• 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!

Maryland Gay Marriage Bill sent back to cmte. Shelved for this year at least.

mac said:
Well, the funny thing is that I don't really believe that heterosexuality is a learned behavior. I believe it to be the outcome of the normal course of a humans development. I believe the opposite to be true with homosexuality. I believe it to be a choice, perhaps sub-conscious, made possible by various learned personality traits.
Click to expand...

I understand that this is what you believe... and this is my problem with your argument. Nothing you have said disputes anything that has been said contrary to your belief. From a purely logical standpoint, what you believe is not valid.

Regardless, in the course of it's normal operation, the vagina accommodates the penis. The same cannot be true of the Anus. Ignore the biological/anatomical truth of that all you like.
Click to expand...

I am ignoring nothing. You are claiming design as valid point to support your position. I am challenging you on "design". Again, logically, you cannot prove your position.

I don't think you have, at best you've out argued me. The rules of debate are not rules of life though.
Click to expand...

No, I think I have done two things. Out argued you and proven my position... or at the least proven that the logic behind yours is faulty. What I have NOT done is change your mind. In general, that is not my intent.

We are talking about the natures of behaviors commonly conducted by persons of a certain orientation. How those behaviors affect affinity with an orientation, I believe, very much do affect the development of the orientation.
Click to expand...

And I would disagree with that generalizing. The behaviors MAY be common, but they do not define. That is the error in your logic.

I disagree that you do. I think you are used to arguing the issue with folks that believe "God Said No", and have no further argument.
Click to expand...

Actually, I disagree. The people that you just described, I ignore, universally. I find them either ignorant on the topic, or I respect their beliefs... depending on how they present themselves. For example, before his "change" digsbe usually presented as one who's belief was based in religion. He understood the logic behind both his and the opposing position, but held onto his religious beliefs. I practically NEVER debated digsbe on this issue because of his presentation. He fell into the second category that I described.

Well, part of my argument is God said no, a significant part, I'll concede. I take that and look at homosexuality from as open a perspective as I can manage, and look at the available evidence surrounding the issue. The things I have said make perfect sense to me, although applying the arguments to heterosexuality is new for me. I'm exploring that, I hadn't approached the issue from that direction. Nevertheless, everything available (including available studies) indicates to me that Heterosexuality is natural, and homosexuality is unnatural.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that you are looking at this a little differently because of how heterosexuality has been presented. It is a fairly original argument that I have developed over time and often throws people off. However, much of what you just said... especially the last part is where your logic falls apart. Please present studies that show that heterosexuality it natural and homosexuality is unnatural. You said you have read them. I'd like to see how those studies made that determination.

Another difference between me and many you may have argued with is that I don't think this alone makes people good or bad. As far as I'm concerned, there are ten sins, and a few variants. Though shalt not cornhole your neighbor is not on the list. That means it's a rule, not a sin. I've broken a few rules myself.
Click to expand...

I will agree that this is a difference... which is why I have felt no need to be overly aggressive with you. I am very well versed on this topic and can be pretty brutal when I choose to be.

I've begun to ramble so I'll try to sum up....being gay doesn't make you someone I fear, dislike, distrust, abhor, etc, etc. I believe everyone has the right to do whatever they like to each other in privacy, even if it is immoral/illegal/weird. I also believe that wanting to do those things doesn't necessarily put you in a group deserving the right of marriage. Just because a few folks want something to be accepted and natural, doesn't make it accepted and natural.
Click to expand...

This is your belief system. Logic cannot prove that what you just said is valid, especially the "natural" part. As I said, if you stuck to the religious part of your argument, I would find very little to argue with you about. But your attempts to logically validate your position isn't cutting it.
 
maquiscat said:
I personally know a woman who has switched from men to women because of rape trauma. So yes it CAN be a "choice" (i.e. not determined by genetics), and may even be a conscious decision, instead of subconscious.
Click to expand...

This is a result of some co-morbid psychological diagnosis that resulted from the trauma. The sexual behavior has occured because of that. It is VERY unclear as to what her sexual orientation is, and one cannot base sexual orientation on an experience like that.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
This is a result of some co-morbid psychological diagnosis that resulted from the trauma. The sexual behavior has occured because of that. It is VERY unclear as to what her sexual orientation is, and one cannot base sexual orientation on an experience like that.
Click to expand...

This is still the thing that confuses people, homosexuality the orientation vs homosexuality the action. Some one with a big file system needs to put a set of definitions at the start of each of these threads. Wonder who we know who is good at filing...
 
Redress said:
This is still the thing that confuses people, homosexuality the orientation vs homosexuality the action. Some one with a big file system needs to put a set of definitions at the start of each of these threads. Wonder who we know who is good at filing...
Click to expand...

Eh, I do this in almost every one of these threads in which I participate. Quite a few folks have incorporated it into their position. Unfortunately, there are still those who argue against this very simple point. It's similar to understanding that one can be angry... and can behave in many different ways. A state of being does not define one's behaviors, or vice versa. One's sexual orientation does not dictate one's behaviors. It influences them, but we have gays who participate in heterosexual behaviors and straights that participate in homosexual behavior. There is so much documentation on this in both a variety of sources and for a variety of reasons, I makes no sense to me why someone would deny that there is a difference between a state of being and a behavior. Those who have a hard time with this concept tend to be those who understand that this undermines a major part of their argument, so they must remain in denial about it.

At some point, I will create one of my "repostable" posts on this issue that folks can use as a reference point, similar to both my posts on the research validating no difference between children of straights vs. children of gays and those that document the history of the declassification of homosexuality as a disorder.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Eh, I do this in almost every one of these threads in which I participate. Quite a few folks have incorporated it into their position. Unfortunately, there are still those who argue against this very simple point. It's similar to understanding that one can be angry... and can behave in many different ways. A state of being does not define one's behaviors, or vice versa. One's sexual orientation does not dictate one's behaviors. It influences them, but we have gays who participate in heterosexual behaviors and straights that participate in homosexual behavior. There is so much documentation on this in both a variety of sources and for a variety of reasons, I makes no sense to me why someone would deny that there is a difference between a state of being and a behavior. Those who have a hard time with this concept tend to be those who understand that this undermines a major part of their argument, so they must remain in denial about it.

At some point, I will create one of my "repostable" posts on this issue that folks can use as a reference point, similar to both my posts on the research validating no difference between children of straights vs. children of gays and those that document the history of the declassification of homosexuality as a disorder.
Click to expand...

What would really be awesome would be if you made a nice thread with a list of gay issue links all nice and organized, stuck it in the Sex and Sexuality forum, and stickied it. Or passed along the sources to me and I will do it.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Eh, I do this in almost every one of these threads in which I participate. Quite a few folks have incorporated it into their position. Unfortunately, there are still those who argue against this very simple point. It's similar to understanding that one can be angry... and can behave in many different ways. A state of being does not define one's behaviors, or vice versa. One's sexual orientation does not dictate one's behaviors. It influences them, but we have gays who participate in heterosexual behaviors and straights that participate in homosexual behavior. There is so much documentation on this in both a variety of sources and for a variety of reasons, I makes no sense to me why someone would deny that there is a difference between a state of being and a behavior. Those who have a hard time with this concept tend to be those who understand that this undermines a major part of their argument, so they must remain in denial about it.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. My sister is a 100% confirmed lesbian. She is however married to a man. This individual caught her quite by surprise and he is an exception to her rule. But she is not bisexual because she has no attraction to any male but him, in a romantic/sexual nature. So she is a homosexual that does heterosexual acts. Her behavior, in this one case, differes from her orientation.

However, with the other woman (and I will agree that trauma can cause physical changes, but we still need to put it under the "choice" catagory since it does not fit under the "genetic/born as it catagory and we only seem to have the two sides), I would still say that she is now homosexual. She is attracted to only women right now. That is how we are determining orientation, is it not, by what we are attracted to, not by what we do? I know we can use actions as a indicator, but then we look at how many gays covered up thier sexuality by maintaining false lives, so it's not the final clue.
 
maquiscat said:
I personally know a woman who has switched from men to women because of rape trauma. So yes it CAN be a "choice" (i.e. not determined by genetics), and may even be a conscious decision, instead of subconscious.
Click to expand...

This would prove thebook's premise wrong as well.
 
maquiscat said:
...we still need to put it under the "choice" catagory since it does not fit under the "genetic/born as it catagory and we only seem to have the two sides
Click to expand...

Is that a joke or do you really see this as a dichotomy?

Most human behaviors are neither choice nor innate, but fall within a gray area between.

However, arguing someone made a choice when they were traumatized and had a lasting change to their sexual orientation occur as result is akin to arguing that someone who was pushed into a fire chose to have burns. It's ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
I understand that this is what you believe... and this is my problem with your argument. Nothing you have said disputes anything that has been said contrary to your belief. From a purely logical standpoint, what you believe is not valid.
Click to expand...

Then please do tell me why you think that heterosexuality is a learned behavior.

I am ignoring nothing. You are claiming design as valid point to support your position. I am challenging you on "design". Again, logically, you cannot prove your position.
Click to expand...

Simply not true. The observance of how things work and using that to form/support your position is nothing but logical. If I were making it up, that'd be different.

No, I think I have done two things. Out argued you and proven my position... or at the least proven that the logic behind yours is faulty. What I have NOT done is change your mind. In general, that is not my intent.
Click to expand...

I disagree that you have proven any position. All you have done is claim min false, which you have not disproven....only doubted/questioned.

And I would disagree with that generalizing. The behaviors MAY be common, but they do not define. That is the error in your logic.
Click to expand...

Since we are talking about what might influence the learning of a behavior....why would they not influence the learning if the behavior?

Actually, I disagree. The people that you just described, I ignore, universally. I find them either ignorant on the topic, or I respect their beliefs... depending on how they present themselves. For example, before his "change" digsbe usually presented as one who's belief was based in religion. He understood the logic behind both his and the opposing position, but held onto his religious beliefs. I practically NEVER debated digsbe on this issue because of his presentation. He fell into the second category that I described.
Click to expand...

Ok.

I appreciate that you are looking at this a little differently because of how heterosexuality has been presented. It is a fairly original argument that I have developed over time and often throws people off. However, much of what you just said... especially the last part is where your logic falls apart. Please present studies that show that heterosexuality it natural and homosexuality is unnatural. You said you have read them. I'd like to see how those studies made that determination.
Click to expand...

Well, I tell you what. Please give a valid explanation why my assumptions are false rather than just saying "I disagree so I win."

I will agree that this is a difference... which is why I have felt no need to be overly aggressive with you. I am very well versed on this topic and can be pretty brutal when I choose to be.
Click to expand...

As can I, specially when people play devil's advocate with the Bible.

This is your belief system. Logic cannot prove that what you just said is valid, especially the "natural" part. As I said, if you stuck to the religious part of your argument, I would find very little to argue with you about. But your attempts to logically validate your position isn't cutting it.
Click to expand...

Logic alone does not rule the world, CC, we're not Vulcans. As far as the logic...the things I bring up are logical, just not important in your view. I've made nothing up or made an incorrect observances. Observation of actions, activities, and behaviors can logically lead to several outcomes. The idea that applying logic only yields one outcome is simply incorrect. If this were true than there would be no Theories or philosophies....there would be fact and fact alone.

"Heterosexuality is right" is not a fact. "Homosexuality is wrong" is not a fact, and the opposites are also true. This leaves it up to a different path than logic to follow to find out how we incorporate them into out society and lives.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Is that a joke or do you really see this as a dichotomy?

Most human behaviors are neither choice nor innate, but fall within a gray area between.

However, arguing someone made a choice when they were traumatized and had a lasting change to their sexual orientation occur as result is akin to arguing that someone who was pushed into a fire chose to have burns. It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree. Response to trauma is not generally considered "choice". While the person is indeed choosing behavior, the impact of the trauma on the decision is probably dramatic enough to be nearly the sole factor.
 
mac, can you respond to CC's "Please present studies that show that heterosexuality it natural and homosexuality is unnatural. You said you have read them. I'd like to see how those studies made that determination."?
I'm interested in reading them as well.
 
iamitter said:
mac, can you respond to CC's "Please present studies that show that heterosexuality it natural and homosexuality is unnatural. You said you have read them. I'd like to see how those studies made that determination."?
I'm interested in reading them as well.
Click to expand...

I've never said that. What I said is that I've read studies that say homosexuality may be a result of a number of factors. If you interepreted that to mean I had read studies proving that heterosexuality was natural then you misunderstood or I was unclear.

I recently posted that "Heterosexuality is right" is not a fact. That means I am not claiming it is.

edit: quoteing myself to show what I said previous to your post:

mac said:
"Heterosexuality is right" is not a fact. "Homosexuality is wrong" is not a fact, and the opposites are also true. This leaves it up to a different path than logic to follow to find out how we incorporate them into out society and lives.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It's either the result of trauma or a birth defect, so either way.....
 
mac said:
I've never said that. What I said is that I've read studies that say homosexuality may be a result of a number of factors. If you interepreted that to mean I had read studies proving that heterosexuality was natural then you misunderstood or I was unclear.

I recently posted that "Heterosexuality is right" is not a fact. That means I am not claiming it is.

edit: quoteing myself to show what I said previous to your post:
Click to expand...

I was talking about this claim not your comment there.
The things I have said make perfect sense to me, although applying the arguments to heterosexuality is new for me. I'm exploring that, I hadn't approached the issue from that direction. Nevertheless, everything available (including available studies) indicates to me that Heterosexuality is natural, and homosexuality is unnatural.
Click to expand...
So, in this case "Please present studies that show that heterosexuality it natural and homosexuality is unnatural. You said you have read them. I'd like to see how those studies made that determination." is a reasonable request.
 
Last edited:
iamitter said:
I was talking about this claim not your comment there.

So, in this case "Please present studies that show that heterosexuality it natural and homosexuality is unnatural. You said you have read them. I'd like to see how those studies made that determination." is a reasonable request.
Click to expand...

Ok, it was me being unclear. The studies I've read on homosexuality help me form my opinions. I have read no study that claims heterosexuality is any more natural than homosexuality. In todays climate, I sincerely doubt anyone would venture such a study to begin with.
 
mac said:
Ok, it was me being unclear. The studies I've read on homosexuality help me form my opinions. I have read no study that claims heterosexuality is any more natural than homosexuality. In todays climate, I sincerely doubt anyone would venture such a study to begin with.
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I have just one more question. If you have "read no study that claims heterosexuality is any more natural than homosexuality.", would it be fair to say that you have also never read a study that claimed homosexuality as any more unnatural than heterosexuality? I'm asking this because it seems to me that being natural and being unnatural should have an inverse relationship. If something is more natural, it is less unnatural and vice versa. Therefore, if heterosexuality is no more natural than homosexuality, homosexuality cannot be any more unnatural than heterosexuality.
 
iamitter said:
Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I have just one more question. If you have "read no study that claims heterosexuality is any more natural than homosexuality.", would it be fair to say that you have also never read a study that claimed homosexuality as any more unnatural than heterosexuality? I'm asking this because it seems to me that being natural and being unnatural should have an inverse relationship. If something is more natural, it is less unnatural and vice versa. Therefore, if heterosexuality is no more natural than homosexuality, homosexuality cannot be any more unnatural than heterosexuality.
Click to expand...

I've not read a study dated post 1970 thatclaimed anything like that.
 
CriticalThought said:
Is that a joke or do you really see this as a dichotomy?

Most human behaviors are neither choice nor innate, but fall within a gray area between.

However, arguing someone made a choice when they were traumatized and had a lasting change to their sexual orientation occur as result is akin to arguing that someone who was pushed into a fire chose to have burns. It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

No it is more akin to whether a person has dark skin because they were born with it or because they choose to overdo a tan.

Secondly, I did note that while "choice" wasn't the best selection for this specific case, the argument overall tends to boil down to whether it is a "choice" or "genetic/inate" Therefore, we tend to point our examples and evidence into one of those two catagories and I noted this. Trauma is not genetic or inate, therefore by default of the argument parameters it falls under "choice". Maybe "non-genetic/non-inate" would be better.
 
You know what else is a born genetic trait?




Siblings.
 
Jerry said:
In the pursuit of small government, one is required to oppose SSM, as SSM is the expansion of government; unconstitutionally so when children are not present.
Click to expand...

Exactly how is SSM "expansion of government"....it is LESS government involvement in people's lives.
 
disneydude said:
Exactly how is SSM "expansion of government"....it is LESS government involvement in people's lives.
Click to expand...

You're introducing government influence into more relationships by including an additional demographic to the qualifying criteria.

The government never before regulated gay relationships, but now it will. Those additional regulations are in fact the very reason gays are perusing legal marriage.
 
Jerry said:
You're introducing government influence into more relationships by including an additional demographic to the qualifying criteria.

The government never before regulated gay relationships, but now it will. Those additional regulations are in fact the very reason gays are perusing legal marriage.
Click to expand...

How exactly will SSM be the government regulating gay relationships? What exact regulations will gay couples, legally married and not, have to face that they didn't have to face before SSM was allowed? And, if they are choosing to get into the marriage contract with each other and have the government as an approving company in the arrangement, then isn't that them choosing to have any government regulations that come with it?
 
Jerry said:
You're introducing government influence into more relationships by including an additional demographic to the qualifying criteria.

The government never before regulated gay relationships, but now it will. Those additional regulations are in fact the very reason gays are perusing legal marriage.
Click to expand...

Thats a real stretch. By that logic...."Conservatives" would be for eliminating marriage all together....and I don't hear many advocating that.
 
roguenuke said:
How exactly will SSM be the government regulating gay relationships? What exact regulations will gay couples, legally married and not, have to face that they didn't have to face before SSM was allowed? And, if they are choosing to get into the marriage contract with each other and have the government as an approving company in the arrangement, then isn't that them choosing to have any government regulations that come with it?
Click to expand...

Well, the first thing you need to get right is that the government isn't the approving agency for a private contract.

The government is the issuing authority and a signing party on a public license.

You aren't taking a private agreement to a public notary, you're asking the government for special privileges.

A couple of several items any couple looses when they get married are the right to contract, as you can't have more than one spouse, and the right to freely associate, as adultery is grounds to sue for damages.

If you're not married, then legally you can do whatever the hell you want. Marriage places a whole host of restrictions on you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom