Gay Marriage

[Busyman]

Originally posted by hobbes@21 February 2004 - 17:48
I did not post two studies. I posted the position statements of the American Psychiatric and Psychologic Associations.

So we have my position which is supported by all the doctors in America and then your theory which is supported by you.

Not just that but your particular theories have been refuted in large part by these Associations.

It is important to note that my theory was based on my personal education and experience, I only looked up those sources later to see what the medical world was saying. They pretty much backed me point for point.

Forgive me if I don't see things your way.

Actually hobbes, The American Psychiatric's position backs up my position not yours.

Thanks for the post.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Agrajag@21 February 2004 - 15:46
Don't get me started on the glucose conundrum. Sugar is useful for the body to survive, but too much is a bad thing, end of story.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Busyman@22 February 2004 - 03:26

Actually hobbes, The American Psychiatric's position backs up my position not yours.

Thanks for the post.

American Psychiatric Assoiciation- updated in 2000

No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.
Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based onmisinformation and prejudice.

Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality
.

Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.

Actually, it does not. It admits that the exact cause of homosexuality is under investigation and biologic etiologies are the top area of research. It does not state that the biologic role is not promising, it states that they have yet to find a "specific entity" to explain it.

There is absolutely no mention that homosexuality is a choice. They do note on their website that when homosexuals come in to be "repaired" and made straight, no therapy has been shown to work. Why would anyone want to change but not be able if it is just a matter of free will?

The more recent Psychological Association directly contradicts your position. Please be sure to E-mail them and tell them it is all hogwash and that quite frankly this is all a matter of commonsense to Busyman, end of story.

You know what, I have decided, because of my free will, that rocks smell good and taste better. Whenever I see them, I will begin Pavlovian salivation.

Ok, I got a rock. What? I am not salivating, and it really has no taste. How come I cannot make it taste delicious by my free will. Oh right, my biology is not programmed to see rocks as a source of nutrients, so my brain does not make me want to eat them by giving them a delightful odor and taste. Guess I'm just hardwired. Just like the dung beetle is hardwired to think dung smells delightful and eats it.

We act as our brains' tell us.

[clocker]

Originally posted by hobbes@21 February 2004 - 19:09
Just like the dung beetle is hardwired to think dung smells delightful and eat it.

We act as our brains' tells us.

Yeah.

Don't knock it till you've tried it.

I wonder what the APA has to say about that?

Sorry.
Carry on.

[leftism]

Originally posted by Agrajag
The point may be that other people's certainty, with regard to your omniscience, may not be as complete as your own. This may lead them to have an opinion at odds with your's. I know this may come as a surprise, but you should at least consider the possibility.

Dude, please think for a second before jumping into battle with all guns blazing.

If these people do not agree with me or hobbes then they should say WHY. Instead you guys are just repeating yourselves and not taking note of what anyone else is saying. This is what I was referring to. Not the fact that people disagree with me per se.

Lets try again...

You can have free will and genetics. This is obvious by looking at the world around you. The way you guys are talking its like you can only have one or the other.

Colour preference is not the same as sexuality. Sexuality is a unique characteristic and is hardwired, colour preference is a trivilaity probably produced by experience and environment.

Can you answer these 2 points without repeating the same sentence over and over again? I think not.

All this because you guys want everyone to believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and they arent just born that way?

I sense another agenda behind all this.... "Methinks he doth protest too much"

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by leftism+22 February 2004 - 09:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 22 February 2004 - 09:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Agrajag
The point may be that other people&#39;s certainty, with regard to your omniscience, may not be as complete as your own. This may lead them to have an opinion at odds with your&#39;s. I know this may come as a surprise, but you should at least consider the possibility.

Dude, please think for a second before jumping into battle with all guns blazing.

If these people do not agree with me or hobbes then they should say WHY. Instead you guys are just repeating yourselves and not taking note of what anyone else is saying. This is what I was referring to. Not the fact that people disagree with me per se.

Lets try again...

You can have free will and genetics. This is obvious by looking at the world around you. The way you guys are talking its like you can only have one or the other.

Colour preference is not the same as sexuality. Sexuality is a unique characteristic and is hardwired, colour preference is a trivilaity probably produced by experience and environment.

Can you answer these 2 points without repeating the same sentence over and over again? I think not.

All this because you guys want everyone to believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and they arent just born that way?

I sense another agenda behind all this.... "Methinks he doth protest too much"[/b][/quote]
If you read my posts I have not argued either side of the cause issue, as it is not the subject being discussed, or at least proposed by the thread starter. It is a Poll with regard to whether people should be allowed to marry. My only point with regard to the cause of homosexuality is that it does not matter. Whether it is genetic, hormonal, learned or a combination of these and other factors it seems agreed that it is not a matter of choice. As such should not effect people&#39;s rights.

I merely observed that other people&#39; opinions may differ from your&#39;s, no matter how many times you argue your point. As this subject is far from being decided within the scientific community it remains a matter of speculation, conjecture and opinion. You appear to think that your position is definitive, I and others disagree. I don&#39;t necessarily disagree with what you are saying, just the confidence with which you say it.

Banging your head against the wall, metaphorically or otherwise magnifies this impression. I hardly think what I said could be described as "all guns blazing" though I suppose the hyperbole suited your argument.

Please read the second last sentence in the first paragraph above, it is the position I have taken all along and is directly contradictory to that which you accuse me off.

[Rat Faced]

11 pages with no flaming...

Please cool it a little guys, i sense that people are starting to get a tad annoyed with each other now, which is when the bottles start flying....

[leftism]

@agrajag

I can see your having trouble keeping track of whats going on here so lets have a quick recap.

Agrajag attacks Hobbes "condescension".

Originally posted by agrajag+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (agrajag)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Do you think your condescension is genetic, hormonal, learned or a mixture?[/b]

Leftism explains that Hobbes "condescension" is due to busyman repeating the same arguments without addressing the counter-arguments put to him with regards to colour preference and free will.

Originally posted by leftism+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Having reviewed this thread I would say its definitely due to the environment.

Some people are still comparing colour preference to sexuality and using that as proof that sexuality isnt genetic.

The reason people are getting so upset about this issue is because they think that if sexuality is dictated by genetics then you cant have free will.

Both of these things (color preference = sexuality + genetics does not allow for free will) have been dealt with, but no ones listening, so whats the point? [/b]

Agrajag doesnt understand this and trys to make out that leftism is talking about people disagreeing with him and hobbes in general.

Originally posted by agrajag
The point may be that other people&#39;s certainty, with regard to your omniscience, may not be as complete as your own. This may lead them to have an opinion at odds with your&#39;s. I know this may come as a surprise, but you should at least consider the possibility.

Leftism tries again....

<!--QuoteBegin-leftism@

If these people do not agree with me or hobbes then they should say WHY. Instead you guys are just repeating yourselves and not taking note of what anyone else is saying. This is what I was referring to. Not the fact that people disagree with me per se.[/quote]

Agrajag still doesnt understand and forgets that the focus of this exchange was busymans "keep on repeating the original argument and ignore the counter arguments" strategy.

<!--QuoteBegin-agrajag

If you read my posts I have not argued either side of the cause issue, as it is not the subject being discussed, or at least proposed by the thread starter. It is a Poll with regard to whether people should be allowed to marry. My only point with regard to the cause of homosexuality is that it does not matter. Whether it is genetic, hormonal, learned or a combination of these and other factors it seems agreed that it is not a matter of choice. As such should not effect people&#39;s rights.

I merely observed that other people&#39; opinions may differ from your&#39;s, no matter how many times you argue your point. As this subject is far from being decided within the scientific community it remains a matter of speculation, conjecture and opinion. You appear to think that your position is definitive, I and others disagree. I don&#39;t necessarily disagree with what you are saying, just the confidence with which you say it.

Banging your head against the wall, metaphorically or otherwise magnifies this impression. I hardly think what I said could be described as "all guns blazing" though I suppose the hyperbole suited your argument.

Please read the second last sentence in the first paragraph above, it is the position I have taken all along and is directly contradictory to that which you accuse me off.[/quote]

Leftism gives up and reflects on the fact that you can lead a horse to the water but you cant make him drink.

[Wizard_Mon1]

Why would anyone want to change but not be able if it is just a matter of free will?

Because they don&#39;t have the right methods?

We act as our brains&#39; tell us.

Yes but they are learned responces.

Your all wrong and i&#39;m right [/joke]

[Agrajag]

Agrajag gives up,

Realising that some people are so self-important that they only read what they themselves post. Even when asked in bold to read just one sentence, the author realising that they won&#39;t have the decency to read the whole thing.

Realising that these people may be created by inherited traits or environmental conditioning. Suspecting that it is both, given that those who create us often also nurture us.

Accepting that they are, in reality, more to be pitied than scorned, as they often end up in solely the company of those such as themselves. Since other people simply can&#39;t be bothered dealing with someone who doesn&#39;t have enough respect to even listen to them. Having judged the other inferior and as such automatically devoid of the right to an opinion.

Hobbes is indeed condescending, it is perhaps her most endearing quality. The post was made in good nature and judging by the reply (by the person concerned) taken the same way. However the condescension is normally part of a two way conversation. Not some diatribe, involving others only to avoid the accusation of intellectual masturbation.

RF

Would this be considered flaming here ? Just wanted to know as I have not seen much to judge myself against. If so, my apologies for any inconvenience.