Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 25th Oct 2008 19:26 UTC, submitted by SK8T
In the News In a rather unusual move, both Google and Apple have publicly backed the fight against "Proposition 8", both by words as well as by donation. Proposition 8 is an initiative measure in the state of California that would ban same-sex marriages in California by amending the Constitution of the state to include that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Both companies gave out their reasoning for supporting the fight against 'Prop 8'.
Thread beginning with comment 335036
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Applause
by null_pointer_us on Sun 26th Oct 2008 03:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Applause"
null_pointer_us
Member since:
2005-08-19

Firstly, nobody is claiming that sexuality is black or white. It exists in gradients, like right or left handedness. So just because you have seen people change sides doesn't prove anything.


Seeing people switch from homosexual lifestyles to other lifestyles debunks the false claim that homosexuals are locked into one particular lifestyle (if they want to be happy). See, this is where the left cries discrimination, and that's why they feel justified in calling anyone who believes otherwise a bigot of some kind (sometimes many kinds of bigots all at once).

Secondly every law we have protects a victim.


Where would you place drug laws? (Right now, I'm just talking about the part of drug laws that addresses adults, not kids.) Public indecency laws? I don't accept the premise that laws need to protect a victim. Incest would be just as illegal between consenting adult siblings who could conceivably elect to use in vitro w/ anonymous donor as it would be with underage family members, and it'd be just as wrong. Oh, and it does happen.

You asked why things like paedophilia and beastiality are different. They are different because in both cases there is a victim who cannot protect themselves. With incest the victims are the children who are born with birth defects as a result of these relationships. There are no such victims in homosexual relationships.


The victims in homosexual relationships would not be immediately apparent, especially if you believe that homosexuality is an equally healthy and valid choice. Pretend for the moment that you disagree with the second part. Then, the victims would be: (a) homosexual individuals, who are taught that they have to adjust their lifestyles (and all the costs thereof) and fight "discrimination" for whatever happiness they can find; (b) children, who are taught that this is an equally valid choice early in life (when it is much easier to change one's sexual orientation); (c) friends and family members, who are forced to accept this and/or all the associated flack; (d) businesses, which get regularly shaken down (under the faulty premise that unless they "donate" money to homosexual activists, they are somehow anti-gay); (e) society in general, which has to spend enormous amounts of time, money, and energy debating, researching, investigating, debunking, repealing, leering/baiting, name-calling, apologizing, etc. over something for which society has no real need; (f) people who disagree with a lot of the false claims and are thus often villified; (g) spouses who find that their other spouses use a variety of excuses and rationalizations related to homosexuality to get off the hook (e.g. it's not really cheating; I really love my spouse; my spouse owes me his/her support as I'm cheating).

I've spent some time over the last few years looking at various publicly available topics on homosexual Internet communications including sexual fantasies, dating advice, health concerns, relationship discussions, etc. to see what's what and have come to the conclusion that homosexuality doesn't have a purpose. I.e., there is really nothing of unique value, nor could it exist on its own. It's merely a large set of copies, distortions, and fantasies of things that exist naturally in heterosexual relationships. Why equate homosexuality with heterosexuality? I could understand homosexuality being regarded by some as a valid subset of heterosexuality -- because it is a subset in purely pragmatic terms: love and pleasure but inherently no reproduction -- but equating it would be wrong. And I don't want to see any responses about how we're somehow morally obligated to ignore these facts.

Bottom line is, if you cannot frame an argument against a given law without resorting to religion, then it's fine.


I don't understand what religion has to do with any of this.

Edited 2008-10-26 03:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Applause
by siride on Sun 26th Oct 2008 03:39 in reply to "RE[3]: Applause"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

"Seeing people switch from homosexual lifestyles to other lifestyles debunks the false claim that homosexuals are locked into one particular lifestyle (if they want to be happy). See, this is where the left cries discrimination, and that's why they feel justified in calling anyone who believes otherwise a bigot of some kind (sometimes many kinds of bigots all at once). "

That false claim is a strawman constructed by anti-gay proponents. There is no rule that people are forced to be this way or that. But people are this way or that. Some are straight and some are gay. And a lot are in between. So they can switch, in a sense, because they don't fall cleanly into the false dichotomy of straight versus gay. The truly gay people really won't switch. The day my ubergay friend decides to date a woman is the day the Pope will announce he is Muslim. The same is true for many/most straight people. That still does not change the reality that sexuality is fluid and a gradient, not an either-or constant-over-time as some would like to make it out to be.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Applause
by javiercero1 on Sun 26th Oct 2008 10:24 in reply to "RE[4]: Applause"
javiercero1 Member since:
2005-11-10

Furthermore, the whole debate between the voluntary vs. genetic nature of sexuality is moot.

No democratic government should sanction the limitation of rights, of any of its citizens, based on their sexual preferences. As long as it involves consenting adults, it is none of the government's business. Period.

Any citizen should have his or her rights intact regardless of the gender of the person they want to establish a family with. As long as it is based on a consenting contract, it is the government's job to protect the rights and interests of such unions.

If that pisses off some religious organizations, too bad. Gay couples pay taxes, since Churches don't their opinion on the matter should be irrelevant and non-binding.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Applause
by atriq on Sun 26th Oct 2008 04:40 in reply to "RE[3]: Applause"
atriq Member since:
2007-10-18

Seeing people switch from homosexual lifestyles to other lifestyles debunks the false claim that homosexuals are locked into one particular lifestyle (if they want to be happy). See, this is where the left cries discrimination, and that's why they feel justified in calling anyone who believes otherwise a bigot of some kind (sometimes many kinds of bigots all at once).
So no one's actually gay because a few people who were fickle about it. Well, thanks for clearing up 2500+ years of social ambiguity in a single post.

And I'm sure the Bonobos are just giving into fads as well.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Applause
by null_pointer_us on Sun 26th Oct 2008 16:18 in reply to "RE[4]: Applause"
null_pointer_us Member since:
2005-08-19

So no one's actually gay because a few people who were fickle about it.


That's not what I said. If you want to know what I said, then you can re-read what you're responding to.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Applause
by badtz on Sun 26th Oct 2008 05:05 in reply to "RE[3]: Applause"
badtz Member since:
2005-06-29

It's unfortunate there are people out there (like you) who perceive the world in such hatred. Whether you see it or not.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[4]: Applause
by HappyGod on Sun 26th Oct 2008 08:01 in reply to "RE[3]: Applause"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

Wow, what a rant! I think it may be time to switch to decaf ...

Seeing people switch from homosexual lifestyles to other lifestyles debunks the false claim that homosexuals are locked into one particular lifestyle (if they want to be happy). See, this is where the left cries discrimination, and that's why they feel justified in calling anyone who believes otherwise a bigot of some kind (sometimes many kinds of bigots all at once).


OK, I repeat, sexuality (like all biological things) exists in gradients. Would you for example decide that it is not natural for left handed people to exist if you saw an ambidextrous person switch from writing with the right hand, to writing with their left? Would you also be surprised if a very left-handed person found it near impossible to write with their right hand? Can you see how both of these scenarios can exist?

Where would you place drug laws? (Right now, I'm just talking about the part of drug laws that addresses adults, not kids.) Public indecency laws? I don't accept the premise that laws need to protect a victim. Incest would be just as illegal between consenting adult siblings who could conceivably elect to use in vitro w/ anonymous donor as it would be with underage family members, and it'd be just as wrong. Oh, and it does happen.


In the case of a drug addicts, the victims are the drug users themselves. Easy. And public indecency laws? The unfortunate viewing public.

With regards to incest and homosexuality, "normal" is defined purely by your culture. For example Maori people have always accepted homosexuals as perfectly normal. Similarly, Indians have always accepted marriage between cousins, and Muslim nations accept marriage between an uncle and niece as "normal".

I don't understand what religion has to do with any of this.


Give me an argument that doesn't run along the lines of: "It's just wrong/unnatural OK?" or "God says it's wrong OK?".

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Applause
by null_pointer_us on Sun 26th Oct 2008 18:26 in reply to "RE[4]: Applause"
null_pointer_us Member since:
2005-08-19

Wow, what a rant!


It wasn't a rant, but whatever.

OK, I repeat, sexuality (like all biological things) exists in gradients. Would you for example decide that it is not natural for left handed people to exist if you saw an ambidextrous person switch from writing with the right hand, to writing with their left? Would you also be surprised if a very left-handed person found it near impossible to write with their right hand? Can you see how both of these scenarios can exist?


And that is neither here nor there, because you yourself are stating that there are some people for whom a homosexual lifestyle is necessary for their happiness. We can talk about gradients and rainbows and pretty little flowers all day long, but if a few simplified categories happen to cover the relevant cases, then you're just splitting hairs to demand additional complexity. What effect do your "gradients" have on the discussion? What does it change?

The right hand vs. left hand analogy is flawed because neither is actually better than the other, which, as I already pointed out, doesn't correspond to the differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality. If we're going to make an argument by analogy (which is itself a fallacy), then it would be more correct to look at homosexuality as a case of someone wanting to believe that their right foot is actually a middle hand, and then demanding that everyone else accept them as three-handed/one-footed people.

In the case of a drug addicts, the victims are the drug users themselves. Easy. And public indecency laws? The unfortunate viewing public.


But here you seem to be in favor of using the law to impose your cultural limitations on others. So if you go to another country and see nudity in public, will you cry foul and act like a victim, or will you come here and demand that our laws should be changed because there's nothing wrong with showing the human body in public? And if you go to another country and find that such drug use is considered a legitimate part of their culture, will you cry foul and point out the victims, or will you come here and demand that our laws be changed because adults should have the right to use such substances in moderation? So, assuming you don't oversimplify the situation, what part of your disagreement with these things doesn't fall under an "it's just wrong/unnatural" or a "God says it's bad" type of argument?

With regards to incest and homosexuality, "normal" is defined purely by your culture. For example Maori people have always accepted homosexuals as perfectly normal. Similarly, Indians have always accepted marriage between cousins, and Muslim nations accept marriage between an uncle and niece as "normal".


No, "normal" is not defined by culture. That's a descriptive viewpoint that allows virtually anything that won't outright destroy a society, when what's needed here is a prescriptive viewpoint on a moral issue. Specifically, is it unethical to require people to treat homosexuality as inequal to heterosexuality, or is it unethical to require people to treat homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality?

I say, in answer to the real question underlying this discussion, that what is to be (<-- future tense, as in a decision to be made) considered "normal" needs to be defined by the inherent properties of our humanity (e.g. how we reproduce, what requirements and consequences are implied, etc.). We have social constructs for reasons, not just for the sake of tradition or to give jewelers some extra business. What are those reasons? Marriage exists as a social construct to provide some structure to pregnancy and the relationships between the mother, father, children, and extended family.

We could come up with a hypothetical culture in which family members are encouraged to share sexual experiences on a daily basis, without doing it in a way resulting in pregnancy, but it wouldn't be any less wrong. You keep dodging the topic of victimless incest by skirting around the issue. Society has a right and an obligation to enforce some minimum standards about sexual conduct, not just to protect easily identifiable victims.

Give me an argument that doesn't run along the lines of: "It's just wrong/unnatural OK?" or "God says it's wrong OK?".


You're saying, "It's just equal OK, so just think of it in the same terms," and I'm pointing out that, as a matter of fact, it's not equal, and using the law or stereotypes or insults to make other people act as if it's equal is wrong. Absent from your posts is any discussion of why we should use the same terms to apply to homosexual unions as we do to apply to marriages. What makes them equal and interchangeable? If you really know why you believe what you believe, then that should be a very simple question for you to answer.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Applause
by Arun on Sun 26th Oct 2008 16:34 in reply to "RE[3]: Applause"
Arun Member since:
2005-07-07



Seeing people switch from homosexual lifestyles to other lifestyles debunks the false claim that homosexuals are locked into one particular lifestyle (if they want to be happy). See, this is where the left cries discrimination, and that's why they feel justified in calling anyone who believes otherwise a bigot of some kind (sometimes many kinds of bigots all at once).


That is utter nonsense. Homosexuality is not about just sex. Homosexual relationships are just like Heterosexual relationships. Same ups and downs and same deal with sex. It is also not a choice, nor is it a lifestyle any more than A black person marrying an Asian a lifestyle or a Left handed person marrying a Right handed person a lifestyle choice.

You seeing something doesn't make it true. What you are seeing is Sexual Behavior. Completely different from Sexual Orientation. There have been numerous objective and scientific studies done over 35 years or so that prove you wrong.

Here is what the American Psychological Association says about it:
http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31

"What Is Sexual Orientation?

Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female), and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior).

Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional, and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only).

Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.

What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.

It's important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation, and the reasons may be different for different people.

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?

No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information.

In the past, the studies of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about such people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better-designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting this removal.

For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.
"


Where would you place drug laws? (Right now, I'm just talking about the part of drug laws that addresses adults, not kids.)


Err that's why people are fighting to get drug laws changed everyday.


The victims in homosexual relationships would not be immediately apparent, especially if you believe that homosexuality is an equally healthy and valid choice. Pretend for the moment that you disagree with the second part. Then, the victims would be: (a) homosexual individuals, who are taught that they have to adjust their lifestyles (and all the costs thereof) and fight "discrimination" for whatever happiness they can find; (b) children, who are taught that this is an equally valid choice early in life (when it is much easier to change one's sexual orientation); (c) friends and family members, who are forced to accept this and/or all the associated flack; (d) businesses, which get regularly shaken down (under the faulty premise that unless they "donate" money to homosexual activists, they are somehow anti-gay); (e) society in general, which has to spend enormous amounts of time, money, and energy debating, researching, investigating, debunking, repealing, leering/baiting, name-calling, apologizing, etc. over something for which society has no real need; (f) people who disagree with a lot of the false claims and are thus often villified; (g) spouses who find that their other spouses use a variety of excuses and rationalizations related to homosexuality to get off the hook (e.g. it's not really cheating; I really love my spouse; my spouse owes me his/her support as I'm cheating).


Homosexuality doesn't change any of that. Heterosexuals and Homosexuals would be treated exactly the same in the same situation. That's what equality means.

Read the link above you cannot change Sexual Orientation. Anyone that says you can isn't really Homosexual or is blowing smoke up your nether regions.



Why equate homosexuality with heterosexuality? I could understand homosexuality being regarded by some as a valid subset of heterosexuality -- because it is a subset in purely pragmatic terms: love and pleasure but inherently no reproduction -- but equating it would be wrong. And I don't want to see any responses about how we're somehow morally obligated to ignore these facts.


Homosexuality and Heterosexuality are a subset of the sexual spectrum.

How do you explain Homosexual animals then in purely pragmatic terms of love and pleasure? Do animals love each other and have monogamous relationships?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/

Edited 2008-10-26 16:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: Applause
by StephenBeDoper on Sun 26th Oct 2008 17:39 in reply to "RE[3]: Applause"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Seeing people switch from homosexual lifestyles to other lifestyles debunks the false claim that homosexuals are locked into one particular lifestyle (if they want to be happy).


And you've come to this conclusion, based on a sample size of... Anne Heche?

See, this is where the left cries discrimination, and that's why they feel justified in calling anyone who believes otherwise a bigot of some kind (sometimes many kinds of bigots all at once).


In the same way that people on the right will move the goalposts and try to paint all support of same-sex marriage as simultaneous support of incest, bestiality, pedophilia, etc?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Applause
by null_pointer_us on Sun 26th Oct 2008 18:40 in reply to "RE[4]: Applause"
null_pointer_us Member since:
2005-08-19

"Seeing people switch from homosexual lifestyles to other lifestyles debunks the false claim that homosexuals are locked into one particular lifestyle (if they want to be happy).


And you've come to this conclusion, based on a sample size of... Anne Heche?
" [/q]

No, but then again it's not a matter of sample size, in the first place. Just to illustrate: If ten million people told you that there is no such thing as an elephant, and you finally saw one, would the sample size make your observation irrelevant? Tell me why sample size matters here.

"See, this is where the left cries discrimination, and that's why they feel justified in calling anyone who believes otherwise a bigot of some kind (sometimes many kinds of bigots all at once).


In the same way that people on the right will move the goalposts and try to paint all support of same-sex marriage as simultaneous support of incest, bestiality, pedophilia, etc?
"

Are you pretending that I equated homosexuality with incest, bestiality, pedophilia, etc.? That would be absurd. What I said is that society used the same reasons for not allowing all four of those things, and suddenly the left has eliminate those reasons in defense of homosexuality, so I asked what reasons we're to use to continue to ban the latter three things. It's a valid question. HappyGod attempted to answer it, instead of just making up something offensive about me. What answers would you come up with?

Reply Parent Score: 1