Gay Marriage
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)Posted by: vidcc
the act is choice the feeling is not.
why can you help the feeling?
Posted by: Busyman
why can you help the feeling?
Expound please...
Posted by: Rat Faced
No one can control their Feelings or Emotions, if they are a fully functioning Human Being.
Psychopaths may be different :unsure:
Posted by: vidcc
Expound please...it should have been why CAN'T you control feelings..... mistype.
you stated that the act is choice the feeling is not...why isn't the feeling a choice? what makes it not a choice?
what is it in us that causes us to feel?
Posted by: Busyman
it should have been why CAN'T you control feelings..... mistype.
you stated that the act is choice the feeling is not...why isn't the feeling a choice? what makes it not a choice?
what is it in us that causes us to feel?
I can't tell you why I can't choose to feel a certain way. It may be environmental factors.
I couldn't choose to get jealous of person A but I may get jealous of person B because they are closer to me. Who knows?
Posted by: vidcc
Well i was trying to get a bit more basic than that.
Animals...humans included because we are animals are really just biological machines.
Everything the human body does, physically and mentally is controlled by chemicals the brain controls this via "electrical" signals...it controls senses, this is why we smell, touch, and our organs produce what we need to exist and genes tell the body how to grow and what to grow..etc.
So the question is what tells the brain to convert electronic signals into emotions...such as "feeling gay" if that feeling can't be helped?
I am using your "feelings" arguement of sexuality when asking this... i am asking a question about your logic and how you explain it with basic human make up.
It may be environmental factors
What enviromental factors?
Posted by: Rat Faced
No one can control their Feelings or Emotions, if they are a fully functioning Human Being.
Psychopaths may be different :unsure:
Am i missing something...
Or have you both just agreed with my above statement in different ways?
Posted by: Busyman
Well i was trying to get a bit more basic than that.
Animals...humans included because we are animals are really just biological machines.
Everything the human body does, physically and mentally is controlled by chemicals the brain controls this via "electrical" signals...it controls senses, this is why we smell, touch, and our organs produce what we need to exist and genes tell the body how to grow and what to grow..etc.
So the question is what tells the brain to convert electronic signals into emotions...such as "feeling gay" if that feeling can't be helped?
I am using your "feelings" arguement of sexuality when asking this... i am asking a question about your logic and how you explain it with basic human make up.
What enviromental factors?
Any environmental factor can influence how we feel....
....from what you might consider the most mundane to the most profound.
Some men consider how a woman's feet look when I consider it inconsequential. To those men she's a turn off.
I don't think he was hard-wired to reject corn-chip feet. :lol: :lol:
Posted by: vidcc
Am i missing something...
Or have you both just agreed with my above statement in different ways?I think you answered my mistype, my "life logic" theory all along was that if we can't control the "gay feeling/emotion" why is it so unbelievable that homosexuals are born that way.....what is stopping us controlling them.
i made a hypothetical scenario about 20,000 babies with no outside influence and no sexual education suggesting that some would become gay...well how would that be down to influence?.
Busy answered...i bet some will be murderers :blink: he didn't answer how or why some would be gay.
Posted by: vidcc
Any environmental factor can influence how we feel....
....from what you might consider the most mundane to the most profound.
Some men consider how a woman's feet look when I consider it inconsequential. To those men she's a turn off.
I don't think he was hard-wired to reject corn-chip feet. :lol: :lol:
you gave no answer to this So the question is what tells the brain to convert electronic signals into emotions...such as "feeling gay" if that feeling can't be helped?
I am using your "feelings" arguement of sexuality when asking this... i am asking a question about your logic and how you explain it with basic human make up.
all you answered was What enviromental factors?
Posted by: Busyman
you gave no answer to this
all you answered was
I don't understand the question.
What "electronic signals"?
We are not robots.
We have higher brain functions than animals.
Posted by: vidcc
I don't understand the question.
What "electronic signals"?
We are not robots.
We have higher brain functions than animals.
"electronic signals" is the discription of the way the brain sends "messages" to the body....it doesn't mean we need to be plugged in and charged...how do you think it should be described?
so what if we have a "higher brain function" i take it you mean "intelligence" we are still animals...perhaps you are a mineral or vegetable.
Posted by: vidcc
I think he may be picking the nit. Asking you to say electrical impulses. Electrical being different to electronic.
perhaps i should have quoted the whole of my original question... but i see your point...
Posted by: j2k4
The truth is that the religious want to make a big deal over a word-
Not quite true, old buddy.
This is a most common misperception; that the "religious" are the only ones arguing against a broadening of the definition of the word marriage, or that any objection to same is rooted in religion.
Why is it beyond your ken to accept there are other reasons, based on history, logic, or possibly nothing more than a keen observation of the human social/cultural condition?
...whereas, the gays don't care what you label it, just that they get the same legal rights as heterosexuals.
I must confess, I had not noticed this to be true, and I'm sure that the least reasonable among us would agree I have been paying a modicum of attention to the issue... :huh:
Posted by: hobbes
The point is simple:
Should homosexuals be allowed to engage in a legal union that grants the same rights as it does to heterosexual couples.
That is the ONLY issue to me.
The quarrel over the word "marraige" is an attempt to obfuscate the real issue. People oppose gay couples because of their religious beliefs. This holds no weight Constitutionally and, therefore, in order to confuse matters, they start fussing about a word.
It is easy to see through the obstructionist straw horse to the true intent.
If gays are given an equal union, but still insist upon the term "marraige", I will review situation. But according to some religions, the gender of the participants is not relevant, but their commitment under their God concept is. Just because Christian religion has it's specific conditions, this should not be considered relevant legally in a country which allows religious freedom.
Do you agree that it should be the civil right of any two indivduals to be united under the law. Doesn't it seem a violation of civil rights to allow people to vote on such an issue?
And who are these "other people" that oppose? What is their logic? All the agnostics and atheists I know, are all for gay marriage.
In 1860, pants were: Clothing worn by men only spanning from the waist to ankles.
Now that women wear them, did we decide to call the same thing something different, or did we just expand the definition of the term.
Something tells me that there is something else going on here, other than some sanctamonious preservation of a word.
Posted by: j2k4
Something tells me that there is something else going on here, other than some sanctamonious preservation of a word.
No, nothing going on; at least nothing so sinister as religion.
As I've said before: Take the union, we'll keep the word...and thanks for seeing it our way.
Posted by: Busyman
And who are these "other people" that oppose? What is their logic? All the agnostics and atheists I know, are all for gay marriage.
Something tells me that there is something else going on here, other than some sanctamonious preservation of a word.
I actually never thought of it that way.
Posted by: hobbes
No, nothing going on; at least nothing so sinister as religion.
As I've said before: Take the union, we'll keep the word...and thanks for seeing it our way.
Union is fine with me, but it is in no way equal, as it stands today.
Make it equal and keep the word.
Posted by: hobbes
I actually never thought of it that way.
Again, you are taking a concept, "That the religious are making this an issue" and finding an exception for the rule. They are the voice against "Gay Marraige" not the "society of agnostics and athiests".
Let's stick to the concepts and not quibble exceptions, but you go girl. :lol:
So, people are born gay, as the rule.
Religious people are the most vocal in opposing gay marraige, as a rule.
Posted by: Strangelove
Ah, religion...
The English on the whole have never been spiritually minded people, thats why we invented Cricket.
To give us some notion of Eternity.
Posted by: ilw
I disagree about letting christianity 'keep' the word, i have no recollection of christians complaining about other religions/people using the word marriage to describe the state of union that their religious/civil ceremonies provide. It seems to me that the word has slipped past the strict christian origins and has taken on a broader definition. Imo its a bit late in hte day to try and claim ownership of the word and as Hobbes pointed out, this is clearly an attempt to muddy the waters.
Posted by: Busyman
Again, you are taking a concept, "That the religious are making this an issue" and finding an exception for the rule. They are the voice against "Gay Marraige" not the "society of agnostics and athiests".
Let's stick to the concepts and not quibble exceptions, but you go girl. :lol:
So, people are born gay, as the rule.
Religious people are the most vocal in opposing gay marraige, as a rule.
I'm taking a concept?
Who's quibbling? I was agreeing with the understanding that you posed ya bastard. :frusty:
People are born gay is not the rule. It's a far-fetched concept.
You are saying it's the rule and then say case closed.....bububut it's sexuaaaaality. :dry:
I guess agree with the religious folk concept though.
I disagree with gay marriage different reasons.
Posted by: Busyman
I disagree about letting christianity 'keep' the word, i have no recollection of christians complaining about other religions/people using the word marriage to describe the state of union that their religious/civil ceremonies provide. It seems to me that the word has slipped past the strict christian origins and has taken on a broader definition. Imo its a bit late in hte day to try and claim ownership of the word and as Hobbes pointed out, this is clearly an attempt to muddy the waters.
That's because it's basically the same union....you know...the husband and wife. That's not so far-fetched. :dry:
Posted by: hobbes
I'm taking a concept?
Who's quibbling? I was agreeing with the understanding that you posed ya bastard. :frusty:
People are born gay is not the rule. It's a far-fetched concept.
You are saying it's the rule and then say case closed.....bububut it's sexuaaaaality. :dry:
I guess agree with the religious folk concept though.
I disagree with gay marriage different reasons.
Ok BM. Sorry about that. Ya bar-stard :frusty: .
Posted by: vidcc
perhaps the question is still misunderstood