Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 12, 2007 21:40:32 GMT -4
Well, you know, that's what the research supports. In order to believe that it's environmental, there would have to be an environmental aspect to homosexuals' childhoods that did not occur in the lives of most heterosexuals. Not necessarily. I don't think environmental conditions completely remove the possibility of choice either. Given the exact same environment, one person may chose homosexuality while another does not. In fact the twins study I referred to earlier showed exactly that. Identical twins are obviously raised in a very similar environment, yet a study showed that only 52% of twins identify themselves as both gay when one twin does. But then again you have the twins. If they have the same genetics and the same household environment why aren't they always both gay? The study I'm referring to, by the way, are the twin studies performed by Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard in 1992. Admittedly not too much. I find it generally a distasteful subject. I have done a little, however. I disagree. It may not legally be considered abuse but I still consider it so. Forgive me if I am getting too personal here. It is obvious that you understand depression, and I'm sorry that you've suffered, but obviously you haven't actually committed suicide. Doesn't that mean there is something different between you and those who have?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 12, 2007 21:41:38 GMT -4
So that puts a sinking hole in Jason's theory that homosexuality could not exist in Nature. Uh, I don't think I ever claimed that.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 12, 2007 23:49:05 GMT -4
Opportunity. That's all it is, Jason. I haven't got anywhere near here that I know would be successful for my chosen method. (And most people who are serious about suicide have one chosen method.) When I'm depressed enough to do it, I'm too depressed to figure out where to go, and I consciously don't figure out a place to go when I'm not depressed enough. If I had an easier chosen method, I would almost certainly have at least one attempt in my history, if I were here to post at all.
If both parties are underage, who's abusing whom?
And finally, the reason these threads end up being about homosexuality is very simple, at least to me.
You want to stigmatize a tenth of humanity. Yes, I know--you just don't approve of the sin. But to you, the sin is allegedly extramarital sex, and you won't let them get married. Enforced celibacy or changing their nature is stigmatizing them as far as I'm concerned. A lot of other people feel the same way as I.
Now, essentially everyone who stigmatizes homosexuality does so for religious reasons. (I'd say everyone, but I'm sure there must be some people who are just jerks.) Your faith says they're sinners and choose a lifestyle contrary to God's will, and no amount of evidence will ever prove otherwise to you, because you don't want to see it. (Similar to evolution, really.) Your faith denies people adult love and adult relationships that don't fit what you deem acceptable.
Since bigotry and violence stemming from faith is the big problem a lot of people have with certain faiths, and since bigotry against gays is the current prominent example of it, that's what those of us who don't like what your religion says about will focus on. Anyway, Jesus Himself says it's not for you to judge, at least if the texts are reliable.
Edit: And if the sin is sex that cannot procreate, what about sterile people? Can they not have sex?
And the Old Testament prohibitions are pretty clearly, if you know the relevant history, condemnatory of certain sects of the region that had ritualized crossdressing, sex, etc.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 13, 2007 0:12:26 GMT -4
If both parties are underage, who's abusing whom? They are each abusing the other. I believe a whole lot more than just gays are sinning in the world. Am I stigmatizing them too? How exactly am I acting to stigmatize them? By denying them membership in my church? I didn't make the judgement that unrepentent homosexuals would not be allowed in the church. I'm not personally denying them anything. Am I stigmatizing someone if I find their conduct distasteful? Even if I don't tell them so? Correct. I have no mandate to judge anyone. Church leaders do have the authority to watch over their congregations, however, and that includes applying church discipline to members of their congregations who are guilty of serious sins and are unrepentent. No, engaging in sex without the ability to procreate is not a sin so long as you are married to your partner.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 13, 2007 2:51:44 GMT -4
So if gay people got married . . . .
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 13, 2007 11:08:31 GMT -4
So if gay people got married . . . . Therein lies the problem. A marriage requires that both genders are present. A relationship without that requirement is not a marriage. The two genders are complimentary, and having a relationship with only one gender present, aside from the inability to procreate also doesn't teach the same lessons to the participants that a marriage does.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 13, 2007 11:22:52 GMT -4
I disagree.
For me, a marriage is binding yourself for eternity to the person you love, regardless of gender. It's becoming one, regardless of gender.
For me gender has nothing to do with it. But I guess I'm not a Christian.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 13, 2007 12:14:47 GMT -4
I disagree. For me, a marriage is binding yourself for eternity to the person you love, regardless of gender. It's becoming one, regardless of gender. Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Are we done with homosexuality? Can we move on to another subject now?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 13, 2007 13:00:48 GMT -4
I'm okay with that. I'm not the only person in the discussion though.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 13, 2007 15:33:10 GMT -4
Both genders have to be present in order for it to be a legitimate marriage? What kind of ridiculous logic is that? It's just discriminatory! All you value is whatever label you can apply to a person. You have no capacity to look beyond that to the actual person inside that label. Are homosexuals not people? Are they not human beings like anybody else? If you believe that homosexuals are not entitled to the same treatment as anyone else, you might as well go ahead and admit that you think homosexuals are less than people. Because that's what you are implying.
If even one gay person in the entire world was brought up in a normal family with no issues then your environmental theory goes right out the door.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 13, 2007 16:17:10 GMT -4
Both genders have to be present in order for it to be a legitimate marriage? Yes. The kind found in the dictionary. Well, in the sense that it has specific requirements yes, marriage is discriminatory. From that perspective so are many other things in life. I'm not sure where you got that idea. I generally avoid lableing someone a "homosexual" because I don't believe it describes something that you are, but rather a description of actions you have taken. I therefore generally refer to "those who engage in homosexual behavior" or "those who identify as homosexuals," although I am admittedly inconsistant in my usage. I am trying thereby to seperate the act from the actor, and reserve any condemnation or personal revulsion I might voice for the act rather than the actor. People who engage in homosexual acts have exactly the same rights I do. I can't go and marry a man either. What they are demanding with the "gay marriage" movement is greater social acceptance of their chosen lifestyle, not equal rights. My theory is that homosexual behavior results from a combination of genetics, environment, and personal choices, with choice being the ultimate determinant. The environment someone is raised in doesn't stop at the front door of their family home. Undoubtably a stable nuclear family has enormous benefits for those raised in it, but they cannot be the only force in a person's life. Therefore having a self-identified homosexual spring from an apparently normal family is not proof of a genetic basis for homosexual behavior.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 13, 2007 16:36:32 GMT -4
Jason, there are some subjects where arguing with you is like arguing with Turbonium. You don't know what you're talking about, and you're certain we're wrong even if we've done a lot more study than you.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 13, 2007 16:56:32 GMT -4
Jason, there are some subjects where arguing with you is like arguing with Turbonium. You don't know what you're talking about, and you're certain we're wrong even if we've done a lot more study than you. I admit that I think it unlikely that you will be able to change my opinion on the subject. Of course, I think my own views are being dismissed without being given anything like an objective hearing, simply because of the reflex action to label them as "anti-gay" or "homophobic" without really thinking about them much or trying to determine if they make any sense. Probably best to move on to something else then. I certainly didn't bring the topic up in the first place. If you want to discuss it further I suggest you start a new thread for the purpose. Something like "Jason is a bigoted homophobe, and here's why!"
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jun 13, 2007 18:02:31 GMT -4
Jason, there are some subjects where arguing with you is like arguing with Turbonium. You don't know what you're talking about, and you're certain we're wrong even if we've done a lot more study than you. Verging on the Rocky-like even.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 13, 2007 19:23:33 GMT -4
Jason has never sent me to YouTube, for which I thank him.
|
|