Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, May 3, 2011
Homo "How many gay people must God create before we accept that he wants them around?"
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, May 3, 2011 at 8:47 AM
A Democratic lawmaker in Minnesota speaks out against a GOP-backed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. It's required viewing:
Via JMG.
2
Amazing. That guy said what every lawmaker on the side of reason and intelligence should have been saying all along. Smart politicians should study this speech and repeat it verbatim.
3
I love his website's recitation of his unambiguous stances:
I am pro-choice.Thanks for linking to this. Fantastic phrasemaker, and definitely one to watch.
I will not support any change in the State constitution to prevent same-sex couples from marrying. The proposed amendment is an unnecessary and hopelessly vague distraction. I spoke out against the measure on the House floor.
I do not believe that we currently need the death penalty in Minnesota.
I oppose the so-called “Terry Schiavo” legislation that would second-guess family decisions about end-of-life care for loved ones.
6
Ahhh, what is this sudden, surprising burst of fresh air blowing through my hair? Could it be an...articulate legislator?
Plan A. Let's have him stuffed and mounted and placed on display in the rotunda.
Plan B. Go and do likewise?
Plan A. Let's have him stuffed and mounted and placed on display in the rotunda.
Plan B. Go and do likewise?
7
Speech aside, I don't like this argument. I also don't like the "born this way" argument. Couldn't one use the same argument for sociopaths and pedophiles? I believe most of them were "born that way" just as they were also created by God. I'm an atheist but if I believed in God, I would assume they were created by Him.
The huge difference being of course that there are no negative consequences to society of my being gay whereas there would be negative consequences to society if I were a murderous sociopath.
Which is why the whole "is it a choice" argument is complete BS because even if it were a choice, which it is not, it causes no hardship on others so it doesn't matter whether one "chooses" to engage in it. Do you hear people arguing about whether liking onions is a choice or not? No, because it doesn't matter. Now if only I could get people to realize that my liking onions has about as much of a negative effect on society as my liking pussy... none.
The huge difference being of course that there are no negative consequences to society of my being gay whereas there would be negative consequences to society if I were a murderous sociopath.
Which is why the whole "is it a choice" argument is complete BS because even if it were a choice, which it is not, it causes no hardship on others so it doesn't matter whether one "chooses" to engage in it. Do you hear people arguing about whether liking onions is a choice or not? No, because it doesn't matter. Now if only I could get people to realize that my liking onions has about as much of a negative effect on society as my liking pussy... none.
8
@4, sorry - Joe My God did give Simon full credit in his blurb Dan linked to:
MINNESOTA: Democrat Slams Haters On Proposed Constitutional Marriage Ban
JMG reader Brian tips us to the below clip of yesterday's Minnesota hearing on the proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, where state Rep. Steve Simon (D) asked: "How many gay people must God create before we accept that he wants them around?" The bill advanced anyway along party lines. Watch Simon's commentary below.
MINNESOTA: Democrat Slams Haters On Proposed Constitutional Marriage Ban
JMG reader Brian tips us to the below clip of yesterday's Minnesota hearing on the proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, where state Rep. Steve Simon (D) asked: "How many gay people must God create before we accept that he wants them around?" The bill advanced anyway along party lines. Watch Simon's commentary below.
9
Seattleblues would say that some people have a biological predisposition to alcoholism or anorexia but we still don't encourage those behaviors. Scientific evidence that sexual orientation is not chosen and can't be changed doesn't completely settle the argument.
10
Oh Dan, clearly God created gay people so the Good Christians/Real Americans would have someone to oppress/beat-up/murder/etc., like brown people, or oxen.
And here's one of my favorite meta-jokes: How many gay men does it take to screw in a light bulb? One.
And here's one of my favorite meta-jokes: How many gay men does it take to screw in a light bulb? One.
11
@9: we should always tend towards acceptance. in the case of pedophilia, bestiality, etc., there is a clear argument that can be made that those behaviors are actively harmful. People who have some characteristic that departs from the norm should not have to prove that they deserve civil rights--the burden of proof must rest with those seeking to deny them civil rights. and I see no proof whatsoever from that side.
12
It makes me so angry that so much of this content, which was certainly captioned on regular broadcast, almost never retains the captions when put online. I would love to know exactly what he is saying.
Interestingly, the minnesota website http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members… has an accessibility button which goes on to list how blind/low vision people can alter the website's appearance to mesh better with their devices; deaf people are told about the accommodations made for them AT THE CAPITOL. Nothing about the website itself, which contains a number of podcasts by the various minnesotan politics.
I swear.
*sorry, not to derail, it just dismays me how often i butt up against a wall when trying to track down transcripts and the like for myself*
Interestingly, the minnesota website http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members… has an accessibility button which goes on to list how blind/low vision people can alter the website's appearance to mesh better with their devices; deaf people are told about the accommodations made for them AT THE CAPITOL. Nothing about the website itself, which contains a number of podcasts by the various minnesotan politics.
I swear.
*sorry, not to derail, it just dismays me how often i butt up against a wall when trying to track down transcripts and the like for myself*
13
So this guy believes that sexual orientation is a gift from God, and thus we have to recognize homosexual marriage?
Because we have to change our laws and institutions to conform to this guys religious views?
Because what this guy's God tells him must become our law?
Lucky for us in America we have freedom of religion and don't have to believe whatever Bullshit this guy chooses to believe.....
Because we have to change our laws and institutions to conform to this guys religious views?
Because what this guy's God tells him must become our law?
Lucky for us in America we have freedom of religion and don't have to believe whatever Bullshit this guy chooses to believe.....
14
Poor Danny, so totally lacking in self awareness...
"We have to be careful about trying to enshrine our beliefs, however religiously valid we may believe them to be, in the Minn Constitution...."
Good so far...
But then the fellow tells us that HE Believes homosexuality is a Gift from God.
And that we must square the law to affirm HIS Beliefs.
ok.........
"We have to be careful about trying to enshrine our beliefs, however religiously valid we may believe them to be, in the Minn Constitution...."
Good so far...
But then the fellow tells us that HE Believes homosexuality is a Gift from God.
And that we must square the law to affirm HIS Beliefs.
ok.........
16
If there were a state of being of 'homosexual';
and if it was innate;
it would be a genetic defect
that renders those afflicted with it unable to reproduce.
But if that were all true
no doubt Scientists could come up with a cure......
and if it was innate;
it would be a genetic defect
that renders those afflicted with it unable to reproduce.
But if that were all true
no doubt Scientists could come up with a cure......
17
This argument will never work on right-wingers anyway. They think that sex and sexuality are in all cases dirty and bad. This is why marriage is okay, but marriage is not the same as sex. Marriage RESTRICTS sex. Anything that reminds these fucking antiquated puritans that sex happens - and that sex is GOOD - is going to provoke a negative reaction. That's why they rail against Planned Parenthood (because the want to scare responsible people out of having sex), that's why they clamor for abstinence-only education despite it demonstrably increasing STIs and pregnancy rates, and that's why they are so opposed to homosexuality in general. It's a symptom of their opposition to ALL SEXUALITY EVERYWHERE.
So it's a nice thought: twist their bullshit rhetoric back into their faces. But as the ongoing birther nonsense has proven, you cannot win an argument with them because they are not arguing what they say they're arguing. They're arguing something much deeper-seated and unpleasant. They're arguing that THOSE PEOPLE (black people, gay people, liberals, etc) are NOT REALLY PEOPLE. Until we can convince them of that self-evident fact, there is nothing we can say that won't be met with all kinds of dissembling foolishness.
The worst part for their nearly nonexistent sense of empathy is that homosexuality combines their two biggest fears: THOSE people have SEX. We have a twofold barrier to climb here: we need to somehow convince them that sex is a positive thing, and we need to convince them that gay people are people. Nothing short of waiting a couple generations for these fucktards to die out and their slightly less bigoted progeny to come of age is going to alter that level of insane myopia.
So it's a nice thought: twist their bullshit rhetoric back into their faces. But as the ongoing birther nonsense has proven, you cannot win an argument with them because they are not arguing what they say they're arguing. They're arguing something much deeper-seated and unpleasant. They're arguing that THOSE PEOPLE (black people, gay people, liberals, etc) are NOT REALLY PEOPLE. Until we can convince them of that self-evident fact, there is nothing we can say that won't be met with all kinds of dissembling foolishness.
The worst part for their nearly nonexistent sense of empathy is that homosexuality combines their two biggest fears: THOSE people have SEX. We have a twofold barrier to climb here: we need to somehow convince them that sex is a positive thing, and we need to convince them that gay people are people. Nothing short of waiting a couple generations for these fucktards to die out and their slightly less bigoted progeny to come of age is going to alter that level of insane myopia.
19
@ 13 - Freedom of religion also means that you don't have to suffer from laws based on religious beliefs.
You may keep on calling me "ritardo" all you want, but your IQ is so low you don't even deserve to be called "human".
You're the proof that god doesn't exist, as he surely wouldn't make such a huge mistake.
But whatever. You believe in hell? Read the fucking new testament. You'll be roasting in hell forever for your lack of christian values.
You may keep on calling me "ritardo" all you want, but your IQ is so low you don't even deserve to be called "human".
You're the proof that god doesn't exist, as he surely wouldn't make such a huge mistake.
But whatever. You believe in hell? Read the fucking new testament. You'll be roasting in hell forever for your lack of christian values.
21
@20
And you don't seem very smart.
Would you like a clue?*
*but it'd just be like teaching a donkey to sing. you'll only succeed in irritating the donkey.
And you don't seem very smart.
Would you like a clue?*
*but it'd just be like teaching a donkey to sing. you'll only succeed in irritating the donkey.
24
now now...
You girls shouldn't take it so personally when Americans object to you trying to write your religious beliefs into their laws....
You girls shouldn't take it so personally when Americans object to you trying to write your religious beliefs into their laws....
25
@ 24 Just proved my point: logical thinking IS beyond the troll's reach.
No wonder it repeated the same line about polygamy for two weeks: that's the only thought its brain managed to process during all that time.
No wonder it repeated the same line about polygamy for two weeks: that's the only thought its brain managed to process during all that time.
26
Hey 13, 14 and 16- if being gay is a choice then being straight is a choice. When did you choose to not suck co@k? Also, the politician from MN is not advocating the constitution to be changed to suit his beliefs he is advocating NOT touching the constitution and leave it as it is so that others will not be denied equal rights. It is the bible molesters who are trying to change the constitution to suit their beliefs.
Often, as in the instance of the abolishment of slavery- what is morally right is not what is biblically right. And just in case you don’t know your own bible- and it sounds like you don’t , the bible advocates the keeping of slaves and even gives instructions on how to pass them on to your descendents… The 14th amendment transcends biblically sanctioned anti-human rights by standing by its Declaration of Independence- that all men are created equal… And even gives the provisions that all American’s have a right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"…
Oh, and fu%k you….
Often, as in the instance of the abolishment of slavery- what is morally right is not what is biblically right. And just in case you don’t know your own bible- and it sounds like you don’t , the bible advocates the keeping of slaves and even gives instructions on how to pass them on to your descendents… The 14th amendment transcends biblically sanctioned anti-human rights by standing by its Declaration of Independence- that all men are created equal… And even gives the provisions that all American’s have a right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"…
Oh, and fu%k you….
27
25
You don't find it odd that Danny won't share his position on polygamy!?
Really?
Perhaps some folks just aren't intellectually curious....
You don't find it odd that Danny won't share his position on polygamy!?
Really?
Perhaps some folks just aren't intellectually curious....
28
@12 BEG
Here's the text, they should really get some transcripts and such for deaf people. I didn't realize they were so behind the times.
Rep. Steve Simon (D):
"We have to be careful about trying to enshrine our beliefs, however religiously valid we may believe th...them to be, in the Minnesota constitution. And what I'm hearing today, and what I heard on Friday, was largely a religious justification for change in the Minnesota constitution. I don't think that's right, I don't think it's fair, I think it departs from our tradition.
The other thing, which I know makes some people squirm, but I think we have to discuss it, both during an election campaign, but here in the legislature too... is how much of homosexuality is nature, versus nurture. Is this something you learn or acquire, or is this something you are born with? Is this just another lifestyle choice like skateboarding or gardening, or is this something that's innate with the human being.
And, I...I want to take a page from what I heard last Friday in the senate testimony, there was a member of the clergy, I...forgive me I can't remember his name, and he said 'you know what? Sexuality and sexual orientation are a gift from God.' And I think that's true. And I think the scientific evidence show more and more, everyday, that sexuality and sexual orientation are innate, and something that people are born with. And I would ask everyone on this committee, not today, not tomorrow, not next week, not even this year, but in a moment...uhh.. when you can be alone with your own thoughts, to ask yourself: 'if that's true, if it's even possibly true, what does that mean for the moral force of your argument?' Just ask yourself. Not now, in the glare of the capitol, or in caucuses and interest groups, but ask yourself: 'if it's true, that sexual orientation is innate, God-given, then what does it mean to the moral force of your argument?' And I guess that, to put it in the vernacular, what I would ask is: how many more gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not God actually wants them around? [Pauses for applause] [Other senate member asks the crowd to "please keep applause to yourselves"]
How many gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether the living of their lives the way they wish, as long as they don't harm others, is a Godly and holy and happy and glorious thing? I've answered that for myself, I don't think everyone has answered that for themselves, necessarily, in this room. But I'm comfortable with a society and a s...uh.. tradition that... that bends towards justice and fairness and wholeness and openness and compassion, and I do think, as others have said before me, more eloquently, that that's where the arch of history is bending as well.
And I truly believe that in a generation, maybe not even a generation, but certainly many generations from now: if we pass this, if we put it on the ballot, if this becomes part of our constitution, history will judge us all very, very harshly. And I think, that the people who vote for this, today and in the future, umm... will have a...w...will, although their children and grandchildren can, and should be, very proud of them for service to the state of Minnesota, will on this issue, not be so proud. And there may even be some justifiable shame there as well. And I think that's something we all have to... to think about and justify in our own consciences. So I strongly urge a 'no' vote. "
More...
Here's the text, they should really get some transcripts and such for deaf people. I didn't realize they were so behind the times.
Rep. Steve Simon (D):
"We have to be careful about trying to enshrine our beliefs, however religiously valid we may believe th...them to be, in the Minnesota constitution. And what I'm hearing today, and what I heard on Friday, was largely a religious justification for change in the Minnesota constitution. I don't think that's right, I don't think it's fair, I think it departs from our tradition.
The other thing, which I know makes some people squirm, but I think we have to discuss it, both during an election campaign, but here in the legislature too... is how much of homosexuality is nature, versus nurture. Is this something you learn or acquire, or is this something you are born with? Is this just another lifestyle choice like skateboarding or gardening, or is this something that's innate with the human being.
And, I...I want to take a page from what I heard last Friday in the senate testimony, there was a member of the clergy, I...forgive me I can't remember his name, and he said 'you know what? Sexuality and sexual orientation are a gift from God.' And I think that's true. And I think the scientific evidence show more and more, everyday, that sexuality and sexual orientation are innate, and something that people are born with. And I would ask everyone on this committee, not today, not tomorrow, not next week, not even this year, but in a moment...uhh.. when you can be alone with your own thoughts, to ask yourself: 'if that's true, if it's even possibly true, what does that mean for the moral force of your argument?' Just ask yourself. Not now, in the glare of the capitol, or in caucuses and interest groups, but ask yourself: 'if it's true, that sexual orientation is innate, God-given, then what does it mean to the moral force of your argument?' And I guess that, to put it in the vernacular, what I would ask is: how many more gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not God actually wants them around? [Pauses for applause] [Other senate member asks the crowd to "please keep applause to yourselves"]
How many gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether the living of their lives the way they wish, as long as they don't harm others, is a Godly and holy and happy and glorious thing? I've answered that for myself, I don't think everyone has answered that for themselves, necessarily, in this room. But I'm comfortable with a society and a s...uh.. tradition that... that bends towards justice and fairness and wholeness and openness and compassion, and I do think, as others have said before me, more eloquently, that that's where the arch of history is bending as well.
And I truly believe that in a generation, maybe not even a generation, but certainly many generations from now: if we pass this, if we put it on the ballot, if this becomes part of our constitution, history will judge us all very, very harshly. And I think, that the people who vote for this, today and in the future, umm... will have a...w...will, although their children and grandchildren can, and should be, very proud of them for service to the state of Minnesota, will on this issue, not be so proud. And there may even be some justifiable shame there as well. And I think that's something we all have to... to think about and justify in our own consciences. So I strongly urge a 'no' vote. "
29
@24
A smug & superior attitude is no substitute for reason & logic. You have only demonstrated to former, and none of the latter.
The only argument against full civil rights for gays & lesbians is completely religious in nature. The arguments for it are mostly secular, but also include religious morality as well.
(Oh, hell, I just tried to teach a donkey to sing. What a waste of time.)
A smug & superior attitude is no substitute for reason & logic. You have only demonstrated to former, and none of the latter.
The only argument against full civil rights for gays & lesbians is completely religious in nature. The arguments for it are mostly secular, but also include religious morality as well.
(Oh, hell, I just tried to teach a donkey to sing. What a waste of time.)
30
8 let us help...
(Cum hear the Secular Humanist Gospel preached by someone who knows what GOD wants for Gaymerica!!)
hallejujah!!
Rep. Steve Simon (D):
"We have to be careful about trying to enshrine our beliefs, however religiously valid we may believe th...them to be, in the Minnesota constitution. And what I'm hearing today, and what I heard on Friday, was largely a religious justification for change in the Minnesota constitution. I don't think that's right, I don't think it's fair, I think it departs from our tradition.
The other thing, which I know makes some people squirm, but I think we have to discuss it, both during an election campaign, but here in the legislature too... is how much of homosexuality is nature, versus nurture. Is this something you learn or acquire, or is this something you are born with? Is this just another lifestyle choice like skateboarding or gardening, or is this something that's innate with the human being.
And, I...I want to take a page from what I heard last Friday in the senate testimony, there was a member of the clergy, I...forgive me I can't remember his name, and he said 'you know what? Sexuality and sexual orientation are a gift from GOD.' And I think that's true. And I think the scientific evidence show more and more, everyday, that sexuality and sexual orientation are innate, and something that people are born with. And I would ask everyone on this committee, not today, not tomorrow, not next week, not even this year, but in a moment...uhh.. when you can be alone with your own thoughts, to ask yourself: 'if that's true, if it's even possibly true, what does that mean for the moral force of your argument?' Just ask yourself. Not now, in the glare of the capitol, or in caucuses and interest groups, but ask yourself: 'if it's true, that sexual orientation is innate, GOD-given, then what does it mean to the moral force of your argument?' And I guess that, to put it in the vernacular, what I would ask is: how many more gay people does GOD have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not GOD actually wants them around? [Pauses for applause] [Other senate member asks the crowd to "please keep applause to yourselves"]
How many gay people does GOD have to create before we ask ourselves whether the living of their lives the way they wish, as long as they don't harm others, is a GODLY and holy and happy and glorious thing? I've answered that for myself, I don't think everyone has answered that for themselves, necessarily, in this room. But I'm comfortable with a society and a s...uh.. tradition that... that bends towards justice and fairness and wholeness and openness and compassion, and I do think, as others have said before me, more eloquently, that that's where the arch of history is bending as well.
And I truly believe that in a generation, maybe not even a generation, but certainly many generations from now: if we pass this, if we put it on the ballot, if this becomes part of our constitution, history will judge us all very, very harshly. And I think, that the people who vote for this, today and in the future, umm... will have a...w...will, although their children and grandchildren can, and should be, very proud of them for service to the state of Minnesota, will on this issue, not be so proud. And there may even be some justifiable shame there as well. And I think that's something we all have to... to think about and justify in our own consciences. So I strongly urge a 'no' vote. "
More...
(Cum hear the Secular Humanist Gospel preached by someone who knows what GOD wants for Gaymerica!!)
hallejujah!!
Rep. Steve Simon (D):
"We have to be careful about trying to enshrine our beliefs, however religiously valid we may believe th...them to be, in the Minnesota constitution. And what I'm hearing today, and what I heard on Friday, was largely a religious justification for change in the Minnesota constitution. I don't think that's right, I don't think it's fair, I think it departs from our tradition.
The other thing, which I know makes some people squirm, but I think we have to discuss it, both during an election campaign, but here in the legislature too... is how much of homosexuality is nature, versus nurture. Is this something you learn or acquire, or is this something you are born with? Is this just another lifestyle choice like skateboarding or gardening, or is this something that's innate with the human being.
And, I...I want to take a page from what I heard last Friday in the senate testimony, there was a member of the clergy, I...forgive me I can't remember his name, and he said 'you know what? Sexuality and sexual orientation are a gift from GOD.' And I think that's true. And I think the scientific evidence show more and more, everyday, that sexuality and sexual orientation are innate, and something that people are born with. And I would ask everyone on this committee, not today, not tomorrow, not next week, not even this year, but in a moment...uhh.. when you can be alone with your own thoughts, to ask yourself: 'if that's true, if it's even possibly true, what does that mean for the moral force of your argument?' Just ask yourself. Not now, in the glare of the capitol, or in caucuses and interest groups, but ask yourself: 'if it's true, that sexual orientation is innate, GOD-given, then what does it mean to the moral force of your argument?' And I guess that, to put it in the vernacular, what I would ask is: how many more gay people does GOD have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not GOD actually wants them around? [Pauses for applause] [Other senate member asks the crowd to "please keep applause to yourselves"]
How many gay people does GOD have to create before we ask ourselves whether the living of their lives the way they wish, as long as they don't harm others, is a GODLY and holy and happy and glorious thing? I've answered that for myself, I don't think everyone has answered that for themselves, necessarily, in this room. But I'm comfortable with a society and a s...uh.. tradition that... that bends towards justice and fairness and wholeness and openness and compassion, and I do think, as others have said before me, more eloquently, that that's where the arch of history is bending as well.
And I truly believe that in a generation, maybe not even a generation, but certainly many generations from now: if we pass this, if we put it on the ballot, if this becomes part of our constitution, history will judge us all very, very harshly. And I think, that the people who vote for this, today and in the future, umm... will have a...w...will, although their children and grandchildren can, and should be, very proud of them for service to the state of Minnesota, will on this issue, not be so proud. And there may even be some justifiable shame there as well. And I think that's something we all have to... to think about and justify in our own consciences. So I strongly urge a 'no' vote. "
31
29
Actually there are compelling public health and social reasons an enlightened society should not subsidize and foster homosexuality.
Actually there are compelling public health and social reasons an enlightened society should not subsidize and foster homosexuality.
32
@ 31 There are also compelling public health and social reasons to allow 100th term abortions in an enlightened society: you, you and you.
33
@31 Actually there are compelling public health and social reasons an enlightened society should not subsidize and foster HETEROsexuality...
It works both ways A-hole. Bad people who ruin it for everyone else come both in straight AND gay flavors... See, I can play your game too.
It works both ways A-hole. Bad people who ruin it for everyone else come both in straight AND gay flavors... See, I can play your game too.
34
31
There are compelling health reasons to stop sex outside of commited relationships. Doesn't matter if it's homo or hetero.
Logic fail.
There are compelling health reasons to stop sex outside of commited relationships. Doesn't matter if it's homo or hetero.
Logic fail.
35
@ 34 But if it weren't for "logic fails", the period troll wouldn't be writing anything at all...
36
The whole "God made people Gay so you should accept them" argument bothers me. What does it matter if God made them that way, or God gave them the free will to love whomever they choose.
It seems like some sort of bullshit bigotry loophole to me.
It seems like some sort of bullshit bigotry loophole to me.
38
@13
So, would you think the laws we used to have in the US that prevented African Americans from marrying Caucasians to be perfectly reasonable laws? Because we did have them.
I think it's not the government's business to veto who people want to marry. The End.
So, would you think the laws we used to have in the US that prevented African Americans from marrying Caucasians to be perfectly reasonable laws? Because we did have them.
I think it's not the government's business to veto who people want to marry. The End.
39
@36 Substitute "nature" for "god" and it makes a lot more sense, except that feeble minds need to believe in a bearded white guy up above making all the decisions.
41
36
What 39 said. This lawmaker is asking people who base their bigotry on what they think God wants to reconcile that with the fact that God created gays.
What 39 said. This lawmaker is asking people who base their bigotry on what they think God wants to reconcile that with the fact that God created gays.
42
@ 37 But if Dan should ever answer, you can count on the troll to reply with something illogical.
I mean, do you seriously think the troll came up with that question all by himself? I'm quite convinced he copied it and everything he said about it from somewhere else. It doesn't fit his level of rhetoric at all.
I mean, do you seriously think the troll came up with that question all by himself? I'm quite convinced he copied it and everything he said about it from somewhere else. It doesn't fit his level of rhetoric at all.
43
This is for the troll. He's not basing his opinion on religion but on fact. The fact is that all available, credible research shows that homosexuality is a naturally occurring. Research also shows that gay people are not mentally ill. Research also shows that gay people make good parents. The more research they do, the more it is affirmed that there's nothing wrong with being gay.
The main antagonism to equal rights for gays is religiously based. That's why he refers to religion. He's asking people to look in their hearts and sincerely ask themselves if they think gay people are hated by God.
But the reason most people are for gay marriage has nothing to do with religion. It's the next (and last) logical step for gay rights since most people in this country have seen that being gay is actually okay.
The main antagonism to equal rights for gays is religiously based. That's why he refers to religion. He's asking people to look in their hearts and sincerely ask themselves if they think gay people are hated by God.
But the reason most people are for gay marriage has nothing to do with religion. It's the next (and last) logical step for gay rights since most people in this country have seen that being gay is actually okay.
44
Zombie-Fieghter and, er, period troll, thank you very much for the transcript! It's a lovely speech (pity the haters won't listen to it anyway).
It really doesn't matter whether it's "god" given or a choice. We've established precedent either way for honoring either. Race is "god" given, religion is a choice. Both are protected. So there's no reason not to protect sexual orientation: both arguments are covered.
And yeah, laws covering accessibility on the Internet were only updated earlier this year and it's woefully behind more "traditional" media. It's beyond infuriating (one of the things I loved about the internet in the late 80's & 90's was how completely accessible it was for me -- in the days before video & audio clips...). Ah well. Thank you again for the transcripts! This lets me post it on my site too :)
It really doesn't matter whether it's "god" given or a choice. We've established precedent either way for honoring either. Race is "god" given, religion is a choice. Both are protected. So there's no reason not to protect sexual orientation: both arguments are covered.
And yeah, laws covering accessibility on the Internet were only updated earlier this year and it's woefully behind more "traditional" media. It's beyond infuriating (one of the things I loved about the internet in the late 80's & 90's was how completely accessible it was for me -- in the days before video & audio clips...). Ah well. Thank you again for the transcripts! This lets me post it on my site too :)
46
@30: Oh I see! You and Rep Simon are in complete agreement! You, as an American "object to people trying to write their religious beliefs into your laws" and so does Rep. Simon..
Seriously. Tampon. My dear.
You copied and pasted the entire transcript without catching the fact that Rep Simon is arguing against changing their state constitution by enshrining religious beliefs into it?
Ooohh that's right, I forgot! You've got Mad Cow.
Seriously. Tampon. My dear.
You copied and pasted the entire transcript without catching the fact that Rep Simon is arguing against changing their state constitution by enshrining religious beliefs into it?
Ooohh that's right, I forgot! You've got Mad Cow.
47
You're assuming that in opposing people who want to write their religious beliefs into the Minnesota constitution, he's trying to write HIS OWN beliefs into the constitution. Why?
He's a POLITICIAN, for fuck's sake, and one who's on our side. He will use any rhetorical tools he's got to persuade, and if invoking God is one he'll use it, regardless of his private beliefs.
It's like the Declaration of Independence, which is basically a sales pitch for the new United States of America. Its goal is to persuade, and if referring to "nature" and "nature's God" (a very Deist phrase, BTW) will help, then so be it. The Constitution, however, is basically the user's manual for the USA, and God has no place in it.
Cut the guy some slack. He is on the side of the angels. (And I'm an atheist. See what I mean about rhetoric?)
He's a POLITICIAN, for fuck's sake, and one who's on our side. He will use any rhetorical tools he's got to persuade, and if invoking God is one he'll use it, regardless of his private beliefs.
It's like the Declaration of Independence, which is basically a sales pitch for the new United States of America. Its goal is to persuade, and if referring to "nature" and "nature's God" (a very Deist phrase, BTW) will help, then so be it. The Constitution, however, is basically the user's manual for the USA, and God has no place in it.
Cut the guy some slack. He is on the side of the angels. (And I'm an atheist. See what I mean about rhetoric?)
48
Thanks for the transcript, Zombie-Fighter @ 28. My internet access is mute, so online I'm in the same boat as BEG. 'Preciate it.
49
@ 47 Everyone here except the period troll agrees with you, and the troll most definitely is NOT on our side.
50
@ 47 He's also about as bright as a small appliance bulb, so we can't ask too much of him. See, he stopped answering once he'd repeated all of his usual stock of arguments.
51
Sorry kids.
Your hero states that he thinks homosexuality is "a gift from GOD".
And that if GOD made the gay then who are we to argue with it?
"How many gay people does GOD have to create before we ask ourselves whether the living of their lives the way they wish is a GODLY and holy thing"
Your boy claims that GOD is on his side and we all better fall in line with his GOD...
Your boy is no different from Osama and his ilk- claiming to speak for GOD and claiming to know what GOD wants us to do.
As we said before, America passes......
Your hero states that he thinks homosexuality is "a gift from GOD".
And that if GOD made the gay then who are we to argue with it?
"How many gay people does GOD have to create before we ask ourselves whether the living of their lives the way they wish is a GODLY and holy thing"
Your boy claims that GOD is on his side and we all better fall in line with his GOD...
Your boy is no different from Osama and his ilk- claiming to speak for GOD and claiming to know what GOD wants us to do.
As we said before, America passes......
53
Who is "." and why is he/she trolling with such vigor? Does a minimal command of invective, logical fallacy, and rhetorical sneakery really mean anything when preaching to this crowd, aside from some masochistic joy in being reviled? And most importantly, are there enough donuts for everyone?
54
@ 51 - You don't even know what words mean. He says he THINKS that's true; he doesn't say "that's true". This means that he is only stating his opinion, not trying to impose it.
As far as I know, as an American, he's got the right to do that, doesn't he? It's the imposition of religious-based opinions, like what you're trying to do, that he's against.
Once again, you prove my point (see 50).
How many millions of people will need to tell you that you're extremely stupid before you actually get it?
As far as I know, as an American, he's got the right to do that, doesn't he? It's the imposition of religious-based opinions, like what you're trying to do, that he's against.
Once again, you prove my point (see 50).
How many millions of people will need to tell you that you're extremely stupid before you actually get it?
55
You know, for the past couple weeks I was impressed with the period troll's lack of restraint. He would post one dumbass comment per post, and that was that. Now that restraint has gone out the window. I would guess this guy's exuberance is gonna flag in a couple more weeks...
...that is, if the rest of you just leave him alone. Where's the restraint the commentariat showed over the past couple weeks? Honestly, if you engage with him you're just as responsible for his shenanigans as he is. The guy's an obsessive compulsive; leave him alone and he'll whither on the vine.
In other news, big ups to Mr. Simon for knocking this one out of park.
...that is, if the rest of you just leave him alone. Where's the restraint the commentariat showed over the past couple weeks? Honestly, if you engage with him you're just as responsible for his shenanigans as he is. The guy's an obsessive compulsive; leave him alone and he'll whither on the vine.
In other news, big ups to Mr. Simon for knocking this one out of park.
56
Wait, is the Period Troll actually pulling a trick on us? Secretly, he's repeating flawed and uninspired arguments just to encourage active, well-thought out argumentation against the ill-defined, poorly developed positions he seems to be taking!
57
@ 55 As I've stated quite a few times before, don't take this too seriously, it's just for the fun of it. (As in: "Angry at your boss? Take it out on the period troll! He's so dumb he won't realize he's being played!")
59
Dear . (dot, period?)
You insert activity into the motives of persons who disagree with you. Foster, subsidize, writing beliefs into laws, and other phrases to similar effect. Your interpretation is wrong. We do not want laws written to give us rights, nor do we desire the state to support us in any way differently from any one else.
What we want is for laws to not be passed which take the action of restricting our rights. What we want is to be treated as just any other defective human is treated.
Now, then, . , here's is our question for you: What's Your Name? You're so brave speak out about your beliefs, but without a name, you do not really exist.
My name is Gryphon MacThoy. I live in Seattle, WA. I am a homosexual. And I believe that I *chose* my sexuality. I may or may not have been born this way. But I remember the very moment when I considered the question of what I want from my life, and I actively chose to be a homosexual. Even if sexualiy is a choice, you may not restrict my human rights. You will not restrict my right to be who and what I want to be, as long as I do not cause material harm to other persons or property.
Stand up for your beliefs, ..
You insert activity into the motives of persons who disagree with you. Foster, subsidize, writing beliefs into laws, and other phrases to similar effect. Your interpretation is wrong. We do not want laws written to give us rights, nor do we desire the state to support us in any way differently from any one else.
What we want is for laws to not be passed which take the action of restricting our rights. What we want is to be treated as just any other defective human is treated.
Now, then, . , here's is our question for you: What's Your Name? You're so brave speak out about your beliefs, but without a name, you do not really exist.
My name is Gryphon MacThoy. I live in Seattle, WA. I am a homosexual. And I believe that I *chose* my sexuality. I may or may not have been born this way. But I remember the very moment when I considered the question of what I want from my life, and I actively chose to be a homosexual. Even if sexualiy is a choice, you may not restrict my human rights. You will not restrict my right to be who and what I want to be, as long as I do not cause material harm to other persons or property.
Stand up for your beliefs, ..
60
God didn't create gays. God created men with the free will to make good or bad choices.
Or, if you are an atheist, men are born with the free will to make bad or good choices with no deistic involvement at all.
Some of these we grant protection under the law, like the choice to claim or disavow a religion, or the choice to say stupid things like 'God created gays.' Some choices we don't give such protection since they don't involve basic liberties like expression or the freedom of religion.
As it happens gays have full civil equality. They can't be discriminated against in housing, employment or public accomodation. They have the same protections from violence I have, and more protection from speech they don't happen to like. (That's HATE speech!) They may marry any consenting person of the opposite sex, just as I can. But this isn't something we owe them societally. It's an expression of how dedicated to civil rights we are in this country that we protect even self destructive choices.
Oddly, I missed the finding of the gay gene. Ricardo and Mr. Mehlman seem dead certain science supports the notion of born gay, but forgot to cite where this seminal scientific accomplishment occured. I'm sure it was just an oversight.
Or, if you are an atheist, men are born with the free will to make bad or good choices with no deistic involvement at all.
Some of these we grant protection under the law, like the choice to claim or disavow a religion, or the choice to say stupid things like 'God created gays.' Some choices we don't give such protection since they don't involve basic liberties like expression or the freedom of religion.
As it happens gays have full civil equality. They can't be discriminated against in housing, employment or public accomodation. They have the same protections from violence I have, and more protection from speech they don't happen to like. (That's HATE speech!) They may marry any consenting person of the opposite sex, just as I can. But this isn't something we owe them societally. It's an expression of how dedicated to civil rights we are in this country that we protect even self destructive choices.
Oddly, I missed the finding of the gay gene. Ricardo and Mr. Mehlman seem dead certain science supports the notion of born gay, but forgot to cite where this seminal scientific accomplishment occured. I'm sure it was just an oversight.
61
@ 60, as I've challenged many in your postion before, I want you to please tell us about the time you chose to be attracted only to the opposite sex.
63
@ 60 - So what are you, SB, period troll senior? This thread doesn't really need you by now.
I wasn't even 3 years old when I had my first crush on a man. It's my third memory of life. I don't need any scientific study to figure out I was born this way. Or, as many here have asked you and all those who come up with such lame arguments as you consistently do, when did you choose to be straight? But you won't answer that, will you? Because you can't. In your case, there's no doubt that you were "born this way", as in stupid.
Finally, see my comment @ 39. It's about you.
I wasn't even 3 years old when I had my first crush on a man. It's my third memory of life. I don't need any scientific study to figure out I was born this way. Or, as many here have asked you and all those who come up with such lame arguments as you consistently do, when did you choose to be straight? But you won't answer that, will you? Because you can't. In your case, there's no doubt that you were "born this way", as in stupid.
Finally, see my comment @ 39. It's about you.
64
63
I knew my sexual preference WAY before I knew what sex was too (in my case, girls). That's why I assume SB is bisexual. Because he got to make a choice, we didn't. And that's how I'm refering to him from now on.
I knew my sexual preference WAY before I knew what sex was too (in my case, girls). That's why I assume SB is bisexual. Because he got to make a choice, we didn't. And that's how I'm refering to him from now on.
66
Jeez, I don't think bisexual people get to "make a choice" either :-P I have no control over the fact that I like 'em both. And I have no idea if the next person I fall in love with will be a man or a woman. Those things just happen. And I've seen gay people choose to go right into heterosexual marriages, so "choices" are available to all, even if they totally blow up later.
I just find both aspects -- nature vs. nurture -- to be incredibly pointless.
I just find both aspects -- nature vs. nurture -- to be incredibly pointless.
67
@64
"That's why I assume SB is bisexual. Because he got to make a choice, we didn't. And that's how I'm refering to him from now on."
Whatever floats your boat, Tex.
"That's why I assume SB is bisexual. Because he got to make a choice, we didn't. And that's how I'm refering to him from now on."
Whatever floats your boat, Tex.
68
I know I didn't choose to be hetero. I like girl humans way more than man humans but I am married to a man human. Because I love him and love to fuck him. If I didn't get a choice, I think it's highly likely that most (please note, most) other people didn't get to choose, either. I spent many a night pondering my preferences. Did I REALLY like men, or was that just society and the media telling me what to think??!?!?!!!!?!!?? (Melodramatic teen? Me??? No!) I came to the eventual conclusion that man humans were sexually preferable.
This politician is doing a truly noble thing. He is standing up to his opposition with clear logic and straightforward speech. He uses their god against them. Challenges them to reflect on their so-called morals and then dares them to stand up for them. What an amazing thing! This guy is a great man. We should give him his due. Let's stop getting caught up in petty challenges, as irritating and ill thought out as they are. Let's just be thankful there is a man like this in politics SOMEWHERE.
This politician is doing a truly noble thing. He is standing up to his opposition with clear logic and straightforward speech. He uses their god against them. Challenges them to reflect on their so-called morals and then dares them to stand up for them. What an amazing thing! This guy is a great man. We should give him his due. Let's stop getting caught up in petty challenges, as irritating and ill thought out as they are. Let's just be thankful there is a man like this in politics SOMEWHERE.
69
I look forward to they day when being LBGTQ is as innocuous as being tall or having brown hair. It's going to be a long wait I'm afraid.
70
@ 67, you can't answer my question (61), can you? It's funny, I've yet to meet one person who shares your opinion (that gay is a choice) who can. Do you know why you can't?
71
@39
Yes. Thomas Aquinas is usually considered a feeble minded man. So was Beothius, or Marcus Aurelius. And most people think Isaac Newton was an absolute dunce. Abraham Lincoln with his amazing autodidactic talent with words, what a moron! I mean, all of them believed in God in some form, so they were all stupid, right Ricky?
Yes. Thomas Aquinas is usually considered a feeble minded man. So was Beothius, or Marcus Aurelius. And most people think Isaac Newton was an absolute dunce. Abraham Lincoln with his amazing autodidactic talent with words, what a moron! I mean, all of them believed in God in some form, so they were all stupid, right Ricky?
72
@70
I don't choose sickness, but I can choose to pursue health. My family has a history of heart disease. So I should stop exercising, eat badly and give in to the inevitable heart attack, since that's the predilection I have.
Or not. I make choices about moral or physical failings and those choices determine my character, not the failings themselves.
I never chose to be straight any more than I chose to have 2 arms and 2 legs, or to breathe through mouth and nose. It simply is the natural default position for human beings.
I don't choose sickness, but I can choose to pursue health. My family has a history of heart disease. So I should stop exercising, eat badly and give in to the inevitable heart attack, since that's the predilection I have.
Or not. I make choices about moral or physical failings and those choices determine my character, not the failings themselves.
I never chose to be straight any more than I chose to have 2 arms and 2 legs, or to breathe through mouth and nose. It simply is the natural default position for human beings.
74
@2:
See, that's the entire reason for the existance Exodus Ministries, "being gay is a choice", and a century of trying to cure homosexuality through psychotherapy and drugs.
The fact is, they just don't see it that way.
See, that's the entire reason for the existance Exodus Ministries, "being gay is a choice", and a century of trying to cure homosexuality through psychotherapy and drugs.
The fact is, they just don't see it that way.
75
@ 72, if that's the case, then how do you explain people who are attracted to the same sex? Surely it's not beyond your ability to understand that attraction has to come first. You've never felt it; neither have I.
It's interesting that you brought up having arms and legs and breathing, but that has nothing to do with sexuality. It's a lot more like the color of one's skin or eyes - something that is different from person to person, and just as natural.
You read about the pre-pubescent experiences of @ 63 and @ 64; I can recall my own experience (being incredibly turned on by a picture of a girl in a bikini when I was 6). I'm sure you can recall something similar if you try. If we're all straight, how can Ricardo and Texans have had those experiences?
BTW, you've avoided this question before so I'll ask again - in light of medicine's understanding that homosexuality is not a disease, something I've seen you concede, why do you keep comparing it to one? It doesn't make any sense.
It's interesting that you brought up having arms and legs and breathing, but that has nothing to do with sexuality. It's a lot more like the color of one's skin or eyes - something that is different from person to person, and just as natural.
You read about the pre-pubescent experiences of @ 63 and @ 64; I can recall my own experience (being incredibly turned on by a picture of a girl in a bikini when I was 6). I'm sure you can recall something similar if you try. If we're all straight, how can Ricardo and Texans have had those experiences?
BTW, you've avoided this question before so I'll ask again - in light of medicine's understanding that homosexuality is not a disease, something I've seen you concede, why do you keep comparing it to one? It doesn't make any sense.
76
Oh dear, Seattleblues is now equating himself with the likes of Thomas Aquinas, Isaac Newton and Abraham Lincoln... Proof that we’re dealing with a self-deluded, self aggrandizing nut job....
Seattleblues you have assumed that all gay people don’t believe in God. Like straight people the gheys run the gamut of beliefs- atheist, deist, Christian, Agnostic- you name it…
So tell me Seattleblues- are all those other creatures in the animal kingdom (who apparently willfully ignored their “default” switch) going to go to hell too?
Seattleblues you have assumed that all gay people don’t believe in God. Like straight people the gheys run the gamut of beliefs- atheist, deist, Christian, Agnostic- you name it…
So tell me Seattleblues- are all those other creatures in the animal kingdom (who apparently willfully ignored their “default” switch) going to go to hell too?
77
If the Bible had a rule about shunning the color blue, and everyone followed it for thousands of years, such that the color almost never appeared in art or clothing or architecture, and it was almost universally agreed that liking blue was a sign of moral depravity, would that imply that there was anything inherently wrong with the color blue?
79
@71: Thomas Aquinas and Beothius also believed the world was flat and 6,000 years old.
And they were wrong.
Marcus Aurelius believed in Zeus.
And he was wrong.
Isaac Newton believed he could turn lead into gold.
And he was wrong.
Abraham Lincoln believed leaches and opium were sound medical treatments.
And he was wrong.
They weren't stupid men. They were ignorant of certain facts.
So what then, pray tell, is your excuse ?
Why don't you come to Slog Happy and you can tell me allllllll about it.
And they were wrong.
Marcus Aurelius believed in Zeus.
And he was wrong.
Isaac Newton believed he could turn lead into gold.
And he was wrong.
Abraham Lincoln believed leaches and opium were sound medical treatments.
And he was wrong.
They weren't stupid men. They were ignorant of certain facts.
So what then, pray tell, is your excuse ?
Why don't you come to Slog Happy and you can tell me allllllll about it.
80
In the early days of the Internet, I got into an infuriating argument with a troll not unlike Period Troll. A few days later I found out he was a snickering, pimply 14-year-old boy. I've never argued with a troll since, but I do enjoy imagining what irrelevant asses they are in real life.
81
@52: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dan+savage+polygamy
He talks about why he opposes the legalization of traditional polygamy, and why it is unrelated to the issue of gay marriage, in THE FIRST LINK.
Go fuck yourself.
@60: You seem oddly bent on ignoring the possibility of an innate characteristic that is NOT genetic.
See, there are several characteristics that are determined by environmental factors in the womb, rather than genetics alone. For example, metabolism is partially a product of uterine environment; children born to mothers who ate sparingly during pregnancy develop with stingy metabolisms and are likely to suffer from obesity, while children born to well-fed mothers have faster metabolisms and tend to grow up leaner. Another illustration of this effect comes from crocodiles (as well as many other reptiles), in which gender is not genetic, but rather determined by the temperature at which the egg is incubated.
There is ample evidence that sexuality is determined in the womb by variations in hormonal levels, which cause slight differences to emerge in brain chemistry in certain areas. Deal with it. (Period Hive Drone at #16, take note.)
@79: Leeches and opium actually do have legitimate medical uses. Opium is a painkiller, albeit one that has been supplanted by less addictive and more effective ones, and leeches' saliva contains several extremely useful anticoagulants, while leeches themselves are still preferable for clearing hematomata in some cases.
More...
He talks about why he opposes the legalization of traditional polygamy, and why it is unrelated to the issue of gay marriage, in THE FIRST LINK.
Go fuck yourself.
@60: You seem oddly bent on ignoring the possibility of an innate characteristic that is NOT genetic.
See, there are several characteristics that are determined by environmental factors in the womb, rather than genetics alone. For example, metabolism is partially a product of uterine environment; children born to mothers who ate sparingly during pregnancy develop with stingy metabolisms and are likely to suffer from obesity, while children born to well-fed mothers have faster metabolisms and tend to grow up leaner. Another illustration of this effect comes from crocodiles (as well as many other reptiles), in which gender is not genetic, but rather determined by the temperature at which the egg is incubated.
There is ample evidence that sexuality is determined in the womb by variations in hormonal levels, which cause slight differences to emerge in brain chemistry in certain areas. Deal with it. (Period Hive Drone at #16, take note.)
@79: Leeches and opium actually do have legitimate medical uses. Opium is a painkiller, albeit one that has been supplanted by less addictive and more effective ones, and leeches' saliva contains several extremely useful anticoagulants, while leeches themselves are still preferable for clearing hematomata in some cases.
83
@80: Yes of course, but I was thinking of the practice of blood letting as a treatment for diseases from acne to tuberculosis, as well the over prescription of opium at that time. I should have been more specific.
86
81
Get with the program, Junior.
We're talking about 2011 Polygamy where either gender can have multiple spouses.
Your links are out of date and irrelevant.....
Get with the program, Junior.
We're talking about 2011 Polygamy where either gender can have multiple spouses.
Your links are out of date and irrelevant.....
87
@86: No. You asked (repeatedly) what Dan's position was on polygamy, and now you know. So be a good little troll and say thank you to Venomlash for going to all that trouble for you.
88
@79: Marcus Aurelius was a Stoic and somewhat of a pantheist; he didn't believe in any God in the traditional sense. Boethius and Aquinus, like all educated men of their time, knew the world was round.
@87: Well, that post didn't really address the main question, which is whether consensual multi-way relationships deserve legal recognition. Dan was talking about traditional polygamy, not modern polyamorous relationships. There's certainly an argument that we should recognize and grant poly relationships legal rights. There are significantly more legal obstacles to work out, but we have legal constructs like an LLP to base them on.
@87: Well, that post didn't really address the main question, which is whether consensual multi-way relationships deserve legal recognition. Dan was talking about traditional polygamy, not modern polyamorous relationships. There's certainly an argument that we should recognize and grant poly relationships legal rights. There are significantly more legal obstacles to work out, but we have legal constructs like an LLP to base them on.
89
@86: You wanted Dan Savage's opinion on polygamy. I gave you Dan Savage's opinion on polygamy, and several times over.
Now, you and I can debate up and down (assuming you have the mental capacity to present and defend an argument that doesn't revolve around calling me "Junior") whether or not polygamy is morally acceptable, but the fact remains that our legal system has no framework for dealing with such legal contracts between more than two parties. That's just how our legal system works.
Now, you and I can debate up and down (assuming you have the mental capacity to present and defend an argument that doesn't revolve around calling me "Junior") whether or not polygamy is morally acceptable, but the fact remains that our legal system has no framework for dealing with such legal contracts between more than two parties. That's just how our legal system works.
90
89
You vomited up a
really old
really really long
really really really tedious
critique of Old Testament polygamy.
Damn Junior-
you should know better that anyone that nobody pays any attention to that stuff anymore...
Have someone read @88 to you and explain to you what it means.
You vomited up a
really old
really really long
really really really tedious
critique of Old Testament polygamy.
Damn Junior-
you should know better that anyone that nobody pays any attention to that stuff anymore...
Have someone read @88 to you and explain to you what it means.
91
Seattlebules, li'l period: the point is simple. If homosexuality is a choice, so is heterosexuality; calling it a 'default condition' would imply that homosexuality is simply a 'rarer setting' of the same natural parameter. In other words, something you're born with.
Thinking it's a disease without any evidence of it is like thinking that being born left-handed is a disease. Do you think so?
And if you don't believe in "default conditions", or at least don't think that "default conditions" (and therefore also the other possibilities) are innate, then you have to admit being heterosexual is also a choice of some kind. If so, and if you equate "choice" with "not preordained by nature", then you'd have to say "heterosexuality" is not natural.
Sorry, but you can't get rid of this. You can dance all the way around it if you want, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. No matter how hard you try not to, you have to choose, if you want your opinion to be consistent.
Thinking it's a disease without any evidence of it is like thinking that being born left-handed is a disease. Do you think so?
And if you don't believe in "default conditions", or at least don't think that "default conditions" (and therefore also the other possibilities) are innate, then you have to admit being heterosexual is also a choice of some kind. If so, and if you equate "choice" with "not preordained by nature", then you'd have to say "heterosexuality" is not natural.
Sorry, but you can't get rid of this. You can dance all the way around it if you want, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. No matter how hard you try not to, you have to choose, if you want your opinion to be consistent.
92
Rach3l, there's something to be said in favor of 'feeding the trolls': it keeps your arguments clear and sharp, and it helps you show an emotional argument for what it is: a mixture of "eewww" and "bwaaaahh". It's good to keep your muscles toned and exercised. Of course the trolls will keep repeating the same things, but that's not the point. One's sparring partner should not stop and say "let's be friends"; or else he is not helping us improve.
93
@88: Oh for the love of god.
Can we agree that all three of them had some basic misconceptions regarding the natural world, which we can take as an example that, intelligent men though they were, their deeply held beliefs were mistaken? Due to ignorance of the facts? As opposed to Seatteblues, who has access to facts regarding homosexuality (such as it being removed from the DSM as a metal disorder) and yet refuses to face them? Which was. My Point?
Period Troll's only concern about polygamy is finding a way to win a game of "Gotcha" against Dan. He could give a hairless rat's patooty about anything else on that topic. Which surely you must know.
Can we agree that all three of them had some basic misconceptions regarding the natural world, which we can take as an example that, intelligent men though they were, their deeply held beliefs were mistaken? Due to ignorance of the facts? As opposed to Seatteblues, who has access to facts regarding homosexuality (such as it being removed from the DSM as a metal disorder) and yet refuses to face them? Which was. My Point?
Period Troll's only concern about polygamy is finding a way to win a game of "Gotcha" against Dan. He could give a hairless rat's patooty about anything else on that topic. Which surely you must know.
94
Seattleblues didn't choose to be straight, but does he choose to be a know it all, POS? Or is that more of a nurture? Anyway ... Blues, you're just so righteously hot hot hot!!!
95
@93: yes, of course, I just couldn't resist correcting that. :)
And I don't give a fuck about period troll -- I think we should just ignore him -- but I am interested in the rights of polyamorists. Which is an interesting and relevant topic.
And I don't give a fuck about period troll -- I think we should just ignore him -- but I am interested in the rights of polyamorists. Which is an interesting and relevant topic.
96
@95: And I thank you for the correction, as one big brain to another. :) Having two boyfriends, I must also agree with you that it is an interesting and relevant topic.
97
@90: I gave you Dan's opinion on traditional polygamy. I also gave you Dan's opinion on modern polyamory in a previous thread; I'll reproduce it here for the sake of your piss-poor web skills. And I gave you a brief explanation as to why our legal system CANNOT accommodate marriage contracts between more than two people without a drastic overhaul. When you ask a question, it's considered proper to listen to the answer. Don't you ever read things?
But there ARE some people who still pay attention to the Pentateuch. I'll give you a hint: they're not Christians.
But there ARE some people who still pay attention to the Pentateuch. I'll give you a hint: they're not Christians.
98
@72 Is it possible that heterosexuality is the natural default position for most human beings, but not all?
99
Wait a sec yall, trolls and whatever aside, it's great that the senator agrees with us on the issue of gay marriage but there's still a big problem with his argument. If we accept that God only creates things that He wants around, then we have to accept that God wants mass murderers, nuclear armaments, the AIDS virus, etc. around just as much as he wants gay people around, and therefore we should support and protect all of them equally.
Bad arguments are still bad even if they lead to the right conclusion, and they don't convince anybody that isn't already convinced.
Bad arguments are still bad even if they lead to the right conclusion, and they don't convince anybody that isn't already convinced.
100
@ 99, one thing all forms of Christianity agree on is free will. That means that the things you listed are created by people, not God. So you're incorrect in attributing all those bad things to God. Not one theologian would agree with you.
Don't treat these things like they're arguments that would have to pass muster before a doctoral committee. Political arguments are about emotional appeal, and if a large number of undecided or uniformed people can be persuaded by this one, I'm all for it.
Don't treat these things like they're arguments that would have to pass muster before a doctoral committee. Political arguments are about emotional appeal, and if a large number of undecided or uniformed people can be persuaded by this one, I'm all for it.
101
91
It IS simple.
Humans are heterosexual.
Warm blooded, oxygen breathing, bipedal heterosexual organisms.
Were there a state of being one could call "homosexual" it would represent a defect that renders those afflicted with it incapable of reproducing. There is no evidence that such an innate condition exists.
The concept of "orientation" is impossible to quantify, measure or verify.
Some humans self-identify as "homosexual" but demonstrate that they are fully functional heterosexuals, engaging in heterosexual acts and reproducing heterosexually.
And many humans that self-identify as heterosexual engage in a variety of homosexual acts.
The only possible conclusion is that "orientation" is a mirage and that humans are heterosexual and choose to engage (or not engage) in a variety of sexual behaviors.
Simple....
It IS simple.
Humans are heterosexual.
Warm blooded, oxygen breathing, bipedal heterosexual organisms.
Were there a state of being one could call "homosexual" it would represent a defect that renders those afflicted with it incapable of reproducing. There is no evidence that such an innate condition exists.
The concept of "orientation" is impossible to quantify, measure or verify.
Some humans self-identify as "homosexual" but demonstrate that they are fully functional heterosexuals, engaging in heterosexual acts and reproducing heterosexually.
And many humans that self-identify as heterosexual engage in a variety of homosexual acts.
The only possible conclusion is that "orientation" is a mirage and that humans are heterosexual and choose to engage (or not engage) in a variety of sexual behaviors.
Simple....
102
"As far as I'm concerned, everybody is gay, until they prove otherwise. And then I'm not always convinced." -- Buddy Cole (Kids in the Hall)
Pretty much how I see it.
Pretty much how I see it.
103
@100: First of all, AIDS was not created by human free will.
Also, Christians generally believe, as well, that God can intervene and perform miracles in the world. So if God not turning gay people straight is proof that God is cool with gay people, God not intervening in the lives of mass murderers, preventing AIDS, stopping earthquakes, and so on is also proof that God wants those things around.
Lack of critical thinking is just as much of a problem as anti-gay-rights legislation. In fact, it's the reason why we have anti-gay-rights legislation. So I'm not ok with a religious argument that displays a lack of critical thinking. It's sorta like giving the executive branch too much power: it's all great till the other side uses it.
Also, Christians generally believe, as well, that God can intervene and perform miracles in the world. So if God not turning gay people straight is proof that God is cool with gay people, God not intervening in the lives of mass murderers, preventing AIDS, stopping earthquakes, and so on is also proof that God wants those things around.
Lack of critical thinking is just as much of a problem as anti-gay-rights legislation. In fact, it's the reason why we have anti-gay-rights legislation. So I'm not ok with a religious argument that displays a lack of critical thinking. It's sorta like giving the executive branch too much power: it's all great till the other side uses it.
104
@101 Why would sexual orientation be any harder to measure than any other psychological characteristic or condition? Personality characteristics such as intelligence are difficult to measure. Mental problems such as clinical depression can be tricky to diagnose. Does that mean they don't exist?
105
@ 71 - What I said @ 39 was "feeble minds need to believe in a bearded white guy up above making all the decisions."
I didn't talk about believing in god in some form or another, I talked about believing in a ridiculously eurocentric vision of what god might be, dictated by some people from a long long time ago who were clearly not aware of many scientific facts.
Since you're the one who wants scientific proof that homosexuality is innate, that means you're aware of the importance of science, right? Well, the people who invented that childish version of divinity had no access to much of what we now consider to be scientific. So obviously, according to your logic, we shouldn't believe their version of god, right? Coz it's never been proven by science, right?
So why the fuck do you blindly believe in it?
What I find most offensive about most religious people is that they believe they know what god wants.
If god exists, as mere mortals, the most reverent thing we can do is to accept that we are in no way capable of understanding what god wants. So we are in no way allowed to impose our beliefs on god's other creatures. Those who do, like you, are the worst kind of religious people, since they only really believe in themselves.
I now rest my case.
I didn't talk about believing in god in some form or another, I talked about believing in a ridiculously eurocentric vision of what god might be, dictated by some people from a long long time ago who were clearly not aware of many scientific facts.
Since you're the one who wants scientific proof that homosexuality is innate, that means you're aware of the importance of science, right? Well, the people who invented that childish version of divinity had no access to much of what we now consider to be scientific. So obviously, according to your logic, we shouldn't believe their version of god, right? Coz it's never been proven by science, right?
So why the fuck do you blindly believe in it?
What I find most offensive about most religious people is that they believe they know what god wants.
If god exists, as mere mortals, the most reverent thing we can do is to accept that we are in no way capable of understanding what god wants. So we are in no way allowed to impose our beliefs on god's other creatures. Those who do, like you, are the worst kind of religious people, since they only really believe in themselves.
I now rest my case.
106
105
Does it offend you that Senator Douchewipe in the video is telling you what GOD thinks about the Gay?
Does it offend you that Senator Douchewipe in the video is telling you that GOD will be Very Disappointed if we don't let the Gays marry?
Does it offend you?
Does it offend you that Senator Douchewipe in the video is telling you what GOD thinks about the Gay?
Does it offend you that Senator Douchewipe in the video is telling you that GOD will be Very Disappointed if we don't let the Gays marry?
Does it offend you?
107
@ 106 - He never says anything of the sort. Comprehension fail.
What offends me is when people like you write in with their moronic opinions and comments, thinking themselves really clever when in fact their whole argumentation relies on their faulty understanding of what is being said.
You could at least TRY to make that brain of yours work, you know?
Why, oh why is every opponent of gay rights so damn stupid? (Well, that question kind of answers itself, doesn't it?)
What offends me is when people like you write in with their moronic opinions and comments, thinking themselves really clever when in fact their whole argumentation relies on their faulty understanding of what is being said.
You could at least TRY to make that brain of yours work, you know?
Why, oh why is every opponent of gay rights so damn stupid? (Well, that question kind of answers itself, doesn't it?)
108
97, It's either "." can't figure out the Google, or that he's pissed that Dan is ignoring "." command that Dan reiterate his well known and publicized views on polygamy.
109
@96: That is hot! :) Would you ever want legal recognition of the three of you as a unit? I think that should be allowed. (Interesting fact: it is possible to be married to someone and have a civil union with a third person at the same time in some states.)
110
@ 103, you think they're going to go that route? You're a fool if you do, since that means that cancer is up for the same kind of discussion.
Politicians who want to stay elected won't go saying that God created AIDS to wipe out gays. (Of course there are going to be a few exceptions, but those will mostly be local pols in serious backwaters who have no hope of higher office.)
I'll say it again - this is about emotional appeal, not rational. If you think the average 2011 person (who is more likely to be somewhat religious than not) is going to find your hypothetical more appealing than what this legislator is saying, you're a pessimist in the extreme.
Politicians who want to stay elected won't go saying that God created AIDS to wipe out gays. (Of course there are going to be a few exceptions, but those will mostly be local pols in serious backwaters who have no hope of higher office.)
I'll say it again - this is about emotional appeal, not rational. If you think the average 2011 person (who is more likely to be somewhat religious than not) is going to find your hypothetical more appealing than what this legislator is saying, you're a pessimist in the extreme.
111
@105
Faith doesn't prove scientific facts, nor science faith. I have faith for instance that I love my wife and she me. I can't prove it scientifically, yet it's one of the central beliefs of my life. On the other hand my truck works on rock solid scientific principles. I don't have faith that the turning of the key will start the vehicle. I know that it will, and why it will. There is a necessary role for science in human understanding, and one for faith. Too often advocates of either don't see that.
And while I may have misread your statements you certainly have misread mine. At the core of Christianity is the notion of free will, and the acceptance of the consequences of it. I have no interest, theological or otherwise, in your decision to embrace a homosexual lifestyle. My only cavil is the point at which you assume that choice places obligations on others.
Faith doesn't prove scientific facts, nor science faith. I have faith for instance that I love my wife and she me. I can't prove it scientifically, yet it's one of the central beliefs of my life. On the other hand my truck works on rock solid scientific principles. I don't have faith that the turning of the key will start the vehicle. I know that it will, and why it will. There is a necessary role for science in human understanding, and one for faith. Too often advocates of either don't see that.
And while I may have misread your statements you certainly have misread mine. At the core of Christianity is the notion of free will, and the acceptance of the consequences of it. I have no interest, theological or otherwise, in your decision to embrace a homosexual lifestyle. My only cavil is the point at which you assume that choice places obligations on others.
112
@110: What are you talking about? Read my comment again.
I didn't say anything about any politician talking about wiping out gays. I said (echoing Lourdes in 99) that it was a crappy argument because it would mean that all our current diseases, such as AIDS (cancer would work as well) are also things God wants around.
I get your point about emotional appeal to people who believe in God. I just think it's a stupid argument.
I didn't say anything about any politician talking about wiping out gays. I said (echoing Lourdes in 99) that it was a crappy argument because it would mean that all our current diseases, such as AIDS (cancer would work as well) are also things God wants around.
I get your point about emotional appeal to people who believe in God. I just think it's a stupid argument.
113
Hey Seattleblues, you still haven't answered my question. What's up?
Blackrose, that's just the logical extension of speaking about AIDS, at least in the context of emotional appeal. And yes, to a religious person, God did create AIDS, along with TB, the Black Death, hurricanes and earthquakes, and all kinds of other bad things.
Blackrose, that's just the logical extension of speaking about AIDS, at least in the context of emotional appeal. And yes, to a religious person, God did create AIDS, along with TB, the Black Death, hurricanes and earthquakes, and all kinds of other bad things.
114
@ 111 So why do you give so much importance to scientific proofs of homosexuality's innateness? Can't you accept it on faith? You're negating the possible value of your earlier arguments, here.
that said, I like how you're suddenly saying that my decision is "to embrace a homosexual lifestyle" and not "to be homosexual".
To embrace a homosexual lifestyle means that I accepted my true nature and, since I choose to live with the highest possible level of integrity, I've decided to respect it and live accordingly. I don't see how anyone can be against that, but it appears that you are (you're in good company, though: the pope, that defender of pedophiles, has made pronouncements against this sort of integrity). Personally, I'm quite proud, and rightly so, of having made that choice.
But the sad thing is that you don't even get the point about free will, which is that everyone should be allowed to exercise it! Duh! And I can't do that if my rights are curtailed by the religious beliefs of people like you.
And since you ARE allowed to believe that god exists and wants certain things - a right I would never advocate against - you can't force me to live according to those beliefs, then accuse me of imposing the consequences of my beliefs on you! You're the guilty party here.
We're not asking for privileges, we're asking for the rights that you already have... and no, marrying a person of the opposite sex is not an equivalent right, it's a deception (and one has to be particularly thick to use that argument).
So in the end, what you're really advocating is hipocrisy. Cowardice. Lies. Like most religious people.
that said, I like how you're suddenly saying that my decision is "to embrace a homosexual lifestyle" and not "to be homosexual".
To embrace a homosexual lifestyle means that I accepted my true nature and, since I choose to live with the highest possible level of integrity, I've decided to respect it and live accordingly. I don't see how anyone can be against that, but it appears that you are (you're in good company, though: the pope, that defender of pedophiles, has made pronouncements against this sort of integrity). Personally, I'm quite proud, and rightly so, of having made that choice.
But the sad thing is that you don't even get the point about free will, which is that everyone should be allowed to exercise it! Duh! And I can't do that if my rights are curtailed by the religious beliefs of people like you.
And since you ARE allowed to believe that god exists and wants certain things - a right I would never advocate against - you can't force me to live according to those beliefs, then accuse me of imposing the consequences of my beliefs on you! You're the guilty party here.
We're not asking for privileges, we're asking for the rights that you already have... and no, marrying a person of the opposite sex is not an equivalent right, it's a deception (and one has to be particularly thick to use that argument).
So in the end, what you're really advocating is hipocrisy. Cowardice. Lies. Like most religious people.
116
@113
Frankly, I missed it.
So, pedophilia and bestiality are natural sexual expressions as well? How about necrophilia? See, you can't have it both ways. If sexuality is choiceless, we have no business stigmatizing any of it. At best, we could institutionalize those with a predilection for kids or dead folks, we could not punish them at law.
Of course, I understand that we punish active child or goat molestors because such actions involve those who can't or don't consent. Since I know sexual expression to be choice driven, this presents no problems for me. I can, for instance, say that homosexuality among consenting adults is absolutely none of my business. I can say that molesting kids is the business of the larger society. And I can do this without logical difficulties. The ones it causes logical problems are those who say homosexuality is innate and inevitable.
And I gotta say, I don't recall being turned on by anything sexually at 3 or 6. You and Ricardo must have been relatively precocious, or I a late bloomer. Don't know.
Frankly, I missed it.
So, pedophilia and bestiality are natural sexual expressions as well? How about necrophilia? See, you can't have it both ways. If sexuality is choiceless, we have no business stigmatizing any of it. At best, we could institutionalize those with a predilection for kids or dead folks, we could not punish them at law.
Of course, I understand that we punish active child or goat molestors because such actions involve those who can't or don't consent. Since I know sexual expression to be choice driven, this presents no problems for me. I can, for instance, say that homosexuality among consenting adults is absolutely none of my business. I can say that molesting kids is the business of the larger society. And I can do this without logical difficulties. The ones it causes logical problems are those who say homosexuality is innate and inevitable.
And I gotta say, I don't recall being turned on by anything sexually at 3 or 6. You and Ricardo must have been relatively precocious, or I a late bloomer. Don't know.
117
@Ricardo
I don't think I've ever argued that the impulse to homosexuality isn't sometimes a part of a persons psychology. And I know that I've never argued that homosexuality should be punished by law, discriminated against or otherwise treated as a legitimate public policy issue. I don't want my bedroom policed by my fellow citizens, so cheerfully accept that yours shouldn't be either.
Other than marriage, what rights do I have as a heterosexual that you don't as a homosexual?
Nor do I impose my religious beliefs on you, except as our democracy and the Constitution allow. That is, if a majority of the electorate votes for a person or principle and it doesn't run afoul of the Constitution, that's just the way it is. I live in the Peoples Republic of Seattle, for example. Legislation that seems stupid to me, like that around the myth of global warming, is still applicable to me since I abide by the laws. I have therefore two choices. I can accept the democratic will of the region in which I live. Or I can move someplace whose politics are more congenial.
I respect the right of Savage, you or others to advocate for marraige for gays. I just don't see how that imposes an obligation on the majority who oppose it.
I don't think I've ever argued that the impulse to homosexuality isn't sometimes a part of a persons psychology. And I know that I've never argued that homosexuality should be punished by law, discriminated against or otherwise treated as a legitimate public policy issue. I don't want my bedroom policed by my fellow citizens, so cheerfully accept that yours shouldn't be either.
Other than marriage, what rights do I have as a heterosexual that you don't as a homosexual?
Nor do I impose my religious beliefs on you, except as our democracy and the Constitution allow. That is, if a majority of the electorate votes for a person or principle and it doesn't run afoul of the Constitution, that's just the way it is. I live in the Peoples Republic of Seattle, for example. Legislation that seems stupid to me, like that around the myth of global warming, is still applicable to me since I abide by the laws. I have therefore two choices. I can accept the democratic will of the region in which I live. Or I can move someplace whose politics are more congenial.
I respect the right of Savage, you or others to advocate for marraige for gays. I just don't see how that imposes an obligation on the majority who oppose it.
118
If person is gay, that person is gay. It was never a choice. People can choose to try to act against their true nature. I can tell you, as a gay man who tried to be straight, acting against one's true sexual orientation hurts in your heart and in your soul. The emptiness a straight relationship imparts on a gay person psyche is excruciating. I don't know how to make a straight person understand. They've never felt the pressure to be something they're not. Sexuality is so core to living things, and to force a group of people to conform just to prevent others from being offended is ridiculous and unbelievably cruel.
119
Wow, Seattleblues, either you've completely misread my question, or you're being disingenuous. I suspect the latter, since I called attention to this query three times.
When did you figure out you were attracted to women? THAT is the question. Not, when did you figure out you want to [insert fetish, for example, have anal sex] with them?
Go read the pre-adolescent experiences related by myself and others again. (Go to 75 for reference.)
Until you do that, you're enjoined from claiming that it's just another choice. I'll be there to remind you that you refused to answer this simple question if you keep it up.
When did you figure out you were attracted to women? THAT is the question. Not, when did you figure out you want to [insert fetish, for example, have anal sex] with them?
Go read the pre-adolescent experiences related by myself and others again. (Go to 75 for reference.)
Until you do that, you're enjoined from claiming that it's just another choice. I'll be there to remind you that you refused to answer this simple question if you keep it up.
120
@118: Oh Rob, you break my heart. What an awful way to live, even for a little while. And people like Seattleblues will never understand that. But I have hope for the future, when his ilk have finally shuffled off this mortal coil, and the kids coming up look back at them with the same distaste and embarrassment that we look back at the racists of generations past.
Oh and SB, you never did get back to me on Alan Greenspan. Why don't we discuss it when I see you at Slog Happy?
Oh and SB, you never did get back to me on Alan Greenspan. Why don't we discuss it when I see you at Slog Happy?
121
@109: Why yes, yes it is. :)
In my personal situation, marriage isn't so much of an issue. Been there, done that, and I find I like having my own space. But I do know some poly people to whom it is more of a concern. They are all moving into a big house together with their children, so functionally I guess it will be much like the shared living situations of Grandparents generation. I should ask them next time I see them if they would want to expand their existing marriages to include the other couple and significant others.
In my personal situation, marriage isn't so much of an issue. Been there, done that, and I find I like having my own space. But I do know some poly people to whom it is more of a concern. They are all moving into a big house together with their children, so functionally I guess it will be much like the shared living situations of Grandparents generation. I should ask them next time I see them if they would want to expand their existing marriages to include the other couple and significant others.
122
This congressman has fallen into a common fallacy. The terms "born with it" and "didn't choose it" do not mean the same thing. Too often people say "it's genetic" when they mean "it wasn't because of any action that the person decided to make." Non-chosen factors are a lot bigger than genes.
Frankly, I wouldn't rule out psychological or early-childhood causes or contributing factors to sexual orientation. This doesn't mean that I think homosexuals choose to be homosexual; I don't. I just understand that "genetic," "born with it," and "not his/her choice/fault" are three different things.
It's clearest to see in obesity. People say "obesity is genetic" when they really mean "we should reject the old idea that obesity is due to the sins of sloth and gluttony." However, there are lots of non-genetic factors that help cause obesity through absolutely no fault of the obese person. For example, if a woman doesn't get enough to eat while she's pregnant, her child will be born with a more efficient (fatness-prone) metabolism. This is not genetic but still not something over which the obese patient had any control.
Frankly, I wouldn't rule out psychological or early-childhood causes or contributing factors to sexual orientation. This doesn't mean that I think homosexuals choose to be homosexual; I don't. I just understand that "genetic," "born with it," and "not his/her choice/fault" are three different things.
It's clearest to see in obesity. People say "obesity is genetic" when they really mean "we should reject the old idea that obesity is due to the sins of sloth and gluttony." However, there are lots of non-genetic factors that help cause obesity through absolutely no fault of the obese person. For example, if a woman doesn't get enough to eat while she's pregnant, her child will be born with a more efficient (fatness-prone) metabolism. This is not genetic but still not something over which the obese patient had any control.
123
@122: THANK YOU. So many people presume that all innate characteristics must be genetic rather than the result of early developmental factors!
124
@60
Seattleblues, I don't know what is more striking: your ignorance or your willful disavowal of facts.
Gays can't be discriminated against in housing, employment or public accomodation? Really? Not in the state where I live. Gays can be discriminated against in all three of those areas. Gays are not a protected class. In fact, in some fields of employment (education for example), an awful lot of people would like nothing better than to discriminate against gays and lesbians, which is why so many GLBT teachers are desperately closeted.
More protection "from speech they don't happen to like"? Really? Not in the country where I live. It is just as illegal to say "All heterosexuals should be killed" as it is to say "All gays should be killed." I happen not to like a great many things that both you and Period Troll say, but I would defend your right to say those things.
"Gays]may marry any consenting person of the opposite sex, just as I can." Thanks for giving me the freedom to do something I don't particularly want to do. How would you feel about a law, though, that mandated that you were free to marry any consenting person, as long as that person was of the same sex as you? You probably wouldn't like it very much. Here's a radical idea: how about a law that allows people to marry the consenting adults of their choice regardless of sex or gender? That would be true equality.
Seattleblues, I don't know what is more striking: your ignorance or your willful disavowal of facts.
Gays can't be discriminated against in housing, employment or public accomodation? Really? Not in the state where I live. Gays can be discriminated against in all three of those areas. Gays are not a protected class. In fact, in some fields of employment (education for example), an awful lot of people would like nothing better than to discriminate against gays and lesbians, which is why so many GLBT teachers are desperately closeted.
More protection "from speech they don't happen to like"? Really? Not in the country where I live. It is just as illegal to say "All heterosexuals should be killed" as it is to say "All gays should be killed." I happen not to like a great many things that both you and Period Troll say, but I would defend your right to say those things.
"Gays]may marry any consenting person of the opposite sex, just as I can." Thanks for giving me the freedom to do something I don't particularly want to do. How would you feel about a law, though, that mandated that you were free to marry any consenting person, as long as that person was of the same sex as you? You probably wouldn't like it very much. Here's a radical idea: how about a law that allows people to marry the consenting adults of their choice regardless of sex or gender? That would be true equality.
125
>>It's an expression of how dedicated to civil rights we are in this country that we protect even self destructive choices.<<
Self-destructive in what empirically measurable sense? Be sure that your data refers not to the effects of homosexual promiscuity (as promiscuity is dangerous no matter who is practicing it), but to the effects of homosexual relations in and of themselves.
>>I don't choose sickness, but I can choose to pursue health. My family has a history of heart disease. So I should stop exercising, eat badly and give in to the inevitable heart attack, since that's the predilection I have.<<
If you find that your having a heart attack is of some utility to you, and of no harm to anyone else, I suppose you can have at. Hopefully anyone making an argument to the contrary would do better than you've done here.
>>Or not. I make choices about moral or physical failings and those choices determine my character, not the failings themselves.<<
No doubt. I may have missed the part where you demonstrated the "moral failing" independently of recourse to the empirically undemonstrated and fundamentally counterintuitive posit of an anthropomorphic deity.
>>I never chose to be straight any more than I chose to have 2 arms and 2 legs, or to breathe through mouth and nose. It simply is the natural default position for human beings.<<
So is right-handedness (which also has elements of both predisposition and choice). I could, of course, train myself to write with my right hand, but we have no reason to believe I would be as adept or as fulfilled as I am writing with the left.
>>So, pedophilia and bestiality are natural sexual expressions as well? How about necrophilia?<<
Sure. Laws against bestiality and necrophilia seem to me most useful in protecting jurisdiction; that is, no one may molest animals you own or the bodies of your loved ones. I do not otherwise support laws against either (though I do not support either act morally). As for marriage to either corpses or cows, neither has legal capacity to enter into a contract.
Worth noting though, that pedophilia itself is not what we regulate; statutory rape is. We do not regulate or stigmatize the proclivity (and to the degree that we do, I would suggest that we shouldn't); rather, we protect the victims of those who would be harmed by the fulfillment of that interest.
>>If sexuality is choiceless, we have no business stigmatizing any of it. At best, we could institutionalize those with a predilection for kids or dead folks, we could not punish them at law.<<
If there were a way to ensure that this has a net effect of protecting kids (as I said, I'm not too concerned with dead folks), I see no reason to disagree. The concern, again, is for the victim, not against the perp.
>>Of course, I understand that we punish active child or goat molestors because such actions involve those who can't or don't consent. Since I know sexual expression to be choice driven, this presents no problems for me. I can, for instance, say that homosexuality among consenting adults is absolutely none of my business. I can say that molesting kids is the business of the larger society. And I can do this without logical difficulties. The ones it causes logical problems are those who say homosexuality is innate and inevitable.<<
I don't see why. Proclivities are not chosen; activities are. In the absence of deity (a reasonable default position, though not the only reasonable default position, in the absence of evidence for deity), activities are judged by consequences. In many cases, consequences are judged by measures of harm. It seems to me that the question of nurture vs. nature is moot.
>>Other than marriage, what rights do I have as a heterosexual that you don't as a homosexual?<<
Until pretty recently, the right to serve in the military without hiding your sexual orientation. And what about the right to marry the romantic partner of your choice?
>>Nor do I impose my religious beliefs on you, except as our democracy and the Constitution allow. That is, if a majority of the electorate votes for a person or principle and it doesn't run afoul of the Constitution, that's just the way it is.<<
I would submit that unless there is some empirically demonstrable civic utility served by such principle, its codification amounts to interference with free exercise--not because freedom of religion is tantamount to freedom from religion (it isn't), but because freedom of religion necessarily includes freedom of irreligion.
More...
Self-destructive in what empirically measurable sense? Be sure that your data refers not to the effects of homosexual promiscuity (as promiscuity is dangerous no matter who is practicing it), but to the effects of homosexual relations in and of themselves.
>>I don't choose sickness, but I can choose to pursue health. My family has a history of heart disease. So I should stop exercising, eat badly and give in to the inevitable heart attack, since that's the predilection I have.<<
If you find that your having a heart attack is of some utility to you, and of no harm to anyone else, I suppose you can have at. Hopefully anyone making an argument to the contrary would do better than you've done here.
>>Or not. I make choices about moral or physical failings and those choices determine my character, not the failings themselves.<<
No doubt. I may have missed the part where you demonstrated the "moral failing" independently of recourse to the empirically undemonstrated and fundamentally counterintuitive posit of an anthropomorphic deity.
>>I never chose to be straight any more than I chose to have 2 arms and 2 legs, or to breathe through mouth and nose. It simply is the natural default position for human beings.<<
So is right-handedness (which also has elements of both predisposition and choice). I could, of course, train myself to write with my right hand, but we have no reason to believe I would be as adept or as fulfilled as I am writing with the left.
>>So, pedophilia and bestiality are natural sexual expressions as well? How about necrophilia?<<
Sure. Laws against bestiality and necrophilia seem to me most useful in protecting jurisdiction; that is, no one may molest animals you own or the bodies of your loved ones. I do not otherwise support laws against either (though I do not support either act morally). As for marriage to either corpses or cows, neither has legal capacity to enter into a contract.
Worth noting though, that pedophilia itself is not what we regulate; statutory rape is. We do not regulate or stigmatize the proclivity (and to the degree that we do, I would suggest that we shouldn't); rather, we protect the victims of those who would be harmed by the fulfillment of that interest.
>>If sexuality is choiceless, we have no business stigmatizing any of it. At best, we could institutionalize those with a predilection for kids or dead folks, we could not punish them at law.<<
If there were a way to ensure that this has a net effect of protecting kids (as I said, I'm not too concerned with dead folks), I see no reason to disagree. The concern, again, is for the victim, not against the perp.
>>Of course, I understand that we punish active child or goat molestors because such actions involve those who can't or don't consent. Since I know sexual expression to be choice driven, this presents no problems for me. I can, for instance, say that homosexuality among consenting adults is absolutely none of my business. I can say that molesting kids is the business of the larger society. And I can do this without logical difficulties. The ones it causes logical problems are those who say homosexuality is innate and inevitable.<<
I don't see why. Proclivities are not chosen; activities are. In the absence of deity (a reasonable default position, though not the only reasonable default position, in the absence of evidence for deity), activities are judged by consequences. In many cases, consequences are judged by measures of harm. It seems to me that the question of nurture vs. nature is moot.
>>Other than marriage, what rights do I have as a heterosexual that you don't as a homosexual?<<
Until pretty recently, the right to serve in the military without hiding your sexual orientation. And what about the right to marry the romantic partner of your choice?
>>Nor do I impose my religious beliefs on you, except as our democracy and the Constitution allow. That is, if a majority of the electorate votes for a person or principle and it doesn't run afoul of the Constitution, that's just the way it is.<<
I would submit that unless there is some empirically demonstrable civic utility served by such principle, its codification amounts to interference with free exercise--not because freedom of religion is tantamount to freedom from religion (it isn't), but because freedom of religion necessarily includes freedom of irreligion.
126
@113: Ok, let's forget about AIDS for a second and talk about any other disease. Many religious people think God caused disease, but that it's still ok for us to try to cure or treat it. Some of them even think the whole reason God made suffering was so that we would have a chance to struggle with it and overcome it. So the argument "God made gay people, so they must be ok" is a poor one, and religious people are easily capable of seeing and recognizing this. The argument, emotional as it may be, is unlikely to convince anyone who doesn't already support gay rights.
You seem to think I'm suggesting that a politician say all this, which I can recognize might be impolitic.
You seem to think I'm suggesting that a politician say all this, which I can recognize might be impolitic.
127
125
Self-destructive in the empirically measurably sense that 20% of sexually active homosexuals have HIV?
Like that?
Self-destructive in the empirically measurably sense that 20% of sexually active homosexuals have HIV?
Like that?
128
@127 - As I said, let's differentiate between the results of homosexual promiscuity and the results of mere homosexuality, or monogamous (serially or genuinely) homosexual activity. Promiscuity has its price for gays and heterosexuals.
129
128
Yes.
Let's.
20% of ALL sexually active homosexuals have, and give, HIV.
ALL.
According to the CDC 94% of homosexuals receive anal sex.
That is an inherently dangerous behavior.
Dan will give you a laundry list of things to do and bring in order to do anal "right" (don't forget the bleach....) because it is an inherently dangerous behavior that even with extensive precautions infects a high percentage of its participants. (but, remember kids, it is totally Natural and Normal....)
Dan waxes snarky about frothy fecal but the fact is that human feces is a bacteria ridden infectious waste product. (cause Nothin' says Lovin' like raw Shit.....)
Homosexuals have and share HIV 88X as much as heterosexuals.
Mere homosexuality....
Yes.
Let's.
20% of ALL sexually active homosexuals have, and give, HIV.
ALL.
According to the CDC 94% of homosexuals receive anal sex.
That is an inherently dangerous behavior.
Dan will give you a laundry list of things to do and bring in order to do anal "right" (don't forget the bleach....) because it is an inherently dangerous behavior that even with extensive precautions infects a high percentage of its participants. (but, remember kids, it is totally Natural and Normal....)
Dan waxes snarky about frothy fecal but the fact is that human feces is a bacteria ridden infectious waste product. (cause Nothin' says Lovin' like raw Shit.....)
Homosexuals have and share HIV 88X as much as heterosexuals.
Mere homosexuality....
131
One get AIDS from having unprotected sex with an individual who has AIDS. Yes, anal sex (also engaged in and enjoyed by heterosexual couples, in numbers that actually dwarf the total number of homosexuals) is more dangerous than vaginal sex because of the greater likelihood of coming into contact with blood. That said, unprotected sex with someone whose medical history you don't know speaks to promiscuity, rather than to orientation.
132
Hey troll!,
You forgot about lesbians! I guess we're not as infuriating as gay men, still. Damn.
You forgot about lesbians! I guess we're not as infuriating as gay men, still. Damn.
133
131
So heterosexual couples, in numbers that dwarf the number of homosexuals, have the same kind of sex as homosexuals, but homosexuals get HIV 88X as much.
What is your explanation?
So heterosexual couples, in numbers that dwarf the number of homosexuals, have the same kind of sex as homosexuals, but homosexuals get HIV 88X as much.
What is your explanation?
134
As has been noted before, it is quite possible that male homosexuals behave more promiscuously in their youth(s) due the absence of leavening female influence--that is, they are more likely to engage in this riskier behavior without protection and with individuals whom they don't know. Again, speaks to the question of promiscuity, not same-sex attraction or sex within same-sex relations.
Also, because HIV and AIDS first appeared in this country in the gay community, and initially spread very quickly, it's hardly surprising that it would continue to affect that community disproportionately, since gay men would be considerably more likely to pass it to gay men than to anyone else.
Also, because HIV and AIDS first appeared in this country in the gay community, and initially spread very quickly, it's hardly surprising that it would continue to affect that community disproportionately, since gay men would be considerably more likely to pass it to gay men than to anyone else.
135
@ Seattleblues: heterosexuality is the norm, the majority, sure. But homosexuality occurs in nature, in the animal kingdom: we're basically animals w/ big ol' brains. As for folks who 'choose' to be gay, SB - when did you choose to be straight?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJtjqLUHY…
Also, when do we get to vote on straight marriage? Why should we, that's ridiculous, right?
...think about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJtjqLUHY…
Also, when do we get to vote on straight marriage? Why should we, that's ridiculous, right?
...think about it.
136
134
Why did AIDS first appear in the homosexual community?
What is it about homosexuality that bred AIDS?
Why did AIDS first appear in the homosexual community?
What is it about homosexuality that bred AIDS?
137
@136: Actually, AIDS appears to have spread initially by heterosex. See, in some parts of Africa, bushmeat (including that of chimpanzees) is a major food source. And viruses similar to HIV have been known to exist in chimpanzees. The most likely theory for the appearance of HIV is that a hunter or butcher in Africa came into contact with blood from an infected animal, which perhaps got into a cut or scrape on his body, and the virus made the jump to humans. The virus spread initially due to a long incubation period and a lack of awareness, via heterosex. There is a great deal of evidence that HIV spread to the USA via (heterosexual) sex tourism. Nice try, Alleged.
138
Why did AIDS first appear in the homosexual community?
Because the individual who "brought" it stateside was a gay man, according to most accounts. One assumes most of those with whom he had sex were also gay men; had he been a straight man, one could reasonably assume that most of those with whom he would have had sex would have been straight women.
You really don't think these questions through before you ask them, do you?
Because the individual who "brought" it stateside was a gay man, according to most accounts. One assumes most of those with whom he had sex were also gay men; had he been a straight man, one could reasonably assume that most of those with whom he would have had sex would have been straight women.
You really don't think these questions through before you ask them, do you?
139
Excellent speech. That's the kind of progressive views I admire and think of when it comes to my home state, not people like Michelle Bachmann who give it a bad name. His "arc of history" comment was spot-on.
141
@138, 140: http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/news/20071…
Our stories are now as straight as a beeline.
Our stories are now as straight as a beeline.
142
@134 "it is quite possible that male homosexuals behave more promiscuously in their youth(s) due the absence of leavening female influence"
lulz
lulz
144
@140 - Since I claim to be neither a historian nor a doctor, my understanding of the historical trajectory is always open to revision. I'm not interested in "getting my story straight" because, let's face it, that's what people do when they're lying. I openly admit that I'm only sifting.
My wife will be a little surprised to discover I'm a "girl" . . . but only a little. :)
Oh, and venomlash, interesting research. The point on which I think we can both agree--aside from a general disdain for people who have neither the stones to register when they post nor the circumspection to know when to fall silent--is that neither timeline seems to indicate that same-sex attraction is inherently and objectively dangerous.
My wife will be a little surprised to discover I'm a "girl" . . . but only a little. :)
Oh, and venomlash, interesting research. The point on which I think we can both agree--aside from a general disdain for people who have neither the stones to register when they post nor the circumspection to know when to fall silent--is that neither timeline seems to indicate that same-sex attraction is inherently and objectively dangerous.
145
And I gotta say, I don't recall being turned on by anything sexually at 3 or 6. You and Ricardo must have been relatively precocious, or I a late bloomer. Don't know.
-Seattleblues
I know I'm days late in replying to this thread but, oh well, wanted to respond to this. Seattleblues, it's not about being turned on. It's about crushes. You know, the crushes that you probably got on girls as a kid. I have a friend who has a 4 year old daughter. She was telling me the other day that her daughter has a crush on one of the boys in daycare.
Now, not all people (gay or straight) remember these early crushes and some of us may have not had crushes that early at all. But some people do and they remember them and that's why there are people (usually gay men) who realized they were different so young.
-Seattleblues
I know I'm days late in replying to this thread but, oh well, wanted to respond to this. Seattleblues, it's not about being turned on. It's about crushes. You know, the crushes that you probably got on girls as a kid. I have a friend who has a 4 year old daughter. She was telling me the other day that her daughter has a crush on one of the boys in daycare.
Now, not all people (gay or straight) remember these early crushes and some of us may have not had crushes that early at all. But some people do and they remember them and that's why there are people (usually gay men) who realized they were different so young.
146
"I was angry at God because I thought he made me gay. I didn't understand that it wasn't God's doing, but my own. I eventually realized that I had chosen this path for myself because I was just trying to protect myself against further hurt from men. And I believe I had also been looking for my mother's love in the arms of another woman. Plus I had been sexually abused as a child in all this contributed to my choice to be a lesbian."
147
we have so many gay and lesbians now. the lesbians do out number the gay men. i will never understand why god created such filth like this. the lesbians are the worst because a lot of us straight men that are out there are trying to meet decent straight women. they are nowhere to be found. these lesbians are just no good dirty, filthy pigs, that are destroying this world of ours. there are a lot of us good men now, taking a beating because of these lousy women now.
148
Bull! There is no scientific proof that it is genetic, FACT. So a disease prone behavior that kills millions is good for society? So lets stop fighting cancer and smoking since we want to encourage deadly and unhealthy behavior. Its simple if it was normal or moral every other person would claim to be gay. Not the case at all! How can one support, encourage and engage in a behavior that kills millions?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Dutch Artist Turns Dead Cat into Remote-Controlled Helicopter by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Slog Overnight by Dan Savage
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Revelation 1:9 by Goldy
-
The City of Portland, Oregon Should Run for Washington Lieutenant Governor by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (148) RSS