TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- An Anti-Gay Debate
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 »

c0r version:

Honestly... I think it should be legal. ASIDE from religious debate - do any of you realize the difference between a civil union (legal for gays) and a marriage (as far as rights go)? There's a HUGE difference.

And I'm lazy (and at work), so if you don't know the difference... google it.

quote:

Originally posted by squirrelly Honestly... I think it should be legal. ASIDE from religious debate - do any of you realize the difference between a civil union (legal for gays) and a marriage (as far as rights go)? There's a HUGE difference.

This depends greatly on the jurisdiction.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard *** edit... can we get back to homosexual marriage now... since we've really strayed into a side discussion, which should (IMO) have zero bearing on the right of homosexuals to legally marry.

But religion has everything to do with it - perhaps not Christianity specifically, but the transmission of religious belief is quite analogous with the transmission of hatred, ignorance, and intolerance. These are ways of life as well, passed on through the same social filters that imbue people with religion from an early age and they are practically indestructible memes due to the very nature of their transmission; just as religion, from a social perspective, is a doctrine of taboos and specialization through behavioural patterns, sexual intolerance is merely one such taboo imparted by - as said many times before - people who simply do not understand their religion or people who understand its power all too well. But is it not pretty simple to understand just how beliefs could be passed along no matter how illogical they are? Arachnophobia, for example, is a learned behaviour - mostly irrational fear - but try to condition somebody out of it. It's possible, but deeply ingrained fears and prejudices are not things easily purged through logic, despite surmounting evidence to their utter irrationality.

Anyone who says that homosexuality is "unnatural" had better take some time to define their terms and explain just what is natural and what isn't and, more importantly, why. Further, why is our adherence to what is 'natural' the only way to maintain the existence of some creator? I understand how people could 'feel' closer to God or whatever when they are running naked through a spring meadow after a gentle rain, but why are 'unnatural' things an abberation of God's will? It seems to me that we were created with the will and the power to do a great many things, unnatural and otherwise considered, so why should we be condemned for anything if the ability to do it is in service to the existence of possibility and thus God?

In addition, love is unnatural. Discuss.

Re: Re: An Anti-Gay Debate

quote:

Originally posted by Ania_xox FAO: GUYS If your girl fucked around with another guy, I am assuming you would be pissed/consider it cheating/possibly leave her.

pissed: yes, leave her: no

quote:

If your girl made out/fucked around with another girl, would you consider it the same thing? Is it not as bad? Just as bad? Worse?

I would make no distinction based on gender.

quote:

My bf said it's not the same thing and he wouldn't be pissed really- but he couldn't put his finger on why not.

Men that think this way usually do so because at some level the hope/feel that if their girl scissors with other chicks then eventually he'll get to join.

Re: An Anti-Gay Debate

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa Discuss.

no iffense...but this thread is gay

quote:

Originally posted by Aortik But religion has everything to do with it

my edit was because we had strayed into a discussion on the validity of religious beliefs, which is neither hear nor there for this discussion.

quote:

It seems to me that we were created with the will and the power to do a great many things, unnatural and otherwise considered, so why should we be condemned for anything if the ability to do it is in service to the existence of possibility and thus God?

Back to defining terms... who is condemning? Man condemns because man fears anything outside of what they consider to be acceptable, acceptability defined by societal norms or accepted standards of behaviour.

quote:

In addition, love is unnatural. Discuss.

I have to disagree; love is natural and necessary in order to foster the relationships required for our young to survive childhood and for our species (which is terribly evolved for survival alone without technological advantage) to survive until we reached a level of technology sufficient to make up for our other deficiencies.

Re: Re: An Anti-Gay Debate

quote:

Originally posted by Ania_xox I have been meaning to work this in to a COR thread somehow (hope you don't mind my insert here Theresa) FAO: GUYS If your girl fucked around with another guy, I am assuming you would be pissed/consider it cheating/possibly leave her. If your girl made out/fucked around with another girl, would you consider it the same thing? Is it not as bad? Just as bad? Worse? My bf said it's not the same thing and he wouldn't be pissed really- but he couldn't put his finger on why not. ?????

Men are biologically predisposed to compete and be aggressive towards other men who pose a significant risk of reproducing with their respective mate. It's why guys aren't usually terribly comfortable with their girlfriends hanging out with other guys or all guys, especially if they don't know any of these guys - it's as though their property is undefended and the exclusivity of their monogamous sexuality is threatened, which is sort of funny considering that monogamy is undoubtedley a female invention in the first place.

Other women however do not pose reproductive threat as other males do, so there is little actual sexual preface for men to be aggressive over. If anything, men are posed to be aroused by lesbians because they represent, in the same way that a virgin does, the supposed purity of feminine beauty, contact, sex - a concept rooted in chastity (depite the fact that it often could not be farther from the reality of things) and as such, just another symbol for male attraction to the impregnable womb.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard This depends greatly on the jurisdiction.

In Florida.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Back to defining terms... who is condemning? Man condemns because man fears anything outside of what they consider to be acceptable, acceptability defined by societal norms or accepted standards of behaviour.

But "social norms or accepted standards of behaviour" are either the direct result of specific religious hegemonies or belief systems transmitted from person to person in the exact same way that religion is. Of course man publicly condemns things which are bizarre and "unnatural" to him: religion helps him maintain the things he knows and is familiar with all the while villifying those things which are strange to him. It is the taboos that religion hinges upon that have made its mode of thought so incredibly resilient, so incredibly virulent. It's a common enough notion that religion is merely there to control people through fear, but this is not quite true; No, it is out of fear that religion is there in the first place - fear is what keeps religion in check.

But that's of course not to say that this is all there is to religion or anything. I don't have the patience to go down that path with you.

quote:

I have to disagree; love is natural and necessary in order to foster the relationships required for our young to survive childhood and for our species (which is terribly evolved for survival alone without technological advantage) to survive until we reached a level of technology sufficient to make up for our other deficiencies.

Is that all there is to love though? I know you would answer that there is more, but can sympathy for one's young truly be considered an amorous or even spiritual sort of love, or is it merely hard-wired survival efficiency at its most deceptive (and thus most safe, if the resilience of taboos is so intrinsic to our survivability)?

I don't believe that man's history knows a time without taboos and thus religious practices of some sort. As such, it is impossible to sift through what is truly religious and what isn't, but universal taboos imparted upon us by moral engineers keep telling man what to do and, more important for surviving within the superorganism that is society, what not to do. If mankind is seperate from animalkind, then it must be out of taboo - out of the near-universal boundaries we have set for behaviour and of acting out of base instincts (at least in public). Taboo is Tantalus' grapes. It is what we want most but cannot have. I think this is about as technologically advanced as we shall ever become.

In addition, all of the examples in the bible that are against homosexuality are clearly just metaphors for how God loves chocolate chip cookies. I mean, that's how I interpret them, it's what I believe and have faith in, so how could it possibly be incorrect?

Re: Re: An Anti-Gay Debate

quote:

Originally posted by Ania_xox If your girl made out/fucked around with another girl, would you consider it the same thing? Is it not as bad? Just as bad? Worse?

You know, there are two sides to it. Instinctively, the first distinction I could make between homosexual and heterosexual infidelity, concerning straight guys, was the following:

1. Every member of the opposite sex has the potential to be a mate, as long as she fits my standards;


2. My actual mate's other-mate can be a potential mate;
   • If this other-mate is a member of the opposite sex, and is my actual mate's mate, odds are she can be my actual mate as well. My relationship is not threatened, and I can have 2 for the price of one - so far, so good;
   • The problem that many guys seem to ignore, or that instinct doesn't bring up quite as quickly, is the fact that not only this other-mate may not be interested in you (even if you're a potential partner), but it may not even see you as a potential partner at all, thus leading to the scenario below:
   • However, if the other-mate is a member of the same sex, and I've got him ruled out by default (or a member of the opposite sex that has ME ruled out by default), some tension inevitably builds up and I can lose my actual mate to this other-mate. 2 guys, 1 girl, and it's a zero-sum game;
3. Therefore, if the other-mate is a girl, I'm bound to get lucky. If the other-mate is a guy, I'm automatically in trouble.

quote:

Originally posted by Aortik But "social norms or accepted standards of behaviour" are either the direct result of specific religious hegemonies or belief systems transmitted from person to person in the exact same way that religion is.

I think you are showing the bias of having come from a society that has its roots in the Abarhamic traditions. There are no religious based taboos regarding homosexuality supported in the Vedas yet there are social taboos against homosexuality amongst Indo-Hindu peoples. There is no evidence to suggest any of the woodland north american aboriginal peoples had any religious basis for taboos against homosexuality yet they existed. While I commend you on your deductive reasoning I don't believe it is backed up by evidence. I think you actually have it backwards... I would contend that taboos against things such as homosexuality, incest, cannibalism, etc. likely existed in most societies prior to the evolution of the great faiths and these pre-existing taboos were transposed onto the newly developed religions. Of course all of this rests on the position that taboos and religion are not one in the same, which I imagine we would argue over.

quote:

Is that all there is to love though? I know you would answer that there is more, but can sympathy for one's young truly be considered an amorous or even spiritual sort of love, or is it merely hard-wired survival efficiency at its most deceptive (and thus most safe, if the resilience of taboos is so intrinsic to our survivability)?

Indeed, I believe there is more to love; however, I was taking a strictly utilitarian view as to try and remove all religious contentions surrounding love, as I do not view them as being particularly relevant to a discussion on whether or not love is natural. I argue it is natural because emotional attachment is necessary for our survival as a species thus this attachment is an evolutionary advantage born from an evolutionary process thus natural. We are hard wired to love; it does not go against our nature.

quote:

Originally posted by L.E.N. This is why Im not religous and live guilt free.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I think you are showing the bias of having come from a society that has its roots in the Abarhamic traditions. There are no religious based taboos regarding homosexuality supported in the Vedas yet there are social taboos against homosexuality amongst Indo-Hindu peoples. There is no evidence to suggest any of the woodland north american aboriginal peoples had any religious basis for taboos against homosexuality yet they existed.

If there are no taboos regarding homosexuality in a specific religion, then it's clearly not the religion I would be referring to. I did specify Christianity before, which most certainly has established taboos on homosexuality, but I did not mean to imply that Christianity was the only religion with something against gays, nor that taboos were the only possible explanation for the irrational behaviour that people display when confronted with the topic. But taboos are how ignorance breeds, memes are the legs they get around on - and yes, I think we would probably dispute whether religion is a complex of taboos or not... But I would still be interested in knowing what you have to say about it, if you think that it is something else entirely.

quote:

While I commend you on your deductive reasoning I don't believe it is backed up by evidence. I think you actually have it backwards... I would contend that taboos against things such as homosexuality, incest, cannibalism, etc. likely existed in most societies prior to the evolution of the great faiths and these pre-existing taboos were transposed onto the newly developed religions. Of course all of this rests on the position that taboos and religion are not one in the same, which I imagine we would argue over.

I would agree with that though... I believe that taboos came first as a way to suppress - primarily sexual - behaviour in an effort to curb violence on a social level. Religion may have arisen dogmatically seperate from this, but with taboos already in place, it would be remarkably simple to fabricate any belief system you like given the via negativa of "sin".

quote:

Indeed, I believe there is more to love; however, I was taking a strictly utilitarian view as to try and remove all religious contentions surrounding love, as I do not view them as being particularly relevant to a discussion on whether or not love is natural. I argue it is natural because emotional attachment is necessary for our survival as a species thus this attachment is an evolutionary advantage born from an evolutionary process thus natural. We are hard wired to love; it does not go against our nature.

We are hard-wired for some things, but love is something I doubt. I very much agree that we have developed sensitivites to both our young and our potential mates and that this delicacy is quite beneficial on a competitive biological level, but can love be reduced to mere emotional attachment? I do not underestimate emotional attachment, but I do not think it's really "love" under the same condition that I would say I "love" something and most certainly not under the same condition in which you "love" your God.

If taboos are a seemingly natural inclination, which I hold, to curb natural behaviour, then it follows that it is human nature to both embrace as well as often deny those things which come most naturally to us. It is the function that a taboo serves.

Love, to me, is a contradiction to this, in that it is an unnatural liberation of the things which bind our behaviour. It's freedom and peril and treachery as well as compassion disconnected from the competitive imperative which guides the majority of supposedley altruistic endeavors. Perhaps it is possible that love is "natural" in that it is possible for everybody, but I am quite sceptical of this. Yet still, I am not denying that love exists in our world, if at least in short intervals.

quote:

Originally posted by Aortik But taboos are how ignorance breeds, memes are the legs they get around on - and yes, I think we would probably dispute whether religion is a complex of taboos or not... But I would still be interested in knowing what you have to say about it, if you think that it is something else entirely.

I think one would be taking an exceedingly simplistic view of any religion to reduce it to a series of taboos. I will admit that there is great overlap and things that were taboo independent of a religion often become taboo within that religion and other things that are contrary to the prescribed path to a good and righteous life within a given religion will often become taboos as well; however, all the great faiths endeavor to teach a moral code based on things that should be done as opposed to things that should not be done (with the exception of Judaism under which morality is equally defined by what one should not due as by what one should do). Thus I would argue that the foundation of religious observance is in the positive rather then the negative, which is to say in the recommended activities rather then the prohibited. I think societies and individuals adopt taboos because it is easier to have a hard and fast list of things one ought not do rather then a nebulous description of what one ought to do.

quote:

I would agree with that though... I believe that taboos came first as a way to suppress - primarily sexual - behaviour in an effort to curb violence on a social level. Religion may have arisen dogmatically seperate from this, but with taboos already in place, it would be remarkably simple to fabricate any belief system you like given the via negativa of "sin".

There are many taboos that have little to do with sex; however, I will agree that taboos were developed to control behaviour. I would contend that most taboos addressed a very important need during the time in which they developed, beyond curbing violence. For example; the taboo against homosexuality is ancient, it has been present since the time of very small bands of humans living in isolated groups with high mortality rates. Given this social reality it is makes sense that these isolated populations would have a need to increase their population in order to improve the chances of their band surviving. If increased numbers are needed then procreation is the easiest way to reach that goal... homosexual acts cannot result in procreation but do satisfy sexual urges... thus they are contrary to this goal. In order to curb these acts social pressure was brought to bear. Perhaps adultery as a taboo would be a good example of a sexual taboo that developed over a need to put an end to jealousy over sexual partners resulting in violence.

quote:

We are hard-wired for some things, but love is something I doubt. I very much agree that we have developed sensitivites to both our young and our potential mates and that this delicacy is quite beneficial on a competitive biological level, but can love be reduced to mere emotional attachment? I do not underestimate emotional attachment, but I do not think it's really "love" under the same condition that I would say I "love" something and most certainly not under the same condition in which you "love" your God.

The difference in our positions seems to be rooted largely in the fact that love is poorly defined.

If taboos are a seemingly natural inclination, which I hold, to curb natural behaviour, then it follows that it is human nature to both embrace as well as often deny those things which come most naturally to us. It is the function that a taboo serves.

quote:

Love, to me, is a contradiction to this, in that it is an unnatural liberation of the things which bind our behaviour. It's freedom and peril and treachery as well as compassion disconnected from the competitive imperative which guides the majority of supposedley altruistic endeavors. Perhaps it is possible that love is "natural" in that it is possible for everybody, but I am quite sceptical of this. Yet still, I am not denying that love exists in our world, if at least in short intervals.

Maybe it's your definition of natural and unnatural that's throwing me off here. It seems you believe taboos to be entirely natural whereas love is unnatural in that is stands (often) in contradiction to taboos. I would argue that love is an innate emotion and therefore natural whereas taboos are a response to a societal problem (most of which have outlived their usefulness incidentally) and are therefore social constructs, which make them unnatural.

wow so much reading in these threadddd

quote:

Originally posted by st3nc wow so much reading in these threadddd

sorry... I'll do my next post by charade.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard sorry... I'll do my next post by charade.

Does God frown upon lesbianism even when they're both hot?

quote:

Originally posted by boris_the_bear is homosexuality natural? - NO

homosexuality occurs in hundreds of species, the theory is that the genes that might make offspring gay also improve the prospects of the siblings who are straight, genes dont just perform one function, say a gene increases the chance of being gay but also improves fertility all that would be necesarry is for the increase in number of offspring to outweigh the ones that are gay.



2 always straight offspring

2
2 2
22 22
22 22 22 22

16 straight offspring



3 offspring 1 is gay

3
33*
33* 33*
33* 33* 33* 33*

24 straight offspring & 4 gay


oversimplified but the principal is the same & it could be genes for fertility, immunity, intelligence ,social interaction(you know the sterotype of gay guys being able to get on with girls, well maybe his straight brother might find talking to girls easy aswell) & those genes either remian since they cause 0 negative effects or with a positive effect they proagate (look at the family/species not the individuals, its about the bigger picture)

tl:dr its is natural, turning water into wine is unnatural.





now heres some fun bible qoutes probably taken out of context

And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. -- Leviticus 26:29

And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. -- Deuteronomy 28:53

And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend. -- Jeremiah 19:9

im feeling hungry --Me 01:01

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Does God frown upon lesbianism even when they're both hot?

okay, I acted out my reply... did you get it?

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard okay, I acted out my reply... did you get it?

I thought I heard a thunder a while ago, and a little later I saw the new exchange student running across the corridor a little more tanned than usual.

I think I learnt three things.

Lesson number one: is that the answer is yes;
Lesson number two: I should get her phone number, just in case;
Lesson number three: I should've asked you whether or not I'd be happier if I had lots of money

this thread is too serious

time for.......

If being gay is NOT a choice (meaning someone could choose their sexual orientation, and that environmental factors don't play a role), then there is some gene or suppressing of genes that favors homosexuality.

Does that mean homosexuality could be prevented in future generations through genetic engineering?



And on another separate note, what about people who are abused as a child and turn out homosexual? They might not have been gay to begin with, but were turned gay through a traumatic experience. Environmental factors aren't exactly "choice", but they're closer to choice than an inherent genetic homosexuality.


My point? Homosexuality is a choice to some degree!

Through environmental or societal factors, people are born or made in early childhood susceptible to being gay, for example say 60% gay/40 straight , or 30% gay, etc. People choose to suppress their homosexuality, or fulfill it. It will be harder to suppress it for those who are more gay (60%+), and very easy for those who are insignificantly gay (~5%).

quote:

Originally posted by ownymcown If being gay is NOT a choice (meaning someone could choose their sexual orientation, and that environmental factors don't play a role), then there is some gene or suppressing of genes that favors homosexuality. Does that mean homosexuality could be prevented in future generations through genetic engineering?

My understanding (although it's been a while since I checked for updates on this area of research) is that studies have found a genetic mutation present in approximately 50% of men who self-identify as homosexual (and some percentage, I cannot remember but it was single digit of men who self-identified as heterosexual). This same mutation was not found in any women. Based on this one can conclude that homosexuality is genetic (nature) in approximately 50% of men. The other 50% and women it is undetermined if their homosexuality is nature or nurture.

quote:

And on another separate note, what about people who are abused as a child and turn out homosexual? They might not have been gay to begin with, but were turned gay through a traumatic experience. Environmental factors aren't exactly "choice", but they're closer to choice than an inherent genetic homosexuality.

What? Are you talking about people who are physically, mentally or sexually abused? I cannot say anything about physically or mentally as I know of no evidence that a disproportionate number of abused children become homosexuals in adulthood (if you have such evidence I would be interested in reading it). If you're talking about children who were sexually abused by pedophiles and became pedophiles then I would have to argue that this has nothing to do with homosexuality as pedophilia and vice versa.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.