"Conservative" Freedom?

[nostatic]

wow, classy.

I'll state this again for those that don't care to read. The distinction is easier than you think: look for the victim. All of the hysterical equivocations (bestiality, child abuse, etc) have clear victims. With gay couples, the only victim is the sensibility of the traditional WASP family structure. And give a 50%+ divorce rate, I'm not sure how great of a model that is in the first place.

Whenever the discussion turns to "chaps this" and "flaunt that" you know it's rubbing someone the wrong way. How in the world someone wearing chaps is the end of civilization is beyond me. Truth be told I was pretty horrified by the trowel-applied makeup and big hair I've seen in most of my visits to Texas (Dallas in particular). But I don't go around saying that hairdressers and make-up should be outlawed.

[nostatic]

They haven't isolated the "gay gene" likely because it is a mixture of factors. Just like they haven't isolated the "narrow minded" or "stupid" genes. But all seem to show a phenotype in society...

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by tobster1911
And how in the world is stating that I feel it is a choice "proposing discrimination"? A lot of the choice is determined by society but it is still a choice.

Ah, but if it is a choice, then you can accept laws against such behavior as the right thing to do, and people who made such a choice have themselves to blame for how you treat them. You can discriminate because afterall, it was their choice, wasn't it?

How many homosexuals have told you that they made a choice to be homosexual?

[nota]

or when did you make a choice to be strait?

keep your god out of my laws

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by stevepaa
Ah, but if it is a choice, then you can accept laws against such behavior as the right thing to do, and people who made such a choice have themselves to blame for how you treat them. You can discriminate because afterall, it was their choice, wasn't it?

How many homosexuals have told you that they made a choice to be homosexual?

Ah, but you are jumping to the conclusion that I have some underlying desire to discriminate. You are saying that the ONLY possible reason that I could hold a viewpoint different than yours is that I desperately want to discriminate. How very open-minded of you.

You guys really can't possibly post something without resorting to the accusations of Discrimination, close-mindedness, religious nut, ect. can you? I mean really, how could someone possibly have their own (non-PC) opinion without being one of these?

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by nota
or when did you make a choice to be strait?

keep your god out of my laws

Pure genius.

I already gave MY OPINION on the first question. Here is one for you. Were you born straight? You have no choice but to be straight even if you really don't want to be?

And second find me once where I (or anyone here) supported a law based on god being passed.

Just like I mentioned before. Keys to make it impossible for the other sided to even be allowed to voice their opinion.

Make it political i.e. Un-PC.
Make it a victim of oppression thing
Make it not a choice
Make it a religious issue

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by nostatic
I'll state this again for those that don't care to read. The distinction is easier than you think: look for the victim. All of the hysterical equivocations (bestiality, child abuse, etc) have clear victims. With gay couples, the only victim is the sensibility of the traditional WASP family structure.

Chew on this for a second before you reply:

Why are you able to define a victim in incest but not in homosexuality? You have decided (correctly) that adults should not have sex with children and that the child (even if they swear they enjoyed the sex and asked for it) is a victim. You have drawn a moral line there. It doesn't matter whether the child and adult come forward and announce on national TV that they love each other and want to continue in the relationship, it is still wrong. You draw a moral line at incest but choose to make an exception for homosexuality. I choose to view all sexual deviations as wrong.

The only difference is where you draw the line.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by nota
or when did you make a choice to be strait?

keep your god out of my laws

This entire argument is bogus. Are you "straight" if you are celibate? Are you "gay" if you choose not to have sex with others of the same gender?

People have all sorts of tendencies. Some people have a tendency to drink, some have a tendency to gamble. Some people have a tendency to be attracted to women, some have an attraction to men, some have an attraction to children, some have an attraction to goats. Some people have a tendency to mutilate little animals and fantacize about serial killings.

The point of it is that you CHOOSE to act on your tendencies. It is that CHOICE that you are held accountable for. We don't let Jeffrey Dahmer walk the streets because he was "born" a psychopath.

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by nostatic
They haven't isolated the "gay gene" likely because it is a mixture of factors. Just like they haven't isolated the "narrow minded" or "stupid" genes. But all seem to show a phenotype in society...

Genotype: the genetic makeup of an individual
Phenotype: the physical and physiological traits of an individual resulting from genotype and environment
http://www.lexicon-biology.com/biology/definition2_58.html

So my question still stands. Were you born English speaking?

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Chew on this for a second before you reply:

Why are you able to define a victim in incest but not in homosexuality? You have decided (correctly) that adults should not have sex with children and that the child (even if they swear they enjoyed the sex and asked for it) is a victim. You have drawn a moral line there. It doesn't matter whether the child and adult come forward and announce on national TV that they love each other and want to continue in the relationship, it is still wrong. You draw a moral line at incest but choose to make an exception for homosexuality. I choose to view all sexual deviations as wrong.

The only difference is where you draw the line.

No it isn't. The difference is that in the case of an adult-child sexual act, the child does not have informed consent. We as a society have decided that minors are not capable of making a decision of that gravity.

A gay relationship between two consenting adults is an entirely different situation. There is no victim in the relationship.

And you choose to label it as a "sexual deviation." I think it is just different. I don't make a moral judgement on it. You and your religion does. And note that not all Christian religions are quite so harsh on gays.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by tobster1911
Genotype: the genetic makeup of an individual
Phenotype: the physical and physiological traits of an individual resulting from genotype and environment
http://www.lexicon-biology.com/biology/definition2_58.html

So my question still stands. Were you born English speaking?

Thanks for the bio lesson. I can finally toss out all my biochem lecture notes...

I was born to English speaking parents. Language skills are nurture, not nature. I have no "biological drive" to speak English.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by nostatic
We as a society have decided that minors are not capable of making a decision of that gravity.

Exactly, and why have we made that decision as a society?? Is it because the child doesn't have the mental capacity to make that decision? Maybe, but that is pretty individualized isn't it? There are some children who are very mature and intelligent for their age and would likely be able to be just as "informed" as an adult.

The reason our society made that decision is because deep down we all know that an adult having sex with a child is WRONG. It isn't some intellectual equation that spits out the answer. You know it in your gut. Some of society has chosen to become numb to the idea of homosexuality, the same way we have become numb to alot of things that used to turn people's stomachs. Doesn't make them any more right now than they were before.

Face it Nostatic, even a liberal like you has morals...as much as you hate to admit it. You simply choose to have more lax morals than I do. And guess what? There are lots of folks who have stricter morals than me!! It's all relative.

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by nostatic
Thanks for the bio lesson. I can finally toss out all my biochem lecture notes...

I was born to English speaking parents. Language skills are nurture, not nature. I have no "biological drive" to speak English.

I posted the definitions because I had to look it up.

My point being that the "biological" part is the capacity for speech. The ability to produce sounds in order to communicate.

With regards to "born gay", is it not possible that the born part is just the capacity to have sex? The "biological drive" is only to have sex, not who you have it with. I again state that this is purely my own opinion that I am offering for consideration.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by tobster1911
Ah, but you are jumping to the conclusion that I have some underlying desire to discriminate. You are saying that the ONLY possible reason that I could hold a viewpoint different than yours is that I desperately want to discriminate. How very open-minded of you.

You guys really can't possibly post something without resorting to the accusations of Discrimination, close-mindedness, religious nut, ect. can you? I mean really, how could someone possibly have their own (non-PC) opinion without being one of these?

I see you misinterpreted what I said. But I may have jumped into a train of thought between you and RPKSQ.

Let me rephrase. By believing homosexuality is only by choice, it becomes easy for people to discriminate against "them", because "they" chose to be that way.

By the way, you seem eager to use generalizations. "You guys, etc.".

[nostatic]

I know I have morals. I have never denied it. And discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation is morally objectionable to me. My morals are not more lax than yours. That is your judgement of me. I could argue that I have a stricter moral code because I think gays should be respected, not converted. But I won't...instead I offer that we just have differences.

The fact is that the rules with minors are not based on the "gut", but rather on cognitive studies, and psychological work that shows that a certain amount of development and "life experience" is necessary to allow for true consent.

[Nathans_Dad]

Steve do you care to comment on my point about where the choice occurs?

Nostatic: So which sexual orientations would you say are not ok? Anything goes??

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
I choose to view all sexual deviations as wrong.

The only difference is where you draw the line.

Why does your view have to lead to a line for others to follow?

[nostatic]

Rick, there aren't that many choices. Beastiality? I'd say no...the animal is a victim. It doesn't have a choice of consent. But then again, I suppose how highly people value animals. Other than that, what are the options? Adult-minor, no, we've already talked about the victim. Adult-Adult, yes. Polygamy? Why not? Is there a victim there? I haven't thought very deeply about it.

man-man. ok. woman-woman? You bet!

Am I missing something?

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Steve do you care to comment on my point about where the choice occurs?


People have all sorts of tendencies. Some people have a tendency to drink, some have a tendency to gamble. Some people have a tendency to be attracted to women, some have an attraction to men, some have an attraction to children, some have an attraction to goats. Some people have a tendency to mutilate little animals and fantacize about serial killings.

The point of it is that you CHOOSE to act on your tendencies. It is that CHOICE that you are held accountable for.

Alcoholism is hereditary to some extent, and alcoholics have often chosen to abstain for their health, but some can still drink in moderation. Same for gambling, etc. The traditional Christian viewpoint is that the practice of homosexuality is a sin, but that homosexuality in itself is a not a sin.

If this is what you believe, then God is really the only one that has a say in the matter. If we lived in a religious based society then we would make laws to reinforce a certain religion's view. But that is not America, it is Iran.

[RPKESQ]

Let's pose the challenge again: Find evidence that being gay is a "life choice"; not biological, from a peer-reviewed scientific or medical journal.

All evidence points to this as being an absolute biological development. Only the religious-nut cases see it any different. Don't like being called religious-nut cases? Then stop acting like one!

You can’t even define what gay is (remember the sex change post), yet you are proposing to discriminate against them. Now that’s an open and tolerant mind. I pity your offspring being taught this biblical based intolerance. Not much different from the Muslim fanatics. Hey, they must be your friends, they don’t believe in granting gays any rights too! Actually, I pity the world having to put up with this evil seed that you are trying to pass on.

I really enjoy how people tout their religion as a”loving relationship with god”, but then will not extend that message to others unless they submit to a particular way of living. The bible says anyone can repent and go to heaven (at anytime in their life), so who appointed you bigots as guardians of the pearly gates?

Bigotry, thy name is religion.