why can you help the feeling?Quote:
Originally Posted by busyman
Printable View
why can you help the feeling?Quote:
Originally Posted by busyman
Expound please...Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
No one can control their Feelings or Emotions, if they are a fully functioning Human Being.
Psychopaths may be different :unsure:
it should have been why CAN'T you control feelings..... mistype.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
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?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by busy
Am i missing something...Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Or have you both just agreed with my above statement in different ways?
Any environmental factor can influence how we feel....Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
....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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
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.
you gave no answer to thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
all you answered wasQuote:
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.
Quote:
What enviromental factors?
I don't understand the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
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.
perhaps i should have quoted the whole of my original question... but i see your point...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
Not quite true, old buddy.Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes
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?
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:Quote:
Originally 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.
No, nothing going on; at least nothing so sinister as religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes
As I've said before: Take the union, we'll keep the word...and thanks for seeing it our way.
I actually never thought of it that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes
Union is fine with me, but it is in no way equal, as it stands today.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Make it equal and keep the word.
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
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.
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.
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.
I'm taking a concept?Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes
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.
That's because it's basically the same union....you know...the husband and wife. That's not so far-fetched. :dry:Quote:
Originally Posted by ilw
Ok BM. Sorry about that. Ya bar-stard :frusty: .Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
perhaps the question is still misunderstood