Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But Calvin, you base your morality on a book written two thousand years ago...The world has moved on a bit since then. What the hell do you care if gays marry or not? It's not your business.
He does this same tired, pathetic argument in every gay thread that pops up here, its rather sad, not to mention a strawman argument.
Both. Although the science wasn't really that new. The first studies that showed homosexuality wasn't a mental illness were in the 1950's by Evelyn Hooker. The protests were because the notoriously conservative APA were dragging their feet because of longstanding cultural and religious views. Many were still performing completely unnecessary "therapy" like electroshock therapy, aversion therapy etc - which amounted to psychological torture for many gay people.
There WAS no science that showed homosexuality was a mental disorder - it was a cultural and religious view that anything other than heterosexual was disordered. However when they finally started doing studies with average gay people they found no pathology for mental illness. The first DSM-I was only published in 1952.
So before 1974, they were hacks but not after?
Evelyn Hooker studied the social adjustment of gays at the specific request of her gay friend Sam From. I have found most research on this issue to be highly politically driven and suspect from the start. Even the twins tests have one researcher (Kallman, 1952) showing a 100% sexuality correlation between monozygotic twins. Subjects for this study were discovered by "word of mouth" and obviously stacked since no other researcher has been able duplicate Kallman's results.
...Your statement about pretending to be attracted to someone they're not, or the emotional argument about not being able to marry someone you love is just not a sound argument. I do not have the same right guaranteed to me. Why should you have a new form of marriage based on that?...
That's disengenuous. Heterosexuals DO have the right to marry someone they love as long as the other party agrees. Homosexuals do not, regardless of the other party's feelings and desires.
That's disengenuous. Heterosexuals DO have the right to marry someone they love as long as the other party agrees. Homosexuals do not, regardless of the other party's feelings and desires.
Calvinist cant see the difference.
I've gone a few rounds with him on this subject before.
Are you intentionally acting so obtuse? I'm referring to the emotional whine about the desire for such a relationship--not the relationship itself. Do you not grasp the analogy?...
I do, perfectly. However, you have been contending that it is the act, not the feelings that you have a problem with. Now, in the case of pedophiles, you're claiming the opposite - it's all about the "desire for such a relationship". Please make up your mind.
Also, please don't legislate the lives of others based on a 2000 year old fairytale that is not subscribed to by all. Thanks.
I get my moral guidance from God. I place that on a higher level than that of society, which is subject to the whims of culture.
Do you mean from the bible, or does god speak to you personally? If as I suspect it is from the bible, then tell how you pick and choose from that violent book what is moral and what is not? Pick the stuff you like and ignore the rest?
You must know that the bible condones a lot of things that would be considered immoral in most societies today...How do you choose?
That's disengenuous. Heterosexuals DO have the right to marry someone they love as long as the other party agrees. Homosexuals do not, regardless of the other party's feelings and desires.
So what? Since when has our legal system been based on love? Isn't about equality? As you've stated, under the current system it is fair and equal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I do, perfectly. However, you have been contending that it is the act, not the feelings that you have a problem with. Now, in the case of pedophiles, you're claiming the opposite - it's all about the "desire for such a relationship". Please make up your mind.
It's about the desire to commit the act or to live in a certain way.
Quote:
Also, please don't legislate the lives of others based on a 2000 year old fairytale that is not subscribed to by all. Thanks.
Why? Is that wrong? How are you justified in telling me I'm wrong? Please stop trying to impose your humanistic values based on a recent trend to ignore that 5000 year old religious book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Do you mean from the bible, or does god speak to you personally? If as I suspect it is from the bible, then tell how you pick and choose from that violent book what is moral and what is not? Pick the stuff you like and ignore the rest?
You must know that the bible condones a lot of things that would be considered immoral in most societies today...How do you choose?
I read it in context and base morality on that. Now would be the standard time in such an argument where you or someone else will go to a website to cherry pick some verses from the OT where God was commanding Israel to wage war and wipe out the enemy, somehow claiming that I should follow that. Go ahead, run along now. When you get back I'll explain to you that you're reading it out of context and it is clearly not intended for us to follow today. But I don't think that type of argument is REALLY about understanding it, is it?
Even with pressure, the APA isn't allowed to make decisions like that groundlessly. If campaigning forced them to re-examine the issue, it was a good thing in my opinion.
Ok, so how did they arrive at the opposite conclusion prior to reversing themselves in 1974?
You can't have it both ways as fits your argument. If they were yielding to cultural pressure before they changed their minds, they were also yielding to cultural pressure after. That means anything they decide is unreliable and politically driven.
Even with pressure, the APA isn't allowed to make decisions like that groundlessly. If campaigning forced them to re-examine the issue, it was a good thing in my opinion.
Ok, so how did they arrive at the opposite conclusion prior to reversing themselves in 1974?
You can't have it both ways as fits your argument. If they were yielding to cultural pressure before they changed their minds, they were also yielding to cultural pressure after. That means anything they decide is unreliable and politically driven.
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.
This is the view of both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association. You're free to take it or leave it.
Your statement about pretending to be attracted to someone they're not, or the emotional argument about not being able to marry someone you love is just not a sound argument. I do not have the same right guaranteed to me. Why should you have a new form of marriage based on that?
Yes you do, by virtue of being heterosexual it is already possible for you to enter into a legal marriage based on love.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
