Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

generalgrog wrote:People justify their lifestyle choice and equate it with a nonchoice(saying they are "born gay" which I don't believe)

Go ahead and think that. Just know that you're incredibly wrong.

Fafnir wrote:

generalgrog wrote:People justify their lifestyle choice and equate it with a nonchoice(saying they are "born gay" which I don't believe)

Go ahead and think that. Just know that you're incredibly wrong.

To be fair, the idea that people are "born gay" isn't particularly tenable. They don't choose to be gay either, though hypothetically one could consciously condition oneself to enjoy homosexual behavior, but it isn't a matter of simple birth anymore than my own preferences regarding women with certain physical characteristics is.

The problem with GG's position is that he's presuming actions must be justified in some way, which is simply false unless you accept all possible rationalization for action as valid; which he doubtlessly will not.

Frazzled wrote:
Where's the New Black Panthers when you need them?

For some reason I just pictured a very angry black panther crushing a white atheists fingers in a vice and asking him 'Where is your disbelief in god now?'

I always find atheists funny. Mostly because, as my father would say, you never find them in a foxhole.

BaronIveagh wrote:I always find atheists funny. Mostly because, as my father would say, you never find them in a foxhole.

Spent a lot of time in foxholes discussing religion, have you?

See, this is why I'm Atheist. None of this stuff you can and can't do. I could be gay (I ain't) and do whatever I like. Yay !

Really, people's dependence on some musty old books with no relevance to the modern age is beyond me. But, if it helps you, then go for it.

insaniak wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:I always find atheists funny. Mostly because, as my father would say, you never find them in a foxhole.

Spent a lot of time in foxholes discussing religion, have you?

Matty is an atheist, and has probably spent more time in foxholes than most.

I enjoy the dual belief that gay sex is wrong, but wanting gay sex is not inherent.

That means that a big chunk of the population concedes that sodomy is a great time.

4oursword wrote:See, this is why I'm Atheist. None of this stuff you can and can't do. I could be gay (I ain't) and do whatever I like. Yay !

Really, people's dependence on some musty old books with no relevance to the modern age is beyond me. But, if it helps you, then go for it.

There is actually quite a bit of relavence, if you look at the subject matter. A lot of the things that people were into back then, they're into today.

Manchu wrote:And I have trouble with the notion that a person has a right to marry anyone, whether a person of the same or of a different sex, or any other configuration, based on preferences concerning sexual attraction.

Why?

What else should it be defined by?

Ability to produce children? Better outlaw any marriages where having a child is not the intent, or any marriage where one or both members are infertile. Better annul the marriage of a US marine who got his balls cut off by an IED because hey, he can't have children anymore. And if you want to use artificial means or adoption, well, gay couples can do that too.

Ability to RAISE children? Again, many heterosexual couples are completely incapable of this, but even still, this is not scientifically proven to begin with.

Religious views? Okay, so that leaves you with two and only two options-- get rid of all marriage licenses or allow all religions to define their own rules about marriage. Otherwise you're discriminating by religion, which neither the state governments nor the US government are allowed to do.

Tradition? A laughable position, ruled irrelevant by the court system, with so many historical problems (let's not get into miscegenation, slavery, misogyny, limiting the power of non-landowners, and all the other wonderful things that tradition is associated with) that the logical flaws themselves (appeal to tradition is not a valid argument) almost become irrelevant.

Really, the main thing marriage is about in modern times, at least in western countries, is the union between two people.. Most other reasons simply fall apart in these days.

dogma wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

generalgrog wrote:People justify their lifestyle choice and equate it with a nonchoice(saying they are "born gay" which I don't believe)

Go ahead and think that. Just know that you're incredibly wrong.

To be fair, the idea that people are "born gay" isn't particularly tenable. They don't choose to be gay either, though hypothetically one could consciously condition oneself to enjoy homosexual behavior, but it isn't a matter of simple birth anymore than my own preferences regarding women with certain physical characteristics is.

The problem with GG's position is that he's presuming actions must be justified in some way, which is simply false unless you accept all possible rationalization for action as valid; which he doubtlessly will not.

Childhood Behaviour
-childhood gender-atypicality in boys is highly predictive of adult homosexuality (in other words, boys that do girly things are probably gay).

Adult Behaviour
-sex differences in gait (men 'swagger' and women 'sway/sashay')
-gay men and lesbians are gender-atypical in terms of their gait
-gender atypical gait, voice, posture are signs used when spotting someone whom you think is homosexual without explicit knowledge of that person's sexual orientation ('gaydar')

Cognition
-sex differences in targetting accuracy
-heterosexual men have better visiospatial skills than heterosexual women
-higher testosterone exposure=higher targetting accuracy
-gay men and lesbians are sex-atypical for targetting accuracy

Body Morphology
-long bones-- higher prenatal testosterone exposure=increased length in long bones
-heterosexual males have longer long bones than heterosexual females
-lesbians have longer long bones than heterosexual females
-gay men have shorter long bones than heterosexual males

Physiology
-otoacoustic emissions: week sounds produced by the cochlea (inner ear)
-heterosexual women have more OAE strength than heterosexual men
-higher testosterone exposure=lower OAE strength
-OAE in lesbians is less than that in heterosexual women

Amygdala
-clusters of nuclei in the left and right temporal lobes involved in regulating emotion, sexuality, social information.
-in heterosexual men, amygdala more richly connected with other parts of the brain than the left.
-in heterosexual women, the opposite pattern is exhibited.
-the amygdalas of homosexual men and women is gender-atypical.

Fraternal Birth Order (Older Brother) Effect
-the number of older biological brothers increases the chances of male androphilia (homosexuality) in later born male siblings
-for every older brother, the odds that that male will be androphilic increases by 33% (general chance of being gay is 3%. If that person has a younger brother, his chance of being gay is 4%. If there is another younger brother, that brother's chance of being gay is around 5.3% and so on)
-older adopted brothers have no influence on the sexual orientation of younger brothers
-the effect is biological, not social
Matternal Immune Hypothesis
-mothers develop antibodies to male specific H-Y (minor-histocompatibility) antigens which are coded for by the Y-chromosome
-with each successive male fetus she produces, the mother's body becomes increasingly sensative to the presence of H-Y antigens, producing more and more antibodies
-H-Y antigens are thought to be involved in sexual differentiation of male fetuses
-increased amounts of maternal antibodies compromise the ability of H-Y antigens to function
-this, in turn, compromises sexual differentiation and increases the probability that the male will be homosexual
-latter born homosexual men have, on average, a lower birth weight than latter born heterosexual men, suggesting that the prenatal development of the former may have been compromised

-There is no evidence to suggest that sexual orientation can be changed through intervention programs.

insaniak wrote:
Spent a lot of time in foxholes discussing religion, have you?

Can't say that much discussion went on at all, but I do distinctly recall at least one supposed 'atheist' taking a bit of ribbing for calling on the Lord to save him when the artillery fell short. I missed that one, but I do recall praying really hard myself the time I was wearing a pound of explosives and caught in a bit of a fire.

Fafnir: Source.

As I don't really see that. Lesbians certainly also "sway/sashay", to be sure, for example. It seems like more of a collection of stereotypes than an actual study on the behavioral patterns.

I actually thought the sign was quite clever. It's the arguments afterwards that are ridiculous.

What I want to know is what 'sashay' means.

Something a commisar wears?

Private_Joker wrote:I actually thought the sign was quite clever. It's the arguments afterwards that are ridiculous.

To both points Why?

Nom

Well the sign itself wasn't racist at all, and was just proving a point that most supporters of Christinanity in the black community have been assimilated into religion in their ancestors case without their consent. The conversation afterwards just boiled down to 'oh it's racist' and didn't even bother reading the sign.

Melissia wrote:Fafnir: Source.

As I don't really see that. Lesbians certainly also "sway/sashay", to be sure, for example. It seems like more of a collection of stereotypes than an actual study on the behavioral patterns.

Dr. Paul Vasey, University of Lethbridge
Descovering Human Sexuality - Siman Levay, Janice Baldwin

Sooner or later these people will be saying the pledge of allegiance discriminates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fafnir wrote:Go ahead and think that. Just know that you're incredibly wrong.

You have proof he's wrong? I see that you are trying to stay neutral and factual about the subject but that statement kinda just tore it down.

Ah, yeah, I've seen that list, but it essentially means nothing to me. Its a series of statements made without citation, many of which have been disputed along various lines. This is a good place to start, at least regarding women.

Childhood Behaviour
-childhood gender-atypicality in boys is highly predictive of adult homosexuality (in other words, boys that do girly things are probably gay).

I've seen this, and generally the argument is made in the same way its made as regard women being tomboys. Basically, homosexuals remember behaving in a gender atypical fashion when they were young at a higher rate than heterosexuals. One major problem with this methodology is that it depends on the memory of the individual in question. Another is that it doesn't establish genetic causation, merely early onset of apparent homosexual characteristics.

However, the biggest problem is that, while homosexuals tend to report childhood gender-atypical behavior at a higher rate, it isn't much higher than the reporting rate among heterosexuals; who still report gender atypical behavior at ~60% rate. This means the actual percentage of people who report gender atypical behavior during childhood who end up identifying as homosexual is very small, so its not a strong predictor.

Cognition
-higher testosterone exposure=higher targetting accuracy
-gay men and lesbians are sex-atypical for targetting accuracy

That doesn't seem to conform to the actual data.

Body Morphology
-long bones-- higher prenatal testosterone exposure=increased length in long bones
-gay men have shorter long bones than heterosexual males

We would expect the opposite to be true.

Fafnir wrote:Dr. Paul Vasey, University of Lethbridge
Descovering Human Sexuality - Siman Levay, Janice Baldwin

That's not a peer-reviewed study, it's a commercial book.

You can check the writer of the book's website, it has several relevant documents. Although the website itself is horrendous.

http://www.simonlevay.com/

Hazardous Harry wrote:What I want to know is what 'sashay' means.

It's a particular way of walking or moving. You sweep into the room in a supposedly sexy manner.


Edit: I have to say that all this supposed information on homosexuals seems dubious at best.

Private_Joker wrote:Well the sign itself wasn't racist at all, and was just proving a point that most supporters of Christinanity in the black community have been assimilated into religion in their ancestors case without their consent. The conversation afterwards just boiled down to 'oh it's racist' and didn't even bother reading the sign.

As I said earlier, any black person I know that would've seen that sign would not have gotten much past the picture of the slave and the huge text telling slaves to obey their masters before tearing the thing down.
It doesn't have anything to do with brainwashing by religion. It was just a very stupidly designed sign.

I probably should point out that Judaism and Christianity existed in Africa long before America was even discovered, let alone the slave trade established.

I wish you hadn't brought that up, BaronIveagh.

It was my secret delight throughout this entire thread.

Polonius wrote:I think you're all missing the bigger point here. GG "defending" slavery is scandalous and fun, but what he's doing in terms of biblical interpretation and playing translation games is the real prize here.

he's arguing that the word "slave" doesn't mean what we think it does. Which is almost certainly somewhat true, but probably still refers to some sort of bound, unfree laborer. Let's see how he reacts to other interpretations. I think in the future, any time he drops the bible in a discussion, we all remember this and try to show how that it doesn't mean what a facial reading says.

In short, once you start explaining away biblical verses, you open the door.

Yeah, that did occur to me as well. I kind of decided against running that way because I couldn't frame it as clearly in my head as you did there*, and also because I'm not particularly inclined waiting for another gay thread to bring it up.



*You know how sometimes you just can't quite get an idea clearly in your head, then someone goes and does that and then it becomes clear and now you can't even figure out what your problem was with it in the first place. Well that's what I had there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:You can misread pro-slavery commentaries only if you, not God, are evil.

That's about the most circular bit of circular logic that's ever tried to be circular.

Try atheist Communism. Nice stuff done under Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao, amongst others. In a nutshell attempts to replace the role of religion with the state usually under the guise of 'science' or 'progress'.

The point there being it's the Communist part that collectivised the farms and demanded absolute political obedience. You can look at persecution of various churches under communist governments, and while what happened was reprehensible, it is specific to communism and not to atheism in general.

Rather, the point is that atheism is a belief that preaches nothing. Nothing good, and nothing bad. This is why it isn't a religion. It's also why the charge made by atheists 'look at all the bad stuff Christianity (or any other religion) has done' is a cheap argument, because it ignores the ability of Christianity to inspire good, and focusses only on the instances where it has inspired evil. And it's why the typical defence from Christians 'atheism has done bad stuff as well' doesn't resolve the issue at all - because it misses out on having a conversation on the fundamental difference between atheism and Christianity in favour of a tit for tat game of listing historical tragedies.

Simply put, there's never been an atheist crusade, but there's also never been an atheist soup kitchen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:Throughout the history of Christianity, some Christians have had a problem with sex (of all kinds) and some have not. That continues to this day. I cannot myself foresee a time when the Catholic Church will accept that homosexual marriage is sacramental, i.e., religiously valid, or that extramarital sexual acts are morally acceptable.

I think at one time it would have been a hell of stretch to think of a church that condoned divorce, and yet here we are today. Just 30 years ago it was a hell of thing to argue that homosexuals are entitled to respect and equal protection under the law, and now we take all that for granted, and argue to grant them marriage.

Social progress seems to take place at a glacial pace, yet at the same time you can look back and it see it happened at the most incredible speed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:The Catholic tradition views marriage as an aspect of God's self-expression of grace, perfected in the definitionally sacramental physical realization of the spiritual, rather than as a mere social construct representing social approval. Homosexuality is therefore "intrinsically disordered" because it does not involve biological "complementarity," i.e., represents a non-reproductive union and can thus only be defective at best and parody at worst. It's tempting to equate extramarital heterosexual acts with homosexual ones, in terms of sin. But if you look at it in terms of what is closer to a moral and licit sexual relationship, it is apparent that whereas extramarital heterosexual intercourse is but "one step away" from the ideal, as it were, homosexual intercourse is two steps away. So while extramarital sex as between a man and a woman is certainly itself a perversion of a sacrament, homosexual sex is so much more the perversion in that not only is the context incorrect but also the actors.

I don't mean to criticise you, Manchu, but I can't help when reading the above description but think 'what in the hell does all that gibberish have to do with anything?'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:I thought he made a pretty good point. I mean, how do you organize of the absence of belief in a particular thing? It's obviously more than that. I reckon it's a worldview, although not a particularly coherent one.

Atheism is a belief, and also a worldview, though one with scope for tremendous variation.

It just isn't a faith, because that word ought to mean something far greater. I know religious people, and I know what their faith inspires them towards, and I myself have faith of a sorts, just not of a spiritual kind. I think religious people do themselves a great diservice by making that claim, they diminish the thing that makes religion wonderful, all for the sake of trying to score a point in the culture war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:Those percentages go way down as the demographic gets older/wiser

GG.

Are you seriously making the claim that opposition to gay marriage is a product of age granting wisdom? Seriously?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:I always find atheists funny. Mostly because, as my father would say, you never find them in a foxhole.

Which, of course, is less of an argument against atheism, and more of an argument against foxholes, and why they really are a terrible place for considered, rational thinking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:I probably should point out that Judaism and Christianity existed in Africa long before America was even discovered, let alone the slave trade established.

And I shouldn't have to point out that a religion existing in a continent is quite different to specific individuals actually taking up that faith. "There is Christianity in Africa" is not the same thing as "All Africans are Christian".

That Christianity spread among slave groups in American and the Caribbean is not something we should actually have to debate. It's just a thing that's true. It isn't even a criticism of Christianity, as that faith has spread among all kinds of oppressed groups (which makes perfect sense to anyone who's read the book).

Mannahnin wrote:

Manchu wrote:People who want to marry someone of the same sex are simply not eligible for sacramental marriage.

Which is a sad thing for Catholic homosexuals who wish to be married.

I suppose it's sad in the same sense of any definitionally impossible desire. ::shrug:: Like a man wanting to be a mother, I suppose.

Technically speaking, that's almost possible using science.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think it's wrong for Roman Catholics to argue that the US government should deny civil marriage to homosexuals.

I think this is wrong. Not wrong in a moral sense, mind, just wrong-headed. I find that this is Catholicism "poorly used," to employ an archaic turn of phrase. The state has no capacity regarding proper marriage. I mean, the state could allow a bucket to marry a firehose.