Whether Or Not Homosexuality Is A Choice Is Irrelevant

a reply to: MKMoniker

You are the one who is hysterical here - posting all these lies from the conservative fundamentalist websites. None of these are legitimate scientific studies. None. They are all lies. Lies. Shame on them, and shame on you for posting them.

www.splcenter.org...

The question of choice became central to the topic when LBGT activists began claiming they had no choice in their sexuality and thus should have the right to marry whomever they are attracted to.

Up until the last decade, the pro-gay argument was built around the idea that choice of sexual partner is a fundamental right.

a reply to: MKMoniker

I hate to cite the same source twice on one thread, but all of your arguments fit under logical fallacies (most anti-homosexual statements do), so it warrants a repeat citation.

Everything you stated falls under one of the following:

Begging the Question or Circular Argument

This is basically repeating the claim and never providing support for the premises, or, in other words, repeating the same argument over and over again. Often, dogmatic thinkers don’t even realize this is a fallacy.

Fallacy Ex: “Gay marriage is just plain wrong.”
Fallacy Ex: “Drugs are just plain bad.”
Fallacy Ex: “I can’t believe people eat dog. That’s just plain gross. Why? Because it’s a dog, of course. How could someone eat a dog?”

Dogmatism

The unwillingness to even consider the opponent’s argument. The assumption that even when many, perhaps millions, of other people believe otherwise, only you can be correct. This is closely related to the Either/Or fallacy as it’s based on the usually false assumption that competing theories or perspectives cannot co-exist within single systems. The assumption that those who disagree with you are “biased”, while you are “objective”.

More broadly, the over application of a theory at the expense of discussing the actual issue, specific incidence or evidence at hand; the assertion that one’s position is so correct that one should not even examine the evidence to the contrary. For example, the assumption that the economic theory of capitalism explains moral choices; or the assumption that socialism is morally wrong, even though you attend a public university; the assumption that welfare is wrong and all those who partake in it are lazy (even though you accept federal financial aid or would accept state aid in the case of a catastrophic accident or injury); the argument that drugs are morally wrong and drug addicts should all be locked up or even executed (although you drink alcohol and coffee and take Ritalin and your grandmother uses anti-depressants and you are grateful your alcoholic uncle was cured via AA); the assumption that all animals should be treated humanely (although you respect indigenous cultures that subsist on seal meat); the assumption that because nature is holy, all logging is morally wrong; the assumption that democratic republics are the best form of government for all people; and on and on and on….

Either/Or or Black/White, False Dilemma, or Excluded Middle Fallacy

This fallacy simply paints an issue as one between two extremes with no possible room for middle ground or nuance or compromise. It is closely related to the straw man fallacy, which essentially paints one side, instead of both, as so extreme no can agree with it.

Fallacy Ex: “You either support George Bush or you support the terrorists.”

Fallacy Ex: “You either for me or your against me.”

Fallacy Ex: “She loves me; she loves me not.”

Fallacy Ex: “You’re a German Christian? So was Hitler. You must hate Jews.”

Fallacy Ex: “You don’t support the Israeli occupation of Palestine? You must be an anti-Semite.”

Fallacy Ex: “You support the existence of an Israeli state? You must support the occupation of Palestine.”

Emotional Appeals

When it comes to determining the validity or factuality of a claim, any attempt to sway an argument via emotion, rather than the quality of the logic or evidence, can be considered a fallacy. This includes in some but not all cases the fallacy argument from adverse consequences, or “scare tactic”; bad things will happen to us if you do not agree with my argument. However, if one is arguing over whether or not bad things will occur, this is no longer a fallacy.

Fallacy of Exclusion

This is related to the Hasty Generalization, and refers to focusing attention on one group’s behavior and assuming that behavior is unique to that group; yet, in fact, the behavior is common to many groups. Contrast with Hasty Generalization linked here.

The best example I’ve ever seen was in a letter to the Argonaut editor a few years back, the week after Halloween. The letter’s author complained that fraternities deserved their bad reputations because while wandering around Greek row Halloween night he saw three different “frat boys” puking. However, one might argue that had he wandered around just about any other place kids of this age gathered on Halloween, he’d have seen the same amount of puke.

Ex: An actual friend of mine wrote this a few years ago in response to a drunk driving fatality newspaper story, in Nashville. In this case, the drunk driver was an illegal alien and the victim was a US Citizen. "Oh my god, this has got to stop! How much is too much? Why are these people [illegal aliens] allowed to live in our country?" At first I agreed: yes, drunk drivers who kill people should themselves be put to death! Then I realized he was referring to illegal aliens, as if that was the cause of most, or even many, drunk driving fatalities.

Fallacy Ex: I'd never live in NYC; it's way too dangerous! (Indeed many people are murdered in cities, so cities appear to have a high murder rate (number of murders per capita) Yet, there are many people in NYC, so in fact the murder rate is lower in NYC than in many small towns.)

Fallacy Ex: Women can't drive! (If you examine the driving habits of women, you will observe that women are poor drivers. Yet if you were to examine the driving habits of both women and men, you’d learn that men are far more likely to get into accidents.

Source

So you have factually proven nothing so far, although you are citing yourself for some reason as if you have.

If you feel you have an argument that doesn't fit one of these, I will show you which fallacy it fits under. Every single argument I have ever heard against homosexuality fits a logical fallacy, and that's likely, but not provably, because there is no valid argument against homosexuality.

I do hope you can get over this nonsense because it is not healthy for your mind to be entertaining such nonsensical sources of reason.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
The question of choice became central to the topic when LBGT activists began claiming they had no choice in their sexuality and thus should have the right to marry whomever they are attracted to.

Up until the last decade, the pro-gay argument was built around the idea that choice of sexual partner is a fundamental right.

Oh that's right, I forgot they were hoping for equality. The scoundrels! You're right, anything to stop that from happening!

a reply to: TheJourney

Every single person in America is already on equal terms when it comes to marriage rights. No one is being denied the right to marry.

What you call equality is really about broadening the definition of the word marriage.

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

That definition has already been broadened.

www.merriam-webster.com...

It's in Merriam-webster - It's official - get used to it.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: TheJourney

Every single person in America is already on equal terms when it comes to marriage rights. No one is being denied the right to marry.

The old and tired: "Everyone has the right to marry the opposite sex"

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist

Every single person in America is already on equal terms when it comes to marriage rights. No one is being denied the right to marry.

What you call equality is really about broadening the definition of the word marriage.

If that's the best argument you've got you should really pack it in man cause it's beyond weak not to mention obviously incorrect. They are being denied the right to marry and are not being treated equal. To say otherwise is just false.

BTW, it's(marriage) a word. We made it up and it's definition which means we can change it all we want. We created the whole language and all it's definitions as well too. We can broaden it, widen it, shrink it, rewrite it, whatever the hell we want to do. If you disagree that's too bad for you I guess because that's how things work.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: TheJourney

Every single person in America is already on equal terms when it comes to marriage rights. No one is being denied the right to marry.

What you call equality is really about broadening the definition of the word marriage.

This argument works both ways.

If you are saying that homosexuals have the same marriage rights because, as individuals, they could simply marry a member of the opposite sex, then you have also defeated the argument that gay marriage is a plea for "special rights" the same breath, because that would mean that legalizing gay marriage would create more choice for everyone, not just homosexuals.

From here you are left to argue that it is not a good thing to provide people with more personal choices specific to the topic, so you have to provide a (non-fictional and non-fallacious) list of negatives of people being able to choose homosexual marriage as well.

You can't, by the way. You would need the help of a Slippery Slope fallacy to convince people of it, but no matter how many are convinced by it, it will still be a fallacious argument.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: TheJourney

Every single person in America is already on equal terms when it comes to marriage rights. No one is being denied the right to marry.

What you call equality is really about broadening the definition of the word marriage.

Thank god we have the religious right to define words for us! God knows that coupling up was introduced by Christianity, and without it it would just be non-existsent.

'Its equal, so long as they'll do what I want instead of what they want...'spoken like a true freedom lover!

First the sodomy laws were repealed or nullified removing gays and lesbians from the threat of incarceration, disfigurement, chemical castration, electro-shock therapy and even death.

Then equal treatment before the laws was established, preventing gays and lesbians from being fired, deprived of property, merely on the basis of their sexual orientation etc.

Now marriage equality has been established so that we are able to enter a marriage contract with whom we wish without regard to sex.

We are approaching a point of truly being "just like everyone else," and the extremists are very dissatisfied with this fact.

They are fighting back and they are going keep fighting. However, the fights now take on the forms that we've seen here, clear overt BIGOTRY that leaves nothing to the imagination that these people are merely exercising their faith or expressing their opinions.

We all have a bright light shining on us now, and it is up to all of us (on any side of the issue) to leave this period of history in the past and become productive and cooperative in working toward ... a better world, for lack of a better way to say it.

From the OP

We need to remove this idea that the purpose of law is to stop people from making what some consider to be 'bad' choices.

You do know you are arguing the case for the lawyer.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: flammadraco

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

Spot on!

I personally don't want more rights than anyone else, just the same rights!

Equal protection under the law--it's right there in the Constitution.

Unfortunately those religious folk are not happy with it and at every God given opportunity think their belief systems trumps others equal rights!

Well, that's changing.


OTOH, even fundies have rights. I'm against state forced accommodation. I'm for freedom of association. I don't care if a private citizen does not want to treat people equally--a free society has to tolerate a few arseholes--however, the state and the law must treat every citizen the same.

Agree 100% you are making too much sense for either 'side' to acknowledge and there would be nothing left to fight about ; )

How people get off should stay in the bedroom. I am getting tired of seeing LGBT being pushed through media though.

I also have a huge issue with the Folsom Street Fair, and those 'tolerant' parents that bring their children to these LGBT 'fairs' IMO should be charged with child abuse or neglect and have the children taken away from them. I just recently found out about this, and like I said, keep it in the privacy of your home between consenting adults, and there isn't an issue, but that this happens every year is disgusting, bringing children to it should be criminal.
www.zombietime.com...

originally posted by: Atlantican

I don't care if my neighbor marries an intersexed goat. Long as they understand to never trust goats. And long as they keep their eyes off my goat, I'm ok with them.

THAT is disgusting! Is that the path we're on?

Slippery slope and all

originally posted by: Rhiannon

From the OP

We need to remove this idea that the purpose of law is to stop people from making what some consider to be 'bad' choices.

You do know you are arguing the case for the lawyer.

What? Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: Rhiannon

From the OP

We need to remove this idea that the purpose of law is to stop people from making what some consider to be 'bad' choices.

You do know you are arguing the case for the lawyer.

What? Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.

You said

If our sexuality were not pre-defined, and one simply became homosexual through a variety of personal interpretations and choices...so?

Then prohibitions against it would be legitimate?

We need to remove this idea that the purpose of law is to stop people from making what some consider to be 'bad' choices.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I interpreted what you wrote is: if 'being gay' is indeed a choice; that laws should not be made to 'stop' people from choosing to be gay even IF others think it's a 'bad' choice

originally posted by: Rhiannon

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: Rhiannon

From the OP

We need to remove this idea that the purpose of law is to stop people from making what some consider to be 'bad' choices.

You do know you are arguing the case for the lawyer.

What? Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.

You said

If our sexuality were not pre-defined, and one simply became homosexual through a variety of personal interpretations and choices...so?

Then prohibitions against it would be legitimate?

We need to remove this idea that the purpose of law is to stop people from making what some consider to be 'bad' choices.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I interpreted what you wrote is: if 'being gay' is indeed a choice; that laws should not be made to 'stop' people from choosing to be gay even IF others think it's a 'bad' choice

Yea, that's right. Even if it were a choice, stopping what some consider 'bad choices,' so long as it is not directly harming someone else, is not the proper role of law.

a reply to: Prezbo369

The studies carried out in the 60s when homosexuality was a crime punishable by chemical castration and jail time?

1995(Zucker and Bradley), 1990(Wolfe), 1989(Reckers and Swihart).

You fall foul of not reading the full post.

I hope those who starred your statement realise your error.

LOL! For real. I don't care what other people are doing. I appreciate their freedom to deal with the consequences from spiritual judgement, self judgement, societal judgement. Long as individuals are also allowed to be prejudiced within the confines of their minds and opinions. Everyone should have the freedom to be free or bound by their own choice of consequential suffering.

I assure you I don't have a goat, however.
a reply to: Rhiannon

originally posted by: HarryJoy
a reply to: wasaka

Well....I agree with "some" of what you said. But my own belief system hinges on the belief that a wedding must take place on a "logos" level. As I see it.... that constitutes the uniting of massive energy fields on the quantum/spiritual level. I believe that all positive/constructive energies of both genders will be gathered together as one. And the two shall become one.

What do you mean by logos? Ancient philosophers used the term in different ways. The Sophists used the term to mean discourse, and Aristotle applied the term to refer to "argument" in the field of rhetoric or what might be called reasoned discourse (like we're having now). The Stoic philosophers identified the term with the divine animating principle pervading the Universe, and it was this idea (which was en vogue at the time) the author of John uses LOGOS in the opening of that gospel. That brings yet anther meaning to this term, but not one I'm sure you intended--or did you?

Paul speaks in his writings about how all sins accept sexual sins are outside of the "body". As I see it he is not talking about the fleshly body...as many sins effect the physical body. He is (IMO) speaking about the quantum/spiritual "body" that is being developed right now. It is these "bodies" that shall be united in "Holy Wedlock".

Paul had the mind of a theologian, most people do not. I don't find it useful to intellectually explain the Bible in general, or principles taught by Paul in particular. When we do, people don't get it. They might grasp the concept but without emotional appeal, the concept does no good because it changes nothing. People can intellectualize there faith all day long, but the real question is do they change?

The Biblical word for that is "repent" which means "changing your mind" but it also means a behavior change which endures. There can be no behavior change (that will endure) without emotional support, and there can be no emotional support without beliefs. Therefore, we choose to believe XYZ, we find facts to support the XYZ case, and then we keep adding facts which support our emotion conviction to hold firm to the choice we've made.

Paul had the mind of a theologian, but let us put the case that he was also a homosexual, posit that he felt a deep sense of guilt about his own sexual desires. If true, this would explain a lot. It would suggest it was one of his primary drivers in life, and that his own cultural struggle cause him to project that struggle on others with onerous rules and admonitions.

Therefore, I don't suppose to know that Paul had in mind when he spoke in vague and cloak ways. You idea about "bodies" that shall be united in "Holy Wedlock" is as good an explanation as any.

I will say that God may and (imo) quite possibly did allow for the reaping and utilizing of male and female energies created within homosexuality and other less than "IDEAL" unions. The Bible states that God reaps where he does not sow. That tells me that he will utilize the positive/constructive energies developed in ALL relationships in order to create the great whole

Now that is a good thought, and I agree completely.

a reply to: TheJourney

Hmmm.. I can't compare tv to a good opiate high. Of course tv is addictive specially if you have a favorite series but come on.. Nothing like opiates. Its like comparing a coffee addict to a heroin junkie.