News Was the US Supreme Court Right on Homosexual Sex?

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
And, ummm...your idea that homosexuality is a sickness to be treated shows your bias. It nearly constitutes bigotry, even though I am sure you don't mean it that way. It is common for the majority to assume that it is the default postion, and everyone else is inferiour.That doesn't make it right.

We all must be biased on the subject then to have opinions? If we all had no opinions then this topic would be quiet boring, no?

 

[Zero]

I should have said 'unreasoned bias', which is different. I am biased towards personal freedom, where it harms no one. None of you have shown the harm in homosexuality, therefore I remain committed to freedom.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule


All I am saying is, if you raise a straight child in a gay home there is GOING TO BE SEXUAL CONFUSION. In this case, the majority should have the final pick.

By what logic? Because the child will learn that women can be more than servants, and that men don't have to all be sexist?

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
By what logic? Because the child will learn that women can be more than servants, and that men don't have to all be sexist?

Uhh, two gay men raising a child will show women can be more than servants how? and are you saying that gay men by default aren't sexist?
"By what logic?"!

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
By what logic? Because the child will learn that women can be more than servants, and that men don't have to all be sexist?

I never had the illusion that woman were servants. And my father isn't sexist, they can easily learn this is a mother/father home. Perhaps you should ask yourself

By what logic?

.

Let's look at what they would learn in a gay home.

Men are supposed to like men (this can be logically assumed because this is what they will see from childhood)

Sodomy is ok - I call it sodomy because the norm is not gay, they could relate the only possible sex for two men as also normal for a man and woman.

That's all I care to discuss for now. I must ask you Zero, why are you still discussing things in this topic when your position is clear, others sexuality is none of my business. With this attitude you should not be in any of the topics concerning sex and sexuality. I don't want you to leave, your arguments are as welcome as mine, I simply question if you firmly believe in your position.

 

[Zero]

Just trying to fight ignorance where I see it. Your argument is circular...you assume that homosexuality is bad, then list examples of homosexuality as being bad because they are homosexual, without ever showing how it is bad.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
Just trying to fight ignorance where I see it. Your argument is circular...you assume that homosexuality is bad, then list examples of homosexuality as being bad because they are homosexual, without ever showing how it is bad.

Bad in what sense? It has the potential to destroy things such as family values, evolution, and sexual clearity. But, I for one, don't think it is bad in the sense I think you are describing. Many have shown how it is bad, if you believe it is bad, one would assume you would formulate examples of how it is bad, you simply do not see our arguments as valid. I wouldn't call my argument circular, intended to be persuasive, perhaps; examplamentary (that isn't a word but I'm certain you know what it would mean if it was).

We are also trying to fight ignorance

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule


Let's look at what they would learn in a gay home.

Men are supposed to like men (this can be logically assumed because this is what they will see from childhood)

Sodomy is ok - I call it sodomy because the norm is not gay, they could relate the only possible sex for two men as also normal for a man and woman.

That makes little sense. Being tolerant of other people's lifestyle isn't a wrong thing...and why would a child know about the sexual habits of their parents? Did you know your parents were having sex when you were a child?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Bad in what sense? It has the potential to destroy things such as family values, evolution, and sexual clearity. But, I for one, don't think it is bad in the sense I think you are describing. Many have shown how it is bad, if you believe it is bad, one would assume you would formulate examples of how it is bad, you simply do not see our arguments as valid. I wouldn't call my argument circular, intended to be persuasive, perhaps; examplamentary (that isn't a word but I'm certain you know what it would mean if it was).

We are also trying to fight ignorance

No one has shown anything like how homosexuality is bad. I'm still waiting, and waiting, and WAITING for someone to show anything. It isn't that I reject arguments, I just haven't seen one!

How is it bad for 'family values' for people who love each other to get married? Hetero marriage isn't doing so well, lets' see if gay people can do better. Evolution? What does that have to do with anything, any more than people choosing not to have children?

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
No one has shown anything like how homosexuality is bad. I'm still waiting, and waiting, and WAITING for someone to show anything. It isn't that I reject arguments, I just haven't seen one!

How is it bad for 'family values' for people who love each other to get married? Hetero marriage isn't doing so well, lets' see if gay people can do better. Evolution? What does that have to do with anything, any more than people choosing not to have children?

Of course if human's all stopped having sex hahah, and you speak of OUR weak arguments? Gays will never be able to have kids, this is not good. Although I said potential, I didn't say it would destroy evolution definately.

I agree the current rate of marriage and divorce is also destroying family values; I don't see how gays will strengthen the family unit, seeing as how they will never have a family of their own. I'm sure you will bring up couples that cannot have babies, this is as legitimate as couples with genophobia, they are few and far between, and their numbers are without comparison to gays [when considering their ability to have children].

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Of course if human's all stopped having sex hahah, and you speak of OUR weak arguments? Gays will never be able to have kids, this is not good. Although I said potential, I didn't say it would destroy evolution definately.

I agree the current rate of marriage and divorce is also destroying family values; I don't see how gays will strengthen the family unit, seeing as how they will never have a family of their own. I'm sure you will bring up couples that cannot have babies, this is as legitimate as couples with genophobia, they are few and far between, and their numbers are without comparison to gays [when considering their ability to have children].

Adoption? Artificial insemination? Surrogate mothers? Why are thos options only valid for straight couples, and rich single people? Try again.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
Adoption? Artificial insemination? Surrogate mothers? Why are thos options only valid for straight couples, and rich single people? Try again.

Adoption isn't your own child, and I said your own family. As far as I am concerned I am talking of to homosexual men. Artificial insemination is the only legitimate argument for lesbians though, as a surrogate mother is the same concept as adoption.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Adoption isn't your own child, and I said your own family. As far as I am concerned I am talking of to homosexual men. Artificial insemination is the only legitimate argument for lesbians though, as a surrogate mother is the same concept as adoption.

So adopted children have no real family...I'm sure a lot of folks would be interested in finding that out from some kid on a message board.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
So adopted children have no real family...I'm sure a lot of folks would be interested in finding that out from some kid on a message board.

Some kid on a message board, looking down on me because I am only eigtheen years old? I wouldn't consider myself a child.

I am reminded of russ_watters, I would be interested to see where I said adopted children have no real family. What I UNMISTAKABLY (beyond any doubt except for manipulation and changing of my words) was they don't have a family of their own, MEANING, as I have said in almost every post relating to this topic, a family they bore themselves.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Some kid on a message board, looking down on me because I am only eigtheen years old? I wouldn't consider myself a child.

I am reminded of russ_watters, I would be interested to see where I said adopted children have no real family. What I UNMISTAKABLY (beyond any doubt except for manipulation and changing of my words) was they don't have a family of their own, MEANING, as I have said in almost every post relating to this topic, a family they bore themselves.

There is a distinction between those two things under the law? Do adoptive parents have different rights than natural parents?

 

[Hurkyl]

Until I did the surfing the past couple days, I had believed the hype about sexual orientation being locked in at birth.

http://couragerc.net/PIPPsychTreatmentStudy.html might be more convincing. One of NARTH's position statements:

Social science evidence supports the traditional model of man-woman marriage as the ideal family form for fostering a child's healthy development.

Anyways, simply to drop some facts on the table, it seems that homosexuality is not genetically determined at birth, and therapy has plenty of success with changing the sexual orientation of a homosexual.

 

[Zero]

Wow, anti-gay websites, how convincing. And I do mean 'hating the homosexual lifestyle' when I say anti-gay. Try again?

 

[Zero]

And, hey...I don't care if homosexuality is a choice, we are free to make choices. This isn't the Soviet Union or Iraq, remember?

 

[Hurkyl]

*snicker* From the NARTH website under "our purpose" at the bottom:

gay advocates ... intimidated dissenters by casting them as personally bigoted and hateful

In any case, your response is yet another ad hominem attack; you're attacking the source and not the arguments. And the NARTH website seemed quite level-headed to me. Go look at the "Is Homosexuality Genetic" page.

Wow, anti-gay websites, how convincing. And I do mean 'hating the homosexual lifestyle' when I say anti-gay. Try again?

I'm up one to nothing in attempts to present facts. Try once? I'm about to jump into a two to nothing lead!

http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/timt/papers/twin_studies/studies.html#b&p91

And, hey...I don't care if homosexuality is a choice, we are free to make choices.

It came up sometime earlier in the thread, I'm pretty sure.


In any case, I've made an effort to present some topics for discussion. Care to come out of your ivory tower and do the same?

 

[Zero]

I never made the claim about genetics...so don't expect me to defend it. As far as the rest, treating homosexuality as a disease flies in the face of actual homosexuals, who are generally happy, except for the bigoted harassment they face, and the idiotic feelings that are forced on them by intolerant society.

Again, for teh last time, I ask: where is the harm in homosexual sex, versus heterosexual sex. Why is anal sex worse if it is two men? And why should the majority be allowed to assert their bigotry on a minority?

 

[Zero]

*Sitting here, trying to figure out how the sex lives of my neighbors affects me*

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Bad in what sense? It has the potential to destroy things such as family values, evolution, and sexual clearity.

How does it destroy "family values"? And what are so good about the "family values" that you claim are being destoyed. Evolution? Most people aren't gay and will continue to not be gay. Are you you saying that you want gay people to breed, even though it appears that you find what they are doing to be bad? Sexual clarity? Like Zero said, how would a little kid know what the parents do in the bedroom. And kids would also see the tons of heterosexual couples out there. It's not like they will be locked in a box because their parents are gay. What is wrong with the kids seeing that there are alternatives beside the traditional heterosexual relationship.

Before you make any claims about homosexual parenting being bad (being married doesn't necessarily have anything to do with raising, in this case, adoptiong, children, anyway, does it?), you should look up studies on the matter to see if your claims have any basis in reality.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Hurkyl

In any case, your response is yet another ad hominem attack; you're attacking the source and not the arguments. And the NARTH website seemed quite level-headed to me. Go look at the "Is Homosexuality Genetic" page.

There is great importance in evaluating what your source is. I thought that this was common knowledge. A source that is biased will often actively use whatever it can to promote its viewpoint, often twisting the facts, or at least conveniently omitting ones that detriment their argument. The credibility of the source is paramount. It is paramount when they are giving you the data upon which you are basing your argument. The attack on the source is an attack upon the statistics which you base your argument on, which in turn can invalid your argument.

There are two aspects to the argument which one can attack:
1) the premises
2) the reasoning which leads form the premises to the conclusion

The criticizing of the the source is a criticizing of the premises. It if was trying to criticize the reasoning, then he would have to directly address the reasoning. But Zero did not put any stock in the "data" supplied by this website.

Now, if someone said, "Nuh-uh, because you're a right-wing poopyhead!", then that would be an ad hominem attack.

I'm up one to nothing in attempts to present facts. Try once? I'm about to jump into a two to nothing lead!

http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/timt/papers/twin_studies/studies.html#b&p91

[/quote]

This seems to indicate that there is a genetic relation to homosexuality.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Hurkyl

To a lesser extent, I think the "Oh, I don't see a reason for rule X, so it's okay to break/change it" to be a gravely misguided philosophy. All other things being equal, it's pretty likely that the way something is now is better than the alternative; it's stood the test of time, and that should count for something. I think I tend to argue this a little too vigorously, though.

I definitely do not agree. They way things are is often much worse than the way the could be if the majority took up the effort to change things. There have been many widely-accepted things that "stood the test of time" that were very bad things that eventually were done away with--serfdom, slavery, sexually-discriminatory polygamy, monarchy, theocracy, ethnocentrism and xenophobia, etc.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Not only is there no evidence for homosexuality being bad, but there is no logical link.

And, the burdon of proof is on the person making the claim: that homosexuality is bad. The default position would be not assuming that there is a problem with someone's lifestyle.

Anyway, two people of the same sex having sex with each other does not lead to violence. It does not lead to vagrancy. It does not lead to sloth. There is no link between any of those and homosexuality...not just empirically, but logically.
Think about it:
"Man A sticks his willy in Man B. Therefore, people will kill each other." How much sense does that make? The same goes for the other "conclusions."
It really does not make a difference if the person whom a person has sex with has a penis and testicles or a vagina, ovaries, and breasts. Which of these bodily characteristics the person whom you decided to have sex with has will not affect your virtues. It's not like male anuses give off anti-guy vibes, that, when met with the anti-guy vibes of a penis, turn into a ball of hatred.

In the event of a gay couple raising a child, the child will probably grow up to be more questioning (not necessarily opposing, but questioning) of the norms, and that is hardly a bad thing. The same is true of any parent(s) who have an atypical lifestyle or who teach their children the value of not following the herd, homo or hetero.

BTW, one of the "greatest" societies of all time was rather infiltrated by homosexuality. This society was that of Greece. Nobody had a problem with it. Alexander the Great was gay. So, the idea that homosexuality destroys family or society or whatever is shown false by example.

 

[Zero]

Specifically, that site is idiotic(ad hominem enough for you) because it confuses and blends separate issues that have nothing to do with each other. Homosexuality is NOT 'gender confusion', pedophilia, or a mental illness. NARTH's website posts articles that fly in the face of the establishment, in their search to promote their anti-homosexuality agenda.

Funny, homosexuals don't have an agenda for others...that falls to their bigoted enemies.

 

[Hurkyl]

This seems to indicate that there is a genetic relation to homosexuality.

But it also indicates that it's far from being genetically locked in at birth; there are more pairs of identical twins with one homo one hetero than both homosexual, clearly indicating the environment is stronger influence than genetics. Also, some studies have shown that the adopted siblings of homosexual children have a greater than random chance of becoming homosexual.


This is in strong contrast to the propaganda going about the last couple decades that homosexuality is something that is decided at birth.

that were very bad things that eventually were done away with--serfdom, slavery, sexually-discriminatory polygamy, monarchy, theocracy, ethnocentrism and xenophobia, etc.

And how many of those were done away with at a time when nobody could provide an argument against them?

Not only is there no evidence for homosexuality being bad, but there is no logical link.

By "logical link" do you mean "solid proof" or "potential rationale"?

And, the burdon of proof is on the person making the claim: that homosexuality is bad.[/qutoe]

Which is why I've refrained from asserting that claim.

Incidentally, the burden of proof is also upon someone making the claim that homosexuality is not bad.

The default position would be not assuming that there is a problem with someone's lifestyle.

(a) A default position is something you are justified in believing when faced with no evidence against it. A default position is NOT a substitute for proof when you are trying to convence others of something.

(b) I disagree that it is the default position since it is common wisdom that homosexuality is a problem with someone's lifestyle.

Homosexuality is NOT 'gender confusion'

What evidence is there that homosexuality is not decided during a time of sexual confusion? It's clear that the environment is a stronger influence than genetics...

NARTH's anti-homosexuality agenda.

NARTH is providing an option for those who wish to convert from homosexuality to heterosexuality; what are they supposed to do, tell everyone they were born homosexual and should live with it?

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
How does it destroy "family values"? And what are so good about the "family values" that you claim are being destoyed. Evolution? Most people aren't gay and will continue to not be gay. Are you you saying that you want gay people to breed, even though it appears that you find what they are doing to be bad? Sexual clarity? Like Zero said, how would a little kid know what the parents do in the bedroom. And kids would also see the tons of heterosexual couples out there. It's not like they will be locked in a box because their parents are gay. What is wrong with the kids seeing that there are alternatives beside the traditional heterosexual relationship.

Before you make any claims about homosexual parenting being bad (being married doesn't necessarily have anything to do with raising, in this case, adoptiong, children, anyway, does it?), you should look up studies on the matter to see if your claims have any basis in reality.

Come now, Dissident Dan, must I repeat what you quoted?

POTENTIAL

Can you deny if everybody was gay and lesbian it would destroy evolution? To those that will say "everybody won't turn gay" I raised this for the sake of argument, you look at things in a much larger sense and you see the smaller effects of its current state.

Family values, bah, use your head.

By 5th grade I knew my parents had sex, I imagine kids know a lot younger than this now; example, a 7th grader just got pregnant in my town. I would say a fifth grader is still sexually pliable.

Give me the studies, I have got my opinion and I'm not going to go out of my way to prove myself wrong I certainly don't see you accepting arguments going the other way, so why would you expect me to believe your opinions?

Why is it bad for kids to learn sodomy is good? By the same token, why even teach a child what is right and wrong? I'm sure somewhere there is a minority that sees what you say is wrong as right, shouldn't the child be exposed to that opinion also?

What if a group of people start a movement for suicide at a certain age? There are no victims outside of the consentees, our children should learn that it is perfectly normal and good to commit suicide, as long as it doesn't involve others. It's none of my business right?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
But it also indicates that it's far from being genetically locked in at birth; there are more pairs of identical twins with one homo one hetero than both homosexual, clearly indicating the environment is stronger influence than genetics. Also, some studies have shown that the adopted siblings of homosexual children have a greater than random chance of becoming homosexual.


This is in strong contrast to the propaganda going about the last couple decades that homosexuality is something that is decided at birth.

I never said that it is locked at birth. I am not foolish enough to say anyone thing is due completely to genetics. Look at muscles for a second. Tendencies to become muscular run in families, but a muscular dad does not always have a muscular son(or uncle-nephew, etc.). A wussy dad does not always have a wussy son. But a lot of wussy dads have wussy sons. Are you going to tell me that it is a wussy kid's choice to not be as strong as his elementary-school peers?

Anyway, I really think that the choice thing is irrelevant. It's a person's choice to do it missionary position, doggy style, or whatever. I would NOT justify outlawing doggy style because it's a choice.

And how many of those were done away with at a time when nobody could provide an argument against them?

Ummm, none of them. But that's a red herring because that has nothing to do with the point that I was trying to make.

By "logical link" do you mean "solid proof" or "potential rationale"?

I mean that A logically leads to B through cause and effect. No empirical evidence, just pure logic.

(a) A default position is something you are justified in believing when faced with no evidence against it. A default position is NOT a substitute for proof when you are trying to convence others of something.

(b) I disagree that it is the default position since it is common wisdom that homosexuality is a problem with someone's lifestyle.

No, a default position, not in terms of human psychology, but in terms of philosophy and logic, would be to not believe anything about it. For example, a default position concerning deities would be not to believe in them--not to affirm that they don't exist, just to not have a positive belief in them. Really, a person does not even know of the idea of a god until (a)He imagines it or (b)Someone else tells him the idea. I am not trying to turn the debate to a god topic, just trying to describe what a default position is.

If the default position is what you are describing, there would be infinite default positions, which is self-contradictory.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Can you deny if everybody was gay and lesbian it would destroy evolution? To those that will say "everybody won't turn gay" I raised this for the sake of argument, you look at things in a much larger sense and you see the smaller effects of its current state.

If everybody became homosexual, it would not "destroy evolution." It would mean the end of the human race if no one breeded with the opposite sex, and we did not use artificial insemination or similar means. However, we do have artificial insemination, and it will continue to be used.

But it is absurd to talk about the hypothesis of everybody turning gay. Why don't you outlaw abstinence while you're at it?

And another major, if the the most important factor, is the individual rights aspect. What you are talking about is no less than forced breeding. How can you justify forcing someone to mate with the opposite sex because you want to see the species continue?

Family values, bah, use your head.

I guess that my head doesn't work sometimes. Please enlighten me.

Give me the studies, I have got my opinion and I'm not going to go out of my way to prove myself wrong I certainly don't see you accepting arguments going the other way, so why would you expect me to believe your opinions?

The burden of proof is on your opinion. To make the claim that homosexuality is bad, there must be proof to support that claim. We cannot just assume that it is, because ASS-U-ME-ing makes an ass out of you and me. (Sorry, I just had to.)

Why is it bad for kids to learn sodomy is good? By the same token, why even teach a child what is right and wrong?

Where is the link between your statements? One is about a certain thing being bad or good, and someone you extrapolate that to the basic question of the existence of right and wrong.

What if a group of people start a movement for suicide at a certain age? There are no victims outside of the consentees, our children should learn that it is perfectly normal and good to commit suicide, as long as it doesn't involve others. It's none of my business right?

There are multiple errors here. First of all, we know that suicide is harmful to someone. There has been presented no evidence, only conjecture, that there is harm in homosexuality. Secondly, it will affect the families of the suicidal person. Thirdly, in some rare cases, suicide actually is the better option. That's one reason why we have euthanasia for pets.