Gay Marriage

[leftism]

Originally posted by agrajag
Realising that some people are so self-important that they only read what they themselves post.

Indeed. It took 5 posts to get you to realise that Hobbes and I were not talking about Busyman disagreeing with us, but that Busyman was ignoring every counter argument and simply repeating his own multiple times.

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's rights.

Thats why this "is it a choice" debate began in the first place. Busyman is arguing that "gay is learned" because he disagrees with both civil unions and marriages. If he were to accept that homosexuality is not a "lifestyle choice" his position on civil unions would be untenable.

So basically you thought Hobbes was attacking Busyman for disagreeing with him. You were wrong. You then defended Busymans position without even realising it goes against your own argument 100%.

If you'd paid a little more attention to the reasoning behind both Hobbes "condescension" and Busymans "being gay is a lifestyle choice" argument, this ugly little disagreement would not have occurred.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by Agrajag@22 February 2004 - 14:27
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.

As j2k4 would point out.

If you use a club or baseball bat, your flaming.

If you use a rapier, its merely debate.....

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by leftism+22 February 2004 - 14:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 22 February 2004 - 14:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-agrajag
Realising that some people are so self-important that they only read what they themselves post.

Indeed. It took 5 posts to get you to realise that Hobbes and I were not talking about Busyman disagreeing with us, but that Busyman was ignoring every counter argument and simply repeating his own multiple times.

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.

Thats why this "is it a choice" debate began in the first place. Busyman is arguing that "gay is learned" because he disagrees with both civil unions and marriages. If he were to accept that homosexuality is not a "lifestyle choice" his position on civil unions would be untenable.

So basically you thought Hobbes was attacking Busyman for disagreeing with him. You were wrong. You then defended Busymans position without even realising it goes against your own argument 100%.

If you&#39;d paid a little more attention to the reasoning behind both Hobbes "condescension" and Busymans "being gay is a lifestyle choice" argument, this ugly little disagreement would not have occurred. [/b][/quote]
I had formed no opinion on the interaction between Hobbes and Busyman. I posted the condescension thing as a good natured pop at Hobbes and he took it as such. It related to his overall demeanor, here and elsewhere, not to his inter-action with Busyman in this thread. However given that you would not be aware of every discussion Hobbes and I have had, you may not have known that. A simple fact such as this is obviously not enough for you to desist from voicing your opinion, on matters which you are under-informed

This whole thing is based on your preconceptions on what I was getting at. Again I don&#39;t expect you to realise that, because you will consider it within your own context, which is obviously self absorbed. People have opinions and relationships separate from your experience and outwith your knowledge. As stated way back when, your omniscience is in doubt, at least to some of us.

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by Rat Faced+22 February 2004 - 15:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 22 February 2004 - 15:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agrajag@22 February 2004 - 14:27
RF

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

As j2k4 would point out.

If you use a club or baseball bat, your flaming.

If you use a rapier, its merely debate..... [/b][/quote]
I&#39;ll bear that in mind

[leftism]

Astounding, you&#39;ve still missed the point by a mile....

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'>People have opinions and relationships separate from your experience and outwith your knowledge. As stated way back when, your omniscience is in doubt, at least to some of us.[/b]

A carbon copy of another post...

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.

Which I already replied to...

<!--QuoteBegin-leftism
If these people do not agree with me or hobbes then they should say WHY.[/quote]

What will it take to get you to understand this simple concept? A thousand posts? A million?

Hobbes post was aimed at Busymans conduct. It is you who is uninformed in this respect, not I. Therefore, you were supporting Busymans conduct, although I will concede you were doing so out of pure ignorance.

I obviously credited you with more intelligence and observational power than you deserve. You see, I assumed you had half a clue of what hobbes was referring to via his "condescension". You&#39;ve just admitted you didnt have the first idea of what hobbes meant, so accordingly, I will have to make sure you can see whats in front of your nose before I attempt simple communication with you in the future,

Now, taking into account the fact that you are quick to accuse others of not reading your posts, its quite ironic that:

1. This is the 4th post where I&#39;ve tried to hammer this very simple concept into you seige mentality.

2. You were unaware you were supporting a position completely opposed to your own until I pointed it out to you.

3. You were completely unaware of what Hobbes was referring to.

btw, we are all aware you know the word "omniscience", we are all suitably impressed with your ability to use an online thesaurus.

Well done

Now that you&#39;ve used it 50 times in 2 minutes it appears to be the only word longer than 6 letters you&#39;re aware of. I suggest you revisit the thesaurus before this impression becomes permanent, off you go&#33; --&#62;

PS I hear "Antidisestablishmentarianism" is a good one to go for, just try to use it sparingly otherwise it looks like you picked it up from the "word of the day" section of your local newspaper.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by leftism+22 February 2004 - 12:03--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 22 February 2004 - 12:03)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Astounding, you&#39;ve still missed the point by a mile....

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'>People have opinions and relationships separate from your experience and outwith your knowledge. As stated way back when, your omniscience is in doubt, at least to some of us.[/b]

A carbon copy of another post...

<!--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.

Which I already replied to...

<!--QuoteBegin-leftism
If these people do not agree with me or hobbes then they should say WHY.[/quote]

What will it take to get you to understand this simple concept? A thousand posts? A million?

Hobbes post was aimed at Busymans conduct. It is you who is uninformed in this respect, not I. Therefore, you were supporting Busymans conduct, although I will concede you were doing so out of pure ignorance.

I obviously credited you with more intelligence and observational power than you deserve. You see, I assumed you had half a clue of what hobbes was referring to via his "condescension". You&#39;ve just admitted you didnt have the first idea of what hobbes meant, so accordingly, I will have to make sure you can see whats in front of your nose before I attempt simple communication with you in the future,

Now, taking into account the fact that you are quick to accuse others of not reading your posts, its quite ironic that:

1. This is the 4th post where I&#39;ve tried to hammer this very simple concept into you seige mentality.

2. You were unaware you were supporting a position completely opposed to your own until I pointed it out to you.

3. You were completely unaware of what Hobbes was referring to.

btw, we are all aware you know the word "omniscience", we are all suitably impressed with your ability to use an online thesaurus.

Well done

Now that you&#39;ve used it 50 times in 2 minutes it appears to be the only word longer than 6 letters you&#39;re aware of. I suggest you revisit the thesaurus before this impression becomes permanent, off you go&#33; --&#62;

PS I hear "Antidisestablishmentarianism" is a good one to go for, just try to use it sparingly otherwise it looks like you picked it up from the "word of the day" section of your local newspaper. [/b][/quote]
I never thought the Agrajag was supporting my position. It seems that if he didn&#39;t support ...well....everyone else&#39;s position in the thread, he had to be supporting mine.

Please cut the posts about "how your posting" and stick to the topic.

[Agrajag]

Busyman

The topic is with regard to whether gay people should be allowed to marry / have a civil union. Not about why they are gay. I think my position on this is quite clear, if it coincides with the majority of people who have posted here, so be it. If yours is different then I am sure from reading your posts that you can live with that.

Leftism

Of course it is almost a carbon copy. You chose to leave a part from the quote, the part where I made it clear that I was re-iterating an earlier post. I do not use anon-line thesaurus, or a hard copy one for that matter. I suspect you do, may I suggest you use it in conjunction with a dictionary in future.

Your ability to be obtuse, self satisfied and condescending all at the same time is very well developed. You take small sections of what people say, out of context and then try to "brow-beat" them with your pseudo-intellectualism. The style is very familiar. The fact that I may have use the same words several times in this thread is perhaps because they were the proper words to use. I won&#39;t stop using them because of your playground taunts.

[leftism]

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'>Your ability to be obtuse, self satisfied and condescending all at the same time is very well developed[/b]

Considering this is coming from someone who is so confused that they cannot decide whether hobbes is male or female...

Hobbes is indeed condescending, it is perhaps her most endearing quality.

I posted the condescension thing as a good natured pop at Hobbes and he took it as such

I am not overly concerned

btw, is that what you meant by..

some people have relationships separate from your experience and outwith your knowledge

..?

If so, do not despair, I&#39;m sure the next object of your affection will turn out to be female.



Anyway, lets get back to the topic.

Originally posted by agrajag@
The topic is with regard to whether gay people should be allowed to marry / have a civil union. Not about why they are gay

<!--QuoteBegin-leftism
Thats why this "is it a choice" debate began in the first place. Busyman is arguing that "gay is learned" because he disagrees with both civil unions and marriages. If he were to accept that homosexuality is not a "lifestyle choice" his position on civil unions would be untenable[/quote]

Its funny how things tend to go in circles. At the end of this little head to head we&#39;re back to the starting point. People not reading peoples posts, not keeping up with the thread and simply repeating their own position.

Talk about deja vu....

For those with short attention spans, I believe gay people dont choose to be gay and thus deserve the same treatment as straight couples. If they did choose that lifestyle just to be different then one could argue, as Busyman does, that they are merely being "awkard" and are demanding special treatment. I dont believe the Christian church should be forced to change its position, therefore civil unions are the best possible compromise.

In closing I&#39;d like to ask Busyman why he&#39;s against civil unions. You said it was due to religious reasons, can you be more specific?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by hobbes+21 February 2004 - 23:09--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes &#064; 21 February 2004 - 23:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@22 February 2004 - 03:26

Actually hobbes, The American Psychiatric&#39;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&#39;m just hardwired. Just like the dung beetle is hardwired to think dung smells delightful and eats it.

We act as our brains&#39; tell us. [/b][/quote]
Well one of my statements claimed that there ain&#39;t no proof of people being born homosexual.

The Psychiatric statement DID back that up.
Saying something is the top area of research .........AIN&#39;T PROOF.
It seems that you claim it as fact.
Furthermore, I never claimed "support" of the Psychological&#39;s statement.

lefty, the reason I keep bringing up the color blue is because YOU and HOBBES have a preconceived position.

hobbes regarding your rock...........put hot sauce on it.

You guys explanation towards sexuality is basically..... YOUR BORN WITH IT END OF DISCUSSION.
For something that has no proof, you guys seem to have all the answers. Maybe you could help the scientists.

You basically claim my position is spurious when it is quite logical.

Person likes WOMAN A because she has a nice face.
Another dislikes her because he thinks she&#39;s ugly. I guess all of that was hardwired.

Back around my old neighborhood, there were gay women and men here and there.
There are guys that have hooked up with prostitutes, fine ass ones, then get in the bed and.......foind out she was a he. Well......some say fuck it, bend "him" over, and go for what they know. Are they gay?

You guys still haven&#39;t explained BIsexuals. You know why.......you can&#39;t. Even with your pseudoscientific explanations that have no... BASIS...IN....FACT.

Just to clarify my position (without a religious point of view).

Homosexuality a like not a choice. The behaviors that go along with it ARE learned.
There is no programming from birth that tells a person to like penis vs. vagina (or ass). You can go through life liking woman then in your 40&#39;s have an affair with a man :x :x .
Did the gay brain chemical jump up and bite you in the ass?
Oh I guess you were gay all along and fighting the urge until you were 40.
If you have a gay thought, are you gay?

hobbes read some more psychological studies. Straight people have had gay thoughts. You either liked or disliked them. Get it...like or disLIKE.

Take your Jamie Lee Curtis.
Most straight guys here would bang her. Why?
According to you she&#39;s a man....but she&#39;d still get banged.

You know why?

She LOOKS like an attractive woman. Through what we have seen through life we think that&#39;s attractive. If she was fat, most of us would turn away. I guess that&#39;s the heterrosexual anti-fat chemical?
We look at her and think she has a nice ass, face, and ti..tays&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Agrajag@22 February 2004 - 13:01
Busyman

The topic is with regard to whether gay people should be allowed to marry / have a civil union. Not about why they are gay. I think my position on this is quite clear, if it coincides with the majority of people who have posted here, so be it. If yours is different then I am sure from reading your posts that you can live with that.

Leftism

Of course it is almost a carbon copy. You chose to leave a part from the quote, the part where I made it clear that I was re-iterating an earlier post. I do not use anon-line thesaurus, or a hard copy one for that matter. I suspect you do, may I suggest you use it in conjunction with a dictionary in future.

Your ability to be obtuse, self satisfied and condescending all at the same time is very well developed. You take small sections of what people say, out of context and then try to "brow-beat" them with your pseudo-intellectualism. The style is very familiar. The fact that I may have use the same words several times in this thread is perhaps because they were the proper words to use. I won&#39;t stop using them because of your playground taunts.

Your exactly right. I and hobbes have morphed the topic.
In regards to you I was being sarcasactic. I knew all along you didn&#39;t necessarily support my position so I don&#39;t know what lefty was talking about. Seems you just didn&#39;t back him up.

lefty- off topic question- Do you know 1234 personally or are you the same person?