News Was the US Supreme Court Right on Homosexual Sex?

[Hurkyl]

I never said that it is locked at birth.

Many do, and use that presumtion in their rationale for whatever their stance on homosexuality is. I was bringing it up for GP, not as a specific rationale for any specific point.

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.

Your point sounded an awful lot like "People used to make mistakes, so we shouldn't believe anything people used to believe".

My claim is that if a piece of wisdom has survived a hundred years, then it's more likely that it's a good piece of wisdom than a bad piece of wisdom. Of course there will be some mistakes, but there will be less than other alternatives.

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

Well, pure logic can prove nothing but statements about pure logic.

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.

Which is why I rarely assert statements in these types of threads. Unfortunately, most people (such as Zero) invoke "default position" to mean a position that everyone must accept as true unless they can prove otherwise... I was presuming you were using the common usage.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Come now, Dissident Dan, must I repeat what you quoted?



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?

Your opinion on sodomy is that it is wrong. That is fine, continue to have that opinion. Just, please, try to see that your opinion should not be made into law, just because it is your opinion.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by 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:

If it is a non-religious site, why are so many of the sourses Christian? Check where the authors got their degrees, or what groups they are affiliated with.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Can you deny if everybody was gay and lesbian it would destroy evolution?

If everyone voted republican, it would be the end of democracy. Therefore, no one must vote republican.

A more unbiased observer would note that (a) homosexuality has always been woith us, (b) it is (if genetic) a natural effect of random variation or (if chosen) an effect of the society we live in. I prefer to have a varied society. I prefer to preserve the element of choice in our lives.

There is no difference between a black and a white person, are you also saying there is no difference between a man and a woman? This is what your example would indicate. If we are attempting to expose the child to all different lifestyles, why not bring them up in a serial killers care, eh?

I think there is very clearly a difference between a black man, and a white man - clearer in most cases than between a man and a woman. What I am saying is that in this context, it has not been shown that this difference is in any way significant. After all, it is obvious that heterosexuality of parents has never prevented people from being homosexual.
In times past, people have tried to make very convincing cases for "racial confusion" by whites and blacks living together. How easily do you say now that their is no difference! Is was never "proven" that there is no difference, no harm, but rather assumed that all men are equal. It took a civil war to recognise this. It shouldn't take one to recognise the liberty of homosexuals.

Family values, bah, use your head.

WHAT family values? Look back over history, and you will see how "family values" have always been changing. If you lived fifty years ago, family values meant giving the wife a permanent place in the house, and as occassional sex object. If you looked back 300 years ago, family values included private homosexuality.

My claim is that if a piece of wisdom has survived a hundred years, then it's more likely that it's a good piece of wisdom than a bad piece of wisdom. Of course there will be some mistakes, but there will be less than other alternatives.

Except it hasn't. At some point, it must have been introduced, as historians have found much evidence of homosexuality in the past. And nothing that follows the guideline of "hate X because he is different, for a reason that is not given" can really be considered wisdom. There is no requirement to drive normally law-abiding, private and harmless individuals underground.
The statement is something else altogether. We shouldn't believe something because they used to believe it, but because we agree with their arguments.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
You mean people investigated the why the law exists, and argued that the reasons weren't valid?

Isn't that what I'm asking you and Zero to do? To investigate why such a law would exist and argue that the reasons are unfounded?

The trouble is that there is no apparent reason for such a law in the first place. The law presents an unfalsifiable hypothesis - an act of faith that homosexuality is bad. This is not a valid basis for the infringement of people's rights.

Traditionally, A is considered true.
Nobody has shown me why A is true.
Therefore A is false.

To be blunt, almost yes. More precisely, it is not a matter of definitely saying that A is false, but that of saying that A is not clearly true. And that the matter here is not of whether anyone has shown me, but that of the lack of arguable, reasonable reasons at all.
The attempts made mostly tie into the collusion of church and state, or the misuse of statistical facts. (Consider that social science statement - parental abuse is far more likely in heterosexual families. Incest victims classically occur in isolated, traditionalist communities. Homosexuals are found to be usually more socially capable.) In a matter that has effects on individual liberties, prior belief means nothing. Especially when this belief runs contrary to other principles such as liberty.

Let's take a few examples. The principle of atheism is that although it has been traditionally thought that God exists, latter examination reveals no (as far as the atheist is concerned) reason for God's existence. Hence, while you cannot be expected to disprove god, the atheist chooses not to believe in God's existence, and so not to act as though God exists. Another example - racial discrimination. Though traditionally blacks were considered subhuman slaves, examination shows no evidence why their skin colour is relevant. While it is impossible to prove that blacks are not inferior (as in the moral case of homosexuality, you cannot really give an absolute answer on the vague idea of good or not, superior or not), the laws which rest on the idea of this inferiority are judged to have no valid basis, and hence are abolished.


(Damn... I'm doing a lot of edits recently...)

 

[Zero]

To expand on a point FZ+ made, homosexuality has been a constant throughout history. It has generally been made illegal for religious reasons. Some would say that it is on moral grounds, as though a specific religion gets to set the morals for a society. This is specifically NOT the case in America, which is founded partially on a foundation of religious freedom. The fact that religious groups now you corrupted research to 'prove' that homosexuality is bad, doesn't change the fact that their basic reasoning is based on their cult's doctrine. On those grounds alone, I would say that it is un-American to make homosexuality illegal.

A more personal level, I say that those anti-American forces who would ban consentual sexual activity would not stop at homosexual sex, if they had their way. They would ban ALL sexual activity that does not fit their cult's 'moral' views. They would legislate every aspect of culture to fit theoir narrow interpretation of their particular book of fables. Such an idea is repugnant to me, and should be to anyone who loves America. Further, the idea that allowing minority groups to have rights takes away from the majority, is a foolish fear-mongering idea. When one group is more free, we are ALL more free. That is a facet of freedom that some people hate, maybe most people hate.

 

[kyle_soule]

http://www.wfcr.com/diseases.html

http://www.dbbm.fiocruz.br/www-mem/956/3982.pdf

Links to diseases in homosexual men.

This, along with what Hurkyl linked, are two facts based reasons for our positions.

Someone thought I implied homosexuality should be outlawed, I don't remember who. But from the beginning of this post my stance has been clear, no marriage - no adoption. I really don't care if they want to have sex or not.

As for the suicide, Dissident Dan, if I had a homosexual son I would be affected, as for the other side, some families aren't affected by suicide.

The burden of proof is not on my opinions, it is on me to provide you with proof if I was trying to convince you of what I believed, I'm just discussing what I believe.

The link between the two statements was not apparent when you split them from the next sentence.

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.

An increased risk of disease is harmful. It's like saying smoking isn't harmful because you aren't guaranteed to get a disease, idle tar and such in your lungs isn't necessarily harmful, unless you live an active lifestyle, even then it doesn't hurt you if you can't breath as well, it is just uncomfortable. Affecting families was discussed before, a straight family has a good chance of being affected by a son that pops out and announces he is homosexual. Suicide is a better option? I can't believe this, burden of proof lies on you and we aren't talking about pets being homosexual here, even if their was a valid point in putting a pet down.

 

[FZ+]

One might note something that is hidden in those sources - there are far far more diseases associated with heterosexuality, most because of the greater prevalence of it's practice. And that parts of the documents are complete lies. Eg. "AIDS - 5000 times" seems behind on the fact that Aids is now a disease primarily of heterosexuals, as gay men have learned to be more careful in their relations. It utterly ignores the major point - that these diseases are connected not to specific sexuality, but sexual ignorance and being exempted from the advice of the health system. Is it any surprise that a group forced underground should make mistakes. This is analogous to saying that alcohol must be continue to be banned due to the actions of smugglers and gangster during the prohibition. The right approach is not to hide, but to advance.

But from the beginning of this post my stance has been clear, no marriage - no adoption.

All the more reason that gay marriages should be legally recognised.

As for the suicide, Dissident Dan, if I had a homosexual son I would be affected, as for the other side, some families aren't affected by suicide.

Would you be happier then if he commited suicide because you refused to accept him for his beliefs? Recognise that the choice lies in the individual, please, and that the comparison with suicide is entirely vacuous. Homosexuality does not prevent you from making friends, from having a good career, from living a life.

The burden of proof is not on my opinions, it is on me to provide you with proof if I was trying to convince you of what I believed, I'm just discussing what I believe.

Then your belief is wrong the moment you try to enforce it on others. In the same way the homosexuals would be wrong if they tried to discriminate against non-homosexuals etc etc.

An increased risk of disease is harmful. It's like saying smoking isn't harmful because you aren't guaranteed to get a disease, idle tar and such in your lungs isn't necessarily harmful, unless you live an active lifestyle, even then it doesn't hurt you if you can't breath as well, it is just uncomfortable.

Are we banning smoking then? Notice how smoking will probably always be allowed in private surroundings - it is not anyone's business except for passive smoking which inherently is harmful to others. And homosexuality is in no way comparable, because the diseases are not inherent in this case.

Affecting families was discussed before, a straight family has a good chance of being affected by a son that pops out and announces he is homosexual.

They also have a chance of being affected by him announcing himself to be an atheist, if not more so. The fact is, they get over it. The sort of domineering control that would create a situation where they don't get over it, that they refuse to support an individual's choice should not be supported by law - that, by evidence is far more harmful to the child's adult life that allowance of homosexuality.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
http://www.wfcr.com/diseases.html

http://www.dbbm.fiocruz.br/www-mem/956/3982.pdf

Links to diseases in homosexual men.

This, along with what Hurkyl linked, are two facts based reasons for our positions.

Someone thought I implied homosexuality should be outlawed, I don't remember who. But from the beginning of this post my stance has been clear, no marriage - no adoption. I really don't care if they want to have sex or not.

As for the suicide, Dissident Dan, if I had a homosexual son I would be affected, as for the other side, some families aren't affected by suicide.

The burden of proof is not on my opinions, it is on me to provide you with proof if I was trying to convince you of what I believed, I'm just discussing what I believe.

The link between the two statements was not apparent when you split them from the next sentence.



An increased risk of disease is harmful. It's like saying smoking isn't harmful because you aren't guaranteed to get a disease, idle tar and such in your lungs isn't necessarily harmful, unless you live an active lifestyle, even then it doesn't hurt you if you can't breath as well, it is just uncomfortable. Affecting families was discussed before, a straight family has a good chance of being affected by a son that pops out and announces he is homosexual. Suicide is a better option? I can't believe this, burden of proof lies on you and we aren't talking about pets being homosexual here, even if their was a valid point in putting a pet down.

Warriors For Christian Radio website? There's a good sourse for medical information! Do they do your taxes too? *rolls eyes*

And, oif course, you comparison to smoking is wrong...like most of teh rest of your comparisons. Try again? Or give up while you are only WAY behind?

 

[jb]

my only argument against adoption is that the kid(s) will probably get harrassed. 5 years ago, back when i was in grade school, kids got harassed because someone would say they were gay. i think most kids would be tolerant, especially as they got older and it was more accepted by society, but i think you'd still hear a lot of "haha, mikey has two dads!" on the playgrounds. i know that that isn't a good reason for same-sex partners not to have kids, but it's something to consider. also i doubt this is very likely, but if those kids got pulled out of school because of the harassment, that could start up a new form of segregation, and god knows we've had enough of that bs to last a lifetime.

as for suicide, i don't think i'd really be affected all that differently, depending on if my son "pops out and announces he is homosexual." i imagine the risk for suicide would be higher, but it's still there. and would you have a reason to kill yourself if society accepted you for who you were?

 

[Zero]

Heh heh...watch me be evil.

 

[Zero]

Heterosexuality leads to divorce, rape, child abuse, STDs, unwanted pregnancy, children who are a drain on out resources, stalking, sexual harrassment in the workplace, Lifetime movies, and a general lack of morality in our society.

 

[Hurkyl]

I won't disagree with that!

 

[FZ+]

Life inevitably leads to death. Avoid it at all costs!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Zero
Heterosexuality leads to divorce, rape, child abuse, STDs, unwanted pregnancy, children who are a drain on out resources, stalking, sexual harrassment in the workplace, Lifetime movies, and a general lack of morality in our society.

That settles it. Ban all sexuality! Its ruining lives and it's killing people.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by FZ+
One might note something that is hidden in those sources - there are far far more diseases associated with heterosexuality, most because of the greater prevalence of it's practice. And that parts of the documents are complete lies. Eg. "AIDS - 5000 times" seems behind on the fact that Aids is now a disease primarily of heterosexuals, as gay men have learned to be more careful in their relations. It utterly ignores the major point - that these diseases are connected not to specific sexuality, but sexual ignorance and being exempted from the advice of the health system. Is it any surprise that a group forced underground should make mistakes. This is analogous to saying that alcohol must be continue to be banned due to the actions of smugglers and gangster during the prohibition. The right approach is not to hide, but to advance.

I never thought of this. I suppose you are correct, I just threw those out, I didn't check their stats because, frankly, I didn't care what their stats were, the idea of diseases in gays was all I wanted to throw out.

Would you be happier then if he commited suicide because you refused to accept him for his beliefs? Recognise that the choice lies in the individual, please, and that the comparison with suicide is entirely vacuous. Homosexuality does not prevent you from making friends, from having a good career, from living a life.

Irrelevant to the idea of my post.

Then your belief is wrong the moment you try to enforce it on others. In the same way the homosexuals would be wrong if they tried to discriminate against non-homosexuals etc etc.

Again, I'm only discussing, I'm not trying to force my beliefs on anybody. Just raising questions, and discussing, hearing others views (except for Zero because he is nothing but insulting, what a great Mentor, ay?).

Are we banning smoking then? Notice how smoking will probably always be allowed in private surroundings - it is not anyone's business except for passive smoking which inherently is harmful to others. And homosexuality is in no way comparable, because the diseases are not inherent in this case.

Well, see, this was based on the idea that there is (as I still believe there is) a case in diseases in homosexuality.

Zero, I did not check the sources, although I must ask you, why must a Christian source always be wrong? Are Christians unable to do research correctly? You mentioned NOTHING of the information, you simply insulted me (which was entirely uncalled for, even more so in light of the ABSENSE of ANY contribution to the topic) and insulted the source because it was Christian.

This guy is a MENTOR, too! You insult people more than any other person (currently) at PF!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
I won't disagree with that!

So cut off your penis, and butt out of our lives, buddy!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule


Zero, I did not check the sources, although I must ask you, why must a Christian source always be wrong? Are Christians unable to do research correctly? You mentioned NOTHING of the information, you simply insulted me (which was entirely uncalled for, even more so in light of the ABSENSE of ANY contribution to the topic) and insulted the source because it was Christian.

This guy is a MENTOR, too! You insult people more than any other person (currently) at PF!

LOL...and, well...LOL again! All of your comparisons HAVE been wrong, unless you can show that consentual sex is inherently harmful. Until you do, comparing it to murder or alcoholism is not adding much to the discussion.

As far as your links. Christians can obviously do good research. Fundamentalists who begin their research with the specific goal of confirming what they have already decide to be a 'fact' cannot do proper research. The point is, a scientist has to be a scientist FIRST and ONLY when considering research. People doing 'research' to support a religious agenda cannot be impartial.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Do you think that ____sexuality is morally wrong, or is it just a big waste of time and money to mess with people doing private stuff in their private places? I tend to concur with the latter, because as an American, I like to feel that I can represent myself conservatively.