Page 3 of 5 [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,726
Location: Stendec

05 Jan 2009, 7:15 pm

Kangoogle wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
... no one is born to act camp, nor born with an instinct to find someone of the same sex attractive.

Evidence, Please?

Lets assume ...

No.

Let's not assume anything. Let's not play games with words, either.

Instead, provide evidence - real, measureable, and repeatably verifiable evidence - to support your claim.


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


Kangoogle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 903

05 Jan 2009, 7:18 pm

yesplease wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
yesplease wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
colbs49 wrote:
Why,some might ask. To put it simply us and the gay rights movement have a lot of similarities and face the same challenges. Both of us have a mental difference, we can't help it were just born the way we are. Since both of us differ from what is seen as normal naturally the Neurotypical population sees us as something wrong that needs to be purged from this world. Simply put, If Autism Speaks is to us than the Religious Right is to homosexuals. Yes prop H8 won't take away the right for us to marry but thats beside the point. The real reason why Prop H8 hurts us is that it hinders equal rights and encourages people to hate anything that is different from them. If any one stands for Neurodiversity Prop H8 needs to go, its time to overturn it.
No you miss a key distinction here, homosexuality (and by extension campness) is a lifestyle choice.
Having a specific way to speak and/or act as seen in other co-cultures is a lifestyle choice, what sex an individual finds sexually attractive isn't, just like what their skin color is, and so on.

You miss a very key difference here, no one is born to act camp, nor born with an instinct to find someone of the same sex attractive. If we assume the latter then by extension we would have to say that those into bestiality or paedophillia are acting on instinctive attraction.

On the other hand, people are born on the spectrum.
People aren't born camp, but they are born w/ a spectrum of characteristics regarding sexuality just like they are born w/ a spectrum of characteristics as it relates to autism.

One set is at best a dubious set of characteristics. The other set is more like instinct.
Quote:
Not all people who are homosexual are campy.

No, but that is where AFF and some of the other prats which claim to represent us draw the most parallels.
Quote:
In terms of the state observing the marriage of two people, w/ all the state and federal rights that entails, discriminating based on an innate characteristic such as sexual orientation was deemed illegal by the state supreme court. This isn't about campy or not campy, since the behavior of homosexuals in the state varies greatly, but about discrimination based on an innate characteristic.

Something being legally recognised does not necessarily make it true. We only have to look at our own condition and how that can be legally recognised to see this fact.
Quote:
Pedophilia and bestiality are different because even if they are innate instincts, they are actions that by definition can and likely do cause lasting harm and cannot have the consent of another party, which is why they are illegal. If a homosexual person gets married to a member of the same sex, that member has to consent to the marriage. Even if pedophilia did not result in lasting psychological harm to a child, which it demonstrably does, a child cannot consent due to legal conditions regarding their existence as an autonomous member of society, and an animal can't communicate in a way we understand at all, so they can't consent either. In both cases we are looking at very likely to possible harm, as well as lack of consent, which is why both are illegal.

Quite true. But the right for someone behave in a homosexual manner (which would include sex) would effectively be making it a human right to rape someone.



Kangoogle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 903

05 Jan 2009, 7:20 pm

Fnord wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
... no one is born to act camp, nor born with an instinct to find someone of the same sex attractive.

Evidence, Please?

Lets assume ...

No.

Let's not assume anything. Let's not play games with words, either.

Instead, provide evidence - real, measureable, and repeatably verifiable evidence - to support your claim.

Its called proof by contradiction - which as you know is the only way to prove such a statement :)

How about you build a case for the counterclaim. :)



Kangoogle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 903

05 Jan 2009, 7:21 pm

Abangyarudo wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
yesplease wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
colbs49 wrote:
Why,some might ask. To put it simply us and the gay rights movement have a lot of similarities and face the same challenges. Both of us have a mental difference, we can't help it were just born the way we are. Since both of us differ from what is seen as normal naturally the Neurotypical population sees us as something wrong that needs to be purged from this world. Simply put, If Autism Speaks is to us than the Religious Right is to homosexuals. Yes prop H8 won't take away the right for us to marry but thats beside the point. The real reason why Prop H8 hurts us is that it hinders equal rights and encourages people to hate anything that is different from them. If any one stands for Neurodiversity Prop H8 needs to go, its time to overturn it.
No you miss a key distinction here, homosexuality (and by extension campness) is a lifestyle choice.
Having a specific way to speak and/or act as seen in other co-cultures is a lifestyle choice, what sex an individual finds sexually attractive isn't, just like what their skin color is, and so on.

You miss a very key difference here, no one is born to act camp, nor born with an instinct to find someone of the same sex attractive. If we assume the latter then by extension we would have to say that those into bestiality or paedophillia are acting on instinctive attraction.

On the other hand, people are born on the spectrum.


too bad this post is not only incorrect but the most incoherent point I have ever seen someone try to make. I can only hope those people who share your viewpoints on gay marriage are as incorrect and incoherent as you are they will get their rights in no time then.

Incorrect. How?

As for gay marriage, I myself am fine with civil partnerships being allowed, with most of the same rights.



Abangyarudo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 603

05 Jan 2009, 7:22 pm

Kangoogle wrote:
Quite true. But the right for someone behave in a homosexual manner (which would include sex) would effectively be making it a human right to rape someone.


how does this make any sense? If two men consent to sex then it is not rape. Rape happens more in cases with opposite sex individuals in which one doesn't give consent. I think you are pretty much grabbing at straws here.



yesplease
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 517

05 Jan 2009, 7:23 pm

Kangoogle wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
... no one is born to act camp, nor born with an instinct to find someone of the same sex attractive.

Evidence, Please?

Lets assume the opposite, that someone is born to act camp, or born to find someone of the same sex attractive. Then there would be clear evidence for its heritability. In the same way that someone on the spectrum is likely to have someone with at least the character traits in their own family.
Not all innate characteristics are heritable. Some disabilities come to mind, perhaps as a result of an accident, which clearly aren't heritable in any way, but are still an innate characteristic of that individual and they cannot be discriminated against because of it according to law. It's still up in the air as to whether or not sexuality is mostly based on biological or environmental factors, but that doesn't make it any more or less of an innate characteristic.

Anyway, nice strawman, it's always refreshing to see people attempt 'em. ;)



Abangyarudo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 603

05 Jan 2009, 7:27 pm

Kangoogle wrote:
Abangyarudo wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
yesplease wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
colbs49 wrote:
Why,some might ask. To put it simply us and the gay rights movement have a lot of similarities and face the same challenges. Both of us have a mental difference, we can't help it were just born the way we are. Since both of us differ from what is seen as normal naturally the Neurotypical population sees us as something wrong that needs to be purged from this world. Simply put, If Autism Speaks is to us than the Religious Right is to homosexuals. Yes prop H8 won't take away the right for us to marry but thats beside the point. The real reason why Prop H8 hurts us is that it hinders equal rights and encourages people to hate anything that is different from them. If any one stands for Neurodiversity Prop H8 needs to go, its time to overturn it.
No you miss a key distinction here, homosexuality (and by extension campness) is a lifestyle choice.
Having a specific way to speak and/or act as seen in other co-cultures is a lifestyle choice, what sex an individual finds sexually attractive isn't, just like what their skin color is, and so on.

You miss a very key difference here, no one is born to act camp, nor born with an instinct to find someone of the same sex attractive. If we assume the latter then by extension we would have to say that those into bestiality or paedophillia are acting on instinctive attraction.

On the other hand, people are born on the spectrum.


too bad this post is not only incorrect but the most incoherent point I have ever seen someone try to make. I can only hope those people who share your viewpoints on gay marriage are as incorrect and incoherent as you are they will get their rights in no time then.

Incorrect. How?

As for gay marriage, I myself am fine with civil partnerships being allowed, with most of the same rights.


It has been proven that homosexuals are attracted to the same sex and since attraction is usually innate unless other programming (IE: tv) says otherwise. For instance I have always been more attracted to heavy women I'm not affected by peer pressure so thats who I like to date. That is innate thats not something that I gained through conditioning which means that people are born with the attraction to the same sex just as I was born with an attraction to heavier women.

The comparison to beastality and children has no basis in fact cause both of those situations doesn't allow for consent which homosexuality does (minus rape but same sex rape is not very common). Basically Marriage should be allowed if churches refuse to do it thats fine with them but atleast give them the option cause its no different then say me getting married to a woman. The same feelings are there and we both consent.



Last edited by Abangyarudo on 05 Jan 2009, 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

yesplease
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 517

05 Jan 2009, 7:32 pm

Kangoogle wrote:
Its called proof by contradiction - which as you know is the only way to prove such a statement :)

How about you build a case for the counterclaim. :)
In order for it to be a proof by contradiction you have to use valid assumptions regarding the topic. No strawmen allowed. Homosexuality may or may not be due primarily to heritable factors or environmental factors, but regardless of which one ends up being the dominant cause, that still doesn't mean it's a choice as opposed to an innate characteristic. Being disabled may not be heritable, but it can still be an innate characteristic someone has, not a choice.

What you need to prove to back up your statements is that somehow sexuality is a choice. By contradiction or otherwise... Even then, all that would prove would that be any individual can choose any sexual orientation, not anything about marriage outside of possibly redefining it as a legal term.



Last edited by yesplease on 05 Jan 2009, 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kangoogle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 903

05 Jan 2009, 7:37 pm

Abangyarudo wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
Quite true. But the right for someone behave in a homosexual manner (which would include sex) would effectively be making it a human right to rape someone.


how does this make any sense? If two men consent to sex then it is not rape. Rape happens more in cases with opposite sex individuals in which one doesn't give consent. I think you are pretty much grabbing at straws here.

Not at all - making something a right involves one person not two. The "right" to have gay sex on the proviso of consent makes it not a right in practise, rights have to be universal.



Abangyarudo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 603

05 Jan 2009, 7:40 pm

Kangoogle wrote:
Abangyarudo wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
Quite true. But the right for someone behave in a homosexual manner (which would include sex) would effectively be making it a human right to rape someone.


how does this make any sense? If two men consent to sex then it is not rape. Rape happens more in cases with opposite sex individuals in which one doesn't give consent. I think you are pretty much grabbing at straws here.

Not at all - making something a right involves one person not two. The "right" to have gay sex on the proviso of consent makes it not a right in practise, rights have to be universal.


if thats true then we should outlaw marriage in general because two men/women cannot consent neither can two of the opposite sex. Which would mean both aren't rights and should thus be outlawed. See a problem with your argument yet?



Kangoogle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 903

05 Jan 2009, 7:45 pm

Abangyarudo wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
Abangyarudo wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
yesplease wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
colbs49 wrote:
Why,some might ask. To put it simply us and the gay rights movement have a lot of similarities and face the same challenges. Both of us have a mental difference, we can't help it were just born the way we are. Since both of us differ from what is seen as normal naturally the Neurotypical population sees us as something wrong that needs to be purged from this world. Simply put, If Autism Speaks is to us than the Religious Right is to homosexuals. Yes prop H8 won't take away the right for us to marry but thats beside the point. The real reason why Prop H8 hurts us is that it hinders equal rights and encourages people to hate anything that is different from them. If any one stands for Neurodiversity Prop H8 needs to go, its time to overturn it.
No you miss a key distinction here, homosexuality (and by extension campness) is a lifestyle choice.
Having a specific way to speak and/or act as seen in other co-cultures is a lifestyle choice, what sex an individual finds sexually attractive isn't, just like what their skin color is, and so on.

You miss a very key difference here, no one is born to act camp, nor born with an instinct to find someone of the same sex attractive. If we assume the latter then by extension we would have to say that those into bestiality or paedophillia are acting on instinctive attraction.

On the other hand, people are born on the spectrum.


too bad this post is not only incorrect but the most incoherent point I have ever seen someone try to make. I can only hope those people who share your viewpoints on gay marriage are as incorrect and incoherent as you are they will get their rights in no time then.

Incorrect. How?

As for gay marriage, I myself am fine with civil partnerships being allowed, with most of the same rights.


It has been proven that homosexuals are attracted to the same sex and since attraction is usually innate unless other programming (IE: tv) says otherwise. For instance I have always been more attracted to heavy women I'm not affected by peer pressure so thats who I like to date. That is innate thats not something that I gained through conditioning which means that people are born with the attraction to the same sex just as I was born with an attraction to heavier women.

You can buy books that teach you how to attract pretty much nearly anyone (what amazed me is that these books by and large actually work!) - in practise looks do not count anything like as much as people like to profess.

One thing that might surprise you - before society really existed, human nature was to have children at such an age that everyone would be paedophile. So really all attraction beyond that is caused by society and people's inability to resist social control should not extend into becoming a right if enough people fail to resist it with a similar outcome.
Quote:
The comparison to beastality and children has no basis in fact cause both of those situations doesn't allow for consent which homosexuality does (minus rape but same sex rape is not very common). Basically Marriage should be allowed if churches refuse to do it thats fine with them but atleast give them the option cause its no different then say me getting married to a woman. The same feelings are there and we both consent.

Marriage is supposed to be for having children - which would extend into gay adoption rights (my main opposition for many reasons, namely the involvement of a non-consenting child). This is the main reason for kicking off about redefining marriage, what is wrong with a civil partnership?



yesplease
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 517

05 Jan 2009, 7:46 pm

Kangoogle wrote:
Quote:
People aren't born camp, but they are born w/ a spectrum of characteristics regarding sexuality just like they are born w/ a spectrum of characteristics as it relates to autism.
One set is at best a dubious set of characteristics. The other set is more like instinct.
So you claim, but you have not provided any proof of this. So far the science points to sexuality as an innate characteristic. Even if someone proves sexuality isn't an innate characteristic, all that means is that anyone can be gay, straight, or bisexual, and the entire notion of marriage as a collection of state and federal rights would still exist for consenting adults.
Kangoogle wrote:
Quote:
Not all people who are homosexual are campy.
No, but that is where AFF and some of the other prats which claim to represent us draw the most parallels.
O.K... Why don't you complain to them about it? :lol:
Kangoogle wrote:
Quote:
In terms of the state observing the marriage of two people, w/ all the state and federal rights that entails, discriminating based on an innate characteristic such as sexual orientation was deemed illegal by the state supreme court. This isn't about campy or not campy, since the behavior of homosexuals in the state varies greatly, but about discrimination based on an innate characteristic.
Something being legally recognised does not necessarily make it true. We only have to look at our own condition and how that can be legally recognised to see this fact.
This isn't about what's logically strictly speaking, since the only thing we could talk about in that fashion would be logic/math, but what conditions we have used to govern ourselves.
Kangoogle wrote:
Quote:
Pedophilia and bestiality are different because even if they are innate instincts, they are actions that by definition can and likely do cause lasting harm and cannot have the consent of another party, which is why they are illegal. If a homosexual person gets married to a member of the same sex, that member has to consent to the marriage. Even if pedophilia did not result in lasting psychological harm to a child, which it demonstrably does, a child cannot consent due to legal conditions regarding their existence as an autonomous member of society, and an animal can't communicate in a way we understand at all, so they can't consent either. In both cases we are looking at very likely to possible harm, as well as lack of consent, which is why both are illegal.
Quite true. But the right for someone behave in a homosexual manner (which would include sex) would effectively be making it a human right to rape someone.
That is false. Rape depends on consent wrt sexual acts. If two homosexuals consent to sex w/ each other that is not rape. That isn't to say that homosexuals cannot commit rape, just that people can be homosexual w/o committing rape provided both members consent to the sexual act in question.



Kangoogle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 903

05 Jan 2009, 7:49 pm

yesplease wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
Its called proof by contradiction - which as you know is the only way to prove such a statement :)

How about you build a case for the counterclaim. :)
In order for it to be a proof by contradiction you have to use valid assumptions regarding the topic. No strawmen allowed. Homosexuality may or may not be due primarily to heritable factors or environmental factors, but regardless of which one ends up being the dominant cause, that still doesn't mean it's a choice as opposed to an innate characteristic. Being disabled may not be heritable, but it can still be an innate characteristic someone has, not a choice.

What you need to prove to back up your statements is that somehow sexuality is a choice. By contradiction or otherwise...

Environmental factors in this case is like claiming that the Bulger murders happened because they were watching a dodgy movie, the reality was they made a choice to do it.

Most disabilities on the other hand that are caused by physical environmental harm, rather than psychological harm.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,726
Location: Stendec

05 Jan 2009, 7:51 pm

Kangoogle wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
... no one is born to act camp, nor born with an instinct to find someone of the same sex attractive.

Evidence, Please?

Lets assume ...

No. Let's not assume anything. Let's not play games with words, either. Instead, provide evidence - real, measureable, and repeatably verifiable evidence - to support your claim.

Its called proof by contradiction - which as you know is the only way to prove such a statement :) How about you build a case for the counterclaim. :)

No.

You made the initial claim. Therefore, the burden of proof for your claim lies squarely upon you.


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


Last edited by Fnord on 05 Jan 2009, 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Abangyarudo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 603

05 Jan 2009, 7:51 pm

Kangoogle wrote:
Abangyarudo wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
Abangyarudo wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
yesplease wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
colbs49 wrote:
Why,some might ask. To put it simply us and the gay rights movement have a lot of similarities and face the same challenges. Both of us have a mental difference, we can't help it were just born the way we are. Since both of us differ from what is seen as normal naturally the Neurotypical population sees us as something wrong that needs to be purged from this world. Simply put, If Autism Speaks is to us than the Religious Right is to homosexuals. Yes prop H8 won't take away the right for us to marry but thats beside the point. The real reason why Prop H8 hurts us is that it hinders equal rights and encourages people to hate anything that is different from them. If any one stands for Neurodiversity Prop H8 needs to go, its time to overturn it.
No you miss a key distinction here, homosexuality (and by extension campness) is a lifestyle choice.
Having a specific way to speak and/or act as seen in other co-cultures is a lifestyle choice, what sex an individual finds sexually attractive isn't, just like what their skin color is, and so on.

You miss a very key difference here, no one is born to act camp, nor born with an instinct to find someone of the same sex attractive. If we assume the latter then by extension we would have to say that those into bestiality or paedophillia are acting on instinctive attraction.

On the other hand, people are born on the spectrum.


too bad this post is not only incorrect but the most incoherent point I have ever seen someone try to make. I can only hope those people who share your viewpoints on gay marriage are as incorrect and incoherent as you are they will get their rights in no time then.

Incorrect. How?

As for gay marriage, I myself am fine with civil partnerships being allowed, with most of the same rights.


It has been proven that homosexuals are attracted to the same sex and since attraction is usually innate unless other programming (IE: tv) says otherwise. For instance I have always been more attracted to heavy women I'm not affected by peer pressure so thats who I like to date. That is innate thats not something that I gained through conditioning which means that people are born with the attraction to the same sex just as I was born with an attraction to heavier women.

You can buy books that teach you how to attract pretty much nearly anyone (what amazed me is that these books by and large actually work!) - in practise looks do not count anything like as much as people like to profess.

One thing that might surprise you - before society really existed, human nature was to have children at such an age that everyone would be paedophile. So really all attraction beyond that is caused by society and people's inability to resist social control should not extend into becoming a right if enough people fail to resist it with a similar outcome.
Quote:
The comparison to beastality and children has no basis in fact cause both of those situations doesn't allow for consent which homosexuality does (minus rape but same sex rape is not very common). Basically Marriage should be allowed if churches refuse to do it thats fine with them but atleast give them the option cause its no different then say me getting married to a woman. The same feelings are there and we both consent.

Marriage is supposed to be for having children - which would extend into gay adoption rights (my main opposition for many reasons, namely the involvement of a non-consenting child). This is the main reason for kicking off about redefining marriage, what is wrong with a civil partnership?


marriage is about having children only in certain cases. There is many couples who do not have children should you revoke their marrage due to that fact?

Bad parents come in all types so two gay parents are not going to do any worse then two opposite sex parents. It does not damage the child as I've know plenty of people who have been adopted by gay parents and are the same as anyone. Civil Partnership puts a lower status on their relationship as compared to a marriage it should be equal. Relationships shouldn't be judged on the basis of popular view.

Its like if we as people with disorders as they are classified weren't allowed to be married. Then I would say whats wrong with us as partners that we cannot get equal rights. Essentially the religious view of marriage has no effect on the personal union if they don't get married by a church what does it matter? people go to the state and get married at the courthouse and it is still considered marriage. So essentially whats wrong with marriage for same sex unions besides countering the overly religious view of marriage. Especially in a time where church and state are to remain separate.



Kangoogle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 903

05 Jan 2009, 7:53 pm

Abangyarudo wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
Abangyarudo wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
Quite true. But the right for someone behave in a homosexual manner (which would include sex) would effectively be making it a human right to rape someone.


how does this make any sense? If two men consent to sex then it is not rape. Rape happens more in cases with opposite sex individuals in which one doesn't give consent. I think you are pretty much grabbing at straws here.

Not at all - making something a right involves one person not two. The "right" to have gay sex on the proviso of consent makes it not a right in practise, rights have to be universal.


if thats true then we should outlaw marriage in general because two men/women cannot consent neither can two of the opposite sex. Which would mean both aren't rights and should thus be outlawed. See a problem with your argument yet?

Nope - I am not arguing marriage should be allowed as a human right of the parents, I argue that it is an environment for raising children. However the only real argument Gay Rights people and everyone against H8 are putting up for having gay relationships is the one that its a right to have homosexual relationships - and here I have shown it is a non-argument.