Thoughts on gay rights?

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

Post Reply
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7619
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by moda0306 » Mon Feb 22, 2016 5:50 pm

Michellebell wrote: Here's an article on promiscuity amongst gay males:

http://www.josephnicolosi.com/an-open-s ... uth-about/

I personally have mixed feelings about homosexuality.  But some people asked for statistics so here are some.
A lot of that research is done some-time ago.  It wouldn't surprise me at all that the average gay person who was open enough to come out in 1968 would be much more likely to have... alternative... views on traditional relationship roles and promiscuity.

I'm not saying there isn't a higher correlation there, however.  I think it's more of a correlation thing, though.

But what does it mean to have "mixed feelings?"  To me, issues like this can MOSTLY get split up into four categories:

1) Personal: I really, really don't like the idea of personally being gay.  Very disgusting to me, in-fact.  Luckily, it's not forced upon me in the least.

2) Social: I am a-ok with being friends, colleagues with them.  The super flamboyant ones are pretty weird and annoying, but isn't the flamboyant extreme of any social group (Bible thumpers, rednecks, gangstas, feminists, anarchists, etc).  On-average I've found them to be great people, but my sample is admittedly extremely limited and biased.

3) Societal/Cultural: I have about as much general fear of them worsening society as I do feminism.  Men are pansies today not because of gayness and feminism, but Xbox, Domino's Pizza, and comforts/stimulation galore at little/no cost/effort. 

4) Political:  I think they should have the same political rights as any of us.  Including marriage.  Including adoption.  However, I don't like the idea of forcing businesses to hire, promote or serve people that they don't want to.

Perhaps there are other categories, but I think this mostly sums it up.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
technovelist
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7163
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by technovelist » Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:49 pm

Michellebell wrote:
technovelist wrote:
IDrinkBloodLOL wrote: Gays shouldn't really have rights because they are not mentally sound.

Regardless of what you personally believe about homosexuality itself being a mental disorder, they all (100%) have secondary mental disorders, which they quite frequently attempt to self medicate with wanton illicit drug use. They all seem to be bipolar, alcoholic and addicted to meth and a few other drugs of choice.

Secondly, their sexuality in itself is more fixated on promiscuity and outright orgies than anything sensible or healthy. They have bloody buttsex with dozens of new men per week. Gay establishments such as gyms and bars often proudly declare that they feature "hookup rooms" for casual sex. Often this casual sex is used to pay for drugs.

Lastly, they are aggressive and proselyte. They actively try to recruit young men into homosexuality, and actively try to molest little boys.

They shouldn't have rights, they're mental cases. They should be institutionalized. Whether or not it's their "fault" is up for debate, but the fact remains that each and every single one unleashes such horror on society with their "lifestyle" that they couldn't possibly do enough good, individually or collectively, to offset it.

An important point to consider: whatever you reward and encourage in society, you get more of. We currently reward and encourage coming home to find that our 11 year old son did not return home from school because a strange man talked him into letting a room full of strange men take turns snorting cocaine out of his butthole.

That we allow and even encourage this "lifestyle" is all the proof I need to know that we live in an insane cartoon world.

inb4 "wow just wow" and "it's (current year)!" etc.
It's not polite to barge into a conversation in a group of which you are a recent member and in effect insult everyone before you as being crazy for not having the same opinion as you do.

That is an indication of "oppositional defiant disorder".
I disagree, Technovelist.  I started this thread asking for people's thoughts, attitudes, and  opinions on this topic.  He was invited to share his opinions, no matter how tolerant vs. intolerant of homosexuality they are.  They are his views, and although he didn't fill it with disclaimers or "IMO's" I think we are all intelligent enough to know that they are his own personal views, whether based on research or observations. 

I expected a range of views here and wanted to get an honest picture of how people feel about it. 

Now if Blood went to a gay pride parade announcing this stuff, that would be a different story,  but I don't think that's the kind of thing he does.
Ok, you're the OP, so you are pretty much entitled to decide whether he's being disruptive on your thread.

But I still think his approach is unnecessarily abrasive. It also isn't going to get him very far in this crowd of independent thinkers, but that's his problem.
Another nod to the most beautiful equation: e + 1 = 0
Fred
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 4:55 pm

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by Fred » Mon Feb 22, 2016 7:05 pm

jafs wrote: When did you choose to be straight, if you believe sexual orientation is a choice?
It's my opinion that the male of the species was not genetically programmed to be monogamous and yet this is a choice that many make for moral reasons.
User avatar
Desert
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3233
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:39 pm

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by Desert » Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:02 pm

dualstow wrote:
Desert wrote: In my previous life as an agnostic, I would argue that "homophobia" seems like a quite natural and logical position to hold, if morality is something that evolved along with humans.  While racism is illogical in a naturalistic worldview, because inbreeding can lead to genetic problems, homophobia should be the default moral position.  So I think that naturalists that worry a lot about homosexual rights are not necessarily thinking consistently.
I'm not sure exactly where you're coming from with this, but it seems like you have breeding and morality mixed up. Yes, racism is illogical. Luckily, in Yellowstone, young daughter wolf may sneak off with someone from another pack that daddy wolf does not approve of, so that trumps daddy wolf's "racist" feelings.

Homophobia is every bit as illogical as racism. If you woke up one day and the entire world were gay, it would be logical to fear that the human race would not reproduce and carry on. But that's got nothing to do with homophobia, or limiting a gay person's rights to marry, enjoy tax benefits, and do all the things straight people do. And, it's got nothing to do with morality. How is that a "default moral position?"
My point was that if one is a naturalist, and that morality simply evolved along with modern humans, it would be quite natural for homosexuality to be found immoral simply on practical grounds.  In other words, homosexuals wouldn't reproduce, thus wouldn't be naturally selected.  Of course I don't personally feel that the source of morality can be explained by naturalistic mechanisms, so I don't personally hold this view.  But it seems quite inconsistent for a committed naturalist to try to make a moral argument in favor of homosexuality. 
Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at something that doesn't really matter. 
- D.L. Moody

Diversification means always having to say you're sorry.
User avatar
BearBones
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 689
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:26 pm

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by BearBones » Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:05 pm

Mountaineer wrote: Seemed appropriate.  ;D

... M

If—
BY RUDYARD KIPLING...
Just read through 4 pages of absolutely nothing that made any difference in my life (except wanting to get more involved in med school selection committees  :-\). Until I came to this. Wow! knocked my socks off. Thanks for sharing.
User avatar
Desert
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3233
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:39 pm

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by Desert » Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:09 pm

BearBones wrote:
Desert wrote: In my previous life as an agnostic, I would argue that "homophobia" seems like a quite natural and logical position to hold, if morality is something that evolved along with humans.  While racism is illogical in a naturalistic worldview, because inbreeding can lead to genetic problems, homophobia should be the default moral position.  So I think that naturalists that worry a lot about homosexual rights are not necessarily thinking consistently.
Really?

So what happens when the mallard ducks male pairs I see all over the place "mate?" Are they shunned by other birds? Have trouble finding food and shelter? Hmm. What happens to dogs that hump on stuffed animals or their owners legs? Bad dog!!! And, heaven forbid, I hope you all don't judge me for this, but I used a vibrator on my girlfriend the other day. Just for pleasure! :P  So embarrassing to admit. No offspring intended, forgive me God!

Homosexual (and other morally objectionable) behavior happens all of the time in the animal world, my friend. Even in the Catholic church.
To just follow up on one of your examples: if the mallard drake pairs never mated with females, then according to naturalistic evolutionary theory, they would not reproduce and whatever genetic trait contributed to them wanting to hang out with other drakes could not be naturally selected and hence would tend to die out.  If morality is derived by evolutionary mechanisms, then one would expect traits that don't lead to reproduction to be viewed as immoral. 

For what it's worth, I have no moral difficulties with your vibrator.  I would recommend you keep it away from your perverted dog, however. 
Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at something that doesn't really matter. 
- D.L. Moody

Diversification means always having to say you're sorry.
User avatar
BearBones
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 689
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:26 pm

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by BearBones » Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:16 pm

Michellebell wrote: I disagree, Technovelist.  I started this thread asking for people's thoughts, attitudes, and  opinions on this topic...
Curious. Did you or anyone really learn anything from this dialog? I don't mean that to sound obnoxious. Just really curious is anyone fundamentally changes their options based on such discussions?

Yeah it was a bit surprising to me how tolerant the group is on this subject. Even those with strong religious beliefs. And surprising that the most extreme opinion was from a medical student (that I pray does NOT go into anesthesia). But nothing fundamentally shifted.
User avatar
BearBones
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 689
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:26 pm

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by BearBones » Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:27 pm

Desert wrote: To just follow up on one of your examples: if the mallard drake pairs never mated with females, then according to naturalistic evolutionary theory, they would not reproduce and whatever genetic trait contributed to them wanting to hang out with other drakes could not be naturally selected and hence would tend to die out.  If morality is derived by evolutionary mechanisms, then one would expect traits that don't lead to reproduction to be viewed as immoral. 

For what it's worth, I have no moral difficulties with your vibrator.  I would recommend you keep it away from your perverted dog, however.
;D

Who said morality is derived by evolutionary mechanisms? And when/if it does, is this a perfect enough derivation to be fully trusted? Everything that is not of evolutionary benefit is immoral? And, conversely, all that furthers the propagation of one's genome, moral?
User avatar
Desert
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3233
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 2:39 pm

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by Desert » Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:41 pm

BearBones wrote: Who said morality is derived by evolutionary mechanisms? And when/if it does, is this a perfect enough derivation to be fully trusted? Everything that is not of evolutionary benefit is immoral? And, conversely, all that furthers the propagation of one's genome, moral?
Well, I've managed to put myself in the position of arguing a point I don't agree with, but I'm doing so for a reason.  As a Christian, I think morality is prescribed.  But before becoming a Christian, I of course thought a lot about morality, its origins, and frankly its usefulness.  To be a true naturalist, as many on this forum are, one has to view morality as something that has simply evolved or occurred.  There is no external source of morality, it is simply something that humans have somehow invented.  Perhaps the invention wasn't strictly evolutionary in its source, but still we must think about it as being accidental, since our very existence is accidental. 

Dawkins summed it up perfectly in this famous quote that I've probably overused on this forum:
The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.
That is honesty; that is consistent thinking.  Most can't live that way.  Even Dawkins can't live that way, and frequently finds himself on a sort of moral high-horse that to me appears very awkward.  But the quote still stands as a great example of purely, consistent naturalistic thinking about life and morality. 
Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at something that doesn't really matter. 
- D.L. Moody

Diversification means always having to say you're sorry.
User avatar
jafs
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2015 10:23 am

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by jafs » Tue Feb 23, 2016 7:35 am

Fred wrote:
jafs wrote: When did you choose to be straight, if you believe sexual orientation is a choice?
It's my opinion that the male of the species was not genetically programmed to be monogamous and yet this is a choice that many make for moral reasons.
That may be true, but doesn't answer my question.

Did you choose your sexual orientation?

And, there's obviously a huge difference between being able to have sex and get married, and not being able to do those things.
User avatar
jafs
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2015 10:23 am

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by jafs » Tue Feb 23, 2016 7:37 am

Desert wrote:
dualstow wrote:
Desert wrote: In my previous life as an agnostic, I would argue that "homophobia" seems like a quite natural and logical position to hold, if morality is something that evolved along with humans.  While racism is illogical in a naturalistic worldview, because inbreeding can lead to genetic problems, homophobia should be the default moral position.  So I think that naturalists that worry a lot about homosexual rights are not necessarily thinking consistently.
I'm not sure exactly where you're coming from with this, but it seems like you have breeding and morality mixed up. Yes, racism is illogical. Luckily, in Yellowstone, young daughter wolf may sneak off with someone from another pack that daddy wolf does not approve of, so that trumps daddy wolf's "racist" feelings.

Homophobia is every bit as illogical as racism. If you woke up one day and the entire world were gay, it would be logical to fear that the human race would not reproduce and carry on. But that's got nothing to do with homophobia, or limiting a gay person's rights to marry, enjoy tax benefits, and do all the things straight people do. And, it's got nothing to do with morality. How is that a "default moral position?"
My point was that if one is a naturalist, and that morality simply evolved along with modern humans, it would be quite natural for homosexuality to be found immoral simply on practical grounds.  In other words, homosexuals wouldn't reproduce, thus wouldn't be naturally selected.  Of course I don't personally feel that the source of morality can be explained by naturalistic mechanisms, so I don't personally hold this view.  But it seems quite inconsistent for a committed naturalist to try to make a moral argument in favor of homosexuality.
It would be problematic if every human being were gay or lesbian, for sure.  But it's not at all problematic for a small percentage to be that way, from a naturalistic viewpoint.  Especially now, when we're overpopulating the planet.
Michellebell
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:27 pm

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by Michellebell » Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:09 am

Okay let me explain my mixed feelings a little more . 

I do want to hear your opinions, however brash or accepting they are, because I have not yet formed my own opinions.  I don't care how convincing you all are really.  I just want to know what the attitudes are, partially because I want to know how people I care about will be viewed by others if they choose a gay lifestyle.  I am trying to make sense of my own thoughts by talking to what I perceive as a group of pretty intelligent people who are interested in the world around them.

I personally have an aversion to homosexuality.  I guess that qualifies me as homophobic.  And yet I have a sister whom I love who is choosing a gay lifestyle.  We are as a culture moving toward celebrating homosexuality.  It's all over our media and seen as almost an elite club to me.  I don't believe homosexuals should have equal rights to adoption as much as committed married heterosexual couples.  Intolerant?  Yes, and maybe I'm wrong.  But as of right now that is my opinion.

Here's an article that goes over survey results of children raised by homosexuals:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/06/5640/

In terms of adoption, I have met several couples who have adopted, and in more cases than not, those children have many issues.  Many of their biological parents were unstable or on drugs.  The parents are very admirable in their calling to raise and love these children.  However I think these children will be best off if placed in the most stable environment possible . 

Homosexual relationships IMO are not as stable.  They do not last as long, many male relationships are open relationships, many lesbian relationships are full of drama.  My mom is an ObGyn and she said that the lesbian couples she sees are just over the top with drama.  I also knew a girl who told me that although she's bisexual and slightly more attracted to women than men, she refuses to date women anymore because she can't handle the drama.  Her relationships are much better with men.

Now you might say, who cares?  Well maybe it's just a curiosity thing for me.  I wonder if my sister will be happy as a lesbian.  She claims she's bisexual but hasn't tried dating any men.  Why would she when lesbianism is so "cool" these days?  But her first girlfriend had a lot of issues and tried to commit suicide several times.  Her next girlfriend struggled with gender identity and has been going back and forth between identifying as a female vs a male. 

I know another woman who married a woman and then left her because the relationship was so unstable.  She identified herself as a lesbian and became friends almost exclusively with lesbians.  When she started dating men again (she's married now), her friends were really angry at her and her boss even sexually harassed her.

You might say these are isolated cases, but I think they're still worth thinking about.  My sister may not know if she might actually like being in a relationship with a man.  I don't think she'd be able to attract a man honestly.  She is beautiful, tall and thin, blond...a classic beauty like Grace Kelly, but she looks like a lesbian (short hair, dresses like a boy, gets mistaken for a boy sometimes, etc.).  Shes also genius-level smart.

I can tell my dad is having a hard time accepting this but he loves her and doesn't want to alienate her.  I really avoid talking about it with her.  My father told me once he would be very upset if I became a lesbian, not because he would take offense, but because my life would be so much harder if I chose that route.

As far as the statistics on homosexual males, yes those stats are very old...  But I read somewhere that even after all the HIV awareness, they have remained a much more promiscuous group. 
Last edited by Michellebell on Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply