• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

Papa bull said:
They are asexual. You cannot be identified as a homosexual without behavior that identifies you as homosexual. You can say you are, but there is no real difference between you and anyone else until you act on sexual desires for the same sex.
Click to expand...

No, they are homosexual because that's where their attraction lays. If you have two people, one who is attracted to people of the opposite sex, one who is attracted to people of the same sex, and neither act on these behaviors, they are different because of their attraction. You cannot alter the meanings of words and concepts because the actual meanings sink your argument. Orientation and behavior are different... as has been shown to you and proven time and time again.

I don't think it is right to say that a youth is a homosexual because he has feelings for someone of the same sex. That may pass. It may not. Only the behavior ultimately determines whether a person is a homosexual.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Even if they have sex with someone of the same sex they may not be homosexual. This happens in prisons all the time, is well documented and researched. Most of these people who have sexual contact with folks of the same sex are heterosexual

You are wrong, yet again.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, they are homosexual because that's where their attraction lays. If you have two people, one who is attracted to people of the opposite sex, one who is attracted to people of the same sex, and neither act on these behaviors, they are different because of their attraction. You cannot alter the meanings of words and concepts because the actual meanings sink your argument. Orientation and behavior are different... as has been shown to you and proven time and time again.



Wrong. Even if they have sex with someone of the same sex they may not be homosexual. This happens in prisons all the time, is well documented and researched. Most of these people who have sexual contact with folks of the same sex are heterosexual

You are wrong, yet again.
Click to expand...

You would be more correct to say you disagree than "you are wrong". There are plenty of people in the psychiatric field that have and even still do take my view on it even if not all do.

Stedman's Medical Dictionary (1982) defined homosexuality as "sexual behavior, including sexual congress, between individuals of the same sex, especially past puberty." Here the psychological component does not seem to hold much if any importance for the assessment of sexual orientation. Beach (1950) is emphatic about only including sexual behavior in the definition of sexual orientation in his critique of the first English language translation of Gide's defense of homosexuality, Corydon. Beach (1930) states that "the term (homosexuality) means different things to different people . . . it is preferable to set forth the significance of the term as used in this discussion. Homosexuality refers exclusively to overt behavior between two individuals of the same sex. The behavior must be patently sexual, involving e! ! rotic arousal and, in most instances at least, resulting in the satisfaction of the sexual urge." According to Diamond (1993), it is this type of definition that is favored by researchers determining the size of the "homosexual" population in various countries. In the studies reviewed by Diamond, while all used some assessment of sexual behavior to determine the prevalence of sexual orientations, none used any assessment of a psychological state (such as sexual attraction).
Click to expand...

Full article with both pro and con is taken from Who's Gay? What's Straight? - How Do You Define Sexual Orientation? | Assault On Gay America | FRONTLINE | PBS
 
Papa bull said:
Thank you for being honest about the behavior being the difference. My point is that the equal rights argument doesn't fly for groups defined entirely by their behavior and that governments can, in fact, discriminate against behavior. This is an argument that homosexuals need to win by winning the hearts of people not by speciously arguing that it's an "equal rights" issue and that anyone that opposes them is a hate-filled bigot. Unfortunately that seems to be the tack, though.

I think Americans want to be sympathetic. I think if you fall in love with someone from another country, you should be able to go through proper channels to get them here and be with them even if you are a homosexual. I think you should be able to visit a lover in the hospital even if you are a homosexual. I think if your lover dies, you should have normal inheritance that any spouse would have. Civil Unions with all the rights of marriage would have solved that problem and given those that consider marriage a fundamental and basic building block of society some respect to their beliefs. Instead it's "eff-you" and "you are a hating bigot" and "you must have wanted blacks to drink from separate water fountains".

Which brings me back to the opinion that they can kiss my ass and I'd rather eat dirt than throw my support toward gay marriage or even civil unions because when all is said and done, the gay activist community has proven that it's not about civil rights at all. That was just the angle they agreed to take.
Click to expand...

Well first please note I modified My original post that you have quoted once I realized there was a dispute about behavior being accepted.

Next, you need to understand that it is exactly your point about behavior I find circular in your argument. You refuse to admit that BOTH heterosexuals and homosexuals are exhibiting the behavior of "Lust" for the object of the sexual orientations.

You state:

Papa bull said:
Yes. Unlike homosexuals, we don't define our very existence and being by our sexual preference. We don't state heterosexual pride parades to draw attention to the wonderfulness that is us. We don't walk around with gay pride shirts on. We don't feel the need to make sure every person we run into knows we go for the opposite sex whether they like it or not.

To heterosexuals, it's not a "state of being". We just engage the opposite sex and that's that. Homosexuals lust after people of the same sex. Heterosexuals don't. The difference is behavior.
Click to expand...

Yet your argument is BASED upon the fact that you "define our very existence and our being by our sexual preference" when you admit the only difference is "We just engage the opposite sex and that's that." By your own statement THAT is a sexual preference.

Focusing on "lust" doesn't change much, because you "lust" for particular members of the opposite sex, but you don't lust for ALL members of the opposite sex. Homosexuals "just engage the" same sex" and that's that." They then express selections of members from that set of same-sex options through the exercise of "lust."

Even accepting "lust" as a behavior, it does nothing to negate inherent sexual orientation, as you seem to think it does.

You are arguing from a purely ethnocentric view that heterosexuality is both natural and universally shared by homosexuals, and therefore they MUST be displaying an odd behavior pattern we do not have to accept.

That is a curcular argument and therefore illogical.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Well first please note I modified My original post that you have quoted once I realized there was a dispute about behavior being accepted.

Next, you need to understand that it is exactly your point about behavior I find circular in your argument. You refuse to admit that BOTH heterosexuals and homosexuals are exhibiting the behavior of "Lust" for the orientation of the sexual drives.

You state:



Yet your argument is BASED upon the fact that you "define our very existence and our being by our sexual preference" when you admit the only difference is "We just engage the opposite sex and that's that." By your own statement THAT is a sexual preference.

Focusing it "lust" doesn't change much, because you "lust" for particular members of the opposite sex, but you don't lust for ALL members of the opposite sex. Homosexuals "just engage the" same sex" and that's that." They then express selections of members from that set of same-sex options through the exercise of "lust."

Even accepting "lust" as a behavior, it does nothing to negate inherent sexual orientation, as you seem to think it does.

You are arguing from a purely ethnocentric view that heterosexuality is both natural and universally shared by homosexuals, and therefore they MUST be displaying an odd behavior pattern we do not have to accept.

That is a curcular argument and therefore illogical.
Click to expand...

I disagree and find the argument that homosexuality is defined by behavior to be compelling. It is concrete and while more abstract definitions might be better suited to a political agenda that doesn't want to get pinned down on anything, logically speaking, the defining characteristic of homosexuality is behavior. Just like heterosexuality is.

You can't call a teenager "straight" any more than you can call him "gay". Until they have exhibited sexual behavior, there is no way to determine sexuality.
 
Papa bull said:
Thank you for being honest about the behavior being the difference. My point is that the equal rights argument doesn't fly for groups defined entirely by their behavior and that governments can, in fact, discriminate against behavior. This is an argument that homosexuals need to win by winning the hearts of people not by speciously arguing that it's an "equal rights" issue and that anyone that opposes them is a hate-filled bigot. Unfortunately that seems to be the tack, though.

I think Americans want to be sympathetic. I think if you fall in love with someone from another country, you should be able to go through proper channels to get them here and be with them even if you are a homosexual. I think you should be able to visit a lover in the hospital even if you are a homosexual. I think if your lover dies, you should have normal inheritance that any spouse would have. Civil Unions with all the rights of marriage would have solved that problem and given those that consider marriage a fundamental and basic building block of society some respect to their beliefs. Instead it's "eff-you" and "you are a hating bigot" and "you must have wanted blacks to drink from separate water fountains".

Which brings me back to the opinion that they can kiss my ass and I'd rather eat dirt than throw my support toward gay marriage or even civil unions because when all is said and done, the gay activist community has proven that it's not about civil rights at all. That was just the angle they agreed to take.
Click to expand...

Papa bull said:
I disagree and find the argument that homosexuality is defined by behavior to be compelling. It is concrete and while more abstract definitions might be better suited to a political agenda that doesn't want to get pinned down on anything, logically speaking, the defining characteristic of homosexuality is behavior. Just like heterosexuality is.

You can't call a teenager "straight" any more than you can call him "gay". Until they have exhibited sexual behavior, there is no way to determine sexuality.
Click to expand...

So now you are changing your position from simple "lust" to the need for actual sexual activity? I.e. acting on lust?

The basic premise is illogical. You have NO foundation other than personal belief that Heterosexuality is a basic state of nature universally shared by all humans, and that since it is shared by Homosexuals they must be deliberately choosing to exercise unnatual behaviors. Without that foundation, your entire argument has no merit.

There is ample evidence that other species in the Animal Kingdom demonstrate homosexual "behavior" pattens. Are you saying they possess free will and are thereby CHOOSING to do this? Please, say you do because then we no longer have a special place in "God's plan" and we have been commiting genocide on our fellow creatures who must thereby share souls with us.
 
Papa bull said:
You would be more correct to say you disagree than "you are wrong". There are plenty of people in the psychiatric field that have and even still do take my view on it even if not all do.



Full article with both pro and con is taken from Who's Gay? What's Straight? - How Do You Define Sexual Orientation? | Assault On Gay America | FRONTLINE | PBS
Click to expand...

Most of those citations are at least 30 years old. Firstly, I'd like to see the current Stedman's definition. Both Beech citations are from over 60 years ago, when the lack of understanding of the nature of homosexuality was in full force, with most research being biased. The final study cited, Diamond's is actually not a study, but a meta-analysis of many other studies. What Diamond said is that many researchers use the reporting of behavior rather than the reporting of attraction as a determinant. Since we have more information on the difference between sexual activity and sexual orientation, nowadays, especially around prison behavior and sexual surrogacy, this would no longer be accurate. So, no, you are wrong. The research presented is both outdated and not entirely relevant to the conclusions reached.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Interestingly enough, all of the stupidity and bigotry that has been spewed from the extreme RIGHT on this issue has helped me to be pushed closer and close to supporting SSM as fully as possible over the years. I never used to really be disgusted by positions on the extreme right, but when I see posts like the above, those that present a lack of logic and/or distortion or ignoring of facts just to present a biased, moralistic, attacking agenda, makes me realize that extremists on the right really need to be defeated. They tyranny that they present, ESPECIALLY when based on ignorance of issues is quite possibly the most dangerous thing to our country.
Click to expand...

And I think the progressive movement is the gravest threat this country faces. So we are at opposite perspectives. But we already knew that, didn't we?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Most of those citations are at least 30 years old. Firstly, I'd like to see the current Stedman's definition. Both Beech citations are from over 60 years ago, when the lack of understanding of the nature of homosexuality was in full force, with most research being biased. The final study cited, Diamond's is actually not a study, but a meta-analysis of many other studies. What Diamond said is that many researchers use the reporting of behavior rather than the reporting of attraction as a determinant. Since we have more information on the difference between sexual activity and sexual orientation, nowadays, especially around prison behavior and sexual surrogacy, this would no longer be accurate. So, no, you are wrong. The research presented is both outdated and not entirely relevant to the conclusions reached.
Click to expand...

Yep. Most predate the homosexual marriage agenda. Funny how the facts have changed to support an agenda. And how fast it happened.
 
Papa bull said:
And I think the progressive movement is the gravest threat this country faces. So we are at opposite perspectives. But we already knew that, didn't we?
Click to expand...

Yup. You think the above, I believe that the extreme conservatives will destroy this country unless they are stopped. Then again, I think the same about extreme liberals. Do you denounce extremism on both sides of the coin, or is it just me?
 
Papa bull said:
Yep. Most predate the homosexual marriage agenda. Funny how the facts have changed to support an agenda. And how fast it happened.
Click to expand...

Actually, most predate unbiased and reliable/credible research into homosexuality and sexual orientation in general. Funny how results change when a biased agenda is not attached to them and research is actually done in a credible way. If you'd like, I have several posts prepared that demonstrate quite neatly how biased and inaccurate research into homosexuality has been until fairly recently.
 
Papa bull said:
I know homosexuals want everyone to believe it's a state of being... a virtual "race" of sorts. However, homosexuality is having sex with someone that is of the same sex. That's what a homosexual is. A child molestor is someone that molests children. A person can think about it without being a child molestor. It's the behavior that defines them just as it does a homosexual. Nothing BUT behavior makes someone a homosexual. Except for lusting after and/or having sex with someone of the same sex, one is not a homosexual and both of those things are behaviors.
Click to expand...

There is not anything wrong with having sex with someone of the same sex. No one is actually hurt. We are talking about consenting adults. Not children, who are easily manipulated and are actually harmed by someone having sex with them. And there can be no serious, mutually beneficial, consenting, intimate relationship between an adult and a child. There can be this, and quite often is, between two people of the same sex.

A pedophile is a pedophile whether he/she acts on that impulse or not. You are confusing child molester with pedophile/pedophilia. Child molesters don't always molest children because they are attracted to them. Pedophiles are always attracted to children, but don't always molest children. You are confusing terms and that is the same thing you do with homosexuality. Having a same sex sexual encounter is not homosexuality. Homosexuality is being attracted to a person of the same sex, whether you act on that impulse or not. A same sex sexual encounter does not make a person homosexual.
 
Papa bull said:
Thank you for being honest about the behavior being the difference. My point is that the equal rights argument doesn't fly for groups defined entirely by their behavior and that governments can, in fact, discriminate against behavior. This is an argument that homosexuals need to win by winning the hearts of people not by speciously arguing that it's an "equal rights" issue and that anyone that opposes them is a hate-filled bigot. Unfortunately that seems to be the tack, though.

I think Americans want to be sympathetic. I think if you fall in love with someone from another country, you should be able to go through proper channels to get them here and be with them even if you are a homosexual. I think you should be able to visit a lover in the hospital even if you are a homosexual. I think if your lover dies, you should have normal inheritance that any spouse would have. Civil Unions with all the rights of marriage would have solved that problem and given those that consider marriage a fundamental and basic building block of society some respect to their beliefs. Instead it's "eff-you" and "you are a hating bigot" and "you must have wanted blacks to drink from separate water fountains".

Which brings me back to the opinion that they can kiss my ass and I'd rather eat dirt than throw my support toward gay marriage or even civil unions because when all is said and done, the gay activist community has proven that it's not about civil rights at all. That was just the angle they agreed to take.
Click to expand...

Yes it does.

Mr. and Mrs. Loving didn't have to be together, in a relationship because of their races. Their individual races did not force them together. It was merely being used against their being together. For no good reason, with no state interest being furthered by this restriction. Two people of the opposite sex don't have to be together in a relationship. Their individual sexes/genders do not force them together. And two people of the same sex don't have to be together in a relationship. Their sexes/genders aren't forcing them together. But their sexes/genders are being used against their being together. For no good reason, with no state interest being furthered by this restriction.
 
Papa bull said:
They are asexual. You cannot be identified as a homosexual without behavior that identifies you as homosexual. You can say you are, but there is no real difference between you and anyone else until you act on sexual desires for the same sex.

I don't think it is right to say that a youth is a homosexual because he has feelings for someone of the same sex. That may pass. It may not. Only the behavior ultimately determines whether a person is a homosexual.
Click to expand...

No, they aren't.

The definition of asexuality is lacking in sexual attraction to anyone, of either sex/gender.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality
No sex please: An asexual life - Features - Health & Families - The Independent

There is a difference between having no desire to have sex and controlling your desire to have sex.
 
Papa bull said:
They are asexual. You cannot be identified as a homosexual without behavior that identifies you as homosexual. You can say you are, but there is no real difference between you and anyone else until you act on sexual desires for the same sex.

I don't think it is right to say that a youth is a homosexual because he has feelings for someone of the same sex. That may pass. It may not. Only the behavior ultimately determines whether a person is a homosexual.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. It is the attraction that defines a person's sexuality, not their actions on that attraction.

sexuality - definition of sexuality by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Sexuality

Desire is an interest in being sexual.
Click to expand...

In order to be asexual, a person cannot have any interest in sex at all. If a person is interested in having sex, but simply controls those feelings, they are sexual, either homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual. They are not asexual.
 
Papa bull said:
You would be more correct to say you disagree than "you are wrong". There are plenty of people in the psychiatric field that have and even still do take my view on it even if not all do.



Full article with both pro and con is taken from Who's Gay? What's Straight? - How Do You Define Sexual Orientation? | Assault On Gay America | FRONTLINE | PBS
Click to expand...

You are using a highly outdated definition. Definitions change over time. You cannot claim that because it was defined a certain way years ago, that that definition has to apply now. The definition is outdated due to better understanding of what sexuality is.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Yup. You think the above, I believe that the extreme conservatives will destroy this country unless they are stopped. Then again, I think the same about extreme liberals. Do you denounce extremism on both sides of the coin, or is it just me?
Click to expand...

I've only ever seen you mouthing off on conservatives and based on actions, I have my reservations about the veracity of your claim. However, in answer to your question, I believe extreme right-wingers are dangerous. I suspect that like most progressives, your idea of extreme conservative is probably quite expansive in scope and would include anyone that feels strongly that the progressive movement is bad for our society. Just a guess but I'd wager it is a good one.
 
Can we agree that poll introduced in yesterday's blogs of this thread by, I believe, C.Courtesy, which attempted to show a majority of Americans favored SSM was inconclusive?
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
Can we agree that poll introduced in yesterday's blogs of this thread by, I believe, C.Courtesy, which attempted to show a majority of Americans favored SSM was inconclusive?
Click to expand...

In various polls when asked gay marrige yes or no the majority of polls were pro gay marriage.
 
How you consider yourself right, left, moderate, etc. (almost everyone thinks they're moderate) is relative. Just as how everyone else sees your political beliefs... relative. So if you think someone else's politics are radical or dangerous, just think, they probably think yours is too.
 
winston53660 said:
In various polls when asked gay marrige yes or no the majority of polls were pro gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Yes, but there's a third possibility as well, isn't there? Legal SS partnerships.
Your poll records the permissiveness by the American people of gay rights.
This is where the disconnect in these polls occur: people assume permissiveness of gay rights equals SSM.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
Yes, but there's a third possibility as well, isn't there? Legal SS partnerships.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a legal SS partnership in many states and now federally recognized.
 
So, you aren't talking about polls anymore?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom