OT: Wanna know why Kerry lost Ohio?

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:10 pm

You can search those findings if you really want.

Why don't you post the findings that it's a lifestyle or a conscious decision?

You think people voluntarily choose to be discriminated against and beaten up?

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:30 pm

"Why don't you post the findings that it's a lifestyle or a conscious decision?

You think people voluntarily choose to be discriminated against and beaten up?"

Not everything can be tied up in a nice neat, scientific bow, wco. To quote a line from "Contact"..."Do you love your father?" "What?" "Your father, do you love him?" "Well, of course." "..prove it."

Findings don't work here. This is not the realm of science. It can exist in the realm of psychology and sociology better, actually. There can usually be found a determining factor for why someone becomes "gay", but it isn't going to be a gene. The absence of a father, sexual abuse as a child, an overbearing and smothering mother figure (for boys)...I've seen all of these as a cause of homosexual acts in teenage boys. The tendency to repeat offending events that were perpetrated on them is usually a factor. These are all scarring events that CAN shape a person's future (and by no means have I listed all causes), but they don't HAVE to. To that end, it's a choice that is made.

I chose to become a Christian, for example. Now that I've made that choice, I feel compelled to be more of one, to be more engaged in the relationship, but that didn't happen until I made a conscious decision to go down that road. NOW it's a part of me...it IS me. But I had to take the first step.

The second question deals with the hearts of those who must deal with the decision that was made, not with the decision maker. I can't help what you think of me and my beliefs. Some in here think that Christians are all wild eyed nuts, but your view of who I've chosen to be is not something that I have any control over. Stupid is as stupid does.

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:13 am

tealboy03 wrote:Findings don't work here. This is not the realm of science. It can exist in the realm of psychology and sociology better, actually. There can usually be found a determining factor for why someone becomes "gay", but it isn't going to be a gene. The absence of a father, sexual abuse as a child, an overbearing and smothering mother figure (for boys)...I've seen all of these as a cause of homosexual acts in teenage boys. The tendency to repeat offending events that were perpetrated on them is usually a factor. These are all scarring events that CAN shape a person's future (and by no means have I listed all causes), but they don't HAVE to. To that end, it's a choice that is made.

Maybe I was misled in my school days, but psychology and sociology are sciences where data is collected via surveys and experiments and is tested to prove/disprove theories. I find it kind of ironic that you dismiss scientific findings which identify a gene as out of their element, yet use other scientific findings (which I understand to be even less substantiated than the gene theory) to support your own stance. If most of us are genetically predisposed to be attracted to the female of the species, why is it so shocking to think some people's natural biological differences may alter that instinct?

Let me also say that I find it kind of shocking you liken an individual's sexual orientation to a bad habit like eating a few too many doughnuts, especially considering there are millions of people in this country and abroad who think there is nothing wrong or unhealthy about it anyway (although it is obviously un-christian).

blueduke · Post by **blueduke** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:25 am

Let me also say that I find it kind of shocking you liken an individual's sexual orientation to a bad habit like eating a few too many doughnuts, especially considering there are millions of people in this country and abroad who think there is nothing wrong or unhealthy about it anyway (although it is obviously un-christian).

if being gay is genetic, is a grownup being attracted to children genetic too?

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:54 am

blueduke wrote:
Let me also say that I find it kind of shocking you liken an individual's sexual orientation to a bad habit like eating a few too many doughnuts, especially considering there are millions of people in this country and abroad who think there is nothing wrong or unhealthy about it anyway (although it is obviously un-christian).
if being gay is genetic, is a grownup being attracted to children genetic too?

I thought someone would throw that one back at me. Damned if I know. Considering the bizarre range of things that can happen to the body during its development, I must concede it is a possibility. There is however a much larger body of psychological research that can tie childhood or other life experiences to pedophilia than there is to connect homosexuality to similar types of experiences. Not sure why you chose the part of my post about number of supporters though, as I can't think of any modern society that condones or even tolerates pedophilia.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:18 am

I thought someone would throw that one back at me. Damned if I know. Considering the bizarre range of things that can happen to the body during its development, I must concede it is a possibility. There is however a much larger body of psychological research that can tie childhood or other life experiences to pedophilia than there is to connect homosexuality to similar types of experiences. Not sure why you chose the part of my post about number of supporters though, as I can't think of any modern society that condones or even tolerates pedophilia.

While NAMBLA is an extremely small % of our society they seem to tollerate pedophila. Just as homosexuality is still a small % of our society even as it continues to grow. There are also countries that do tollerate forms of pedophilia, or let me rephrase by saying what we deem is only proper at --- "insert age for marrige as an example or what we construe to be sex with a minor" --- other countries have a different age line.

Now in my vast experience of watching Law & Order (sorry best I can do) they always state they can taper down a rapist or pedophiles desire. So that would lead me to think genetics are involved. Junior Web MD's can waste there time researching it, I have faith that Dick Wolf is right.

Just beacuse it MIGHT be gentic does not make homosexualty any more right to me.

PS I am not refering to the other NAMBLA (North American Marlon Brando Look Alike). They have already suffered enough.

adam31 · Post by **adam31** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:12 am

Leebo33 wrote:"hopefully after this election, we can all start coming together in
some way that reduces all these things that divide us right now.
after all, it's "us against them"."

- JackB1

You're not off to a good start with the "coming together" part, Jack.

Facts are facts and what he said is correct. How can anyone in their right mind say that Bush is more "moral" than Kerry? Kerry fought for our country while Bush sends people to die for our country.

Kazuya · Post by **Kazuya** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:48 am

I don't see why people can't at least entertain the possibility that people can be born gay. If babies can be born missing limbs, joined at the head with a twin, and other defects, then why can't they be born wired to like the same sex?

Note: the above implies that homosexuality is unnatural (which it is) or defective, but there is no negative connotation. I simply am referring to the pure definition of natural (of or from nature). If everyone was born homosexual, the human race wouldn't make it very much further.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:48 am

[quote="Kazuya"]I don't see why people can't at least entertain the possibility that people can be born gay. If babies can be born missing limbs, joined at the head with a twin, and other defects, then why can't they be born wired to like the same sex?
/quote]

Because that would mean entertaining a scientific hypothesis.

Why bother when the Bible says it's just wrong?

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:20 am

For people that think homosexuality is a choice, can you tell me when you chose to be straight? Did you arrive at a crossroads somewhere, with "vagina" and "penis" signs?

I just started thinking about girls one day. I had no conscious choice in the matter.

Everyone certainly makes a choice to engage in sex. And, given the helmet quotient here, every single one of us has likely engaged in some type of sinful sex. But I doubt anyone made a conscious decision as to whether they like guys or dolls.

If you still think homosexuality is a choice, then you should write your Congressman and ask them to reclassify homosexuality as a mental affliction. Because no sane person would choose to be gay in this cultural climate.

As for the pedophillia comment, you always have to have standards. That standard in our society is consent. A minor can't give consent, therefore pedophillia will always be illegal. An animal can't give consent, therefore bestiality will be illegal. You can have consent with incest, however, there are strong medical reasons to keep it outlawed.

I am with Fatpitcher, though, and think the government should just get out of the marriage business. You should simply be allowed to designate a legal partner for things like financial, medical, and legal decisions.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:25 am

pk500 wrote:Well, Jackdiggity, Hoffa is on my brain because I'm reading a GREAT novel by my favorite author, James Ellroy, called "American Tabloid" in which Hoffa is a major character. Among Ellroy's other books is "L.A. Confidential," which was made into a damn good movie.

Glad you're enjoying American Tabloid, PK. Excellent book, and I think it's Ellroy's best. Have you ever read Raymond Chandler or Jim Thompson? If you like Ellroy, you should check them out too.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:27 am

Brando:

Thanks for the tips, man!

Out,
PK

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:59 am

"If you still think homosexuality is a choice, then you should write your Congressman and ask them to reclassify homosexuality as a mental affliction"

..up until just a few years ago, it WAS classified as a mental affliction by the APA...when the PC train started chugging through the country...

"Because that would mean entertaining a scientific hypothesis.

Why bother when the Bible says it's just wrong? "

wco:
It's become clear to me that talking with you about anything that doesn't jive with you is going to get nothing but a snard retort from you. You're obviously hostile toward people of faith who sincerely believe what scripture teaches. Forget that the words in the pages of that book are thousands of years old- if some scientist disputes its claims yesterday, then the bible is automatically discounted, is that it?

Look...no one can make you believe in the truth of the scriptures, but could you stop with all this belligerent "Christians are less intelligent because they believe the bible and not the scientists" rhetoric. I'm pretty certain that I'm on par with you intellectually, at the least.

Some of us in here have a belief bordering on certainty in Christ and the teachings of the Bible. That you aren't one of them is up to you, and has no bearing whatsoever on the firmness of my belief in them. So take a cue, and knock the stuff off. If you can begin to grow up a little and start having intelligent conversation and debate, let me know. Because that will be the next time I address you...

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:11 pm

Cite one instance where I said people of faith are not intelligent.

I said people in rural areas are insulated from an increasingly multicultural world and may therefore lack empathy for people whose backgrounds are different.

Anyways, I don't expect either of us to change each other's views. That is why I didn't get too in-depth into you wanting to challenge this genetic question.

Like I said to K_Mosley, if people of faith think homosexuality is not only an abomination but a conscious choice, then isn't there an imperative to reform these people? There are certainly religious groups who are actively trying to "cure" gay people.

So now that the religious right has some newfound clout, I can't wait until "curing" homosexuals ends up on the national political agenda. Bush apparently got almost the same percentage of the gay vote as in 2000. I bet they vote again for the candidate of the far right.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:16 pm

Here's my take on homosexuality. I don't know if it's genetic or a chosen lifestyle, and I don't care. I also don't approve of gay marriage, but civil unions are cool. While I don't understand the gay lifestyle, gay people are people, too, and deserve civil rights.

That said, if a gay couple loves each other in the soulful sense, what's wrong with that? If a gay couple wants to adopt a child and raise it in love while remaining discreet about their sexual orientation and practices around that child, as hopefully every heterosexual couple does, what's wrong with that?

Lord knows there are enough heterosexual couples that beat the sh*t out of each other and beat the sh*t out of their kids. I want more loving, committed couples in this world who love their children and put their children first, regardless of sexual orientation.

Sometimes I almost think a gay couple is capable of more focused love for a child because that couple had to struggle so hard to adopt that child and overcome so much public animosity, while heterosexual couples often look at children as their divine right or the byproduct of sex instead of a responsibility. That's a gross generalization, I know, but the thought has crossed my mind.

In other words, I'd rather see a loving gay couple raise a child properly than a fighting heterosexual couple beat the sh*t out of their kids. The bottom line is loving couples raising children properly, regardless of sexual orientation. This country would be a better place if that was achieved.

Take care,
PK

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:23 pm

well said PK. it's so arrogant of the religous right to say that homosexualty is a choice that the sinners take. truth is, noone knows
for sure why people are gay. do you know why you like you like certain things about women? no...you just know you like it. there's no analysis needed. I assume gays are the same way.

brendanrfoley · Post by **brendanrfoley** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:27 pm

The political left needs help. I say this not as somebody from the right, but as somebody coming from the left.

The biggest problem I have with the left is it's own self-righteousnous. Too many on the left, some on this board even, have taken of tone of "pity" for those uneducated enough to actually vote for Bush(sarcasm).

That stance creates friction between the two parties. It also makes the left look like high and mighty know it alls. The left isn't a likeable bunch right now. Hell, some the left is slowly becoming self-hating.

I'm just as disgusted by the political right, especially the Chrisitan far right.

This past summer, my fiance's Godmother and her partner were married in Massachusetts. They're lesbian. Today, they're also two very happy people.

Those who worry about the erroding value of marriage need to take a look at other issues within the institution. Divorce rates are through the roof. It seems heterosexual marriages are doing a find job of erroding marriage's value on their own, yet the focus is placed upon people who want to enter the halls of marriage. It's ironic.

The fact is, the attempt to ban same-sex marriage devalues love for a certain section of the public. That's pretty sick. Religious principles should NEVER dictate legislative policy. That's a slippery slope.

A big debate against same-sex marriage is to look public opinion polls. True, the majority of the country is against same sex marriage. They love to point out activist judges and scream foul.

But I pose these questions. Were judges who forced school intergration activists? Were judges who ruled the Jim Crow laws of the south unconstitutional activists? Were judges who protected the first amendment in Times v. Sullivan activists?

Even if they were, were they wrong?

There have been numerous times in our histroy when judges protected the law, upheld the law, and set precedent despite the fact it wasn't popular. But it was right.

[/b]

brendanrfoley · Post by **brendanrfoley** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:33 pm

JackB1 wrote:well said PK. it's so arrogant of the religous right to say that homosexualty is a choice that the sinners take. truth is, noone knows
for sure why people are gay. do you know why you like you like certain things about women? no...you just know you like it.

Very true.

As much as the far right would like to think otherwise, gay people aren't going anywhere either. Homosexuality has existed since people existed. People need to get that through their skulls.

spooky157 · Post by **spooky157** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:35 pm

Homosexual relations amongst chimpanzees, walruses and many other animals have been observed. Doesn't that, by definition, make homosexuality natural?

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:46 pm

But I pose these questions. Were judges who forced school intergration activists? Were judges who ruled the Jim Crow laws of the south unconstitutional activists? Were judges who protected the first amendment in Times v. Sullivan activists?

Don't assume those decisions, along with Roe v. Wade, are safe. Get a couple of more Justices like Antonin "Orgy" Scalia and Clarence "Long Dong" Thomas and we can go back to the good old days.

Everyone is talking about the relgious vote but Bush didn't get 58 million votes without a lot of people who consider themselves moderates.

I think it'll be interesting to see what happens to the moderate support for the GOP if Bush does go ahead and try to ratify the marriage amendment and get in the hardcore conservatives in the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

In 2008, three of the leading GOP candidates are expected to be Giuliani, Pataki and Arnold, all of whom are pro-choice. But GOP candidates since at least Ford (not sure if he was pro-choice) have been pro-life, including Bush 41 who may have switched from a previous pro-choice stance.

If these guys want to win badly enough, especially in those Southern primaries, they will probably change their stance.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:55 pm

I agree with WCO on this one. There's no way a Republican can run for President being pro-choice, and there's no way a Democrat can run for president being pro-life.

Abortion is the one issue in which the two parties differ the most. It's the ultimate wedge issue in American politics.

That said, I don't know why Kerry was pilloried over gay marriage so much. He came right out in the debates and said he was opposed to gay marriage, just as Bush did. Their positions were basically identical.

Oh, well.

Take care,
PK

cdastros · Post by **cdastros** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:01 pm

Bush was in favor of changing the constitution for gay marriage and Kerry was not.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:02 pm

Ah, good point, Castros.

I knew there was a reason I disagreed with Bush on this issue even though I oppose gay marriage. I don't want the Constitution touched over this issue or flag burning. The Constitution isn't something that we can use White-Out on to satisfy the prevailing moral whims of the times, Prohibition being the classic example.

Out,
PK

Kazuya · Post by **Kazuya** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:05 pm

spooky157 wrote:Homosexual relations amongst chimpanzees, walruses and many other animals have been observed. Doesn't that, by definition, make homosexuality natural?

It all depends on the defintion. Natural can also mean "pure or unchanged", and if someone was born homosexual they would certainly fit that definition. Natural also can mean of or from nature, and one of the most basic elements of nature is being able to live, die, multiply, etc. (I guess mules and gays are the most unnatural thing in the world

) Of course, homosexuals have the physical capapbility of reproducing (most mules don't), but is lacking the programming basically just as essential in being classified a species? The point I was trying to make was that homosexuality is definitely an aberration, but since children are born with aberrations every day how could one be so certain that this isn't one also?

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:20 pm

Why shouldn't gay people be able to get married?