BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 May 09 - 02:25 AM

Not sure I got it all..its my 'call'..for what?..(promise to be fair)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 May 09 - 02:16 AM

I don't have time to comment right now, Little Hawk, other than to point out something about the way I usually attempt to phrase things. When GfS asked me how I would feel if one of my children, presuming I had any, "decided" to become gay, I pointed out that his question ". . . is a minor variation of a question one used to hear a lot a few decades back, and it is the unmistakable hallmark of the bigot: 'Would you want your daughter to marry one?'"

I was suggesting that perhaps GfS didn't fully realize what kind of question that sounded like, and might like to think about it a bit and possibly reevaluate the ideas that prompted it.

I did not flat-out call GfS a "bigot." It's still GfS's call.

Bedtime for Bonzo. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 May 09 - 01:54 AM

Well, Don, again I do not see any area where we disagree in what you just said.

I think you have possibly misinterpreted what I was referring to when I spoke of not judging a person.

Language is the tricky part here. You and I are, I think, in agreement about ethics and about how to respond to unethical behaviour, but we are not interpreting what I mean by the phrase "to judge a human being" in the same way. It has nothing to do with letting people get away with bad behaviour. That's not what I'm speaking of.

Suppose someone does something idiotic...

If you say to him, "That was a stupid thing to do!" you are on solid ground. He can maybe do something useful with that advice. You have judged his behaviour, and behaviour can be changed. You have not judged him, in the sense of who he is as a living being. You have not judged his intrinsic worth.

If you say to him, "You're an idiot!" you are not saying anything useful at all to him, and he can't do anything useful with it. He can just get angry or humiliated. That would be judging HIM, not his actions.

See?

Try the above two approaches on a child while he's growing up. If you keep telling him he's stupid, he's an idiot, he's lazy, and he's no good...well, it gives him no useful input at all, and it may convince him that he really is stupid, an idiot, lazy, and no good, in which case his life is headed for no place good at all...or it may fill him with a sense of bitter injustice and hatred for you. This has happened to many children while they were growing up. They had judgement brought down on them their parents who meant well perhaps, but who had no idea how to use words. It was not expressed as judgement of their actions, but of their intrinsic worth as a human being. That's what I'm saying we shouldn't do.

That's the kind of judgement I'm saying we shouldn't bring down on people.

But we should certainly tell them that their behaviour is unacceptable or inappropriate or illegal...if it is. And they should meet the normal consequences of that behaviour.

As I said, behaviour can be changed. To inform a person of wrongful behaviour can be useful. To inform him that he's an idiot, a bigot, a racist, a fool, etc....is useless. He will either believe you...and forever hate you for it. Or he won't believe you...and forever hate you double for it.

Believe me. I know how it works, having been on the receiving end of that sort of thing when I was young.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 May 09 - 01:31 AM

Little Hawk, a lot of what I posted above are from essays on ethics. I am not accusing you of these things, I put those essay excerpts there as a reminder of a lot of things that need thinking about from time to time. Including by me.

And I am not trying to make you the target of any argument.

As to the matter of judging the action, not the person, I can most certainly judge what a person advocates, even though they may not have taken action on it—yet. If someone advocates something that I consider unethical, I have a moral obligation to speak out against it. I do not have the right to muzzle him or lock him up. But I most certainly have the right to express my opinion. And endeavor to stop him before he translates what he advocates into action or manages to talk other people into doing it.

And that includes telling someone who has shown all the signs of being a flaming bigot that that is what he seems to be exhibiting, and telling him why I think so. There is even the outside chance in such situations that the person might take it to heart and do some soul-searching. As I have suggested a few people here might do.

I most certainly hope that you are not a silly, unrealistic morally agnostic prat, but if you do not wish to be regarded as one, it would really help if you would stop sounding like one.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 May 09 - 12:54 AM

We don't really disagree, Don, you'd just like to think we do. ;-) You are again thoroughly misunderstanding what I mean when I speak of not judging another human being.

For instance, I do not agree with the propositions you suggested I would that:

•       "Everyone is entitled to their own truth."
•       "There's no such thing as good and evil."

Nope. I don't agree with those in the least. People are not entitled to a truth, for example, that makes them think they can wantonly harm others, for instance. They may think they are entitled to it, but they're not.

And there is such a thing as good or evil. And I am not even slightly afraid of "taking sides".

I know it would be convenient for you, Don, if I believed all the silly things you would like to think I believe in order for me to make a good target for your argument, but I don't.

I said...judge the action, not the person. That is what the law does, if it's a sensible law. It judges the action, not the person. It does not sentence a robber to jail because he's an unpleasant fellow, a jerk, etc., it sentences him to jail because he has committed robbery. That's a judgement on the action, and that's what I mean by judging the action. The robber pays the penalty of his crime...he does not go to jail because he's Black, gay, Muslim, atheist, mean or just plain unfriendly and generally not nice. He does not go to jail because he's "evil". He goes to jail because he committed robbery. He didn't control an evil tendency.

That's a judgement upon his actions, and that's the kind of judgement I'm in favor of....the normal course of enforcing the law. I am no moral agnostic whatsoever. I know what is right and what is wrong. I'm simply not the person you imagine me to be at all.

I'd waste more of my time here trying to prove that I'm not the silly unrealistic moral agnostic prat you wish I was, but why bother? It gets boring and after all, it is my time. Why should I spend it that way when there are better ways? Why allow YOU to make ME waste my own time defending what needs no defence?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 May 09 - 12:45 AM

Tia, there you go again..can't you ever say something original, ..umm..like an a original thought, instead of these feeble attempts at 'bagging' on someone?? Look up the word 'constructive'...I mean as long as you're not reading this thread, any longer.

Don, Even the truth is in there too....but then, maybe the devil has gene issues. ..or claims he does..who knows? It says he's a liar too.

Take a chance, and bet on reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 May 09 - 12:20 AM

And "Even the Devil quotes Scripture."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: TIA
Date: 02 May 09 - 12:09 AM

I know one particular source whence forth I can be sure that truth does not issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 May 09 - 11:27 PM

'Seek you, the truth, and the truth shall set you free'..as long as you're quoting the Bible,..don't forget that one, boys!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 May 09 - 11:15 PM

Addendum:

Judge, and be prepared to be judged. And remember that you can be judged for the judgments you make—and for the judgments you avoid making.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 May 09 - 10:52 PM

Little Hawk, I'll be gone for awhile, but here are some selected readings:

####

The expectation that men should abandon their judgment is the desire that men reject their ability to reason. In fact, when the Bible states "Judge not, that ye be not judged," the implicit motivation to refrain from judging is the fear of someone else's judgment. Many believers may say that this means we should not condemn others, but this verse makes no mention of either condemning or others. Besides, there are times when it is morally proper to condemn others. I would never expect or ask others to "judge not" or to suspend their ability to reason. In fact, I purposefully seek those who are not willing to abandon their intellectual and moral judgment. I delight in the use of my mind, which means I delight in my ability to pass sound judgments about things and people. Also, I fear neither the judgment nor the condemnation of others, because I do not accept the implicit assumption that others are in some way superior to me, such that their judgment and/or condemnation is be something I should fear. Rather, I adopt the principle: Judge, and be prepared to be judged.

####

We are thinking critically when we recognize the relevance and/or merit of alternative assumptions and perspectives recognize the extent and weight of evidence.

I've been in a number of social situations where I've heard these phrases all too often:

•        "Everyone is entitled to their own truth."
•        "There's no such thing as good and evil."
•        "Judge not lest you be judged."

These statements are not the product of critical thinking. Arguably these statements result from a LACK of critical thought. While part of being critical is to thoroughly examine all aspects of any statement, fact, or opinion, the essence of being critical is NOT to withhold judgement, but to render it.

Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man's character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil.

Don't you find it strange that people associate judgment or the act of judging with a negative connotation? This is a product of society and a natural tendency for many people to be neutral fence-sitters, and abdicate responsibility by not rendering any judgment whatsoever.

The goal of exercising critical thought is not to strive for absolute neutrality—which doesn't benefit anyone. We don't become critical thinkers just for the sake of criticism. The goal is to strive for the truth, and to reject untruth. The goal is to strive for the good and to reject the evil. This is a very difficult goal to attain, but it is the motivation that should inspire us to continue to question ourselves, our world, our existence. It will always be an ongoing process, and one fraught with mistakes–but that should not frighten us into becoming fence-sitters who sanction anything.

It is fairly easy to grasp abstract moral principles; it can be very difficult to apply them to a given situation, particularly when it involves the moral character of another person. When one pronounces moral judgment whether in praise or in blame, one must be prepared to answer "Why?" and to prove one's case—to oneself and to any rational inquirer.

So to the statements above, this is how critical thinkers would rephrase them

•        "Everyone has a right to seek the truth."
•        "We should seek the good and reject the evil."
•        "Judge, and be prepared to be judged."

####

I refuse to remain impartial between the fire brigade and the fire.
—Winston Churchill

The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.
—A. A. Milne

Those who choose to not participate in politics will be ruled by their inferiors.
—Plato

Are those who declare "Judge not that ye be not judged" willing to allow others to act immorally so that they may do so also?
—No mercy for the Devil

####

"Judge, and be prepared to be judged."

Let's compare that to the Bible.

The bible says "Judge not, least ye be judged" (or words to that effect).

The bible tells you not to judge others because doing so will likely result later in you being judged. We could argue all day long over the nuances and meanings of the word "judge". I am not going to do that. I am just going to assume the meaning that most of us would, when we use the word "judge". It is generally used to mean "analyze". The act of "judging" is the act of "analyzing."

In our society it has become politically correct to say "don't be judgmental." Are they saying "don't be analytical?" No. What they are really saying is "do not criticize." No one is ever going to complain because you give them too many compliments. They mean "do not criticize me."

In the world we live in today, religion is finally being exposed to the same criticism as science and all other human activities. People do judge. They analyze, and if they feel it's warranted, they criticize. That is called thinking and expressing yourself. Everyone judges, it's called thinking. Everyone criticizes when they feel justified, it's called freedom of expression. And, everyone judges their judger, as is their right.

####

You say that one risks his personal integrity if he chooses to stand on a particular side of the fence. That is not true. You might end up finding you were wrong. But being wrong does not necessarily mean being dishonest, ergo you can be wrong and still be a man of integrity. The real reason why it is not true is because if you don't choose, you have no integrity. Integrity is the consistent practice of virtues such as honesty, productivity, justice, etc. To practice those, you have to make choices - both moral and practical. In order to be just, you sometimes need to make a choice on whether a person is or is not guilty for say a crime. There is no middle path here. Your end conclusion might be wrong, but if you have seen the evidence, considered it all and if you have found no inconsistency with one of the verdicts, then you can honestly make that verdict without the breach of integrity. You cannot go through life without making choices and judgments. Judge and be prepared to be judged.
—Nikola Novak

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 May 09 - 08:22 PM

I am here, Don, to remind certain people over and over again, that they have no moral authority or right to judge other individuals (whom they are in dialogue with) or to make sweeping statements that sum up another individual whom they are in dialogue with as a "racist", a "bigot", a "sexist" or anything else like that.

We do not have the right or authority to pass that sort of judgement on other people when we're discussing something with them, in my opinion. Also, it inevitably derails the discussion and turns it into an ugly exchange attack/defence/counterattack.

I go by an ancient spiritual teaching, Don: "Judge not, lest ye shall BE judged (and found wanting)."

I say that not as a Christian, not as a Muslim, not as a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Pagan or indeed any other such designation, but as a free thinker who believes in the principles being expressed in that spiritual teaching.

We are not equipped to pass judgement on another human being, in my opinion, and we should resist the temptation to do so most strenuously. We never know enough about anyone else to be equipped to judge them in that fashion.

As for passing judgement on people's actions...well...that's another matter entirely. ;-) If I see someone taking an action that is destructive in some way, then I judge the action itself, and I deal with it accordingly (as does civil law). I do not pass judgement on the person but on what the person did or is doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 May 09 - 08:00 PM

Sounds good, Amos. I've got a busy weekend ahead of me also.

Enjoy!

Don Firth

P. S. If anyone is curious about my views on this matter, just reread (or read for the first time) my many posts above. TTFN.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 07:30 PM

Thanks to all of you for a spirited and interesting (if a bit repetitive) discussio. I am away for a week. Don't take advantage.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 May 09 - 07:06 PM

Well, sorry, Little Hawk, but that's the way you come on, as if standing in a neutral corner and remarking on the "human weaknesses" of the participants in the discussion without really getting involved in the discussion itself. Then you return from time to time to take pot-shots without actually stating an opinion of your own.

And by the way, if you don't know enough about something to venture an opinion, you might consider not taking those pot-shots at people who have spent considerable time researching the matter and have facts upon which to base their opinions.

"The argument about genetic predisposition (or not) is simply not what concerns me in this discussion, and I'm not inclined to argue about it one way or the other. I have no basis for arguing about it."

Okay, then why are you here, other than to snipe?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 07:02 PM

GtS:

I don't think I've heard such a moderate position from you before on this issue.

The fact of gays marrying or not marrying is, indeed, as tempest in a teapot. The fact of them being denied the RIGHT to do so is a serious matter and it would be so whether the basis of the bias was freckles, or elongated earlobes, or skin color, or any other non-germane excuse to exercise bias.

This really has nothing to do with homosexuality as such. It has to do with knowingly excluding a set of humans from a legal right on spurious grounds.

Why make them sit in the back of the bus?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 01 May 09 - 06:53 PM

Thats Futiltiy South Dakota, where the research in this field is being conducted.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 01 May 09 - 06:50 PM

"A GENE THAT CAUSES MIDDLE AGES MEN TO MASTURBATE IN FRONT OF THEIR COMPUTER SCREENS, WHILE WATCHING PORNOGRAPHY!"

To isolate it, they would first have to find at least one middle aged man who has a computer but has never exhibited that behaviour. A quadropoligic wouldn't do, for reason that should be obvious. Then they would have to waterboard the subject a few times, to determine if he was telling the truth. Then they would have to find at least one more, and start over, to replicate the findings. Just about an exercise in futiltiy.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 May 09 - 06:18 PM

NEWS ALERT:
SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE FOUND A GENE THAT CAUSES MIDDLE AGES MEN TO MASTURBATE IN FRONT OF THEIR COMPUTER SCREENS, WHILE WATCHING PORNOGRAPHY! Details at ten.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Sorcha
Date: 01 May 09 - 06:12 PM

And what IS it with people who simply can't seem to change their minds when presented with FACTS? Do they just ALWAYS have to be 'right'?

But I was wrong once too.....

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Sorcha
Date: 01 May 09 - 06:10 PM

YOU RULE, Little Hawk! What I've thought all my life but couldn't put it into words! YOU did!!! Bless you on this May Day!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 May 09 - 06:07 PM

Regarding the genetic predisposition (or not) argument, Don, I really don't have an opinion about that. Why? Because I don't know enough about it at this point to have an opinion.

I think there are probably a great number of factors which can play a part in whether someone is inclined to be gay...some intrinsic to the person, some acquired through environment, culture, etc. I happen to believe that people reincarnate, and that one human soul can live many lives as a man and many as a woman...so if that is the case, then why wouldn't people get a bit confused about their gender roles at times? And why should it matter if they do?

I think that the human soul is equally male and female, Don...every human soul...but that when you are born you must find yourself in either a male or a female body at that time...and then you come under the influence of your culture and your family and whoever else is around...and so it goes. Anything can happen.

So what are you gonna do with that? Probably nothing, right? ;-) Because you don't even consider it in your argument.

The argument about genetic predisposition (or not) is simply not what concerns me in this discussion, and I'm not inclined to argue about it one way or the other. I have no basis for arguing about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 May 09 - 05:56 PM

Don, you consistently misunderstand me.

My stand is this: I have NO objection whatsoever to gay couples getting married if they wish to, and I have no objection to them being legally allowed to do so. No objection. They have my blessing.

Got that????????????????????????

Please tell me you do.

Now, I am also concerned about some of the points that Akenaton and others have raised, quite apart from that, and I agree with some of their concerns. I am concerned about how the mass media and certain people who have what amounts to an obsession about this particular issue have arranged for it to occupy such an oversized piece of everyone's attention for a decade or so now.

I think it's way out of balance, I think it's a tempest in a teapot, I think it's a political ploy by certain special interests for their own (political) gain, and I think there are people on BOTH sides of this debate who are likewise out of balance over the whole thing and are using it as a political ploy, and THAT is why I favour some statements and disagree with some statements on BOTH sides of the fucking debate!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can you understand that or it is too inconceivable to you that a human being doesn't HAVE to be 100% totally partisan on one or the other side of two sets of arguing people?

It isn't just a case of Black/White, Good/Evil, All-wrong/All-right in this world, Don. There are shades of gray in most situations. There are fools, fanatics, demagogues, and highly prejudiced people carryin on on BOTH sides of most highly charged debates in this world, and they are the people who fuck things up for most of the rest of us by their mutual intolerance for one another and their determination to dominate the airwaves and persecute US with their particular obsession, whatever it is.

I DO take a stand, Don. I take a stand for fairness, even-handedness, moderation, tolerance, and willingness to listen to other people rather than just bleating some politically correct slogan at them and mentally patting yourself on the back while you do it for being such a terrifically great and moral guy, and that's what I see a lot of people doing here a great deal of the time. They are eager to find someone else to judge and condemn, someone else to label as "bigot" or "racist" or "pro-homo", but they have precious little interest in understanding what the other person is attempting to say...or why. I object to THAT.

Do you understand me NOW? If not, I must assume you have never even tried to. I get so fed up with this endless bullshit from you about my supposed "colourless neutrality"...Christ! I can hardly believe it each time you say it.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 May 09 - 05:36 PM

Little Hawk, Amos and I most certainly do get the point, and part of that point is that Ake is dodging the issue. We have said that, to a degree, the science is not complete, but so far, there are indications 1) that there may be a genetic component in determining gender orientation; and/or, 2) there are occasionally imbalances in the infusion of hormones at a crucial time in the development of the fetus which determines gender orientation. And that this orientation often manifests itself at an early age, long before puberty and long before a child knows anything about sex at all.

There are case studies up the ziggy on this. And both Ake and GfS are studiously avoiding this evidence and making the flat statement that gender orientation is a matter of conscious, well-considered, and deliberate choice.

Phooey!!!

If you're going to commment, try reading a bit more carefully first.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 May 09 - 05:04 PM

I have read both Plato's "Republic," and Huxley's "Brave New World," GfS, and likening what I described to the society Huxley postulated is reaching for it. How do you feel about a childless heterosexual couple who does the same sort of thing?

I know of such a couple who were both fertile, but the woman was unable, due to a physical abnormality, to carry to term. So an egg harvested from the woman was fertilized in vitro, then implanted in the uterus of a woman who volunteered to be a surrogate mother (for a fee, incidentally). Essentially the same procedure as I described above (except that the woman did not charge them a fee).

Is there anything "Huxleyan" about this? Or is that only if it's done by same sex couples?

These days fertility clinics can offer a number of options that one could characterize as Huxleyan. But that doesn't really mean that society is going to collapse.

####

And Ake, you seem to imply that HIV/AIDS was invented by homosexual men.

". . . would you please explain why, in every country where AIDS was diagnosed it first showed up amongst the homosexual community?"

Simple, Ake. It's not true.

The history of HIV/AIDS:   CLICKY.   Although I'm quite sure you will blow this off because it disagrees with what you want to believe.

Transmission of HIV virus (I would consider the Center for Disease Control a fairly reliable and unbiased source of information, wouldn't you?).

Other CDC data:

Males accounted for 74% of the population living with HIV. The largest population living with HIV (45%) comprised men who have sex with men (MSM), followed by persons infected through high-risk heterosexual contact (27%), those infected through injection drug use (22%), and those who were exposed through both male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use (5%).

Still more HERE

Although immunodeficiency diseases of one sort or another have been around for as long as humans have, the HIV/AIDS was first identified in the United States in 1981 in a small group of homosexual males. Saying that this is a "gay disease" is a bit like blaming polio on children who like to swim because the first cases identified in the polio epidemic in the summer 1916 were kids who contracted the virus while swimming at public beaches (when I contracted polio at the age of 2, I hadn't been anywhere near a swimming beach, or other children who had).

No, the association is simply a matter of happenstance, and is used as a handy weapon against gays.

And Little Hawk—have you ever taken a strong stance on a moral or ethical issue, or is "colorless neutrality" your permanent posture on everything? Ever read the statement made by Pastor Martin Niemoller back in the 1930s? If not, look it up and read it. If you have, read it again.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 03:53 PM

Sheeshe, Ake. There is only one political point to this thread, as far as I am concerned. That is the core issue of the civil status being denied a particular group on spurious and prejudicial grounds.

We learn slowly, and often we redefine as we learn. I remind you the word citizen at one time was denied some minorities (due to race or inadequate wealth). At another time a subset of humans was denied the right to marriage or sex because of their economic status. At another, the act of love between two humans was constrained if one was the wrong color.

We are about honoring individual freedom to choose, Ake, not about living up to imaginary norms imposed by authorities. Maybe we differ in this, but that is what I believe we are about.

To the degree we do not learn to honor individual freedom to choose, weare steering in the wrong direction.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 01 May 09 - 03:51 PM

Amos you posted that before...and GFS and I dealt with it before.

If homosexuality was linked to genes, the genetic differences would be huge and obvious.....you and your accomplices would not need to rush around looking for a needle in a haystack!!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 01 May 09 - 03:39 PM

It is obvious from his first post that Amos wished to make a political point by starting this thread....."Liberal"v Right Wing the issue of "rights" only incidental.

As the thread has gone on, the real issue of "rights" has slowly been brought to the fore.
If the thread has caused those who simply read but don't contribute to the debate to think a little more deeply about human rights and how they are apportioned, then I am well pleased.
There can never be any winners and losers in a discussion like this, the object is to increase understanding in all who follow the arguments.
Amazing how Little Hawk's devastating post on the "Witch hunt mentality" was vindicated only a few posts later by a concerted attack by opposers of free speech

At the end of the day, if "marriage" is to be redefined in the image of one minority, then it must be redefined in the image of any form of relationship that human beings demand....to refuse entry to the "marriage club" would be sheer hypocrisy.
Group marriage, incestuous marriage...the sky's the limit

I don't think for one moment that the majority of homosexuals want all the furore of the marriage issue, they are being manipulated as political pawns by their bown fundamentalists and people not unlike Amos.... all over the Western world.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 03:21 PM

What Makes People Gay?? (a survey article).

" in 1991, a neuroscientist in San Diego named Simon LeVay told the world he had found a key difference between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men he studied. LeVay showed that a tiny clump of neurons of the anterior hypothalamus - which is believed to control sexual behavior - was, on average, more than twice the size in heterosexual men as in homosexual men. LeVay's findings did not speak directly to the nature-vs.-nurture debate - the clumps could, theoretically, have changed size because of homosexual behavior. But that seemed unlikely, and the study ended up jump-starting the effort to prove a biological basis for homosexuality.

Later that same year, Boston University psychiatrist Richard Pillard and Northwestern University psychologist J. Michael Bailey announced the results of their study of male twins. They found that, in identical twins, if one twin was gay, the other had about a 50 percent chance of also being gay. For fraternal twins, the rate was about 20 percent. Because identical twins share their entire genetic makeup while fraternal twins share about half, genes were believed to explain the difference. Most reputable studies find the rate of homosexuality in the general population to be 2 to 4 percent, rather than the popular "1 in 10" estimate.

In 1993 came the biggest news: Dean Hamer's discovery of the "gay gene." In fact, Hamer, a Harvard-trained researcher at the National Cancer Institute, hadn't quite put it that boldly or imprecisely. He found that gay brothers shared a specific region of the X chromosome, called Xq28, at a higher rate than gay men shared with their straight brothers. Hamer and others suggested this finding would eventually transform our understanding of sexual orientation.

That hasn't happened yet. But the clear focus of sexual-orientation research has shifted to biological causes, and there hasn't been much science produced to support the old theories tying homosexuality to upbringing. Freud may have been seeing the effect rather than the cause, since a father faced with a very feminine son might well become more distant or hostile, leading the boy's mother to become more protective. In recent years, researchers who suspect that homosexuality is inborn - whether because of genetics or events happening in the womb - have looked everywhere for clues: Prenatal hormones. Birth order. Finger length. Fingerprints. Stress. Sweat. Eye blinks. Spatial relations. Hearing. Handedness. Even "gay" sheep.

LeVay, who is gay, says that when he published his study 14 years ago, some gays and lesbians criticized him for doing research that might lead to homosexuality once again being lumped in with diseases and disorders. "If anything, the reverse has happened," says LeVay, who is now 61 and no longer active in the lab. He says the hunt for a biological basis for homosexuality, which involves many researchers who are themselves gay or lesbian, "has contributed to the status of gay people in society."

These studies have been small and underfunded, and the results have often been modest. Still, because there's been so much of this disparate research, "all sort of pointing in the same direction, makes it pretty clear there are biological processes significantly influencing sexual orientation," says LeVay. "But it's also kind of frustrating that it's still a bunch of hints, that nothing is really as crystal clear as you would like."

Just in the last few months, though, the hints have grown stronger.

In May, Swedish researchers reported finding important differences in how the brains of straight men and gay men responded to two compounds suspected of being pheromones - those scent-related chemicals that are key to sexual arousal in animals. The first compound came from women's urine, the second from male sweat. Brain scans showed that when straight men smelled the female urine compound, their hypothalamus lit up. That didn't happen with gay men. Instead, their hypothalamus lit up when they smelled the male-sweat compound, which was the same way straight women had responded. This research once again connecting the hypothalamus to sexual orientation comes on the heels of work with sheep. About 8 percent of domestic rams are exclusively interested in sex with other rams. Researchers found that a clump of neurons similar to the one LeVay identified in human brains was also smaller in gay rams than straight ones. (Again, it's conceivable that these differences could be showing effect rather than cause.)

In June, scientists in Vienna announced that they had isolated a master genetic switch for sexual orientation in the fruit fly. Once they flicked the switch, the genetically altered female flies rebuffed overtures from males and instead attempted to mate with other females, adopting the elaborate courting dance and mating songs that males use.

And now, a large-scale, five-year genetic study of gay brothers is underway in North America. The study received $2.5 million from the National Institutes of Health, which is unusual. Government funders tend to steer clear of sexual orientation research, aware that even small grants are apt to be met with outrage from conservative congressmen looking to make the most of their C-Span face time. Relying on a robust sample of 1,000 gay-brother pairs and the latest advancements in genetic screening, this study promises to bring some clarity to the murky area of what role genes may play in homosexuality.

This accumulating biological evidence, combined with the prospect of more on the horizon, is having an effect. Last month, the Rev. Rob Schenck, a prominent Washington, D.C., evangelical leader, told a large gathering of young evangelicals that he believes homosexuality is not a choice but rather a predisposition, something "deeply rooted" in people. Schenck told me that his conversion came about after he'd spoken extensively with genetic researchers and psychologists. He argues that evangelicals should continue to oppose homosexual behavior, but that "many evangelicals are living in a sort of state of denial about the advance of this conversation." His message: "If it's inevitable that this scientific evidence is coming, we have to be prepared with a loving response. If we don't have one, we won't have any credibility."..."

The bottom line is that there is strong evidence for a genetic component, despite nay-saying and bully-rag nabobbery to the contrary. There is also evidence of other vectors and the probability is that predisposition, precipitation and prolongation of the condition varies from case to case based on multiple ingredients.

It is just disingenuous to argue that NO genetic or NO non-genetic elements are in play.

Not to mention discompassionate in extremis.



A1

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 May 09 - 03:17 PM

I think it's more like...they don't get your point, Akenation, because their minds are already completely occupied with making their own point. ;-) This is the reason why most arguments between human beings simply go on and on with no resolution. (or no achievement of mutual understanding might be a better way of putting it...resolution is not particulary required, I don't think, just mutual understanding)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 01 May 09 - 02:22 PM

If there was a difference frogprince, I can assure you it would have been plastered all over this thread by Don Firth and Amos.

I have stated a dozen times on this thread what my position is, however it is obviously in the interests of Don and Amos's arguments to misrepresent mine!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 01 May 09 - 02:08 PM

And I failed to note the date of the article, but it remains that it did not claim that "There is no genetic difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals.....fact."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 01 May 09 - 02:02 PM

I waded through the last article that Ake linked. I frankly found it heavy going, but my impression was that it was an honest effort to look objectively at the very complex subject. What I'm getting, Ake, is that you've come to one of the very polarities of simplistic conclusion that the article is warning against.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 01:52 PM

Ake:

The essay you cite is from 1995.


There is a body of evidence since then you should become familiar with.


Please excuse me if I have not understood thepoint you aremaking. Perhaps you could spell it out for me in declarative simple sentences, as I am a little jaded.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 May 09 - 01:38 PM

Amos, my friend, I don't believe that you are making any real effort to understand what Akenaton's concerns are, because you are so busy stating and defending a specific political ideal (and a good one, by the way) that it is preventing you from looking at what he is actually concerned about. He is not in disagreement with the political ideal per se, he is concerned about other matters entirely.

So you are talking at cross purposes, to no useful effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 12:37 PM

Dear Ake:


The issue is this: a civil status has been defined on exclusionary grounds. The exclusion is based on something you define as bad behavior, and therefore find perfectly acceptable. According to the scientific information, however, there is strong evidence that this exclusion is not in fact based on behavior, but is based on a condition which is partially genetic and partially cultural, rather than an actual choice.

It is of course true that deciding to be as one is instead of act differently in order to cling to a normative profile is a choice, but I think you will agree that forcing people to denytheir own natures is probably not a good implementation of "freedom under law".

Furthermore I see no hard evidence to support your assertion that being homosexual, or living with another homosexual person in a committed relationship, is "destructive".

It was argued, long ago and in a different context, that people of color should accept their place in society, and that if they did not, they, too, were acting destructiuvely by upsetting the status quo.

You have made the same argument about a different group of legally excluded citizens, but instead of basing it on color or race, you base it on their sexual orientation.

You persist in doing this in spite of the fact that there is no identifiable possible way that the marriage of two people of the same gender could have a negative effect on you, accept by reason of your own attitude only.

Thus, the parallel between your attitudes toward "them" and the earlier attitudes of racially-motivated prejudicially minded vociferous citizens is, to my view, particularly apt.

In both cases an argument is made to exclude a group of citizens from certain civil rights because of a condition which in fact is an innate part of their nature andf is in fact not harmful to others in and of itself.

That's what the one has to do with the other. Thanks for asking.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 01 May 09 - 12:34 PM

There is no genetic difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals.....fact.

From the editor of The Lancet

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 01 May 09 - 12:13 PM

Amos...what the hell has this discussion got to do with "skin colour"?
It is perfectly normal for different races to have different coloured skins,to marry and to reproduce interacially with no harmful side effects.

Your message attempting to equate my argument with colour prejudice is astonishing!
People with "colour prejudice" practice a crude form of racial hatred, whereas I hate neither homosexuals nor folks of different race, I am simply trying to make the case against homosexual "marriage" in plain language and in sincerity.

You may not like it Amos, but I believe what I write and I would appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting my position.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 11:50 AM

An interesting recent survey on the numbers relating to homophobic bullying in school-age children, and the sometimes lethal results thereof.


A quote therefrom:

"(...(S)ubstantially more black adults see homosexuality as morally degenerate than whites. According to Gallup Polls 65 percent of blacks view homosexuality as morally unacceptable compared to just 48% of whites. The Hispanic numbers on this measure are comparable to whites.

"I say, seeking to diminish the human dignity of another whose only crime is not loving whom you would have him or her love is immoral and an offense to the indomitable determination of the heart.)"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 11:08 AM

GfS:

Your description is really beautiful.

I do not actually believe that the intensity or beauty of a same-sex relationship is muchless, though. I have no personal experience on which to base that judgment, being one of those frost-headfed heteros you describe. But its not my judgment to make, but that of the participants in it. That's a brand of freedom that should be left to the individual.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 01 May 09 - 10:55 AM

...your reply...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 01 May 09 - 10:54 AM

Gfs, I'd say you have done something rather remarkable here, in that I think you've clearly and vividly pictured a very high ideal for monogamous love and family life, and done so for the most part with an almost incredible lack of dicernible sentence structure. : )
The great majority of people around us are heterosexuals for whom that ideal is completely applicable. If it was typical for people today to be ingrained with that high an ideal, we would all be immeasurably better off. A lot of your ideal is also applicable to anyone raising or caring for children who aren't their's by birth. At the same time you seem to grasp the importance of holding an ideal without crucifying fallible mortals over their inability to live up to it perfectly. All this I have to respect.

A couple whom my wife has known since college were recently parted by the death of one. They had been inseparable for close to 40 years, each seeing the other through significant health problems,
job loss situations, et al. I knew one somewhat more than the other,
and know that faith was very basic to her; it may have been just as much so for the other. Anyhow, I considered both of them to be good women.

Incidentally, I read and reread you reply, and haven't been able to sort out a discernible answer to the question : )

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 May 09 - 08:31 AM

Qwll, I suggest you look back at some of the links posted earlier, Ake. This is about the third time you have used that "absolutely no evidence" line. Very noble and business like, that. But it only works if you ignore the evidence that is there.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 01 May 09 - 06:14 AM

Amos...I am not prepared to accept that Homosexual practice is genetic in origin, when there is absolutely no science to support that proposal.

If the causes of homosexuality are not genetic, then it stands to reason that it must be either "learned behaviour", a symptom of psychiatric imbalance, or other exterior causes.

Still enjoying your posts GfS!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 01 May 09 - 05:47 AM

Don....If AIDS/HIV is an "equal opportunity disease", would you please explain why, in every country where AIDS was diagnosed it first showed up amongst the homosexual community?

Of course AIDS/HIV can be successfully transmitted by heterosexual intercourse, but it has never been explained why it has always been first diagnosed among practicing homosexuals.

The fact that the homosexual community is such a small part of society at large makes this even more strange.
Latest figures still show homosexuals as the largest group suffering from Aids in real percentage terms.

It is a "cop out" to suggest that Aids is simply a product of "promiscuity", as the figures state a definite link to homosexual practice.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 May 09 - 05:04 AM

Little Hawk:.."The important thing in any discussion is that those participating actually take the time to listen seriously to what the others are saying and understand it. That requires patience and attention. It also requires shutting down your own internal monologue briefly and being receptive, rather than just having your mind fixed on the very next thing YOU are going to say when that other person finishes talking! ;-)


frogprince asks:
"Would you be happy to see your child or sibling marry a person who has a history of homosexuality, but has undergone corrective therapy?"

frogprice,...(may I call you Mr. Frogprince?)
Being as I thought you, sincere, when you posted,...'..That is a soul searching question..", you, in posting that, actually touched me, so, I owe you one....Whether that is a loaded question or not, I'll answer you as comprehensively as should suffice to satisfy your curiosity. I mean that, in all sincerity, as well. Just to let you know, I gave it much thought, and this is as good as I could come up with. It may not be in exactly in the format, you requested, but I assure you, my position is honest, and should be absolutely clear..OK?

Though whether a person, hetero or homosexual, has had previous sexual 'activity' in their past, is not an issue, though in either case, experience, (perhaps even yours, among many peoples), has shown us that in valuing what we do with our bodies in that area, for any number of reasons, often, less is better, as not to de-sensitize one's motives and heart. It also lessens the regret, and sometimes heartaches, that accompany reckless deceptions people often 'bestow' upon each other.
Keeping your eyes open, objectively, for what you want, and what you want to give, in this life, keeps you focused on your priorities, including what you need to do, and who you wish to do it with, and be life's partner with.
When a man get's past his lusts, and/or imaginations, and a woman past her fears, or insecurities, and both get past their self absorptions, (to at least, actually 'meet' the other),and for the reason of giving their very lives to and for each other, make both commitments in their hearts, and to each other, with the full expectation that commitment will last, and be maintained for their entire lifetimes. They should bring both their masculinity, and femininity, to each other, to complete the full spectrum, and be as a whole, genuine unit.
When they have sex, may their orgasms be strong in a way, that besides the man merely giving her his bodily fluid, he may also even feel his life's force, entering into her, and may she soar among the stars, in love...and may he be exhausted, to the point of desiring nothing,(maybe except for air), and may she know, in her joy, that she brought him 'home'.
Should they conceive during one of those moments, that the child in her,(another 'marriage', of sorts), be loved, born, nurtured, and be made strong, loving life, and treating it with reverence, under the covering, of BOTH of their best, with the goal of making a path clear, to continue on, and making it easier, for the child, conceived, and raised by, and for love. Preferably, not putting obstacles, for him/her to overcome, and bringing and presenting him or her to maturity with a healthy, positive outlook in life, spiritually, physically, mentally, and emotionally.
When you see these folks, gray and silver frost upon their heads, walking, hand in hand, heads held high, with life's history, and warmth in their eyes, after all these years, of loving, caring, through, their victories, and tragedies, and never diminishing their love for each other, since the first met, well man....that turns me on!!!
That being said, any compromise from that, is in direct proportion to regret, disappointment, misfortune and sadness, as many of you know by now, that in we can exist.
Now, to me, that is just about the top rung of the human experience. From there, it's only steps down. Whether you compromise your personal disciplines, is your business. But why fart around? Go for the top..if you go for 10, and don't make it, you might hit an 8, but it's still better than aiming your goal at 3.
Why'd ya' ask?

Don Firth, I considered your post, (about artificial insemination, and this came to mind, something I think you'd enjoy, Aldus Huxley's 'Brave New World', and as a companion read, 'Plato's Republic'. Look's like it's going that way....

TAI, ..'The weak accuse others, of their own motives'

Amos,..Are you still confused if I'm male or female...actually truth has no gender, I'm only just words on your screen. Don't throw out your computer, though...(wink).

Akenaton, Homosexuality is not the 'cause' of societies dying...history tells us that it is a symptom, of one that already is...but then, history also tells us, that man never learns from history!!

Little Hawk, Yoho, Thank you for:
"The important thing in any discussion is that those participating actually take the time to listen seriously to what the others are saying and understand it. That requires patience and attention. It also requires shutting down your own internal monologue briefly and being receptive, rather than just having your mind fixed on the very next thing YOU are going to say when that other person finishes talking! ;-)

Everyone should have equal rights, as CITIZENS, not because of who you, or what you have sex with......besides, less than the real thing, is bullshit!
Warmest Regards and Love to Everyone.
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 May 09 - 01:01 AM

as to TIA, you are consummately wrong in your 'assessment'. Still reading, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 11:36 PM

The notion that sexual orientation is a maladaptation on the same order as psyciatric illness or drug abuse is an a priori postulate with no grounds and a logical fallacy large enough to drop this whole thrad into.

Ake and GtS are both offering self-fulfilling postulates and using it as a rationalization for subdividing the world of willing adults into the eligible and the ineligible, not on the basis of their drug use, their mental or physical health, but on the basis of their gender orientation, something as abnormal as the wrong skin color.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 09:27 PM

If anyone cares to read my previous posts, they will see that there is blatant misquoting and mischaracterization being perpetrated.

I do however find it flattering that someone would hang on my every word and write posts that are clearly pleas for me to return.

Yes, flattering, but also a little sad, and kinda creepy.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 08:03 PM

Good question, frogprince!!

Don Firth