disorders. If you want to change this, you will have to go through the same process: find credible research, present your arguments to your peers, participate in the debate, watch the glacial progress of change take place.

At least you aren't being forced into sterilization, incarcerated, killed, maimed, or tortured while you wait.

[Arshes Nei]

That's not really an argument for homosexuality though, since same-sex attraction also occurs in animals that do have sex solely for procreation.

It's an argument that it is not a "disorder". While biologically there are animals that have same sex attraction, one can still argue that it's part of a "disorder" which the previous person is making. Of course we don't know for sure why it occurs, but I think our gregarious nature and the fact we don't just have sex to have babies says to me, it's just part of how things are without it being viewed as a disorder. Our sexual orientation is not exactly a choice. However, given that we're social creatures that have sex for other reasons, I don't see this as a disorder either.

Granted, I'm also fully aware by saying I don't see homosexuality as a disorder for the above reasons, people will try to play the game of "what about pedophilia, zoophilia, bestiality, etc..."

[stgodd]

Usually people believe things are disorders because they are harmful to the people who have the disorders.

That may be true, but I did not think that something being harmfull was within the definition of the word disorder.

[Velocity Kendall]

Yes I have come to this conclusion through my own observations, but how else do i do it?

Er, google?

You act as if everyone else is just sitting around drawing opinions out their ass like you are.

People are investigating this.

"this "tipping-point" model posits that genes associated with homosexuality confer fitness benefits in their heterosexual carriers. If only a few of these alleles are inherited, a males' reproductive success is enhanced via the expression of attractive, albeit feminine traits, such as kindness, sensitivity, empathy, and tenderness...data suggested that heterosexuals with a homosexual twin had slightly more opposite-sex sexual partners, slightly more children, and were a bit younger at the age of first intercourse than heterosexual twin pairs."

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...ation-homosexu

"A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...ior_in_animals

[stgodd]

So which parts of that contradict what I have said?

[Dusty]

The problem with most gay marriage arguments is that people that are opposed to it usually fall back on the sex aspect. "Parts don't fit! Must be a choice! Why you gotta be stickin' yer thing in there, it's gross!".

They fail to realize that love is an emotion...not a choice. And in cases not related to love...well, who gives a shit? Some people just wanna get off. How they get off is no concern of yours. There are things in this world actually worth worrying about. Gay relationships is not one of them.

Who someone decides to have a relationship (as long as they are two consenting adults) is of no concern of mine. And it shouldn't be of yours.

[Velocity Kendall]

So which parts of that contradict what I have said?

You said homosexuality wasnt "bioloigcally correct" whereas, in fact, its business as usual.

[stgodd]

You said homosexuality wasnt "bioloigcally correct" whereas, in fact, its business as usual.

I cant realy counter this with anything other than saying I disagree.

Saying that homosexuality in animals has been witnesed doesnt change anything either. Natural **** ups can be found in nature too.

And the part where genes associated with homosexuality can benefit the hetrosexual is interesting because I've not heard that before. But I still dont see how that means that homosexuality isnt a **** up in nature. Surely even if there is a gene asosiated with homosexuality that can help a hetrosexual something must have gone wrong somewhere in development for someone to become homosexual.

[Kamber Parrk]

I cant realy counter this with anything other than saying I disagree.

Saying that homosexuality in animals has been witnesed doesnt change anything either. Natural **** ups can be found in nature too.

And the part where genes associated with homosexuality can benefit the hetrosexual is interesting because I've not heard that before. But I still dont see how that means that homosexuality isnt a **** up in nature. Surely even if there is a gene asosiated with homosexuality that can help a hetrosexual something must have gone wrong somewhere in development for someone to become homosexual.

So, you're saying that gayness is something like myopia, or, maybe Down's Syndrome?

[Ohaeri]

That may be true, but I did not think that something being harmfull was within the definition of the word disorder.

The DSM-IV-TR, which is a standard of guidelines most professionals use when diagnosing disorders, almost always states in the criterion for diagnosis that:

"clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning"

must be present for a positive diagnosis of a disorder to occur.

The few times, in my experience*, that it does not mention this is things like in the case of Axis III disorders, which are injuries that will aggravate any existing disorder or present similar symptoms, but aren't necessarily disorders unto themselves. Generally, Axis I & II disorders--which are what most laypeople would think of when they think of mental disorders--have that requirement listed for all of the diagnosis criterion for every single disorder.

This is why people are saying "you are ignorant." You have stuff that you don't know. People are telling you that you need to learn more, but what you do instead is argue a bigger hole around yourself. Then you cry when no one takes you seriously. Sorry, but other people have done the work that you're not willing to do, and you refusing to do it is not impressive--it's moronic. And those of us who do know can see that it's moronic.

* Should be mentioned that I have a degree in psychology and some experience with peer counseling but am not educated enough to open a practice on my own.

[s.ketch]

Natural **** ups can be found in nature too.

I'm still confused where you say we're overpopulated and then say homosexuality is a fuck-up because it doesn't lead to procreation.

If there's too many people, and homosexuality has existed for a while, then obviously it's not hurting the baby making. Of course that's with the stern assumption that the only real purpose of sex is to make babies. Or, if you're still not getting it, sex serves no purpose other than making babies.

People are obviously attracted to the same sex. People obviously enjoy having sex with the same sex. Parts, obviously, fit together.

Please, tell me why it's a fuck-up?

[stgodd]

The DSM-IV-TR, which is a standard of guidelines most professionals use when diagnosing disorders, almost always states in the criterion for diagnosis that:

"clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning"

must be present for a positive diagnosis of a disorder to occur.

The few times, in my experience*, that it does not mention this is things like in the case of Axis III disorders, which are injuries that will aggravate any existing disorder or present similar symptoms, but aren't necessarily disorders unto themselves. Generally, Axis I & II disorders--which are what most laypeople would think of when they think of mental disorders--have that requirement listed for all of the diagnosis criterion for every single disorder.

This is why people are saying "you are ignorant." You have stuff that you don't know. People are telling you that you need to learn more, but what you do instead is argue a bigger hole around yourself. Then you cry when no one takes you seriously. Sorry, but other people have done the work that you're not willing to do, and you refusing to do it is not impressive--it's moronic. And those of us who do know can see that it's moronic.

* Should be mentioned that I have a degree in psychology and some experience with peer counseling but am not educated enough to open a practice on my own.

Ok I can see that Homosexuality doesnt fit within the Medical definition of Disorder and i was wrong about that.

This is why people are saying "you are ignorant." You have stuff that you don't know. People are telling you that you need to learn more, but what you do instead is argue a bigger hole around yourself.

But I still dont understand why I am wrong.

Then you cry when no one takes you seriously.

Aw, C'mon. I'm sorry if it seems that way, but thats not true. I agreee that The way I'm responding might seem a little aggressive but none of it has been on a personal/emotional level.

Sorry, but other people have done the work that you're not willing to do, and you refusing to do it is not impressive--it's moronic.

I'm willing to bet that I have spent far more time reading and looking up on this issue than about 80% of people here. Possibly i'm reading the wrong stuff, or Possibly I am just a Moron but nothing i have read has convinced me that my opinion on homosexuality is wrong.

And just to clarify again (just in case you misunderstood me, though I dont think you did), I'm not arguing about if homosexuality is moraly right or wrong or how homosexuality occurs.

[s.ketch]

Ok I can see that Homosexuality doesnt fit within the Medical definition of Disorder and i was wrong about that.

What definition of disorder are you using? Hopefully it's as relevant as a biological or psychological definition.

And just to clarify again (just in case you misunderstood me, though I dont think you did), I'm not arguing about if homosexuality is moraly right or wrong or how homosexuality occurs.

I think you mean to say that you don't like it. "I don't like homosexuality." That's different from "homosexuality is wrong." If you say it's wrong, but not medically, biologically, morally, or legally wrong then that doesn't leave much room for anything else.

[stgodd]

I'm still confused where you say we're overpopulated and then say homosexuality is a fuck-up because it doesn't lead to procreation.

I'm confused by what you mean.

The human body is designed to procreate, so if the mind acts in a way that stops procreation (same sex attraction) something must be wrong.

I dont think Homosexuality and overpopulation are connected in any way.

[Ohaeri]

Ok I can see that Homosexuality doesnt fit within the Medical definition of Disorder and i was wrong about that.

But I still dont understand why I am wrong.

OK

Do you understand what the words you are using mean?

[stgodd]

What definition of disorder are you using? Hopefully it's as relevant as a biological or psychological definition.

I was using it in a more general sence, and I guess disorder was probably the wrong word.

I think you mean to say that you don't like it. "I don't like homosexuality." That's different from "homosexuality is wrong." If you say it's wrong, but not medically, biologically, morally, or legally wrong then that doesn't leave much room for anything else.

I dont have any problems with homosexuals (I am one), and i think it is biologically wrong in the way that for homosexuality to exist nature must have gone wrong at some point (probably in early fetal development).

[JFierce]

Come back and ah, already went through the religious debates, now at the big if it's natural thing.

Personally whatever it is in genetics or biologically that causes it, to me is irrelevant. I highly doubt it would be a mechanism to stop over population at all. But we're at the point where the basics of nature don't apply as much anymore when there are ways to inseminate and impregnate without even having sex no? The world is overpopulated regardless. Any debate in that area of thought is pointless. Since we're headed for a precipice anyways. I don't see how gay sexual activity would in any way effect man kinds evolution. Having sex doesn't change our genetics, and if they can't reproduce beyond the normal method of using a female, (and needing a male for lesbians) seriously why does it matter?

So if it has no real bearing whatsoever on population or genetics negatively and has been around for ages, then the only reason to oppose it is on moral grounds. But in the world today if something is a personal lifestyle choice which has no serious harmful effects to themselves (like hardcore drugs) or anyone else (like killing someone obviously effects others negatively, 2 guys or girls having sex at home doesn't) then there is no reason to really deny it.


Religious reasoning and bias doesn't matter and should have no effect for it's just institutional prejudice. Religion should have no sway over laws that effect everyone.




So honestly, why the fuck does it matter?

[s.ketch]

I'm confused by what you mean.

The human body is designed to procreate, so if the mind acts in a way that stops procreation (same sex attraction) something must be wrong.

I dont think Homosexuality and overpopulation are connected in any way.

The human body isn't designed. It evolved to do many things. Run, jump, protect itself, make tools, reason, think, feel, make posts on the internet. And within human development, the body isn't always sexually active. Biological things happen that both prevent and then stop sexual activity. Normal things like menopause. Plus there's human choice. We can choose to not procreate. Everyone who chooses not to have kids is not broken.

I dont have any problems with homosexuals (I am one), and i think it is biologically wrong in the way that for homosexuality to exist nature must have gone wrong at some point (probably in early fetal development).

But how did it go "wrong." Why do you say "wrong." Do you mean different? Do you mean not normal? If you're saying that sometime during fetal development mommy's hormones changed and caused the baby to be homosexual, do you realize that you're also saying that genetic differences are wrong?

[stgodd]

OK

Do you understand what the words you are using mean?

No, i guess not. I initialy thought homosexuality was within the medical definition of disorder, but i didnt know what the medical definition of disorder was. after your explanation of the medical definition of disorder I retract anything I said about it being a medical disorder.