Gay Marriage

[NotoriousBIC]

Originally posted by Skweeky@20 February 2004 - 14:47
On the other hand, this same Church says that premarital sex is a sin, I don't think they try to find out whether you commited to that 'sin' or not before straight couples get married, so in my opinion they're using double standards here. Also are these rules based on a book that was written nearly 2000 years ago, surely times have changed a lot ever since and maybe the Church should consider adapting the rules to the age we live in...

Alas, there are quite a few examples of similar 'double standards' in the history of the Church and almost all religions.

I had just typed a long-ass post of my views about religion in general and it's influance on this matter in particular, when it occurred to me that faith shouldn't be even a factor in this discussion.

I think a lot of people mix up marriage in the sense of the law and in the sense of religion with eachother. Both don't have anything to do wich eachother and indeed a lot of marriages are now double. One for the law and one for the church.

The rules for marriage in the church should be set by the church and therefore the rules for marriage by law shouldn't neccessarily be based on those.
I like the 'All men are created equal' argument...

As for the family arguments I believe that percentage-wise there are less problems with 'Gay'-families than normal families (here in the Netherlands), but it's far too early to conclude anything (perhaps not even possible).
But if I have to believe claims of American reports on Dutch family values, they're all going to hell anyway...

p.s. Those reports have been claimed to exist, but haven't been sent to any newspaper/magazine who has requested those. More anti-gay propeganda?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@20 February 2004 - 09:49

Funny how you took a jab at me and when a jab comes back, you are offended and part of MY post is removed. STICK TO THE TOPIC!! Right?

I looked back and only saw one thing that i think was a jab at you...i've removed that now, missed it the 1st time.

If im incorrect, and there is something else that was personal..let me know.

For Info:

Leftism never complained about anything.....I did this coz i want the thread to stay "On Topic" and not get personal.

So far, its done that very well.

I also removed a remark aimed at a particular church...if it had been aimed at religion in general, i would have left it alone.

Im sure you understand

It's cool man.
I actually didn't think he would be offended seeing as though he said something to me that could be construde as "rather offensive". I have thick skin.
No problem here.

Anyway leftism,

I was being facetious. You can't "biologically" like the color blue. Now through aversion therapy you can be made to hate the color blue. But a like...is not hardwired.

I have read neurological journals regarding this issue. They are not conclusive whatsoever.

You like what you like.
Skweeky is perfect example.

EVERYTHING is an influence but what triggers a like or dislike is sometimes UNexplainable.
Most people on here are trying nail down and scientifically explain free-will.
I'm not even putting religion into equation. It's just free will.

You ever NOT like a person and you don't why?

Again read.

I am Christian so I am against gay marriage and civil unions.............but

If America is has a separation between church and state then.....SEPARATE IT or else our own laws are hypocritical.

got me?

I be back answer your "other" question.

I'll do an edit.

[Skweeky]

I don't know about that..I think there is always an explainable reason for like or dislike, but maybe the reason itself isn't explainable?

e.g:

I don't like spiders
Why?
Because I think they look repulsive
why?
The movement of those 8 legs at the same time is just creepy
Why?
I don't know


You also say you can't biologically like a certain colour, I don't know if you would classify this as biologically, but there is a certain link between the character of a person and the colours this person likes or dislikes. In fact it is sometimes used in psychological tests (the yellow room test for example).

Free will is a tricky thing to discuss..I am not sure if there is such a thing. Everything we do is influenced in one way or another by what other people do or say.

[leftism]

Originally posted by Busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>EVERYTHING is an influence but what triggers a like or dislike is sometimes UNexplainable.
Most people on here are trying nail down and scientifically explain free-will.
I&#39;m not even putting religion into equation. It&#39;s just free will.[/b]

I agree, but what I&#39;m saying is that sexuality is more than just a simple like/dislike. Its completely different to colour preference or your favourite food.

Arguing that sexuality is hardwired does not cut free will out of the equation at all. Like I said before its a &#39;special case&#39;, a unique characteristic that you cannot compare with disliking a person or place.

Originally posted by busyman@

I am Christian so I am against gay marriage and civil unions.............but

I can understand you disagreeing with marriage for gays on account of religion. Im not religious myself but the bible clearly states that its wrong and I dont think Christianity should be forced to change.

However, I dont understand why your against civil unions though. They have nothing to do with religeon. In fact in an earlier post in this thread you stated that you were against civil unions because "it discriminates against heterosexual single couples.". You didnt mention religion then.

This need not be true either. Theres no reason why a heterosexual couple shouldnt be able to have a civil union if they wish. I think it would be a good idea. Non-christians being married in a church has always seemed a bit illogical to me, but they did this because there was no viable alternative. If we have legally binding civil unions then gay couples can enjoy the same rights straight couples do and the Church doesnt have to compromise on its position.

So putting the issue into this context, are you still against civil unions, and if so, why?

If America is has a separation between church and state then.....SEPARATE IT or else our own laws are hypocritical.

got me?

I agree, but next time leave Babylon out of it because even non-Christians know a few bible stories too.

<!--QuoteBegin-busyman

I be back answer your "other" question.[/quote]

I look forward to it. It is a bit of a difficult position for you though isnt it? Because deep down I think you know that you could not choose to be gay anymore than you could choose to be a hippo

[Wizard_Mon1]

Busyman, i think that free will has to many religious connotations, rather i would say that what choices you make depend on alot of factors e.g. upbringing, past experience, situation/environment and view (outlook e.g. religious). These then are a series of built habits that shape your reactions to outside stimuli. Your body stores this information e.g. body posture <(this is theory from chinese medicine)>. Your body posture is interconnected with your mental process, one affects the other and vice versa. So in this way all your&#39;e feelings from past experiences, and emotional reactions to them (e.g. abuse), have a direct influence on your actions.

I am not dismissing that your hormones also have an on your behavior, i am just saying there are more important factors that affect choice. In saying that "Any timing or hormone receptor problem may cause the brain or the genitalia to not form as intended" you are implying that these malformations are a characteristic of being gay, but really the percentage of the gay population with this problem is a small one, not the majority. During puberty hormone levels are particularly high but your reactions to the strong increase of hormonal activity will depend on your upbring, past experience e.t.c.

If someone is in an environment that is dangerous for them they can&#39;t deny there personal mental patterns formed through past experience.


Thanks guys for the thread, it has been engaging. Two bits especially made me laugh.

Hobbes: As for your Freudian comments, it is true that an abused child may lack self confidence due to being called "stupid" and lack trust in others, but I can&#39;t see how this would lead him to want to get buggered.

and

Homocol

Cure your homosexual urges
Love women
Have a "normal" family by having sex "naturally"

/me has weird sense of humour.

[hobbes]

Part 1:

Perhaps we can view "homosexuality" as a genetic predisposition. In some people this switch is thrown, in others it is not. This is called the "penetrance" of a condition.

I will use schizophrenia as an example. It is obvious that no one would logically chose to be insane vs sane. Children born of schizophrenic parents have a greatly increased risk of becoming schizophrenic, but they certainly don&#39;t all become crazy.

Some children are schizophrenic from the start (hardwired), but most only manifest the disease in their late teens. Typically during their first semester at college, when the teen is away from friends and family and under stress. Some combination of genetic predisposition and the effects of stress hormones on the brain seems to trigger a gene which had previously been silent. The teen then manifests his disease and no drug to date has been able to fix this problem.

So a combination of genetic predisposition and environmental conditions has lead to the manifestation of the disease. At no time was "free will" involved.

The above was a "classic case", and truthfully no one is sure of all the variables involved.

[hobbes]

Part 2


From another view, let us go back to Jaime Lee Curtis.

She is a genetic male that looks completely female. However, she has a blind ending vagina, no uterus or ovaries and a pair of testicles. This is because the hormone receptors that were supposed to orchestrate the male characteristics did not function, they could not bind the hormone. Hence she developed as a female.

Nobody has any problem understanding that due to a genetic condition a gonadal male developed into a female. Nobody is talking about "free will".

Let us then consider something that is not so obvious, the maturing brain.

As a simplified example let us assume that a receptor in the brain is defective and does not respond to its target hormone. Although physically not visible, the brain is developing in a way which will lead to normal male behavior, and just like Jamie Lee&#39;s external genitalia (breasts, blind ending vagina) the brain in the affected individual cannot mature properly as a male and develops as a female, and therefore has female sexuality. So why is it so obvious that physical characteristics are not "free will", yet any mental variance from the norm is considered an act of "free will". Just because you can&#39;t see the developing brain, does not make its sexual development any less real than breasts or a vagina.



As you know, people get half of their genes from each parent. If Mom has a defective receptor and Dad has a defective receptor, the brain cannot develop normally as a male and you will be gay(hardwired). If both parents have working receptors then you will be a heterosexual (hardwired).

Then we get to the grey zone of one working gene or 2 partially working genes, or 1 totally defective and 1 partially working. Add to this the fact that it is probably a combination of many genes, rather than 1 and you see how we can get a full spectrum of people from totally gay, to bisexual, to totally heterosexual.

The heterosexual or working genes are preserved because these are the people that can reproduce. The defective genes are those passed as traits, most likely by gays pretending to be straight and marrying.

So for the grey zone people, they come out in limbo, and this is where environmental and emotional experiences can push people in one direction or another. I have no idea what exactly all of the variables are, but I am sure it is quite complex, not simply seeing a picture of a nude man or woman.

So a pereson becoming gay doesn&#39;t just happen like being struck by lightening, it is a combination of society,personal experiences and emotions influencing a genetic predisposition and not a matter of free will.

[hobbes]

Part 3

Free will

Let us go back to the statement that God considers it a sin to be have same sex relations (buggering).

Free will would be getting buggered by a guy simply for physical release because you are in between girlfriends or incarcerated. You are not aroused by your partner, they are just a means to an end. No kissing, no cuddling, no afterglow, just wham, bam, done. An example of this can be found in Billy Deans thread about prison in Morrocco.

That would be free will violation of Gods&#39; decree.

[Rat Faced]

Jamie Lee Curtis is a guy....... :&#39;( :&#39;( :&#39;(

[Wizard_Mon1]

I agree it is a combination of both naure and nurture, but one thing.

As you know, people get half of their genes from each parent. If Mom has a defective receptor and Dad has a defective receptor, the brain cannot develop normally as a male and you will be gay(hardwired). If both parents have working receptors then you will be a heterosexual (hardwired).

How so, you are saying there is a gay gene... if a parent passes a trait to there child it is through there genes... the gene carring the defective receptor information.... Is it reccesive? Can you also explain how having a defective recptor in your brain can make you gay?