Thoughts on gay rights?

[dualstow]

Wow, three pages in, and still no attempt to articulate what specific "rights" homosexuals do not enjoy.

Up until recently, many lacked the right to marry, which was recently discovered by the supreme court.
~

Some of this may run into debate, like the cake maker's right to refuse service or the specific rules of organizations and clubs, but I believe they could not openly join the US military before (Don't Ask, Don't Tell). My dad knew a guy who was court-martialed when found out. There's the boys scouts, being a Catholic priest...

A lot of these are very recent.

[Pointedstick]

There's a right to be a Catholic priest or join the boy scouts?

I get that we have the civil rights act and it makes discrimination in hiring and purveying services illegal, but let's step back for a moment. If a girl wanted to join the boy scouts, what would happen? No go. The boy scouts is only for boys. She has to join the girl scouts. And the girl scouts is only for girls. No boys allowed. Isn't that discrimination on the basis of gender? Isn't that technically illegal under the civil rights act? Another example: a female friend of mine runs a photography business that she calls an "empowerment studio for women." She takes cute or sexy pictures of women, and only women. She doesn't shoot men. Again, isn't that discrimination on the basis of gender?

But these are all examples of discrimination that we're okay with. So maybe discrimination isn't the worst thing in the entire universe and you're a hateful evil bigot for suggesting it. Maybe it's okay if the Catholic church is allowed to say "No thanks" to the possibility of ordaining gays. Similarly, a gay bar should have the right to say, "No thanks" to straight people who want to enter.

[Fred]

I think it is biological, but if homosexuality exists in nature all the time, why do you think the trait hasn't the trait died out?

I was just reading an article about this....

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... onism.html

The bottom line according to the theory is that the gene is both helpful and harmful. It's helpful in females because it seems to make them more reproductive, harmful in males for obvious reasons (biologically speaking).

[Xan]

Up until recently, many lacked the right to marry, which was recently discovered by the supreme court.

They had the same right to marry as everyone else.

[Libertarian666]

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".

[Xan]

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".

That criticism might apply to some of IDrinkBlood's posts, but I'm not sure it really does to this one.  Did he call anyone here crazy?

[Pointedstick]

Speaking of getting more of what you reward, if you don't want to reward iDBLOL's obnoxious post and encourage more like it, don't reply to it. There are ways to express opposition to the social acceptance of homosexuality without being an asshole. Besides, he's just going to delete it in a few days anyway.

[moda0306]

Blood,

You seem to be resting your opinions on certain facts that it would be helpful for us to see some sort of statistical source on.  It's ok to make brash statements here, IMO.  No reason not to call out the Emperor for having no clothes.  But it's all the more reason to accompany your more difficult-to-digest statements about reality with sources, if you don't mind.  If you're going on "gut-feel" rather than actual objective/statistical analysis, IMO that's ok too, but better to point that out for us so we know where you're getting some of this.

Also, if you don't have direct statistical sources, but follow someone on these topics that DOES list sources in their work, that would be helpful too.

Nobody's demanding perfect politeness, objectiveness, or abundant sources on all topics, but generally we all tend to like to know where someone is coming from when the list out the premises upon which they are basing their opinions.

Thanks...

[moda0306]

Blood,

If you're going to make statements about reality, or what you believe reality to be, that are based not on a rigorous statistical process or objective analytical source, but rather your own subjective experiences, especially if you are deriving such stark conclusions (that ALL people of a certain persuasion are a certain way), then the way you state your points would probably be better stated in a way that makes it clear that these are your opinions and extrapolations based on personal experience, and not some objective reality, as one might assume when you state something as a fact of reality rather than just an extrapolation you've made as part of some sort of personal analytical construct.

This doesn't mean you are wrong.  It just means you're more humbly and clearly laying your cards on the table.  We all appreciate snarkitude from time-to-time, but one thing we SEEM to have tired of is poorly-laid-out premises about the nature of reality.

You should have been here for the Proving Morality threat!

[dualstow]

There's a right to be a Catholic priest or join the boy scouts?

I get that we have the civil rights act and it makes discrimination in hiring and purveying services illegal, but let's step back for a moment.

Let's step back to where I carefully prefaced my statement with

Some of this may run into debate, like the cake maker's right to refuse service or the specific rules of organizations and clubs

.

But yes, I believe that there was a gay ban in the scouts on either the troop leaders or the scouts themselves or both, and that it has been lifted. So, the right has been given.

If you're really asking, "Should there be a right?"  that's why my preface has the word debate in it.

[moda0306]

When did you first decide you supported homosexuality, and for what reason?

When do you first remember feeling that it is wrong to oppose homosexuality?

Do you remember?

I don't really know what it means to "support" homosexuality. I don't insult gays. I don't think being gay should be illegal. I think marriage (from the state's standpoint) is merely a contract and doesn't have to reflect some sort of social preferences other than smooth health/economic affairs as a household unit. I am not gay myself. I have some gay friends. They are good folks, but it's a limited sample size to be sure. I would be absolutely shocked and appalled if they had anything but disgust for someone who would rape an 11 year old boy the way you mentioned.

Similarly, I don't know what it means to "oppose" homosexuality. Make it illegal?  Put them in jail for being that way or acting on it?  Disallowing gay marriage contracts?  Simply feeling like it's gross or unnatural? Those are very different things. I think deciding "rightness" or "wrongness" of something is a bit hasty until we determine the nature of reality or some range of likely possibilities. If we are grossly wrong on the nature of reality, chances are, IMO, our assessment of the nature of how things OUGHT to be will be way off (or simply very inconsistent or arbitrary).

I have slowly formed my opinion on human sexuality over time, but once again, it's built on certain premises and principals that are far more important to establish than this one micro-topic.

[moda0306]

Why should I outsource my thought process and analytical abilities to someone else?

Why should I accept the premise that strangers are more capable of verifying reality than I am?

What you are asking of me is to not think, so please convince me.

Maybe we should take that to a separate thread.

Don't outsource your thought process. Simply state it for us. When you state something as a fact, most people assume you either have a relatively objective source for that fact, or you're stating it as one subjective observation you have and extrapolating it as a fact of reality. It helps us to know which. There's nothing wrong with having analysis from others act as an influence of your own. And there's definitely nothing wrong with getting objective statistical data so we aren't operating on such small, biased sample sizes.

If your goal is to persuade people and/or have a meaningful conversation about these topics, pointing out how you're coming to establish these premises about reality is really helpful. If you have a different goal here, then it might be best to point that out as well.

[jafs]

Up until recently, many lacked the right to marry, which was recently discovered by the supreme court.

They had the same right to marry as everyone else.

Actually, they didn't.

Straight people had the right to marry somebody they love of their own choosing, while gay people didn't have that right.

The issue with inter-racial marriage was the same until Loving vs. Virginia.

[jafs]

Personal experiences and small sample sizes aren't great foundations for broad sweeping generalizations.

[jafs]

If the sample sizes are small, then the "insight" is of small scope and depth.

[jafs]

From your posts, I don't find you to have "superior insight".

But, it's also as I said, small sample sizes and personal experiences aren't a good foundation for broad generalizations.

That's why we have things like data collection/analysis/experimentation in the various sciences, if we want to come to broader conclusions that are supported by broader realities.

For what it's worth, I grew up around a lot of gay/lesbian folks, and have some in my extended family, and I have found them to be no better or worse than straight folks in a wide variety of ways.  That's my personal experience.

[moda0306]

If your goal is to persuade people and/or have a meaningful conversation about these topics, pointing out how you're coming to establish these premises about reality is really helpful.

What about your observations of politics, media and the internet has led you to draw this conclusion?

Because it allows for the quick establishment of a logical trail. If somebody claims a certain statement as a fact with no backup for how they determined that to be true, it leaves the other person in the debate having to overtly question it. No biggie, but it slows things down to a crawl.

For instance, I'm still wondering how you came to the conclusion that a high percentage of gays believe that child molestation isn't immoral. How did you come to the conclusion that "we encourage" coming home to find out our child has been raped?

These aren't statements of opinion. They're statements of fact. But they don't appear to be true, to me. It's abundantly useful if you were to help us understand how you came to unintuitive or uncommonly-held conclusions.

A quick question.... Do you know how to construct an argument?  Like "deductive reasoning" and "inductive reasoning?"  As in "premise, premise, conclusion?"

I've found these to be the most effective ways of building one's arguments, communicating them to others, and efficiently zeroing in on points of disagreement.

[Mountaineer]

Good gracious God,

Please return us to the Morality thread. 

Where is kshartle when you need him?

... M

[moda0306]

If the sample sizes are small, then the "insight" is of small scope and depth.

Someone with natural gymnastic talent does not need 10,000 backflips to figure out how a backflip works. In that scope, they have superior analytic ability.

If analytical ability cannot vary between individuals then libertarianism has no point as nobody has any talent to reward with currency or punish with poverty. If analytic ability cannot vary it also means that every guru on every subject is a charlatan, because all that counts is quantity of exposure. Harry Browne himself was therefore unexceptional because many fund managers and gurus handle equal sums of money for an equal time - his "sample size" was no better!

It means Mike Tyson is an inferior boxer to some mediocre nobody at a boxing club who loses as often as he wins but has more fights under his belt and thus a larger "sample size" of the subject matter.

I'm going to assume that you don't actually deny the possibility of superior insight, but rather you assume I do not have it.

I would have to assume, in the absence of some more evidence, that you do lack the insight to judge what seem to be monolithic mental health problems and motivations of an entire group of people. Perhaps you'd help us understand what makes your insight so uniquely accurate that it doesn't even require third party statistical support.

Keep in mind we aren't just talking about some unique personal talent, but the ability to establish a unique, monolithic mentality held by an entire group simply by personal interactions and no broader statistical data. I don't know if I've known of anyone that can do that successfully and consistently.

[stuper1]

I believe that a lot of homosexuals are born that way

They are ALL born that way. The notion that it is somehow a choice is a myth perpetuated by the church.

  i am not sure that is true..... it is a premise taken on to strengthen the case for rights, but biology being what it is, i suspect the reality is that some are nature (born that way prenatal hormonal/genetic influences on brain wiring) and some are nurture (life experiences influences on brain wiring through imprinting etc..)

I came across a fascinating article recently indicating that homosexuality in men may often be due to the influence of a particular microorganism on brain wiring during the first few years after birth.  This was from what appeared to be a very unbiased source.  Not settled science yet, though.  Can't remember where I saw this.

i agree, its not settled science.. there is a lot about how the mind, brain, hormones, genes, miro-biome work that is far from understood, but given that so much of our sexual preference and impulses come from experience (nobody pops out of the womb with a foot fetish or any other specific set of attractions ) it would seem to be a pretty big presumption that orientation is always set ahead of time...

[Mountaineer]

Seemed appropriate. 

... M

If—
BY RUDYARD KIPLING

If you can keep your head when all about you 
    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you, 
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
    But make allowance for their doubting too; 
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
    Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
    And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master; 
    If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim; 
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
    And treat those two impostors just the same; 
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
    Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
    And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
    And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
    And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
    To serve your turn long after they are gone, 
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
    Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, 
    Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
    If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
    With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run, 
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it, 
    And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

(today's version would say "you'll be a LGBTQXRXFFTYIEMMXXX my ?!" )

Source: A Choice of Kipling's Verse (1943)

[Michellebell]

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, Libertarian666.  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. 

[Michellebell]

I believe that a lot of homosexuals are born that way

They are ALL born that way. The notion that it is somehow a choice is a myth perpetuated by the church.

I can't make up my mind over the issue of gay people raising children.  I think that the nuclear family is the very best for children. 

Why can't two parents of the same sex create a nuclear family? Who says it has to be one parent of each gender?

No, some homosexuals choose that for themselves.  Here's an article written by a lesbian about why she chose lesbianism, along with many others commenting about how correct she was:
http://carolyngage.weebly.com/blog/just ... at-way-not

As far as nuclear families, I believe children are best off with their biological mother and father.  They benefit from a male and female role model, and biological parents identify with their children better because of similar genetics.

[jafs]

When did you choose to be straight, if you believe sexual orientation is a choice?

i didn't say it was a choice,.... i said it was a mix of nature and nurture, biology allows for both pre and post natal influences on the final makeup of a persons orientation and attractions, there is little or no choice involved until someone is an adult, and even/by then things are pretty hard wired and require a strong will to alter or deny them..

but just because it the influences aren't likely a choice doesn't mean you are "born that way", it is just as likely that someone is gay due to the confluence of hormonal, psychological, environmental influences as a child as they are due to genetic hormonal influences in the womb..

[Xan]

http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/08/how ... ientation/

A small excerpt:

Our emotional responses to our president are caused by our prior judgments, our prior evaluation of whether our president is good for us and the things we value dearly, or bad for us and the things we value dearly. Sometime in our past, we made evaluations not only of the president, but also of what things in the world are fundamentally important to us. All of these prior evaluations are choices.
The Tricky Relationship Between Emotions and Choice

On the recent anniversary of D-Day, I attended a reception for U.S. veterans of World War II and the Korean War. When we sang “God Bless America,” many of the Veterans and guests were moved to tears. Did we choose to weep at that moment? Of course not. But sometime in our past, we made judgments about our country and about the men and women who fight for it, and about the importance of those things to us. Those past judgments are the cause of our present tears when we honor our military heroes.