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

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.



yesplease
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

05 Jan 2009, 8:00 pm

Kangoogle wrote:
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.
The environment can be responsible for physical or psychological disabilities. For instance if homosexuality was determined to be caused predominantly by exposure to some mix of chemical agents in the environment, it would be environmental but not as the result of watching a video clip. There are also valid/documented psychological disabilities such as PSTD that arise from what sensory info someone experiences as opposed to being exposed to a biological, physical, or chemical agent.

There is clearly precedent for differentiating between likely environmental factors, be them biological, chemical, physical, or sensory, and nutty claims of an individual, be them from watching a dodgy movie or eating one too many twinkies. Homosexuality has thus far been shown to be an innate characteristic, and comparing it to a random defense thrown out because a couple of evil little SOBs didn't want to get the axe is incorrect at the very least.



Last edited by yesplease on 05 Jan 2009, 8:11 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Abangyarudo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

05 Jan 2009, 8:04 pm

Kangoogle wrote:
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.


your ignoring the point acutally you said in that statement that two men consenting to be married cannot be approved so whats the difference in opposite sex relationships. You have shown that you lack any form of point you haven't shown that homosexuality is a right because in turn that makes heterosexuality a right and invalidates both.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

05 Jan 2009, 8:10 pm

The way I see it, there are only 3 possible origins for sexual identity:

    Genetics. A person's sexual identity is coded into their DNA. The formation of reproductive organs and secondary sexual characteristics is mainly determined by DNA coding.

    Imprinting. During a child's formative years, environmental factors, socialisation, and events determine a person's sexual identity. This may also include hormonal and chemical imbalances while still in the womb.

    Choice. Once a person reaches an age of self-determination, they decide for themselves what their sexual identity shall be. This decision may or may not be heavily influenced by parental input and peer pressure.
My money is on a combination of all these factors, with each taking greater or lessor precedence in every individual.

Of course, this is just my general opinion, as I'm not a medical or mental-health professional, behavioralist, or geneticist. As such, I have no evidence to back up any specific claim. Your opinions may vary.


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


pandd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,430

06 Jan 2009, 7:39 am

Kangoogle wrote:
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.

What an absurd, convoluted load of nonsense. A right to do X in situation Y is a right to do X in situation Y, that is obvious and tautological.
Quote:
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?

What marriage is supposed to be for seems to depend on who is doing the supposing. However if your supposition was correct, post-menopausal women would not be permitted to marry, but they are. Further most adoptions involve non-consenting children and there is no evidence whatsoever that children would be harmed by being adopted by homosexual parents rather than heterosexual parents, all other things being equal.

Society benefits from stable pair-bonded units. There is evidence that such units and the families they often generate/create tend to be more likely to contribute economically (both through earning/consuming and attempting to save/invest), and to be less likely to engage in socially destructive and/or criminal activities. The kinds of activities and attitudes fostered by socially recognized and sanctioned pair bonded units tend to be more constructive and beneficial to their society than the behavior generated by those who remain outside such units. It is in society's interests to extract the greatest benefit from homosexual people by recognizing and sanctioning their pair-bonded relationships just as we do with heterosexuals. This is best for society, is what is wanted by those most directly concerned, and harms no one who does not willfully choose to concern themselves with controlling or elitist behavior of the kind that it seems undesirable to promote in a free and loosely egalitarian society.



WillThePerson
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 7 Apr 2008
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 154

07 Jan 2009, 5:05 pm

Fnord wrote:
Yet another lame attempt to link Asperger's Syndrome with Homosexuality ... :roll:

Or not.
I think he's trying to say that by "challenges" not the same challenges (I.e. exact same), but outlines of them. Gays are being treated like crap, and so are many ASD people.



Kangoogle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

07 Jan 2009, 6:04 pm

pandd wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
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.

What an absurd, convoluted load of nonsense. A right to do X in situation Y is a right to do X in situation Y, that is obvious and tautological.

Nope - rights are tied to individuals, not couples and beyond...
Quote:
Quote:
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?

What marriage is supposed to be for seems to depend on who is doing the supposing. However if your supposition was correct, post-menopausal women would not be permitted to marry, but they are. Further most adoptions involve non-consenting children and there is no evidence whatsoever that children would be harmed by being adopted by homosexual parents rather than heterosexual parents, all other things being equal.

Whoa - kind of illustrates your total lack of understanding of adoption here. In brief, these children (already with severe identity issues in most cases) are going to get bullied to s**t - well lets guess, for identity nonetheless. (if you missed here, they are going to get bullied for gay parents).
Quote:
Society benefits from stable pair-bonded units. There is evidence that such units and the families they often generate/create tend to be more likely to contribute economically (both through earning/consuming and attempting to save/invest), and to be less likely to engage in socially destructive and/or criminal activities. The kinds of activities and attitudes fostered by socially recognized and sanctioned pair bonded units tend to be more constructive and beneficial to their society than the behavior generated by those who remain outside such units. It is in society's interests to extract the greatest benefit from homosexual people by recognizing and sanctioning their pair-bonded relationships just as we do with heterosexuals. This is best for society, is what is wanted by those most directly concerned, and harms no one who does not willfully choose to concern themselves with controlling or elitist behavior of the kind that it seems undesirable to promote in a free and loosely egalitarian society.

All I can say here is its nonsense.