JamesKrieger

Ummm, science IS based on empirical evidence.

More bullshit. Making homosexual marriage legal is not imposing one's opinions on yours, because no one is making you marry gay people.

Is it a violation of the human rights of Mormons to allow alcohol use, when Mormons have the opinion that alcohol use is wrong?

Is it a violation of the human rights of the KKK to allow integrated schools, when the KKK has the opinion that integration is wrong?

Is it a violation of the human rights of the vegetarians to have meat in a grocery store, when some vegetarians have the opinion that eating meat is wrong?

Selsaral

Well, you are saying that upbringing determines sexual preference then, not choice? So you agree with me that homosexuality is not a choice?

We can easily conduct a little test for ourselves to determine if homosexuality is a choice. If it is, you should have no trouble finding the first man you are attracted to, and asking him to make out with you in the park. What, you don't find men sexually attractive at all? Despite your attempts to 'choose' to be homosexual?

Alonzo Fyfe

Just a note:

I have used scigirl's initial post as an illustration of moral reasoning consistent with a set of propositions that I am defending in another thread.

I use her opening post as an example of a valid moral argument.

scigirl

Senor,

It still didn�t work.
Since I can�t seem to get your links to work, why can�t you just cut and paste some of the stats for me? Oh and for the record � if a website or paper did not publish how it obtained the statistics, I have a harder time accepting their validity. If you want to convince the science girl (the sci does not stand for scientologist, despite the rumors you might hear in the locker room) you need to show me good solid data that was collected in an objective and scientific fashion.
Thanks for the personal bio. I agree that America has done some pretty shitty things in the past few years. However, those issues are not being discussed here.
Why is it idiocy? If anything, you should be for homosexual marriage, so these pedophile-slut men have an incentive to be monogamous. Right? I fail to see your logic here at all. We do not deny marriage to hookers, or drug addicts, or HIV+ heterosexuals. Do we? If homosexuality is wrong ONLY BECAUSE some homosexuals are preying on children and spreading AIDS, then how is denying those homosexuals who AREN�T preying on children, and who WANT to be in a monogamous relationship which would decrease STD spread � going to help? I just don�t get it.

In addition, your argument only applies to gay men. You never did address my question (or any of my points really) � is it ok for lesbians to get married? Because by your rationale, lesbian women spread even less STDs than heteros, and rarely rape/molest anyone.

Again � you are not consistently applying your own standards to society � proof of your bigotry. You think anal sex is gross, so you grasp at whatever you can to deny gays their rights.

Have you ever asked yourself this question? Why are gay males promiscuous? If this is a problem, what do YOU suggest we do to fix it?
So that justifies your bigotry then?
I am truly sorry to hear about your cousin. I just want to point out though � homosexuality itself is not deadly. He died from AIDS, not from being gay. It is possible to be gay and to be safe � just as it is possible to be hetero and protect yourself against pregnancy and STDs/HIV.
Wait � I thought people chose to be gay. And here you offer up an example of a child who was gay. Can children make such complex choices? Or could it be � being gay is not actually a choice?
I�m glad you weren�t hurt � that would have been traumatic. However, why do you insist upon extrapolating that experience onto all gay men, when the data that I presented to you earlier clearly show that gay men are not more likely to be pedophiles?

Did you not read that study I posted that showed that the most common pedophile experience is a man molesting a little girl? By your own logic, you should also condemn all heterosexuals. Why don�t you do that, senor? Because � you are not being logical, you are being bigoted. I�m truly sorry that the bad experience you had at the YMCA may have forever tainted your view of a group of people. But ask yourself �if this man had been black, would it have been fair to judge all blacks from then on?
Did you actually read my post? Please tell me what kind of genetics background you have. If you didn�t understand the twin studies, I�d be happy to explain them further. Let me reiterate. When you study twins, you find that if one twin is gay, the other one is more likely to be gay. In other words � there is a genetic component to homosexuality. That is not disputed in the scientific community. Now it�s not completely genetic, it�s also environmental. But � many scientists think that the environmental component happens early in development � even in the womb.

What kind of data would it take to convince you that homosexuality is not a choice? And furthermore, if scientists do prove that it is completely biological, how will you feel then?

And � you never answered my earlier question about your experience with choosing to be hetero. If it�s a choice to be gay, than it�s also a choice to be straight. I never remember �choosing� to be attracted to men, I just was.
And why is that, if sexuality is totally a choice? You are contradicting yourself here.
If that is true, it should be easy to prove. Show me that places where GLAAD and GLESN are around, there are higher rates of gay incidence. I�m from a state where those groups don�t exactly exist (Montana) so the incidence of gayness must be close to zero, if you are correct. Of course, you aren�t.
Huh? You lost me.
Proof please?
No I actually know for a fact that homosexuality is partly genetic, since I read the studies. Here I�ll post them for you again.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
Riiight. But � even if you are right � isn�t that sad that the gay community even needs a martyr? I think they would prefer to just be accepted without violence/bigotry/hatred spewed at them every time they turned around. Nobody likes to be persecuted.
WAIT A MINUTE � I thought you said you couldn�t be born gay.
That�s not the story I heard.
Cool � so killing someone because you don�t want them to hit on you was not a choice? And dying is a valid consequence for hitting on someone? I�ll remember that the next time I�m out at the bar. Slimy heteros who keep hitting on me - I�ll show them.
Or could it be � he was hiding his sexuality because of bigots like you in the world?
Ok, I�m looking at it. Looks fine to me.
I am not a lesbian - I'm a white middle-class female going into medicine, so I'm pretty protected as it is.

But yes unfortunately this does happen. Why do you think it happens? Why would anyone choose to be gay in a gay-hating society? That would be just stupid, don�t you think? Could it be � that because our society is filled with homobigots like you, they are afraid to come out? They hide and ignore their gay feelings? They even get in a hetero marriage, and have kids to try and get rid of the homo tendencies.

If society was more accepting of people being gay, than this type of scenario would probably happen less, not more.
Like, the right to marry someone whom they love? The right to adopt children? Not in this country.
You never worked with Rosie or Liberace.
I agree � people should be rewarded in their careers for their talents, not their skin color, sexual orientation, or gender. But I�ll bet Rosie and Liberace support the legalization of gay marriage. I don�t get what you are trying to say here.
Agreed. That�s why being gay should be a non-issue. I don't think they should be treated differently - I think that all people, no matter what their race or religion or gender or sexual orientation, should be treated equally in terms of basic rights, such as the right to get married.
Nope, and nope. Here let me post those links for you again:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
What does this have to do with two consenting adult gay men who want to get married? I fail once again to see your logic.
I could list some criminals who were heterosexual. Osama Bin Laden for instance. Or Ted Bundy. So what is your point?

Here is a very short logic lesson for you. If A is a subset of B, that does not automatically mean that B always equals A. Here is an example. All frogs are amphibians. However, not all amphibians are frogs. Do you get it? No? Ok here�s another example. All doctors are humans. However, not all humans are doctors. Please let me know if you need another example.
But what happened to Liberace and Rosie O�Donnell who made money because of their talent and character? Do you remember saying, �People like Liberace, Michael Geeter, Nathan Lane, Rosie Odonnell, and many other gays never profited from being homosexual, they got where there at because of talent!� ?
Sources please � from a link that actually WORKS and that is not a PORN SITE.
Sources please � from a link that actually WORKS and that is not a PORN SITE.
First of all, I don�t rely on the American people for statistics on medical diseases, I rely on sound epidemiological studies. But I am in medical school after all, so I�m kinda picky.
Well at least you aren�t blaming them for the nation being weak in the first place, like some of our more esteemed trolls around here.
But earlier you said that Americans were so informed on the epidemiology of syphilis! Are Americans informed, or not? Make up your mind.
Could be. What does that have to do with allowing two consenting adults to marry?
WOW a link that works and it isn�t a porn site! It�s a miracle. I�ll be addressing that web site shortly � this post is already too long, so I�ll start a new one. Just to let you know, I already found an error and a blatant lie in the first paragraph. Aren�t you glad I have full-text access to actual science articles?
Once again you say this. Please tell me what you mean by natural, and also why you are ok with oral sex in heterosexuals (which clearly isn�t �natural�) but not ok with anal sex in homosexuals. After all, a digestive cavity is a digestive cavity.
No it�s not the same thing. Humans ARE animals. I don't care if people call me an animal. No just because something is natural doesn�t make it right. But clearly homosexual behavior is natural. So quit saying it isn�t, because you are just plain wrong (or you are defining natural in a really really weird way).
Wow you should write philosophy books. I don�t even know where to begin to criticize this drivel. I think I�ll leave it to my colleagues to tear up. One question though - if you believe that the sense of right and wrong is engrained in all people, than why do you disbelieve that sexual orientation is engrained? Very strange logic you have there.
You should be able to back this up with data from the Netherlands, then. They now allow gay marriage, so we would expect their rates of polygamy and pedophilia to be on the rise.
Guess what- they aren�t. They have lower AIDS rates than our country does too. And less drug addiction.
Refute what? You never made even one substantiated claim.

scigirl

scigirl

scigirl blushes.

Thanks Alonzo!

dk

dk: Homosexuals can help, by setting a good example. On a whole the studies have been inconclusive and of questionable quality with a limited scope.
JamesKrieger: Then show us why the studies are inconclusive and questionable quality. Tells us what the problems are with their methods. Tell us why the conclusions are questionable. Tell us what is wrong with the statistics. It's easy to try to sweep everything away with one swipe of your hand. It's much more difficult to actually examine the evidence. So examine it for us, dk. Quit giving us sweeping generalizations, when it's evident to me that you probably haven't even read a fraction the research thats out there.
dk: The studies contradict one another. The problem isn�t with methods or personalities but with the ambiguities and contradictions innate to the science of psychology and human development. The science is unreliable. Courts put behavioral conflicted experts on the stand thousands of times every day, one expert for the defense and one for the prosecution. At least one expert�s testimony is unreliable, and maybe both.

dk: In the 1950s the divorce rate and out of wedlock births were under 5%. In the 1960s public schools were the crown jewel of the Great Society. Proponents of fornication, adultery, family planning, and no-fault divorce claimed a sexually open (liberated) sexual society would produce many benefits for everyone, especially wives and children. Today one third of children are raised by unwed mothers, and half of single mother live below or around the poverty line. The science turned out to be gravely flawed, unreliable and misleading.
JamesKrieger: More bullshit. Have you ever heard of the logical fallacy, post hoc, ergo propter hoc?
dk: Hey, people that put their faith in the social sciences have a religious quality I can respect. In 1960s social scientists of every flavor from Harvard to Berkley had proven that sexual repression caused sexual disorders, human orientation was a cultural norm, forced busing was the cure for racism and LSD opened young minds to their true potential. Hey, whatever rocks your jock.

JamesKrieger: If a sexually open society is so bad, then why is it that sexually open societies, like Sweden and the Netherlands, have lower rates of AIDS, HIV, drug use, teen pregancy, crime, etc., than we do?
dk: Problems resonate and manifest in societies amongst dissimilar people along different vectors. For example the Great Depression of 1929 embodied one problem that rolled around the world gaining momentum, but manifested itself across European, Asia, Americas and Australia nations in very differently ways (vectors). By 1935 Germany was on the road to economic recovery. Sociologists and economists around the world people thought that proved something. In the Cold War when the USSR exploded atomic/hydrogen bombs, and launched Sputnik, scientists thought that proved something. When the Iron Curtain was torn down scientists thought that proved something. When jet planes flew into the WTC scientists thought that proved something.

The hard fact is that gay and lesbians mock sex because gay and lesbian sex has nothing to do with life, except as an obstacle. This explains why people in a culture of death (view death as one more problem solved ) find homosexuality virtuous. If you believe Sweden and the Netherlands are immune from MDR microbe, drug abuse, teen pregnancy and crime I would beg to differ. Should epidemiological science loose the race against MDR microbes nobodies immune. The greatest knowable threat to Europe stems from its own intellectual, cultural, economic and reproductive infertility manifested by a geriatric population so egotistical they can�t bare to raise children. The Gay Rights Movement poses three empirical and grave threats to civilization. First: they intend to deconstruct the nuclear family as the basic unit of civilization. Second: they are drawn like a dog to his own vomit into a diseased riddled populations that breeds MDR microbes in prurient driven epidemical subculture Third gay men can only propagate by preying upon young vulnerable males. If one accepts the nuclear family as essential to Western Civilization, then clearly the Gay Rights Movement poses a threat. If one accepts HIV as a threat to civilization, then the epidemical populations poses a threat to civilization. If one accepts teenage males are vulnerable as gay prot�g�s, then common decency requires young men be protected from gay evangelists and mentors in the public square. I accept all three, not because I�m a Christian but because I can read, count, see, hear, feel, smell and taste. Do I wish or intend harm to anyone, absolutely not, I wish everyone well especially gays and lesbians that carry so many heavy burdens. I have learned from Christianity to have empathy for what gays and lesbian suffer.

JamesKrieger: It has everything to do with being a Christian and homobigot. The Netherlands has legalized same-sex marriage, and they have lower rates of AIDS and HIV than we do....much lower rates. If that's the ludicrous consequence of legalizing same-sex marriage, then I'm all for being ludicrous.
dk: I responded to this above, so lets discuss it above. The topic of the thread is� Does Fundamental Christian = Homobigot. The answer is obviously no, there are a plethora of very good reasons to oppose the Gay Rights Movement that have nothing to do with being a Christian.

Jinto

Guys, don't bother arguing with him, he's quite clearly insane.

From here

That thread still gives me the creeps.

Diadectes

Scigirl, I love you, and when the science gets round to it I want to have your babies

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

dk

Hey, it also gives me the creeps.

trunks2k

Ok, now I'm pretty much a passifist, and it takes a lot to get me angry enough to want to smack someone. But the ignorance, stupidity, and over all insult behind what that quote is enough that if you said this in my presence, you would probably get very hard smack across the the front of your face. That quote is so incredibly ignorant I don't even know where to begin.......

Note: not that I would really resort to, I'm just trying to illustrate how incredibly angry that above quote makes me.