Biology of Homosexuality.

[wacki]

Not sure if this belongs in Politics or not but I figured there are some here that would enjoy this.

Very technical research journal (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&li st_uids=15883379&query_hl=3)
This journal shows there is a hard wired link between phermone receptors in the nose and hypthalmus activity in homosexual men responding only to same sex phermones. It does NOT prove that the link is there from birth.

Highly technical paper on genetic predisposition from NATURE (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v11/n3/abs/ng1195-248.html)

This paper shows that there is a link between genetic markers on the X chromosome and homosexuality. It is NOT 100% correlated but the correlation has a probability of happening by chance of 1 in 100,000. So the correlation is strong. Still the marker isn't present on the majority of homosexuals.

Interesting book (http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/book-store/0684804468/Science-of-Desire--The-Gay-Gene-and-the-Biology-of-Behavior.html)

My conclusion??? Nothing is definite as it still appears to me that genetics plays more of an affinity role instead of an absolute role. Interesting note: it does appear that your mother might be responsible in passing along the homosexual affinity genes. This is definitely true with the Xq28 markers.

[CallMeIshmael]

Wacki... this is an interesting topic.

What are your thoughts on the long (LONG!) term consequences of a genetic basis for homosexuality?

(note: I havent opened the articles yet, because im playing right now, but I will later).

Its just odd because homosexuality certainly reduces genetic fitness.

Perhaps an arugment could be made that since previous cultures were far less accepting of homosexuality than ours (and we can only hope that trend continues) homosexuals were "forced" (to a certain extent) to reproduce with members of the opposite sex.

But, since that is no longer the case, do you think that, over the next few million years, homosexuality will decrease in frequency?

[bisonbison]

Who cares.

Honestly, if you want to have sex with a consenting adult, it's none of my business.

Gays should be able to marry, adopt and so on.

[Phoenix1010]

Very interesting stuff. Thanks for the links.

[CallMeIshmael]

I think the fact that there is a biological basis for it should in some way help this cause:

[ QUOTE ]
Gays should be able to marry, adopt and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Transference]

This topic was broached a few times in grad school (neuroscience, physiology) and I even discussed it briefly with my intro psych classes when I was teaching. I havent looked at the articles that were posted yet but the summary is pretty consistent with what I recall.

As far as a genetic component having repurcussions in the whole reproduction pool you have to keep a few things in mind.

- Modern neurscience especially and probably to a lesser degree genetics has found some pretty strong evidence that there are biological variations in homosexuals (I think they are more pronounced in men). Anyway, its just that, a biological component, no one worth their salt is claiming that sexual preference is purely genetic.

So its important to understand that not everyone who is homosexual shows these 'abmormalities,' and not everyone who shows them is homosexual. All we have are observations that certain things show up in homosexuals more often than heterosexuals, but its definately more common that what anyone would expect by chance.

To put it really simply its pretty obvious that not all homosexual sons have homosexual fathers and vice versa. And yes, homosexual individuals do sometimes reproduce using their own DNA.

Remember that while these things tend to go in cycles, there have been many periods in the past where being a practicing homosexual was fatal.

Also that many homosexuals reproduce by heterosexual means. Having sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex doesnt make you straight, having sex with someone of the same sex doesnt make you gay.

Finally genetics is pretty complicated, I admit to knowing next to nothing about it. The thing is, traits that make people more unlikely to reproduce often just don't get phased out for a variety of reasons. Many genes are passed on but only really make themselves noticed unpredictably. The most widely accepted verion of this in psychology basicly explains it this way: genetics can give you a higher risk for many things, but they will not appear unless some other unknown factor or factor(s) are also present.

Sorry If that was long winded, I tend to get a bit pedantic on this stuff, im conditioned that way from too much school.

[bisonbison]

I think the fact that there is a biological basis for it should in some way help this cause:

In a small way. For the most part the only thing that's gonna help is for old people to die or young people to start voting.

People under 35 are incredibly progressive on gay rights. If they would just vote, this issue could be resolved like it's eventually going to be anyway: with equal protection for all consenting adults. That would save millions a lot of pain over the next couple of decades while we sort this crap out with bigotted morons.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry If that was long winded, I tend to get a bit pedantic on this stuff, im conditioned that way from too much school.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah... very nice post.

[Transference]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the fact that there is a biological basis for it should in some way help this cause: [ QUOTE ]
Gays should be able to marry, adopt and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I aggree, homosexuals have been told for a very long time that its purely psychological and hence they can will themselves to change, pray out the gay etc.

The truth is it has become clear that sexual preference is simply something people seem to be totally unable to change. This is very powerfull evidence for that and brings comfort and support to allot of people.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
What are your thoughts on the long (LONG!) term consequences of a genetic basis for homosexuality?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure some people will want to "cure" homosexuality which will start a huge legal/moral battle.

[ QUOTE ]
Its just odd because homosexuality certainly reduces genetic fitness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it does. The whole darwinism/evolutionary process breaks down.

[ QUOTE ]
But, since that is no longer the case, do you think that, over the next few million years, homosexuality will decrease in frequency?

[/ QUOTE ]

Few million??? I have a feeling within the next hundred years one of two things will happen: either homosexuality will be "cured" or they will seperate into a sub species. You can call me crazy but it is very possible to combine the genetic material of a X chromosome sperm and a Y chromosome sperm and inject them into an egg using current technology. Designer babies are just now starting to become hot topics in politics. It's only a matter of time before those fighting for designer babies win. Once the genetic engineering political debate passes, homosexuals will no doubt fight for their right to reproduce using biotechnology. I also believe it's only a matter of time before they win that right.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Who cares.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well several people in this thread seem to care. And there are several homosexuals in this forum. So I figured I would share this stuff with them. BTW, I have a mild interest in animal sexual behavior (specifically human love maps) and this is why I came across these journal articles. I have a ton of cool info on heterosexual behavior and genetics. I will save that for later though.

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, if you want to have sex with a consenting adult, it's none of my business.

Gays should be able to marry, adopt and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That would save millions a lot of pain over the next couple of decades while we sort this crap out with bigotted morons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm... that is politics. Since you hijaked this thread, would you mind telling me what sentence in my original post seemed unscientific and politically charged?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
To put it really simply its pretty obvious that not all homosexual sons have homosexual fathers and vice versa.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering the Xq28 markers are on the X chromosome, you would expect this.

[Blarg]

This has always struck me as a very strange topic, since some gays seem to have a strong political and emotional investment in having homosexuality ruled predominately or even strictly biological, even on sketchy evidence. Merely having an opinion, or even not having one yet, on the biological basis of homosexuality can be and has already been used by the politically minded as a foundation for attacks and aspersions against real or imagined enemies. Whatever the value of these ideas as science, they have already gained an outsized political impact.

Such ideas would seem to negate the possibility of gender preference construed along a sliding scale, or sexuality being at all subject to modeling, learning, preference, or even free will. My own feeling is that nature, as in the case of strong genetic, hormonal, or chemical influence or attack, may be all that is necessary for some small few, but that for most of us, sexuality is probably far too complex to have a single determiner comprising both its development and expression. Even a small amount of anecdotal knowledge of the variation in accepted sexuality in different cultures in different times makes clear how many entire cultures have simply embraced the taboos of others outright. Surely this did not come about because of something gene-specific, or something funny in the water.

Even if science solves many DNA and chemical puzzles related to the formation of gender preference, that's probably only one part of the overall puzzle of gender preference, and we'll still probably be far from understanding of how gender preference is actually expressed. And we'll probably politicize and try to bring religious and social agendas along every damn step of the way.

[bisonbison]

I wasn't trying to hijack the thread. I find the science interesting but largely irrelevant to the cultural debate and I doubt that there's any substantial portion of the population that would be influenced by such studies.

These studies are political. I didn't say I thought the studies were dumb or ill-advised or anything, but I believe they're fundamentally irrelevant to the larger cultural argument. Either you empathize with gay people or you don't.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Either you empathize with gay people or you don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is kind of a single minded way of thinking isn't it???

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
If they would just vote, this issue could be resolved like it's eventually going to be anyway: with equal protection for all consenting adults. That would save millions a lot of pain over the next couple of decades while we sort this crap out with bigotted morons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are bigoted morons the only people who don't support the immediate, universal legalization of gay marriage?

[bisonbison]

That is kind of a single minded way of thinking isn't it???

No.

I believe that for the most part people make moral evaluations on the basis of their personal experience. If you're unable to empathize with an unfamiliar feeling or experience, you're more likely to describe it as abberant or unnatural.

If you've known, been friends with, and cared about/loved gay people then the importance of the ultimate determining factors of same-sex attraction retreats before the ultimate insult to their dignity that discrimination is.

That's it. But yeah, I believe there's an empathy gap between people who have trust that the self-reported experiences of gay people are believable and those who don't.

[bisonbison]

Are bigoted morons the only people who don't support the immediate, universal legalization of gay marriage?

Long answer: no. Short answer: yes.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Are bigoted morons the only people who don't support the immediate, universal legalization of gay marriage?

Long answer: no. Short answer: yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot

big·ot Audio pronunciation of "bigot" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bgt)
n.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Transference]

[ QUOTE ]
These studies are political. I didn't say I thought the studies were dumb or ill-advised or anything, but I believe they're fundamentally irrelevant to the larger cultural argument. Either you empathize with gay people or you don't.


[/ QUOTE ]

I do not think that describing this line of research as purely political is at all accuruate. There is some very credible research out there from numerous unbiased sources on this subject. I'm not sure you intended to imply this but charachterizing such reasearch as propaganda is simply not accurate.

Second I belive that studies such as these do have an influence on cultural norms. Modern psychological research has definate but varying influnce on the courts for one. American Psychological Assosication amicus curae briefs have been cited in numerous supreme court decisions. When teaching intro to psych it was made very clear that modern psychology has a firm empircal basis for concluding that sexual orienation can neither be choosen nor changed. Ten years ago this topic would not even be discussed in such a class. Having that material in my text book allowed me to assert that whatever your moral stand this is what science has to say and unless you can find non biased scientifically sound evidence to the contrary, charachterizing sexual orientation as a choice is a misinformed and inaccurate point of view.

Science allows the debate to move from opinion to sound evidence, this is a very important step for more of the American public than you might think.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Second I belive that studies such as these do have an influence on cultural norms.

[/ QUOTE ]

No [censored], just ask Zeno about this. Scientists are boring and often ignored except in cases of emergency. This is the reason why we have catastrophic tsunami's, global warming, radioactive cigarettes that cause cancer, smog, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Science allows the debate to move from opinion to sound evidence, this is a very important step for more of the American public than you might think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I only wish politicians would listen to scientists sooner.

[Transference]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed. I only wish politicians would listen to scientists sooner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definately, this would be a good first step for most politicians.

A good second step would be a long one, off a very high cliff. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[bisonbison]

Yeah, that would be the definition I'm referring to.

If the use of the word bigot means you're bigotted, then holy poop.

[bisonbison]

Ten years ago this topic would not even be discussed in such a class. Having that material in my text book allowed me to assert that whatever your moral stand this is what science has to say and unless you can find non biased scientifically sound evidence to the contrary, charachterizing sexual orientation as a choice is a misinformed and inaccurate point of view.

Homosexuality was removed from the DSMV in 1973, so I'm guessing that professional opinion on the matter started firming up long before we had explorations into the human genome.

I'm not saying it doesn't have use. I'm just saying that the perceived difference between a "gay" gene or set of "gayness opportunity enhancing factors" and a "klepto" gene is largely based on individual opinion of the morality of homosexuality, and not visa versa.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, that would be the definition I'm referring to.

If the use of the word bigot means you're bigotted, then holy poop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just think you calling everyone who doesn't think like you a moron makes you very bigoted. This political matter is not concrete like science and math. This belongs in politics and this thead is officially hijaked.

[lu_hawk]

[ QUOTE ]
Wacki... this is an interesting topic.

What are your thoughts on the long (LONG!) term consequences of a genetic basis for homosexuality?

(note: I havent opened the articles yet, because im playing right now, but I will later).

Its just odd because homosexuality certainly reduces genetic fitness.

Perhaps an arugment could be made that since previous cultures were far less accepting of homosexuality than ours (and we can only hope that trend continues) homosexuals were "forced" (to a certain extent) to reproduce with members of the opposite sex.

But, since that is no longer the case, do you think that, over the next few million years, homosexuality will decrease in frequency?

[/ QUOTE ]

you have read one too many books about evolution.

[bisonbison]

I just think you calling everyone who doesn't think like you a moron makes you very bigoted.

I don't call everyone who disagrees with me a bigotted moron.

I don't call libertarians biggoted morons, or people who believe in more restrictive immigration laws biggotted morons, or fans of heavy metal biggotted morons. But I feel pretty comfortable saying that "Long answer: no. Short answer: yes." as far as opposing gay marriage/adoption whatever goes.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't call libertarians biggoted morons, or people who believe in more restrictive immigration laws biggotted morons, or fans of heavy metal biggotted morons

[/ QUOTE ]

you know what I meant.


AGHHH!!! I'm hijaking my own thread!!!!!!!

[bisonbison]

you know what I meant.

Yeah, and I thought you were wrong.

Next time you want a thread to remain pristine and unhijacked, I suggest not posting it on the internet, much less in OOT.

[Transference]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying it doesn't have use. I'm just saying that the perceived difference between a "gay" gene or set of "gayness opportunity enhancing factors" and a "klepto" gene is largely based on individual opinion of the morality of homosexuality, and not visa versa.

[/ QUOTE ]

People would be less prone to completely misunderstand this stuff if the press stopped jumping on catchy phrases like a gay gene or a fat gene or whatever.

I think that the whole point is that this research doesnt address moral issues. Instead, it suggests that understanding sexual orientation doesnt require moral judgement and that might be the strongest implication of these studies.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Next time you want a thread to remain pristine and unhijacked, I suggest not posting it on the internet, much less in OOT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Touche

Still, there are many non moronic reasons to think differently than you. Anyone who worships the Bible will disagree. If you think you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their is no god and that all Christians are fools then you are fooling yourself. Also, there are many geneticists and medical doctors that aren't religious at all that look at homosexuality as an undesirable trait for purely logical reasons.

If they are right or wrong is a matter for another debate I do not wish to engage in tonight. Still, I think you lumping all of those people in one giant moron group is a very strong display of bigotry.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
you know what I meant.

Yeah, and I thought you were wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

when you use the term "bigoted morons" to describe people who oppose gay marriage etc. you're no better than people who say things like "homosexuals are immoral scum." let me guess, the only difference is "you're right"?

there are millions of people who are anti-gay in one sense or another whom you would regard intelligent and sensitive until they reveal their opinion, at which point they become bigoted morons.

[Lame Amateur]

[ QUOTE ]
If you think you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their is no god and that all Christians are fools then you are fooling yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very true.

Atheists make the same mistakes they accuse theists of.

[bisonbison]

Anyone who worships the Bible will disagree.

That's not true by a longshot. My parents' church managed to endorse the sanctity of homosexual unions while remaining committed to the Torah, the New Testament and everything in between.

I no more support lazy theological thinking on homosexuality than I do lazy theological thinking on the question of creation, the age of the earth and the exclusive provenance of the flood in Genesis.

I'm not going to apologize because I'm unwilling to see intolerance of, disdain for or condescension to homosexuals as anything more than the intolerant (bigotted) refuse of untidy minds.

[bisonbison]

there are millions of people who are anti-gay in one sense or another whom you would regard intelligent and sensitive until they reveal their opinion, at which point they become bigoted morons.

Yep, and just to be clear I count close family and friends among this number. This is a fundamental human rights issue. As clear a domestic human-rights issue as presents itself to Americans at this time. What do you want me to say? That it's okay to believe that gays are diseased, deluded or led astray? That they shouldn't have the legal rights to honor and protect their loved ones that straight people enjoy?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not true by a longshot. My parents' church managed to endorse the sanctity of homosexual unions while remaining committed to the Torah, the New Testament and everything in between.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everything in between???? Does that include the incredibly anti-gay Book of Romans which is in every mainstream bible that I know of?

Other than what I get from my friends and reading aramaic scrolls, I don't know that much about Judaism.

[bisonbison]

Christian theology 101: different churches believe different things.

Correlary A: the importance of the Gospels vs. the letters regarding certain teachings may differ.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
there are millions of people who are anti-gay in one sense or another whom you would regard intelligent and sensitive until they reveal their opinion, at which point they become bigoted morons.

Yep, and just to be clear I count close family and friends among this number. This is a fundamental human rights issue. As clear a domestic human-rights issue as presents itself to Americans at this time. What do you want me to say? That it's okay to believe that gays are diseased, deluded or led astray? That they shouldn't have the legal rights to honor and protect their loved ones that straight people enjoy?

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont understand. if they are sensitive and intelligent otherwise wouldn't that be stong evidence against the belief that they really are bigoted morons?

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
Are bigoted morons the only people who don't support the immediate, universal legalization of gay marriage?

Long answer: no. Short answer: yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

A nice, non-committal answer. This thread has gone off on a predictable tangent, but what I had in mind when I asked this question were people who are not anti-homosexual, or even anti-gay marriage, but who oppose immediate, universal legalization. For instance, those who believe in the importance of state-determined social policy and those who are hesitant to so quickly expand the definition of society's basic unit. Can all people with these views be dismissed as mere stupid bigots, or do they have legitimate arguments that should be addressed?

[bisonbison]

if they are sensitive and intelligent otherwise wouldn't that be stong evidence against the belief that they really are bigoted morons?

No. Plenty of intelligent, sensitive people belonged to the Nazi party and to the KKK.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
if they are sensitive and intelligent otherwise wouldn't that be stong evidence against the belief that they really are bigoted morons?

No. Plenty of intelligent, sensitive people belonged to the Nazi party and to the KKK.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, so the intelligent and sensitive people (about most everything else) are bigoted morons in disguise.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Christian theology 101: different churches believe different things.

Correlary A: the importance of the Gospels vs. the letters regarding certain teachings may differ.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, I just find it puzzling how a religion can endorse homosexuality when so much of the Bible refers to it as an indecent act. Numerous sections of the Bible are very clear, very consistent, and very harsh in this aspect.

Just curious, how large is your pro-homosexual congregation?

[bisonbison]

A nice, non-committal answer.

I thought it was pretty clear.

but what I had in mind when I asked this question were people who are not anti-homosexual, or even anti-gay marriage, but who oppose immediate, universal legalization. For instance, those who believe in the importance of state-determined social policy and those who are hesitant to so quickly expand the definition of society's basic unit.

Those who believe that the state is the storehouse of valid social contracts and those who believe that society's basic unit is the married heterosexual couple already have enough painful reality to deal with without me waiting around for them to clear the detritus of their wasted lives.

So, yeah, those people can be dismissed as A) stupid, B) bigots or C) stupid bigots.

[bisonbison]

ok, so the intelligent and sensitive people (about most everything else) are bigoted morons in disguise.

I would say that Nazis and Klan members are not particularly disguised.

Am I ommiting some sort of basic linguistic unit that would allow for you to understand what I am actually saying?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
if they are sensitive and intelligent otherwise wouldn't that be stong evidence against the belief that they really are bigoted morons?

No. Plenty of intelligent, sensitive people belonged to the Nazi party and to the KKK.

[/ QUOTE ]

what i'm trying to get at, is how could a bigoted moron fool you into believing that he is intelligent and sensitive until it comes out that he is for some reason anti-gay?

[bisonbison]

True, I just find it puzzling how a religion can endorse homosexuality when so much of the Bible refers to it as an indecent act.

Then I suggest you take that up with your local pastor. Plenty of protestant congregations find it not at all difficult.

Numerous sections of the Bible are very clear, very consistent, and very harsh in this aspect.

As they are in the treatment of fabric from mixed cloths. When was the last time someone took your ass to task for wearing cotton and linen?

Just curious, how large is your pro-homosexual congregation?

It's not my congregation, but my parents' congregation endorsed gay committed relationships and managed to remain part of the United Church of Christ.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
ok, so the intelligent and sensitive people (about most everything else) are bigoted morons in disguise.

I would say that Nazis and Klan members are not particularly disguised.

Am I ommiting some sort of basic linguistic unit that would allow for you to understand what I am actually saying?

[/ QUOTE ]

they are disguised until they join the nazi party, which would be the only way you would know that they are bigoted morons because they are "otherwise intelligent and sensitive" which we established when you responded to my original suggestion with "yes" if you look back.

[tbach24]

See "A Beautiful Mind." Just as an example, people who are EXTREMELY intelligent and sensitive can get mental disorders.

[bisonbison]

what i'm trying to get at, is how could a bigoted moron fool you into believing that he is intelligent and sensitive until it comes out that he is for some reason anti-gay?

A man I know is convinced of 3 things: 1) the existence of gravity, 2) the descent of all creatures from common descendents, 3) the fact that the moon landings are a hoax.

How could I believe such a man was intelligent and sane? Because I didn't have all the evidence. That was awfully hard, wasn't it?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
See "A Beautiful Mind." Just as an example, people who are EXTREMELY intelligent and sensitive can get mental disorders.

[/ QUOTE ]

first of all, in the movie he was not at ALL sensitive.

secondly, i'm trying to understand how bigoted morons can seem intelligent and sensitive about many things.

[wacki]

Then I suggest you take that up with your local pastor. Plenty of protestant congregations find it not at all difficult.

more specific please. I'm not going to play the guessing game.

As they are in the treatment of fabric from mixed cloths. When was the last time someone took your ass to task for wearing cotton and linen?

Citing the old testament is not the best argument IMO.

It's not my congregation, but my parents' congregation endorsed gay committed relationships and managed to remain part of the United Church of Christ.

My question still stands.

[tbach24]

[ QUOTE ]
first of all, in the movie he was not at ALL sensitive.

[/ QUOTE ]

He cries a lot /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
secondly, i'm trying to understand how bigoted morons can seem intelligent and sensitive about many things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because someone has one fault, albeit a gigantic one, doesn't make them unintelligent. Being a biggot is just psychotic. Psychotic people have mental problems. See the tie I'm making to ABM?

<font color="white">Perhaps I should just get out of this convo and let the smart people talk lol </font>

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
what i'm trying to get at, is how could a bigoted moron fool you into believing that he is intelligent and sensitive until it comes out that he is for some reason anti-gay?

A man I know is convinced of 3 things: 1) the existence of gravity, 2) the descent of all creatures from common descendents, 3) the fact that the moon landings are a hoax.

How could I believe such a man was intelligent and sane? Because I didn't have all the evidence. That was awfully hard, wasn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

i didnt mean that there are people who seem intelligent and sensitive for five minutes until they do something moronic.

i meant that there are people with whom you could have a relationship for quite a long time and who would demonstrate to you that they are certainly not bigoted morons (like your close friends/family may have done), and it makes more sense for you to conlcude that not all people who are anti gay in some respects are bigoted morons rather than to conclude that all previous evidence of their intelligence is trumped by this new discovery of their ineptitide and bigotry.

btw stop being an [censored] to me.

[tbach24]

[ QUOTE ]
btw stop being an [censored] to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've found that this comes hand-in-hand with an argument with bison /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
what i'm trying to get at, is how could a bigoted moron fool you into believing that he is intelligent and sensitive until it comes out that he is for some reason anti-gay?

A man I know is convinced of 3 things: 1) the existence of gravity, 2) the descent of all creatures from common descendents, 3) the fact that the moon landings are a hoax.

How could I believe such a man was intelligent and sane? Because I didn't have all the evidence. That was awfully hard, wasn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

does it require intelligence to believe 1 and 2?? in my opinion you are being obtuse right now.

[RacersEdge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are bigoted morons the only people who don't support the immediate, universal legalization of gay marriage?

Long answer: no. Short answer: yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot

big·ot Audio pronunciation of "bigot" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bgt)
n.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, always intersting how "liberal" these liberals are...until someone has a different opinion...

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
btw stop being an [censored] to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've found that this comes hand-in-hand with an argument with bison /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

im being respectful, i expect as much.

[tbach24]

As you should. I still think you're both wrong. Bison's not giving very good arguments and is being arrogant on top. You are being ignorant.

A smart person can be a biggot. Think about it. One fault does not ruin a person's intelligence, it just makes them slightly worse. For example, I hate people who don't use good logic yet get lucky. Does this make me a bad/stupid person? No.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
A nice, non-committal answer.

I thought it was pretty clear.

but what I had in mind when I asked this question were people who are not anti-homosexual, or even anti-gay marriage, but who oppose immediate, universal legalization. For instance, those who believe in the importance of state-determined social policy and those who are hesitant to so quickly expand the definition of society's basic unit.

Those who believe that the state is the storehouse of valid social contracts and those who believe that society's basic unit is the married heterosexual couple already have enough painful reality to deal with without me waiting around for them to clear the detritus of their wasted lives.

So, yeah, those people can be dismissed as A) stupid, B) bigots or C) stupid bigots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any answer to a yes-or-no question that includes the words "yes" and "no" is inherently unclear unless you explain what you mean by it.

I think you misunderstood my reference to the state. I meant state as in "the joint and several states," not all government. To this point, it has been state governments that have led the fight to legalize gay marriage, by exercising their ability to control their own social policy.

What about gay people who feel that state legislatures are the proper avenue to effect this change? They are out there (no pun intended). Are they stupid bigots?

[Sephus]

a smart person can be a bigot.

can a smart person be a moron?

whats one ignorant thing ive written and how is it ignorant?

[tbach24]

BTW bison, I like your location

[brassnuts]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to apologize because I'm unwilling to see intolerance of, disdain for or condescension to homosexuals as anything more than the intolerant (bigotted) refuse of untidy minds.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yep, and just to be clear I count close family and friends among this number. This is a fundamental human rights issue. As clear a domestic human-rights issue as presents itself to Americans at this time. What do you want me to say? That it's okay to believe that gays are diseased, deluded or led astray? That they shouldn't have the legal rights to honor and protect their loved ones that straight people enjoy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people who are very anti-gay are bigotted morons, but I'll play the devil's advocate for a minute here. What about the people who simply view homosexuality as a form of sexual perversion? Of course, you and I draw an arbitrary line between homosexuality and beastility or necrophelia, but the line is still arbitrary nonetheless. Included in your list of people with untidy bigotted minds are those who simply have disdain for homosexuality. I would guess that a lot of morally prudent people have disdain for people who have heterosexual anal sex, let alone towards homosexuals. While basically I agree with you, I think maybe you are being too judgmental with those against homosexuality.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Bison's not giving very good arguments and is being arrogant on top.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. This started out being an intelligent thread but turned into "I AM BISON HEAR ME ROAR!!!" piss fest. Too bad..

Well I'm going to get drunk. See you later OOT!

[tbach24]

[ QUOTE ]
can a smart person be a moron?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but a smart person can do moronic things and have moronic moments.

[ QUOTE ]
whats one ignorant thing ive written and how is it ignorant?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your argument. I've gone into detail with this. If a person stops gang fights in LA, invents a cure to cancer, but hates Arabs for 9/11, calling him stupid is ignorant.

[bisonbison]

there are people with whom you could have a relationship for quite a long time and who would demonstrate to you that they are certainly not bigoted morons (like your close friends/family may have done), and it makes more sense for you to conlcude that not all people who are anti gay in some respects are bigoted morons rather than to conclude that all previous evidence of their intelligence is trumped by this new discovery of their ineptitide and bigotry.

My sister is a born-again Christian. She's an intelligent and sensitive woman. This is my fundamental impression of her.

Nonetheless, she does not see homosexual love as valid in any way shape or form. Therefore, in my eyes, she's a bigot, and, on this issue at least, shows great potential in terms of being a moron.

That's it. That's the totality. People are complicated, and often believe ridiculous things, but we have to prioritize those things and some of them just may happen to fall in to the bigotted and/or [censored] dump pool, ala my sister. I'm not going to apologize for that.

As for being a whatever got censored to you. Uh, no. Cause I don't care. I'd rather be right than polite, and nothing you've mustered so far has convinved me that the twain shall meet.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, you and I draw an arbitrary line between homosexuality and beastility or necrophelia, but the line is still arbitrary nonetheless.

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored] HELL!!! REASON AND LOGIC IN OOT!!! WHERE DID THIS COME FROM?????

ok, I'm outa here..

have fun you guys.

P.S. I know there were many good posts in this thread. Brassnuts was the best counter I've seen towards bisons arguments and I could resist. His arguments were even better than mine. BRAVO BRASSNUTS!!!!!!!!

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
can a smart person be a moron?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but a smart person can do moronic things and have moronic moments.

[ QUOTE ]
whats one ignorant thing ive written and how is it ignorant?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your argument. I've gone into detail with this. If a person stops gang fights in LA, invents a cure to cancer, but hates Arabs for 9/11, calling him stupid is ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's wrong to call a smart person who does a moronic thing or has a moronic moment a bigoted moron, but this still doesn't really apply to this discussion.

your counterpoints are not very relevant and to suggest that you have "gone into detail" about how "my argument is ignorant" is pretty weak.

[tbach24]

[ QUOTE ]
As for being a whatever got censored to you. Uh, no. Cause I don't care. I'd rather be right than polite, and nothing you've mustered so far has convinved me that the twain shall meet.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can give a good argument without being a jerk. Wacki seems to be able to do it. You should at least try. Also, using references like "twain shall meet" isn't nice. I'm not learn-ed (I don't know how to spell it so I thought I'd kinda pronounciate it), so I really don't know it. I imagine there are others reading this who don't either. The context is kinda weird so could you please expand it?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
My sister is ... an intelligent and sensitive woman. ...She shows great potential in terms of being a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

fine. but if she is anti-gay then she IS a bigoted moron, she has already shown everything necessary.

how about being both right and not impolite?

[tbach24]

[ QUOTE ]
your counterpoints are not very relevant and to suggest that you have "gone into detail" about how "my argument is ignorant" is pretty weak.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless I'm misinterpreting the question (which is very possible), I think my point of:

[ QUOTE ]
If a person stops gang fights in LA, invents a cure to cancer, but hates Arabs for 9/11, calling him stupid is ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

is correct.

If you do not agree with this, then perhaps you should think about mental disorders. Intelligent people can have them (as evidenced by the dude from A Beautiful Mind). Mental disorders can lead people to believe stupid things, such as that blacks are inferior to whites. Therefore, smart people can be biggots.

[bisonbison]

Any answer to a yes-or-no question that includes the words "yes" and "no" is inherently unclear unless you explain what you mean by it.

Sigh. Nuance. Sarcasm. Irony. This [censored] is, of course, lost on someone who just doesn't care. Nonetheless, it was there to begin with. I don't need to explain it. Anyone with half a brain could explain to you what I meant.

I think you misunderstood my reference to the state blah blah blah What about gay people who feel that state legislatures are the proper avenue to effect this change? They are out there (no pun intended). Are they stupid bigots?

I doubt very highly that anyone has been accused of bigotry on the basis of a procedural finding in an appellate level case.

A klansman who wants to hang a gay bride because he's a gay bride is rarely accused of being a bigot because he wants to address it through the state legislature as opposed to the courts. Or has the 'reality based' legal system trend simply missed your educational quadrangle in the last 50 years?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
your counterpoints are not very relevant and to suggest that you have "gone into detail" about how "my argument is ignorant" is pretty weak.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless I'm misinterpreting the question (which is very possible), I think my point of:

[ QUOTE ]
If a person stops gang fights in LA, invents a cure to cancer, but hates Arabs for 9/11, calling him stupid is ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, i agree. when did i indicate i might call someone who cured cancer stupid? are you sure you're arguing with the right person?

[ QUOTE ]
If you do not agree with this, then perhaps you should think about mental disorders. Intelligent people can have them (as evidenced by the dude from A Beautiful Mind). Mental disorders can lead people to believe stupid things, such as that blacks are inferior to whites. Therefore, smart people can be biggots.

[/ QUOTE ]

look dude i never said smart people cant be bigots. i even said smart people can be bigots in agreement in a previous post. i said smart people cant be morons.

[tbach24]

Oh ok, no problem. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

[Sephus]

as my final word on this (hopefully), it's quite ironic that you're saying things like "id rather be right than polite" and at the same time making statements that basically add up to:

"my sister is both intelligent and sensitive, she does not consider homosexual love valid in any way, people who do not consider homosexual love valid in any way are bigoted morons."

[CallMeIshmael]

http://askmen.com/toys/battle/pictures/34_homer_simpson.JPG

Homer: And that big dipper looking thingy is.. Alan the cowboy.
Pepe: Wow papa Homer, you are so learned.
Homer: It's pronounced 'learned'.
Pepe: I love you Papa Homer.
Homer: I love you too Pepsi.
Pepe: Pepe.
Homer: Whatever.

[Dex]

[ QUOTE ]
If the use of the word bigot means you're bigotted, then holy poop.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Next time you want a thread to remain pristine and unhijacked, I suggest not posting it on the internet, much less in OOT.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I ommiting some sort of basic linguistic unit that would allow for you to understand what I am actually saying?

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for being a whatever got censored to you. Uh, no. Cause I don't care. I'd rather be right than polite, and nothing you've mustered so far has convinved me that the twain shall meet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly, you are the best poster ever. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
Any answer to a yes-or-no question that includes the words "yes" and "no" is inherently unclear unless you explain what you mean by it.

Sigh. Nuance. Sarcasm. Irony. This [censored] is, of course, lost on someone who just doesn't care. Nonetheless, it was there to begin with. I don't need to explain it. Anyone with half a brain could explain to you what I meant.

I think you misunderstood my reference to the state blah blah blah What about gay people who feel that state legislatures are the proper avenue to effect this change? They are out there (no pun intended). Are they stupid bigots?

I doubt very highly that anyone has been accused of bigotry on the basis of a procedural finding in an appellate level case.

A klansman who wants to hang a gay bride because he's a gay bride is rarely accused of being a bigot because he wants to address it through the state legislature as opposed to the courts. Or has the 'reality based' legal system trend simply missed your educational quadrangle in the last 50 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never offered my personal opinion. Thanks for the veiled insult to my education though, that was adorable.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These studies are political. I didn't say I thought the studies were dumb or ill-advised or anything, but I believe they're fundamentally irrelevant to the larger cultural argument. Either you empathize with gay people or you don't.


[/ QUOTE ]

I do not think that describing this line of research as purely political is at all accuruate. There is some very credible research out there from numerous unbiased sources on this subject. I'm not sure you intended to imply this but charachterizing such reasearch as propaganda is simply not accurate.

Second I belive that studies such as these do have an influence on cultural norms. Modern psychological research has definate but varying influnce on the courts for one. American Psychological Assosication amicus curae briefs have been cited in numerous supreme court decisions. When teaching intro to psych it was made very clear that modern psychology has a firm empircal basis for concluding that sexual orienation can neither be choosen nor changed. Ten years ago this topic would not even be discussed in such a class. Having that material in my text book allowed me to assert that whatever your moral stand this is what science has to say and unless you can find non biased scientifically sound evidence to the contrary, charachterizing sexual orientation as a choice is a misinformed and inaccurate point of view.

Science allows the debate to move from opinion to sound evidence, this is a very important step for more of the American public than you might think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Studies and textbooks both can be and often have been exceedingly political. "Science" is a term that has a lot of power, and that power is fought for, used, and abused regularly. Something being in a textbook is very, very far from it being infallible truth.

It's not only wackos trying to insert the bible into biology textbooks that actively promulgate a point of view as science and try to mess up text books; science can be a very political arena, and many textbooks are crap.

[bisonbison]

[censored] HELL!!! REASON AND LOGIC IN OOT!!! WHERE DID THIS COME FROM?????

If you believe that the line separating homosexuality on the one hand and bestiality and necrophilia on the other is arbitrary, then you're a bigger idiot than this thread already convinced me of.

One of these things is not like the other. Hint: it involves the ideal of love among equal parties, consent, and agency for both involved.

[mikech]

would one who does not support the legalization of polygamy (both polygyny and polyandry) in this country be a bigoted moron? how about those who don't support allowing siblings to marry, or letting parents wed their (adult) children?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[censored] HELL!!! REASON AND LOGIC IN OOT!!! WHERE DID THIS COME FROM?????

If you believe that the line separating homosexuality on the one hand and bestiality and necrophilia on the other is arbitrary, then you're a bigger idiot than this thread already convinced me of.

One of these things is not like the other. Hint: it involves the ideal of love among equal parties, consent, and agency for both involved.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok how about the line between heterosexual activity and homosexuality??? That involves the necessity of procreation, evolution, and survival of the species. Is that arbitrary???? Please inform me in a logical a well formed argument about how that line is less arbitrary and less important than the line between homosexuality and pedophilia?? BTW, children are fully capable of loving full grown adults and some people say animals are capable of doing this as well. I know when I was 16 I was very angry I couldn't engage in relations with a 20 year old. I still wish things were different even now. Hell, I have a parrot that tries to feed me by regurgitating it's food every time it sees me. It also does a mating dance whenever I walk in the room. So by your definition, I should be able to [censored] the [censored] out of my parrot and everyone that disagrees is a moron? And anyone who thinks I can't marry my fully grown parrot or a child is a moron?? Hint: it involves the ideal of love among equal parties, consent, and agency for both involved. Also, any child that loves an adult should be able to [censored] that adult and age doesn't matter correct?

Bison, I like you, but your arguments are weak and your insults are even worse. Stop being a troll and try to put at least some effort into making a logical argument.

BTW, you have completely ignored my questions and counterpoints in previous posts.

-drunk wacki

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok how about the line between heterosexual activity and homosexuality??? That involves the necessity of procreation, evolution, and survival of the species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well no, most of the time birth-control is used and it doesn't, so in this regard it's no different from homosexuality.

[ QUOTE ]
Please inform me in a logical a well formed argument about how that line is less arbitrary and less important than the line between homosexuality and pedophilia??

[/ QUOTE ]

Consenting adults who understand what they are engaging in. OK OK you can be the moral relativist here and bla bla what difference does it make if they understand, that line is arbitrary as well. Or you could say, "well just because they're underage that doesn't mean they don't understand" but that's an entirely different issue because of course there will be some close to whatever line you choose who might understand and others who might not but that's just the practical application of this and not what we're talking about.

[ QUOTE ]
Hell, I have a parrot that tries to feed me by regurgitating it's food every time it sees me. It also does a mating dance whenever I walk in the room. So by your definition, I should be able to [censored] the [censored] out of my parrot and everyone that disagrees is a moron?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, consent requires the other party to understand what they agree to engage in and a parrot obviously does not.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, any child that loves an adult should be able to [censored] that adult and age doesn't matter correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Consent.

[ QUOTE ]
Bison, I like you, but your arguments are weak and your insults are even worse. Stop being a troll and try to put at least some effort into making a logical argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really think bison's arguments have been excellent so far, although it's probably no coincidence that I happen to completely agree with them. Except the part about "agency" because I don't know what that means - bison?

[bisonbison]

Agency is basically just another word for informed consent.

It generally means the ability and willingness to make your own decisions.

But I'm done. To sum up.

Homosexuality = fine.
Heterosexuality = fine.
pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia = not okay.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Well no, most of the time birth-control is used and it doesn't, so in this regard it's no different from homosexuality.

[/ QUOTE ]

A medical doctor would disagree as for the effects on the body. Hell my sister (a doctor) tells me not to have anal sex because of the effects on the sphincter muscle causes problems with age. Many evolutionary biologists would still also disagree as sex (even casual sex with contraceptives) still plays a role in the final mate selection process. There are other reasons as well.

Also, bison is still ignoring my religion questions.

P.S. Please note that I am not argueing my opinion I am just defending all people from being called morons.

Thanks for the hijak bison. This has been almost as fun as a root canal.

[wacki]

bison

[ QUOTE ]
Agency is basically just another word for informed consent.

pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia = not okay.


[/ QUOTE ]

spamwell

[ QUOTE ]
Consenting adults who understand what they are engaging in.

[/ QUOTE ]


me:

[ QUOTE ]
I know when I was 16 I was very angry I couldn't engage in relations with a 20 year old. I still wish things were different even now.

[/ QUOTE ]

This conversation is boring and going nowhere.

[mikech]

[ QUOTE ]
Agency is basically just another word for informed consent.

It generally means the ability and willingness to make your own decisions.

But I'm done. To sum up.

Homosexuality = fine.
Heterosexuality = fine.
pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia = not okay.

[/ QUOTE ]

polygamy, adult incest = fine?

fwiw, i could care less if consenting adults want to engage in incestuous or polyamorous relationships, but i'm not about to brand anyone who might disagree with me, and everyone who doesn't want these relationships to be sanctioned by the government with the institution of marriage, as necessarily morons and bigots.

so which is it bison, are you going to champion the cause of polygamists as well? at least be consistent.

[bisonbison]

polygamy, adult incest = fine?

Adult incest = No. Not fine. Usually the product of some deep psychological damage. That having been said, if both parties voice consent, how do you propose to stop it as long as they're not trying to get married?

Polygamy = you don't get legal rights attendent to marriage, but you can have however many religious ceremonies as you want.

so which is it bison, are you going to champion the cause of polygamists as well? at least be consistent.

I am being consistent. I don't think polygamy and/or adult incest are comparable to homosexual and heterosexual relationships, nor should they be afforded the equal legal footing that those relationships deserve.


Edit:

To sum up: I don't think you're a bigotted moron if you happen to think that polygamy should be allowed, but if you don't think that gay people deserve the same rights to marry and adopt that straight people do, then I think you're A) thoughtless, B) stupid, and/or C) bigotted.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
Hint: it involves the ideal of love among equal parties, consent, and agency for both involved.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am being consistent. I don't think polygamy and/or adult incest are comparable to homosexual and heterosexual relationships

[/ QUOTE ]

In what way do adult incest and polygamy lack the ideal of love among equal parties, consent, and agency for both involved?

[bisonbison]

You wanna, screw your mom and then marry your aunt, that's fine with me. None of my business.

But I think that the state would have a near impossible time adjudicating the consequences of polygamy, because of the wide array of dependencies and rights that civil marriage currently grants.

As for adult incest, 1st cousins? sure I guess, get married.

Siblings and/or parent/child/uncle/niece and so on? Sorry, I'm gonna have to say there's a degree of moral coercion there that I just can't sign off on. I guess I can't perfectly extend my distinctions. Oh well.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe that the line separating homosexuality on the one hand and bestiality and necrophilia on the other is arbitrary, then you're a bigger idiot than this thread already convinced me of.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I never specifically stated that I believed that specific line was arbitrary. Thanks for calling me an idiot for something that brassnuts might of said.

[ QUOTE ]
As for adult incest, 1st cousins? sure I guess, get married.

Siblings and/or parent/child/uncle/niece and so on? Sorry, I'm gonna have to say there's a degree of moral coercion there that I just can't sign off on.

[/ QUOTE ]

ar·bi·trar·y Audio pronunciation of "arbitrary" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärb-trr)
adj.

1 : depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by standards, rules, or law &lt;the manner of punishment is arbitrary

2)Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.

3 a : based on preference, bias, prejudice, or convenience rather than on reason or fact


Weren't you an English major???? Cuz I forget. (ehh it was a low blow I know, but with all the childish name calling you've been doing in this thread it's hard not to indulge. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Relax bison.)

You are still ignoring my religious questions btw. I'm starting to doubt I will ever get those answered.

[wacki]

btw just to clarify things our views aren't that different. I just don't agree with you calling people who disagree morons. It really makes you look like a bigot.

[brassnuts]

This thread is dead, I know, but I've been away all day and I'd just like to add a couple words.

[ QUOTE ]
[censored] HELL!!! REASON AND LOGIC IN OOT!!! WHERE DID THIS COME FROM?????

If you believe that the line separating homosexuality on the one hand and bestiality and necrophilia on the other is arbitrary, then you're a bigger idiot than this thread already convinced me of.

One of these things is not like the other. Hint: it involves the ideal of love among equal parties, consent, and agency for both involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently, I'm the biggest idiot for first mentioning this line of reason. But, at least let my try to make my point a bit more clear. On the one hand, you have coitus, the quintessential form of sex. On the other, you have any other form or act of a sexual nature. If you accept any other forms, you're going to have to draw a line somewhere, and it is going to be arbitrary.

Involving, "the ideal of love among equal parties, consent, and agency for both involved," is an irrelevant concrete line that can be drawn between homosexuality and say pedophelia. You just happen to use this arbitrarily as your criteria for what is appropriate or not. Other people, who you call bigotted morons use different criteria.

You even stumble over yourself as you go on to make these two statements: "Adult incest = No. Not fine." and "You wanna, screw your mom and then marry your aunt, that's fine with me. None of my business."

Also, my original post was aimed at a statement you made about how having disdain or condescension towards homosexuals makes you a bigotted moron. Let me try to tie all of this together with an example.

Say I meat a heterosexual couple. Somehow, we get involved in a conversation about sex. They explain to me that they vomit all over eachother and eat eachother's feces during their course of lovemaking. According to your definition, I would be a bigotted moron because this would lead to both condescension and disdain towards them. However, I don't think they shouldn't be allowed to whatever they want.

One more thing:

[ QUOTE ]
btw just to clarify things our views aren't that different. I just don't agree with you calling people who disagree morons. It really makes you look like a bigot.

[/ QUOTE ]

What he said.

[vulturesrow]

OF course there exist perfectly good public policy reasons for not giving homosexuals marriage rights. But only a bigot would believe in those.

[wacki]

Brassnuts, my respect for you and your reasoning skills just went through the roof. Very well done sir.

[Subfallen]

A debate team of wacki, blarg, and brassnuts would PWN.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
A debate team of wacki, blarg, and brassnuts would PWN.

[/ QUOTE ]

Peace John Nickle and Zeno are very formidable opponents as well.

[bisonbison]

Apparently, I'm the biggest idiot for first mentioning this line of reason. But, at least let my try to make my point a bit more clear. On the one hand, you have coitus, the quintessential form of sex. On the other, you have any other form or act of a sexual nature. If you accept any other forms, you're going to have to draw a line somewhere, and it is going to be arbitrary.

No. The line has nothing to do with the behavior and everything to do with the participants. Puke. Oral sex. Anal fisting. Sadomasabondage whatever. I don't care.

You just happen to use this arbitrarily as your criteria for what is appropriate or not. Other people, who you call bigotted morons use different criteria.

Yes, I happen to use consent as the fundamental dividing line between sexual relationships the state should extend protection to and ones it should not. I would not describe that as an arbitrary distinction.

You even stumble over yourself as you go on to make these two statements: "Adult incest = No. Not fine." and "You wanna, screw your mom and then marry your aunt, that's fine with me. None of my business."

Yeah. I happen to find incest between immediate family members to be morally repugnant because for the most part it borders or resides entirely within the sphere of psychological or physical coercion.

Nonetheless, I'll go so far as to say that if neither side lodges a complaint sex between adult siblings or adult children and their parents should be legal. But I don't believe that the state should sanction marriage between those individuals.


In any case, it's irrelevant. If someone wants to call me a bigotted moron cause I oppose incest marriages, that's fine.

I believe, and will continue to believe, that people who fail to see the clear moral and logical superiority of the pro-gay marriage position are failing in some basic human capacity of thought or emotion. And I will call them names because it makes me smile.

[maryfield48]

[ QUOTE ]
A debate team of wacki, blarg, and brassnuts would PWN.

[/ QUOTE ]

If so, only by dint of volume of words.

[Hoopster81]

[ QUOTE ]
Its just odd because homosexuality certainly reduces genetic fitness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost all genetic disorders reduce fitness. Hell, my vision is 20/200 and my genes still made it somehow to 2005.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
If so, only by dint of volume of words.

[/ QUOTE ]

My arguments in this thread have not been the best. However, there was nothing wrong with the arguments brassnuts made.

Blarg is a very skilled debater as well. If you attacked me, I wouldn't care. However, I am very curious as to why you would attack Blarg's and Brassnut's ability to create logical arguments.

[maryfield48]

You're right. It wasn't fair to blarg and brassnuts.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
You're right. It wasn't fair to blarg and brassnuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you feel the same about my posts in the global warming threads?

[maryfield48]

Funny you should ask that. Your GW posts brought you to my attention, and caused me to have a lot of respect for you.

Look I was kinda just busting your balls a little here - I think some of your arguments in this thread were weak, and I felt like snapping off a one-liner.