Thoughts on gay rights?

[pugchief]

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

Then why do they all at some point "come out" and publicly tell the world that they've officially decided to be gay?

Because most of society still considers it some sort of aberration, and therefore it has become part of the process of coming to terms with the fact that they are 'different'.

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

Nature dictates it must be that way because gays can't naturally produce children between them. irrelevant to my question

They could adopt, but they are overwhelmingly more likely to be child molesters. absurd. can you provide a link to data that supports this statement?
Therefore, giving them adopted kids is consigning them to molestation. Is that your opinion, or a conclusion you came to based on the incorrect premise of the previous sentence?

They could create a nuclear family, but it wouldn't be biological true, but so what?
and it wouldn't be healthy. in your opinion

What it really would be is a finger in the eye of the perceived establishment, saying "anything you can do, we can do better!" Even though that is not in fact the case, people with agendas to push are determined to make it appear that way, even though homosexuals don't even really desire monogamy. I'm not sure most heterosexuals desire monogamy; most of that is societal programming. Regardless, how is that relevant?

[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.

[pugchief]

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 'support' it in the sense that I think it's a great thing, I just don't care what two consenting adults do. I may not agree with someone's political views or religious choices, but I support their right to freedom. At least homosexuals don't try to convert you into their fold.

I have several close friends from both high school and college that revealed their homosexuality to me when we were in our 20's. It never occurred to me to think less of them because of it.

[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.

[l82start]

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..)