Predicto Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 as an aside to this aside... my daughter is left handed, and does most things left dominant. but occasionally she used to write with her right hand, and when she DID she would write in perfect mirror-image right to left, everything backwards. I have no idea what the eff that meant, but i always thought it was kinda bizzare, and kinda cool. It means she has bad genetics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 there was another episode about a race of beings who had evolved beyond race, and any physical expression of the masculine or feminine in their race was considered a disgusting abberation, and therefore corrected with (unspecified) treatment. one member turns out to be secretly female, falls in love with (guess who) riker, and once the authorities find out, they use their advanced science to "correct" her. at the end, she comes out, now perfectly gender-neutral, and speaks about how much happier she is now, and how ashamed she was of her former self and those "incorrect" urges she once felt. the whole thing is a very effective skewering of homophobia and the urge to "correct" gays, and what makes it great is it basically puts straight people (who identify in the episode with riker and his lover) in the position of being told that they are the abberation, and how horrifying it is to have your base urges "corrected" in such a manner. That was a great episode as well :yes:...made it seem as if heterosexuality was an abomination that needed "fixing" right along with homosexuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 This thread is now about Star Trek. Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 that doesn't mean they are correct. are you trying to suggest that those gay-haters are correct or even have a valid basis for such an argument? no, i'm trying to point out how the "born this way" path doesn't really get anyone anywhere because people are born with all kinds of (actually) bad things that could eventually one day be cured through scientific research. just because someone is born some way doesn't make it any more right than if they chose to be that. whether being gay is evil or not should not depend on whether or not they were born that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 I mean wasn't this country founded on Christian beliefs, No, it wasn't. It was founded on Enlightenment beliefs. Textual literalist Christian fundamentalism hadn't even been invented yet. Charles Hodge came around in the mid-1800s and was a heavy influence, but most of the "God's Truth" Christian Fundamentalist principles were developed between 1900 and 1920. ---------- Post added June-20th-2011 at 01:06 PM ---------- I am a troll now, intellectually clumsy, like to see you say that to me in person smart ass. Oooh, another veiled reference to a physical beating from our fine upstanding Christian. Yay! You gonna claim that this one was also just a reference to a "stern talking-to"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhouse Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Though I don't consider myself religious, I believe many of the rules can be supported and are valid at face value; they're for the betterment of mankind. But I have a problem simply accepting the "because God says it's a sin" argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 no, i'm trying to poitn out how the "born this way" path doesn't really get anyone anywhere because people are born with all kinds of (actually) bad things that could eventually one day be cured through scientific research. just because someone is born some way doesn't make it any more right than if they chose to be that. whether being gay is evil or not should not depend on whether or not they were born that way. the "born this way path" however is true for the majority of homosexuals (it seems that is what the majority claims), and there is a difference between something that is choice and something that is birth. I agree with you that the morality of it cannot be determined exclusively by birth vs. choice. However, choice is what is often used as a means to discriminate, because if homosexuals are, majorily, born with that sexual preference, then they can't help it anymore than someone born a little person, who should not be discriminated against. Our society as a whole typically shuns that kind of discrimination, which is why I believe the choice argument prevails for some. As far as morality, other than people thinking it's "icky" and the religious argument, what grounds are there for saying it is immoral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Though I don't consider myself religious, I believe many of the rules can be supported and are valid at face value; they're for the betterment of mankind. But I have a problem simply accepting the "because God says it's a sin" argument. as any sentient person over the age of 8 should, Christians included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 as any sentient person over the age of 8 should, Christians included. or non-sentient being, curious about their own existence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 As far as morality, other than people thinking it's "icky" and the religious argument, what grounds are there for saying it is immoral? Because it is not something that the majority wants to do, and at their core, Human Beings are all about "prohibit, ostracize or criminalize anything, as long as it doesn't affect me or people like me." Same reason that alcohol is legal and potsmokers go to jail. The Founding Fathers tied one on now and then, and so did your grandfather, and your Congressman, but marijuana is a low grade habit of hippies and negros. Put those deviants in jail! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 What if is negatively affects the person who has it but causes no harm to others? That would be a hard barometer to determine, in reality. And again, it speaks to a large range of ethic and morality that should indeed be discussed. For example, who is to say that someone with Down Syndrome is being "hurt" or negatively effected, or rather if it's the parents not wanting an "abnormal" child? So my answer remains the same: as long as there is no harm caused, then yes, we should celebrate all the possible variations of being human. No reason not to. The only situation in which we are certain homosexual behavior is a choice is amongst the bisexual population. No, because it would be and SHOULD be seen as "bisexual behavior", not "homosexual behavior"...and again, it wouldn't be a choice to be attracted to the same gender even if they were only involved with their same sex, it would be a natural aspect of their being, plugged into their DNA from conception. Guess what I'm saying is that your sexual orientation is not based on your actions and behavior. A gay man who chooses to marry a woman and have children with her is still a gay man. it's just that now, he's a gay man who has chosen to live a hetero lifestyle. If "born this way" is the reason they shouldn't be discriminated against then bisexuals that choose to behave as gay men should be freely discriminated against by the ridiculous logic of the birth argument. Saying "born this way" as the reason they shouldn't be discriminated against does NOT equate to meaning people who make a conscious choice SHOULD be discriminated against lol...you shouldn't discriminate against people who shave their heads, either. And again...bisexual men who choose to only date men are acting like a bisexual man--meaning, bisexual men are indeed attracted to other men. They did not choose to be attracted to men, they were born that way. Divorce the act from the definition. Failing that, a straight person that "experiments" should be discriminated against right? Hey according to you " ANYONE who is born attracted to their same gender" shouldn't be discriminated against. So straights experimenting can be. Oh the wonders of the birth argument. I'll say it again: Saying "born this way" as the reason they shouldn't be discriminated against does NOT equate to meaning people who make a conscious choice SHOULD be discriminated against. They are not mutually exclusive. Why you keep thinking they are is baffling, and extremely poor logic. I know I never said or even indicated such. . That choices carry discrimination as an option but conditions at birth do not. I find that argument to be ridiculous in the context of this debate. Read above...twice lol. Seriously, read it again until you get the difference between what I've said and what you keep thinking I've said. Parents wanting to increase the odds of biological grand kids is a moral judgement? What, you mean lesbians are unable to give birth?...Gay men are unable to use surrogates to carry their child? Holy stinkin' kumquats, when did this happen? Besides, I said the word "treatment" alluded to judgement...any parent who described it as "treatment" wasn't thinking of biological grandkids, don't fool yourself ...and I think it would be extremely wise to discourage ANY parent from manipulating their unborn child's DNA for such selfish reasons, wouldn't you? What about parents in a part of the world where homosexuals are killed... are they passing judgement too? Your thinking is far too simple minded here. We are talking about human life you should know real life situations are hardly ever as black and white as you're trying to make them. Again...I said the word "treatment" alluded to judgement...I even put the word in quotes and everything lol...Follow along, please. Your stance is not nearly as perfect as you have convinced yourself it is. And a parent who calls it "treatment" is indeed alluding to their having a judgement about homosexuality. You don't "treat" something unless you see something wrong with what you're "treating". People are already using science to determine if they are having a boy or a girl. Really think they wouldn't choose gay or straight? You know better.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/13/60II/main611618.shtml Yes, but they are not using science to "treat" their unborn child for being female and turn them into males, are they? And did you actually understand the article? First off, what they're talking about is a pre-implantation procedure, no DNA manipulation is needed. Second, the guy who invented the procedure doesn't even like it being used for gender selection ("And for the man who pioneered the procedure, the new direction the technology is taking is disturbing.") You can be born incredibly short too. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with being short and parents put their kids through hormone treatments. That's the real world. And this has zero to do with the part of my post you quoted lol..you claimed the "born that way" argument was weak; I claimed that the "born that way" argument was used as the basis for the Declaration Of Independence, since we were born with the God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So clearly, using the innate and God-given aspects of being human is far from a weak argument. Fill me in on how being short and being put through hormone treatments figures into that argument. You're right it will. I'll bet the house however that if it improves the quality of life of those yet to be born, society will embrace it. And I'll bet you three houses that there will be an intense debate over what constitutes the "quality of life" of those who can not speak for themselves. Someone with autism may be completely fine living with autism...who are we to say otherwise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Since zoony likes my anecdotes so much, I thought I would throw another one out there. My daughter just graduated 8th grade at an extremely liberal Quaker school in San Francisco. The school has plenty of gay parents, of course. The kids of those parents are not ostracized or treated differently in any way as far as I can tell. Moreover, the societal and cultural acceptance of homosexuality could not possibly be any more pervasive in the school or in the neighborhood. It simply does not matter to these kids. Strangely enough, of the 55 kids graduating with her, only one thinks that he is gay. All of the rest of them seem to be able to resist the glamorous siren call of gaydom, despite the overwhelming messages of television, the City, and their own parents. How can that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 This thread is now about Star Trek. Discuss. Kirk can sleep with a green woman but gays can't marry...just ridiculous, I tells ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Kirk can sleep with a green woman but gays can't marry...just ridiculous, I tells ya. I would sleep with young Yvonne Craig even if she was plaid. (but I'd make her wear the Batgirl outfit ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 I would sleep with young Yvonne Craig even if she was plaid.(but I'd make her wear the Batgirl outfit ) Oh, HELL, yes lol ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 I would sleep with young Yvonne Craig even if she was plaid.(but I'd make her wear the Batgirl outfit ) Oh, HELL, yes lol ... Totally worthless without pics. :mad: I'm ashamed of both of you. :doh: Oh and. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassSkinsFan Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Since zoony likes my anecdotes so much, I thought I would throw another one out there.My daughter just graduated 8th grade at an extremely liberal Quaker school in San Francisco. The school has plenty of gay parents, of course. The kids of those parents are not ostracized or treated differently in any way as far as I can tell. Moreover, the societal and cultural acceptance of homosexuality could not possibly be any more pervasive in the school or in the neighborhood. It simply does not matter to these kids. Strangely enough, of the 55 kids graduating with her, only one thinks that he is gay. All of the rest of them seem to be able to resist the glamorous siren call of gaydom, despite the overwhelming messages of television, the City, and their own parents. How can that be? They were born glamor-resistant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Totally worthless without pics. :mad: I'm ashamed of both of you. :doh: (pics of gorgeousness here) :notworthy :notworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 After the first 10 pages, this thread is just nuts. I didn't read the rest. Note to all. I'm a conservative, but couldn't be any different than killerbee. Of course, I'm not hiding the fact that I'm gay. I kid, I'm straight...but killerbee??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 They were born glamor-resistant. Early and frequent exposure probably inoculated them against the gay virus. Folks like Killerbee avoid any contact until one day, boom, they get exposed to the virus, they can't resist, and have a wide stance in public bathrooms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 No, because it would be and SHOULD be seen as "bisexual behavior", not "homosexual behavior"...and again, it wouldn't be a choice to be attracted to the same gender even if they were only involved with their same sex, it would be a natural aspect of their being, plugged into their DNA from conception. Guess what I'm saying is that your sexual orientation is not based on your actions and behavior. A gay man who chooses to marry a woman and have children with her is still a gay man. it's just that now, he's a gay man who has chosen to live a hetero lifestyle. Impulse and action is not the same thing. Having an impulse does not justify the action. A bisexual person can choose to be with a man or with a woman. They are not, like homosexuals and heterosexuals, painted into any corners. Much like you can choose to be monogamous or not, the fact that you are attracted to others does not justify acting on those impulses. A gay man choosing to marry a woman and have children isn’t living a heterosexual lifestyle, he’s living. If his wife isn’t aware that he’s gay then he’s entered into marriage in bad faith and frankly doing such a thing is deplorable. Saying "born this way" as the reason they shouldn't be discriminated against does NOT equate to meaning people who make a conscious choice SHOULD be discriminated against lol...you shouldn't discriminate against people who shave their heads, either. Then way even bring up born this way when you don’t know what percentage of homosexual behavior is indeed caused by a condition at birth? Why not avoid that entirely and get to the actual meat of the subject which is to say “choosing to engage in homosexual behavior is entirely OK?” Assuming you believe that to be the case.Like I said the born this way argument is useless and unconvincing. What, you mean lesbians are unable to give birth?...Gay men are unable to use surrogates to carry their child? Holy stinkin' kumquats, when did this happen? Did you miss the words “increase odds” or are you just trying to avoid reality again? I never said “allow for the possibility” did I? Feel free to compare the rate of biological children among homosexuals and heterosexuals? Again...I said the word "treatment" alluded to judgement...I even put the word in quotes and everything lol...Follow along, please. Your stance is not nearly as perfect as you have convinced yourself it is. I’m just not as over sensitive as you are and take the word treatment to mean… well, what it means. Would you prefer I used the word process or procedure? And did you actually understand the article? First off, what they're talking about is a pre-implantation procedure, no DNA manipulation is needed. Second, the guy who invented the procedure doesn't even like it being used for gender selection ("And for the man who pioneered the procedure, the new direction the technology is taking is disturbing.")You are set on splitting hairs today aren’t you? I realize that it’s not a DNA manipulation… the point is they are actively engaged in determining aspects of their yet to be born children. It’s really not that hard to follow. Yes the man that invented it doesn’t like it. That is what made it so fitting. You argued that such things were disturbing and I said people would do it anyway. Get it now? And this has zero to do with the part of my post you quoted lol..you claimed the "born that way" argument was weak; I claimed that the "born that way" argument was used as the basis for the Declaration Of Independence, since we were born with the God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So clearly, using the innate and God-given aspects of being human is far from a weak argument.Fill me in on how being short and being put through hormone treatments figures into that argument. What’s wrong with being short? Short people can’t be happy and live wonderful lives? Of course they can. Yet parents do what they can to avoid that and in fact treatments (or would you prefer procedure) have yielded results on those who don’t need them. It just makes them taller which some prefer. You really can’t see the parallel there? Really? And I'll bet you three houses that there will be an intense debate over what constitutes the "quality of life" of those who can not speak for themselves. Someone with autism may be completely fine living with autism...who are we to say otherwise?So we shouldn’t attempt to treat autism? LoL you’re need to accommodate the “born this way” argument is hilarious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Impulse and action is not the same thing. Having an impulse does not justify the action. A bisexual person can choose to be with a man or with a woman. They are not, like homosexuals and heterosexuals, painted into any corners. Much like you can choose to be monogamous or not, the fact that you are attracted to others does not justify acting on those impulses. What you're severely overlooking is that in order to be labeled as an adulterer you need to have committed adultery. But in order to be labeled as "gay" all you have to do is be attracted to your same sex instead of the opposite gender. Too many people think you're not gay if you don't act on it ...ridiculously flawed logic, and shows they know zero about human sexuality. A gay man choosing to marry a woman and have children isn’t living a heterosexual lifestyle, he’s living. Of course he is, because there IS a heterosexual lifestyle just like there's a homosexual lifestyle. If his wife isn’t aware that he’s gay then he’s entered into marriage in bad faith and frankly doing such a thing is deplorable. Who mentioned whether or not she knew?...That's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Then way even bring up born this way when you don’t know what percentage of homosexual behavior is indeed caused by a condition at birth? "Condition" ... And why bring it up? Why not bring it up? When you have someone treating homosexuality as little more than a sexual or "lifestyle choice", you bring up in response the very real possibility that it's no more a choice than being straight or lefthanded. You remind people saying otherwise that their viewpoints tend to be based on the idea that being gay is solely a choice, especially when they bring in God and the Bible. Just because YOU got confused when I brought it up doesn't mean there's no validity in bringing it up. Why not avoid that entirely and get to the actual meat of the subject which is to say “choosing to engage in homosexual behavior is entirely OK?” Assuming you believe that to be the case. Because you do what a few too many do when it comes to homosexuality: you define it solely by actions instead of what resides within someone, most likely from birth. Falling in love is not a behavior. Falling in love with someone of the same sex is not a behavior, either. And the topic isn't whether or not anyone thinks it's "OK" to be gay lol...it's 1) whether or not someone can truly become an "ex-gay" (or ex-straight, for that matter), and 2) whether or not gays are deserving of the same rights and protections as straights currently receive. For BOTH of those topics, the debate of whether it's by nature or nurture is one billion percent relevant. Like I said the born this way argument is useless and unconvincing. To you, yes...for whatever reason you've stuck to your viewpoint without really investigating your viewpoint. Eh, you're allowed, of course...but you've done a piss-poor job of presenting the validity of ridiculing the 'born that way" argument as "useless". Did you miss the words “increase odds” or are you just trying to avoid reality again? I never said “allow for the possibility” did I? Feel free to compare the rate of biological children among homosexuals and heterosexuals? How does it "increase odds"? Either you want children or you do not. You think a straight woman wanting a child is more likely to get pregnant than a lesbian woman who wants a child? You think a straight man who wants a child is more likely to have a child than a gay man who wants a child? Perhaps you're unaware of the multitude of different ways in which people, straight or gay, can have children outside of straight sex? Or maybe you think a healthy fertile female is more likely to become pregnant if a normal amount of healthy sperm is inserted inside her by a penis rather than by a doctor? Then again, perhaps you're overlooking the very real ways in which "legitimizing" homosexuality and bestowing rights to the gay community might actually promote more openess and acceptance in our society, which would lead to quite a lot of advancement in finding fertility cures and avenues for all couples? Or how gay marriage being legal might cause there to be far, FAR more married gays having children biologically instead of adopting or doing in vitro in secret out of fear? Or are you relying on all those unplanned births to back up your point, making the claim that parents want to manipulate their unborn child's DNA to up the possibility of their child having an unplanned pregnancy? lol...cuz that would be one ****ed-up mentality for anyone to have. I’m just not as over sensitive as you are and take the word treatment to mean… well, what it means. Would you prefer I used the word process or procedure? Words mean things, yes lol...hey, why not use "cure" instead? Find any use of the word "treat" in a medical context that does not allude to seeing a problem and trying to correct it. You are set on splitting hairs today aren’t you? I realize that it’s not a DNA manipulation… Then(to paraphrase you earlier) why did you even bring the article up? lol...I've been purposefully mentioning DNA manipulation to change something as base as a person's sexual orientation. Mentioned "DNA manipulation" over and over and over again...because, ah, words mean things in my posts. the point is they are actively engaged in determining aspects of their yet to be born children. It’s really not that hard to follow. No, the gender of their unborn children has already been established, the parents are NOT actively engaging in determining aspects of their unborn child. What they ARE involved in, is which embryo to implant into the woman's womb. The other embryos might be saved for implantation later or even used by infertile couples who want a child of their own. So if 3 embryos are male and two embryos are female, that never changes. NOTHING at all is being done to determine aspects of the unborn child. And, yes, that should have been ridiculously easy to follow. Yes the man that invented it doesn’t like it. That is what made it so fitting. You argued that such things were disturbing and I said people would do it anyway. Get it now? No, I argued that manipulating DNA to "perfect" your unborn child would be controversial and would not proceed without a ****load of discussion first, for decades if not centuries. What you linked to was something that did not involved the manipulation of DNA..and it's STILL controversial lol ...so yeah, you helped me prove my point, thanks. What’s wrong with being short? Short people can’t be happy and live wonderful lives? Of course they can. Yet parents do what they can to avoid that and in fact treatments (or would you prefer procedure) have yielded results on those who don’t need them. It just makes them taller which some prefer. You really can’t see the parallel there? Really? So...how does that prove again that the "born that way" argument is "useless"?...and how does that show that the example I gave was somehow wrong? ...Because that's what I asked--twice now. I can ask a third time if necessary. :yes: So we shouldn’t attempt to treat autism? LoL you’re need to accommodate the “born this way” argument is hilarious! The question wasn't treating, it was HOW we treat it...and screwing with DNA in fetuses will always be controversial, especially when the directive to do so is based on some sloppy and hard to define stance as "quality of life"...a phrase that can be manipulated like a mf'er by any pro-life or pro-choice nimrod politician out there? I'm now starting to realize the level of debate I was hoping from you isn't gonna materialize lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Interesting topic. Too bad its discussion makes us all turn into douchebags. No idea if we were born that way, or if we choose to be that way. Probably doesn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killerbee99 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Leviticus 20:13 1 Corinthians 6:9 Revelation 21:8 Ephesians 5: 11-12 Matthew 19:4 Romans 1:26-27 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unforgiven Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 He's back! Missed ya! Have you asked for forgiveness for that outburst earlier? You know, when you threatened physical violence against someone who disagreed with your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.