- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jon Huntsman: Gay marriage is inevitable.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 1:56 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Posted on 9/12/14 at 1:56 pm to Mickey Goldmill
There's no such thing as being gay. Homosexuality is a behavior. The desire to engage in this type of behavior is no different than any other desire, say the desire to play basketball. No different than the desire for heterosexual sex. It's influenced by a myriad of genetic, personality, psychological, physiological, environmental, and cultural factors, like all human behavior. There's no logical sense in separating it as if it's different, boiling it down to some base "some people are born gay." It's just not the case. Gay and straight are a false dichotomy put forward by liberals to explain a much larger and dynamic pattern of behavior, and, to perpetuate a false implication that homosexuality is purely genetic.
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 2:00 pm
3
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:03 pm to genro
quote:
There's no such thing as being gay. Homosexuality is a behavior. The desire to engage in this type of behavior is no different than any other desire, say the desire to play basketball. No different than the desire for heterosexual sex. It's influenced by a myriad of genetic, personality, psychological, physiological, environmental, and cultural factors, like all human behavior. There's no logical sense in separating it as if it's different, boiling it down to some base "some people are born gay." It's just not the case. Gay and straight are a false dichotomy put forward by liberals to explain a much larger and dynamic pattern of behavior, and, to fabricate a false implication that homosexuality is purely genetic.
While environment may play a role in some people, I believe that for the most part, gay people are born with an inherent level of attraction toward the same sex. Far too many gay people say they had attraction toward the same sex from an extremely young age, around puberty when hormones start to kick in.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:06 pm to genro
quote:
There's no such thing as being gay. Homosexuality is a behavior. The desire to engage in this type of behavior is no different than any other desire, say the desire to play basketball. No different than the desire for heterosexual sex. It's influenced by a myriad of genetic, personality, psychological, physiological, environmental, and cultural factors, like all human behavior. There's no logical sense in separating it as if it's different, boiling it down to some base "some people are born gay." It's just not the case. Gay and straight are a false dichotomy put forward by liberals to explain a much larger and dynamic pattern of behavior, and, to perpetuate a false implication that homosexuality is purely genetic.
So why does homosexuality occur across species in the wild?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:14 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
However, conditions that are inherently destructive and/or harm others (psychotic, pedohilia etc.) are not the same as being gay and being attracted toward the same sex.
"inherently destructive" can be in the eye of the beholder - that's what I'm saying. Once we step off the safe, dry ground of traditional one man/one woman marriage - the analysis will be on a case-by-case basis.
quote:
Nobody said you must accept and agree with every single human condition, even those that are harmful.
I think we're in agreement.
quote:
Being gay is as harmful to others as being left-handed is.
I think we're in agreement.
quote:
At the core of a libertarian argument would be to allow both adult incestuous marriage and polygamous marriage. Those consenting adults are not affecting anyone else.
Isn't this the next logical step? I mean what is the counter argument?
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 2:15 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:17 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
How fast do you think polygamy tolerance will be accepted?
I'm just waiting for a brother & sister to come forward and declare they both want to marry their cousin. And honestly, when they do nobody who's in favor of gay marriage will have a leg to stand on if they want to tell them they can't do it.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:20 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Right. Certain people may be born with certain tendencies. For some it may be overwhelming. I'm not saying people shouldn't be gay. I'm not necessarily against gay marriage. A certain genetic predisposition is probably true, but it probably varies in degree and can be influenced, nurtured, neglected, ignored, etc. I'm not talking about a gay person going into self loathing denial. Really talking more about basic personality and the cultural effect. Ultimately, if you start a group and legitimize it, people will join that group. It seems absurd (no straight person would ever have gay sex just to fit in, or be different!), but all groupthink seems that way. Many cultural groups engage in certain behaviors that seem repugnant to outsiders, sex is no exception.
That's my feelings on the matter. They were a subculture that was ostracized. That was wrong. We should tolerate better. Theyre not hurting anyone so we shouldn't begrudge anyone for being gay, the same way we shouldn't begrudge basketball players (another behavior tied into a specific culture). But to grant full legitimacy is overstepping. There's no reason to think homosexuality is good for society, and some troubling reasons to think it's not.
That's my feelings on the matter. They were a subculture that was ostracized. That was wrong. We should tolerate better. Theyre not hurting anyone so we shouldn't begrudge anyone for being gay, the same way we shouldn't begrudge basketball players (another behavior tied into a specific culture). But to grant full legitimacy is overstepping. There's no reason to think homosexuality is good for society, and some troubling reasons to think it's not.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:20 pm to Lsut81
quote:for many different complex reasons. Just like with humans.
So why does homosexuality occur across species in the wild?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:27 pm to genro
quote:
for many different complex reasons. Just like with humans.
But those species don't have a lot of the other influences that you are citing causes someone to be gay.
I think it goes to show that people/animals are born that way. Sure, some things may trigger that to come out, especially in humans where it is looked down on to be gay, but not in the animal community.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:32 pm to genro
quote:
There's no such thing as being gay.
Uuummm.....yes there is.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:36 pm to Lsut81
quote:I guess. Some animals take care of their young, some don't. Some are murderers, pedophiles, cannibals. Some are monogamous lovers, some are brutal rapists.
But those species don't have a lot of the other influences that you are citing causes someone to be gay.
I think it goes to show that people/animals are born that way.
So they are exactly like us in every way. We can come to an agreement that some of those behaviors are bad and should be discouraged among humans, like murder. Some are good and should be encouraged, like monogamy. Now why is homosexuality good?
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 2:37 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:38 pm to Lsut81
quote:
So why does homosexuality occur across species in the wild?
Because some of them haven't heard the "good news".
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:38 pm to genro
quote:
There's no reason to think homosexuality is good for society, and some troubling reasons to think it's not.
Every single good reason that people can come up with for marriage in general can be applied to gay marriage. You don't have to be married to procreate. A large amount of babies are being born outside of marriage every day. So every single positive thing associated with marriage in general is also associated with gay marriage.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:40 pm to genro
quote:
Now why is homosexuality good?
Why does it have to be good to be accepted? Why can't it be neutral? Homosexuality may not serve a purpose to society (procreation), but it doesn't hinder it either. Just because people are gay and married, doesn't mean that straight people are going to suddenly turn gay and quit breeding.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:41 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:I'm not talking about gay marriage.
Every single good reason that people can come up with for marriage in general can be applied to gay marriage. You don't have to be married to procreate. A large amount of babies are being born outside of marriage every day. So every single positive thing associated with marriage in general is also associated with gay marriage.
I'm talking about mainstream acceptance of homosexuality. Our culture should tolerate it, but why should it embrace it? And on the basis of a patently false and retardedly simplistic assertion (some people are born gay).
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:43 pm to Lsut81
quote:This would mean, for example, religious organizations can do and say whatever they want about it, and it can be actively encouraged or discouraged by anyone, openly. That's not what the gay agenda wants.
Why can't it be neutral?
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:44 pm to genro
quote:
Our culture should tolerate it, but why should it embrace it?
Define the difference between tolerating it and embracing it as you see it.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:45 pm to Green Chili Tiger
Previous post
This post was edited on 9/12/14 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:45 pm to genro
quote:
Our culture should tolerate it, but why should it embrace it?
Who said you are embracing it by simply allowing them to get married and have the same rights under the law as a straight couple?
You can disagree all you want, but you shouldn't go out of your way to limit their desire to be equal under the law.
Again, this can be oh so simple.... The government gets out of the marriage business and simply acknowledges "Civil Unions" for tax purposes among other things. Leave it up to the churches in regards to who they want to Marry.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:46 pm to Green Chili Tiger
Jon Hunstman is irrelevant because of things like this. He has no convictions, only political positions.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 2:46 pm to genro
quote:
This would mean, for example, religious organizations can do and say whatever they want about it, and it can be actively encouraged or discouraged by anyone, openly.
That's how it is now.
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News