Only in America

[Absinthe]

Well, it is a fabulous topic.

 

[Vigilante]

Posted this already...but the same guy posted this on creation vs. evolution

Creationism claims God created everything, and that God is in control of the universe.

Evolution claims that everything came to be by itself over a long period of time.

You say evolution and global warming are facts because science has very good evidence to support them.

I say God created the universe and everything in it, and that global warming isnt true because God maintains what he created.

Both of our "truths" cannot be true in the same time and in the same sense. Simple law of "non contradiction" affirms that.

Niether you nor I were present at the time of the universe's beginning so we have to "believe" the information provided to us is "true" to bridge the gap in our own mind. That is what "faith" is.

Hence the reason I believe the State supported public schools definition is unfair, as it doesnt provide a good presentation of both beliefs to let children decide. On the contrary it is very intolerant to christianity, as I learned first hand.

It is also the reason I call it a State Sancioned religion, because evolution also carries its own morality. If everything came from nothing for no real reason, then we arent anything anymore special than plants or animals, and our existense is completly pointless. Evolution cannot explain what love is, or why we as people have feelings, as these are inmaterial things.

It all boils down to what you believe. God or man.

 

[repiV]

I know I'm veering slightly off topic here, but this is a great little piece of wisdom from a friend of mine, in reference to the evils of the world and why God doesn't fix it.

If God is able but not willing, he's malevolent.

If God is willing but not able, he's impotent.

If God is neither willing nor able, he's not God.

 

[Top Secret]

Let me quote what I just said, so perhaps you can re-read it carefully and slowly.

I am comfortable in my belief that people result in being either gay or straight by a combination their personality (yes, genetics would FACTOR into this), and personal experience while growing up.

The original argument (at the start of this thread) was essentially genetics vs choice. Which is what I am trying to argue. But now I am being straw-manned. Stick to the original argument. You claimed it was genetics and not choice. But now you are trying to say it is *something* vs choice.

I say it is a developed personality trait brought on through a combination of personality and childhood upbringing/experience. You choose your actions through-out your life. Even as a child. This directly affects your development and in turn can affect whether or not you end up gay or straight. To say it is a *choice* does oversimplify the argument, but the truth is the primary factor in your gay/straight outcome is YOU. You influence how you develop.

Just like my love of cars.

My dad was fascinated with cars and so I grew up around them. They were always around me as a little boy. I worked on them, and one day I simply started to like them.

It's largely irrelevant whether or not it's genetic (although judging by the number of effeminate gay men and manly lesbians, I'd suggest it's quite likely). The fact is that, like your love of cars, it's not a choice.

So, it's not genetic. Yet it's definitely not a choice. What is it then? God? What is your argument?


Your claim is "Gay/Straight is not a choice". I want an argument that supports it.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I wish I was friends with Epicurus.

But again, if you think it's as simple as a gene then all I can say is the burden of proof is on you, and go find me that gene.

People are arguing that it's definitely not a choice, not that it definitely is a gene. Burn your straw man.

 

[Top Secret]

I wish I was friends with Epicurus.

People are arguing that it's definitely not a choice, not that it definitely is a gene. Burn your straw man.

There are implications that gay straight is ruled by genetics all over the place in this thread.

So I propose to you, if it's not a choice, and it's not genetics, what is it?

 

[repiV]

It doesn't matter. The point is it's clearly not a choice (we're not being pedantic, to choose means to decide, nothing else). You cannot decide to be gay.

 

[xcellerate]

Niether you nor I were present at the time of the universe's beginning so we have to "believe" the information provided to us is "true" to bridge the gap in our own mind. That is what "faith" is.

Yea, I mean I wasn't there when gravity was created. So I have to "believe" what I "read" in "science books", because some people "believe" god is "pulling" everything back towards the "center" of "mass". Obviously only one of these "ideas" is "true".

wtf is he talking about. It's not like science writes a weekly column where it says "objects of mass have gravitation fields" and we go, "oh, science said that! it must be true!"

 

[Top Secret]

Ugh. Then what is it? How is it determined? If it's not a CHOICE, then it is determined by SOMETHING.

WHAT

WHAT DETERMINES IT

 

[Sulkdodds]

Nobody is claiming to know. It's just very clear that there is no conscious and reasoned decision.

Saying that something is a choice because it isn't genetically determined (ie if it's not genes, it must be a choice) would have been the weirdest turn of logic I've seen all week if not for that waterboarding thread and unozero's "we don't need to check whether terrorists are terrorists because they're terrorists" nonsense.

 

[Top Secret]

Jeesy Chreesy you people are retarded.

Then what is it?

My argument: It is A

Your argument: It is not A

My argument: Then what is it?

Nobody is claiming to know. It's just very clear that there is no conscious and reasoned decision.

I never claimed that it was a conscious OR reasoned decision. I said it was a result of your childhood/upbringing/personality SEVERAL TIMES. You choose your actions through-out your life which directly affect who or what you turn out to be.

 

[xcellerate]

Obviously it's ****ing B.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Actually, your argument could more reasonably be characterised as:

- A is C.

To which others respond:

- A is obviously not C.

Then, you clarified your self by saying:

- A is caused by B. Therefore, A is C.

And others say:

- B does not necessarily mean C.

Protip: A = homosexuality, C = conscious choice, B = complex-series-of-social-determiners.
Besides, in a murder investigation, it's quite reasonable to disprove one suspect (because he has an alibi) without actually suggesting another.
There simply and evidently is not a choice - not according to any reasonable definition of 'choice'.

 

[repiV]

Oh lord. Just because something is not A, doesn't mean it then has to be B. Sometimes, there just isn't an answer. Other times, we just don't know what the answer is - but we have eliminated some possibilities.

Anyway, I'm going to bed. I think I might snuggle up with another man tonight. By the force of my own willpower, I suddenly made that an appealing prospect. NO MOAR BOOBIES.

 

[Top Secret]

Bleh. Delete this post.

 

[Top Secret]

Oh lord. Just because something is not A, doesn't mean it then has to be B. Sometimes, there just isn't an answer. Other times, we just don't know what the answer is - but we have eliminated some possibilities.

Anyway, I'm going to bed. I think I might snuggle up with another man tonight. By the force of my own willpower, I suddenly made that an appealing prospect. NO MOAR BOOBIES.

Except, you wouldn't. You already MADE your "choice" to like women by directly influencing how your life turned out.

And for the record, no one has refuted that being gay or straight is not a direct result of your childhood/upbringing/personality. Nor has anyone proved any other case.

 

[Krynn72]

And you guys who say homosexuality is a choice are idiots.

So homosexuality is a one-time choice. At some point during our childhood, that nobody seems to remember, we decided for the rest of our lives to be attracted to one sex or the other?

First off, I've not said whether I think its a choice or not. Its irrelevant to my point anyways. Its a stupid argument. All they would have to do is show you one person who turned out gay after years of being married to a member of the opposite sex and starting a family. Of which there are several. Then your argument is destroyed.

Thats ignoring the fact that "be gay then" is just straight up stupid to begin with.

 

[Sulkdodds]

And for the record, no one has refuted that being gay or straight is not a direct result of your childhood/upbringing/personality. Nor has anyone proved any other case.

Nobody is actually arguing against that, to my knowledge. What you're crucially missing is how precisely it constitutes "choice".

Krynn's right, of course (this is a dumb debate) but for the wrong reasons (it's irrelevant to the question of whether homosexuality is 'ethical').

 

[Top Secret]

Of course homosexuality is 'ethical'.

As for choice, that was not my word. Gay/Straight is strongly determined and/or influenced by the person.

/done

 

[Sulkdodds]

As for choice, that was not my word.

Oh, well okay th - WAIT A MINUTE

I don't believe the gene argument. I think it is a choice. Not that it should matter.

And when repiV asked "tell me about the defining moment" - the single moment of conscious choice - you answered without disputing the terms of the question. Nice job accurately representing what you now claim your argument to be.

Personally I think you're very wrong if you believe people have much say in how they grow up, what their upbringing is like and what their personality ends up being - but this is a much wider argument and not one worth having here.

 

[Top Secret]

Oh, well okay th - WAIT A MINUTE

And when repiV asked "tell me about the defining moment" - the moment of conscious choice, obviously - you answered. Nice job mispresenting your opinions and/or backpeddling later on.

Nice job not comprehending my meaning of "not my word".

I simply responded to the terms present in the argument at hand. I stated several times through-out the thread that the word "choice" was not a good match for this argument. Nice job trying to troll. Feel free to piss off.

 

[Laivasse]

Gay/Straight is strongly determined and/or influenced by the person.

In what way? You seem to be accepting that sexual orientation is determined in early childhood by Sulkd00d's 'complex-social-determiners'. And yet you say it is 'strongly determined and/or influenced by the person' - for that to be true, children would have to have more influence on their own upbringing than that which comes from their parents and their environment.

If you believe that very young children have enough of a clearly defined personality to withstand all outside influences and 'choose' what they want, then you are a stronger proponent of genetic predisposition than anyone else in this thread.

 

[xcellerate]

All they would have to do is show you one person who turned out gay after years of being married to a member of the opposite sex and starting a family. Of which there are several. Then your argument is destroyed.

OR

That person has always been gay, and didn't want to admit it to himself, so he married straight hoping the homosexual feelings would subside, but eventually couldn't stand hiding his true nature anymore.

OR

The guy could have been a bisexual who like guys slightly more than he liked girls, and after years of a straight relationship he realized he would never be happy with a woman.

My point is you can't use this 'evidence' as proof of anything. If somebody says they were 100% straight and now they're 100% gay there's no way to prove that. So what then...?

 

[Sulkdodds]

Ah, leave it. Top Secret isn't arguing that there is that kind of 'choice', even though he freely used the word himself, and ran with it, making it his own, without any objection - only referring to his problems with it on page 3 when it became apparent that he was never responding to what he now calls "the argument at hand" but to some weird version of it only visible to him (where everyone was arguing firmly in favour of a specifically genetic cause).

Laivasse's post leads to a more interesting argument, if anyone actually ends up exploring it, and is the only reason I'm keeping the thread open.

 

[Eejit]

Twins studies have indicated that genetics and presumably prenatal hormone levels play a role in determining sexual preference, though environmental factors such as upbringing seem to be more important.

I'm gay for Nathan Fillion.

Aren't we all?


Well no, I guess the girls are hetero for him.


Speedbump - I can't think of a single behavioural trait influenced solely by genetics right now.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

What about men's inability to understand women, right, girlfriend?

 

[Eejit]

Environmental, brohim.

 

[Krynn72]

OR

That person has always been gay, and didn't want to admit it to himself, so he married straight hoping the homosexual feelings would subside, but eventually couldn't stand hiding his true nature anymore.

OR

The guy could have been a bisexual who like guys slightly more than he liked girls, and after years of a straight relationship he realized he would never be happy with a woman.

My point is you can't use this 'evidence' as proof of anything. If somebody says they were 100% straight and now they're 100% gay there's no way to prove that. So what then...?

The original argument was that to prove being gay was a choice, you asked a person to be gay and stay hard. A gay person in a heterosexual marriage can do it, so thus a straight guy can do it when the situation is reversed. Asking someone to be gay temporarily proves nothing either way, thus the rebuttal you guys used is completely ineffective and idiotic, and frankly, pretty childish.

Krynn's right, of course (this is a dumb debate) but for the wrong reasons (it's irrelevant to the question of whether homosexuality is 'ethical').

How am I wrong now?

 

[xcellerate]

Asking someone to be gay temporarily proves nothing either way, thus the rebuttal you guys used is completely ineffective and idiotic, and frankly, pretty childish.

All they would have to do is show you one person who turned out gay after years of being married to a member of the opposite sex and starting a family. Of which there are several. Then your argument is destroyed.

You were implying that people have been straight, then turned gay. I was giving you other options to explain what happened.

After all your example is nothing more than a gay person being straight temporarily.

 

[Krynn72]

You were implying that people have been straight, then turned gay. I was giving you other options to explain what happened.

That is not at all what I was saying. You're right that my example is nothing more than a gay person being straight temporarily. Which is exactly my point. Look again at your original post.

So you could choose to go have sex with a man right now, and be mentally and physically aroused during the hole 2 hour anal penetrating, semen drinking ordeal?

All that a person would need to do is temporarily switch sexualities to "prove" you wrong and to "prove" that it is a choice. My point is that it has been done before, many many times. If a homosexual man can be wed to a woman and be able to have sex with her through all those years and foster children with her, then its quite obvious that its possible for a heterosexual man to have homosexual intercourse if given sufficient reason. Its a stupid ****ing idea that this would be any sort of evidence one way or another.

How can you not understand this?

 

[Vegeta897]

So you could choose to go have sex with a man right now, and be mentally and physically aroused during the hole 2 hour anal penetrating, semen drinking ordeal?

You'd be surprised dude.

With the right stimulus you can "wake up" a hidden arousal for something you would normally/used to find repulsive.

I'm speaking from experience.

 

[Krynn72]

I told you never to talk about that vegeta. Dont make me cut you.

 

[AtomicSpark]

I'm gay for Nathan Fillion.

I'm gay for you. Will you be my "It's Complicated" on Facebook?

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

I can't help but wonder about veggie's experience. I bet I know what it is, I bet I bet.

 

[Viperidae]

I can't help but wonder about veggie's experience. I bet I know what it is, I bet I bet.

Use your heart. It will show you the truth.

 

[Fiberawptic]

You don't look any better than him with the point you are trying to make about Americans. What does someones poor argument on the subject of homosexuality have to do with American citizens in general? Are you that desperate to insult your OWN country that you have to connect it to something not at all relative to it?

 

[Krynn72]

Uh oh, we got a patriot here boys!