Sexuality and Choice...

[madhatter85]

I never knew that optical illusions were linked with sexual orientation.

The things you learn on RF...

if you watched the video you would see how the same applies to all senses. The argument was made that homosexuality is a byproduct of the environment. Which, due to knowing that we are not defined by the information we get from our senses, rather it is what we do with it that defines who we are, we know this argument to be false

 

[Autodidact]

if you watched the video you would see how the same applies to all senses. The argument was made that homosexuality is a byproduct of the environment. which due to knowing that we are not defined by the information we get from our senses but rather it is what we do with it that defines who we are.

And if that makes sense to you, your name might be madhatter.

 

[madhatter85]

No its not. Its a civil right. People just refuse to change the way they think. Because things have been socially acceptable for so long it does not mean there are prerequisites based on a socially established trend. People need to realise that they can and should change their idiotic ways which are based on outdated and useless traditions.

It is not an inherent "right." If the benefits of a certain "right" (as you claim) do not apply to people outside of a certain status (marriage) then it is NOT a right, It is a privilege of that status.
also by your argument, you believe than a husband and wife with children are useless. I would have to say you seriously don't know what you are talking about.

Genetics will tell us that homosexuality is a biological thing and yet we do nothing to allow them to live as equals. Unless they betray themselves and pretend to be straight. Its pathetic as is the current system where the stupid, arrogant and pathetic are allowed to vote on the rights of a minority who are genetically equal, just different.

You claim the current laws are unfair, However they are not, the protect the rights of all individuals regardless of who they are. You misunderstand what are inherent rights and what are privileges.

Yeh and we're reproducing faster than we're dying, our populations are exploding and children are dying because they cannot access food. Social tradition is nothing but people who are too stuck up to change their ways even in the face of a crisis. Gluttony is a sin but it seems its the Christian nations who indulge while the rest suffer.

you are ignorant of the facts.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html the bottom ~100 countries out of ~200 have fertility rates of less than 2 per woman. The United States is currently 2.05.
Excerpt - Global fertility rates are in general decline and this trend is most pronounced in industrialized countries, especially Western Europe, where populations are projected to decline dramatically over the next 50 years.

I could argue till i'm blue in the face about sustainability but no one here who needs to be educated about it will understand the problems we face. Sure, you know a researcher, but my entire degree had to be changed 3 years ago to make sure people in my position were aware of the stuff we're getting ourselves into.

Then i suggest you do real research and look at the facts before making ignorant statements as to the myth of overpopulation.

 

[Autodidact]

It is not an inherent "right."

No one said it was inherent, whatever that means. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to marriage is a fundamental right.

If the benefits of a certain "right" (as you claim) do not apply to people outside of a certain status (marriage) then it is NOT a right, It is a privilege of that status.

This doesn't even make sense. I'm not even sure what you were trying to say here. If only non-felons over 21 have the right to vote, then voting is not a right?

also by your argument, you believe than a husband and wife with children are useless. I would have to say you seriously don't know what you are talking about.

I would have to say you seriously have a reading comprehension problem.

You claim the current laws are unfair, However they are not, the protect the rights of all individuals regardless of who they are. You misunderstand what are inherent rights and what are privileges.

I'm sure you understand their relationship much better than the Supreme Court. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....Loving v. Virginia the decision to marry is a fundamental right under Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374 (1978), and Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967), Turner v. Safley.

 

[darkendless]

It is not an inherent "right." If the benefits of a certain "right" (as you claim) do not apply to people outside of a certain status (marriage) then it is NOT a right, It is a privilege of that status.
also by your argument, you believe than a husband and wife with children are useless. I would have to say you seriously don't know what you are talking about.

Replace useless with [no more important/special than anything else].

What are these rights based on though, religious foundations. As a non-American, the way you people talk about rights and benefits is somewhat confusing and redundant to me.

I would have to say you are stuck in the mindset that the family status you have is the only possibility and that all else is hollow. It appears that you simply cannot see that there are very possible and real alternatives to the husband and his wife scenario.

Just accept people for who they are and the privelledges they deserve for equally contributing to society so everyone will be happy. I'd be surpised if you even noticed a difference other than people slandering the hell out of the silly religions trying to block these privelidges.

You claim the current laws are unfair, However they are not, the protect the rights of all individuals regardless of who they are. You misunderstand what are inherent rights and what are privileges.

They treat homosexuals who wish to elevate their love to the same level as heterosexuals like second class citizens. In my country homosexual couples miss out on government family grants because they cannot technically be married. Gota love those pathetic family first christians in this country.

you are ignorant of the facts.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html the bottom ~100 countries out of ~200 have fertility rates of less than 2 per woman. The United States is currently 2.05.
Excerpt - Global fertility rates are in general decline and this trend is most pronounced in industrialized countries, especially Western Europe, where populations are projected to decline dramatically over the next 50 years.

Then i suggest you do real research and look at the facts before making ignorant statements as to the myth of overpopulation.

I suggest you stop being so one dimensional, its painfully annoying to see you embarrass yourself.

Look at the demographics between urban and rural populations. Think about percentages of people within major cities and those in rural areas who are required to supply these mega-cities such as
- London
- New York
- Dehli
- Mumbai
- Shanghai

Lets look at shanghai demographically. of its demographic area, 92.45% of people live in Urban areas. Urban areas mean that generally, the area is a user of produce such as food, energy and resources rather than a provider (rural areas). Now, logically, how is 7.55% of the population meant to supply (sustainably) the other 90% of the population without doing on of the following
- poor crop rotation causing salanisation
- food shortages due to decline in carrying capacity
- logistics - how do the resources get from rural communities to the urban areas

Think about it. The resources being consumed in transporting ciritical supplies from these areas to the cities are not infinite.

From Boserup:

A more sophisticated adaptation approach was put forward by Ester Boserup in her classic book The Conditions of Agricultural Growth. Boserup suggested that population growth was the principal force driving societies to find new agricultural technologies (Boserup, The Conditions of Agricultural Growth, Allen and Unwin, 1965, expanded and updated in Population and Technology, Blackwell, 1980.). Unlike Julian Simon, Boserup did not claim that the process ran smoothly. She acknowledged that population pressure could cause serious resource shortages and environmental problems, and it was these problems that drove people to find solutions. Nor did she claim that things were always better after the adaptation. They could often be worse. For example, when hunter-gatherers with growing populations depleted the stocks of game and wild foods across the Near East, they were forced to introduce agriculture. But agriculture brought much longer hours of work and a less rich diet than hunter-gatherers enjoyed. Further population growth among shifting slash-and-burn farmers led to shorter fallow periods, falling yields and soil erosion. Plowing and fertilizers were introduced to deal with these problems - but once again involved longer hours of work and degradation of soil resources(Boserup, The Conditions of Agricultural Growth, Allen and Unwin, 1965, expanded and updated in Population and Technology, Blackwell, 1980.).

Now we come to the carrying capacity of the world. Countries like China and India, being 2/5th of the worlds population, dictate more critically the supply and demand of the entire world. A decline in production in China would be felt all over the world. Given that China's output is set to decline by 37%, we could be in a little bit of trouble.

Overpopulated urban areas and overgluttonous westerners like in the USA and Aussie will bring us down.

Now stop being silly, its painful. Overpopulation is not as one dimensional as you think it is.

 

[TheKnight]

I think you commit a grave mistake here.
If your religion tells you something about sexual preferences of humans and if that something is true then it should reflect itself in the scientific knowledge unless you think that God was not capable of creation that is empirically verifiable and relies on totally blind belief in some scripture that more than enough people doubt on not naturally unreasonable grounds.

In other words. Religious values do not count for someone like me as long as these religious values and teachings are not reflected in "neutral" observable nature.

But we have a far greater problem.

You say that science especially psychology might have a cure or find one. When you say that you should keep in mind that exactly those two declare homosexual preferences as perfectly normal. They are neither a desease nor an errorneous mental state nor a choice. If you include other fields of science (like biology with its information about other "nonconcious" species and their behaviour, then it should make you halt for a second and ponder the question if (at least) your understanding of the specific topic in your religion corresponds to reality as we can see it by non-subjective means.

As i said before I DO agree with you that IF someone WANTS to change his preference then he should be allowed to do so or to try to do so.
I do not agree that any religious organization, especially those that actively follow a dogma that some sexual preferences per default have to be a choice or wrong has any right to claim having an objective therapy, especially not if that was not verified by neutral organizations.

I guess?

I would disagree. I think he can actively supress them but in most cases not without consequences.
You might ask yourself the following question: "Am I able to love and feel sexual desire for men?"
What is the answer you honestly would give yourself. In my case for example i must clearly say "no, i am not able to do so".

I once asked myself if I could ever see myself as a non-Christian. The answer was an emphatic no. And yet here I sit as a non-Christian. I was told myself that I could not like tomatoes. In fact, I would get sick after eating tomatoes. And yet here I sit being able to eat tomatoes.

So I could sit here and ask myself "could I ever feel attraction to men?" and I could tell myself that I couldn't. But that's not to say that someday that would change.

 

[madhatter85]

Replace useless with [no more important/special than anything else].

How is it not more important than anything else? The continuation of the species is what we are designed to do at a fundamental level. any inhibition of that fundamental human trait is either:
A) Flawed or defective, or
B) Silly and ungrateful choices.

What are these rights based on though, religious foundations. As a non-American, the way you people talk about rights and benefits is somewhat confusing and redundant to me.

Are you conceding this country was founded on religious morals and freedoms? If so, Why would you even try to deliberately mis-interpret the constitution of the United States or try to change it's foundation? Is it because you find religion to be obsolete? IF so, that is for another debate.

I would have to say you are stuck in the mindset that the family status you have is the only possibility and that all else is hollow. It appears that you simply cannot see that there are very possible and real alternatives to the husband and his wife scenario.

There are none that are efficient enough to promote cultural sustainability except the traditional family.

Just accept people for who they are and the privelledges they deserve for equally contributing to society so everyone will be happy. I'd be surpised if you even noticed a difference other than people slandering the hell out of the silly religions trying to block these privelidges.

But they don't equally contribute to society. Without extra resources (because of their chosen behavior) they cannot contribute in the way that normal heterosexual couple can.

They treat homosexuals who wish to elevate their love to the same level as heterosexuals like second class citizens. In my country homosexual couples miss out on government family grants because they cannot technically be married. Gota love those pathetic family first christians in this country.

I am not telling them who they can or cannot love. I am merely stating, as i have always stated. that It is ridiculous to put in place provisions and special privileges based on behavioral attributes that are contrary to the reason married couples have special benefits.

I suggest you stop being so one dimensional, its painfully annoying to see you embarrass yourself.

Now stop being silly, its painful. Overpopulation is not as one dimensional as you think it is.

no sir, your argument was one dimensional. I provided an appropriate response. I already know that there are a lot of factors in how many resources it takes for a single human being to survive. However, families that live together have a much more efficient ratio of resources to living. People today are less likely to continue to live with parents until starting a family of their own because Americans (especially) have a sense of entitlement to space. we have caused ourselves to be inefficient at living in the world because we have moved so far away from the traditional family model since becoming an industrial society.

 

[darkendless]

How is it not more important than anything else? The continuation of the species is what we are designed to do at a fundamental level. any inhibition of that fundamental human trait is either:
A) Flawed or defective, or
B) Silly and ungrateful choices.

Yeh well we've seen what happens when we do that, our population expoles and our ecological footprint stamps down harder.

Are you conceding this country was founded on religious morals and freedoms? If so, Why would you even try to deliberately mis-interpret the constitution of the United States or try to change it's foundation? Is it because you find religion to be obsolete? IF so, that is for another debate.

Yes i do, man made religion anyway. However, America is a lost cause.

There are none that are efficient enough to promote cultural sustainability except the traditional family.

But they don't equally contribute to society. Without extra resources (because of their chosen behavior) they cannot contribute in the way that normal heterosexual couple can.

Neither do infertile parents then. Sorry to refer to this arguement but its the same situation if you base it on the contribution of children. Then again, homosexuals can and do have children.

I am not telling them who they can or cannot love. I am merely stating, as i have always stated. that It is ridiculous to put in place provisions and special privileges based on behavioral attributes that are contrary to the reason married couples have special benefits.

I don't understand how the right to marry a member of the opposite sex is a special provision. England did it and nothing bad has happened there. Religion and ignorance is all thats preventing Australia following suit. America, well, it will never happen given recent events on the subject.

no sir, your argument was one dimensional. I provided an appropriate response. I already know that there are a lot of factors in how many resources it takes for a single human being to survive. However, families that live together have a much more efficient ratio of resources to living. People today are less likely to continue to live with parents until starting a family of their own because Americans (especially) have a sense of entitlement to space. we have caused ourselves to be inefficient at living in the world because we have moved so far away from the traditional family model since becoming an industrial society.

One dimensional? Probably but i'd rather not smash you with everything i've got all at once, there is too many layers to this arguement.

I agree with the rest of it though.

 

[Kerr]

How is it not more important than anything else? The continuation of the species is what we are designed to do at a fundamental level. any inhibition of that fundamental human trait is either:
A) Flawed or defective, or
B) Silly and ungrateful choices.

Any understanding placing humans in static family structures do not understand what it truly means to be human.

 

[Kerr]

But they don't equally contribute to society. Without extra resources (because of their chosen behavior) they cannot contribute in the way that normal heterosexual couple can.

They contribute just as much, to state otherwise is just a sign of true ignorance. And you still have not explained why it even matters if it is normal or not.

 

[blackout]

But they don't equally contribute to society. Without extra resources (because of their chosen behavior) they cannot contribute in the way that normal heterosexual couple can.

What is it exactly (specifically) that homosexual couple's don't equally contribute to society?

 

[Kerr]

The problem with the traditional family is that it assumes a father-mother-child model that is very static. Truth is that in families where there are two parents of the same sex the children do not suffer because of their different family. And no, I do not count being bullied as suffering because of the family, I count bullying as suffering from peoples ignorance, intolerance and homophobia, something that has to be dealt with, just as racism is being dealt with. As far as I am concerned it is just two aspects of the same issue.

And if you are scared of that people do not have enough kids, homosexuality and changing family values to include less ordinary family structures is not a threat.

 

[Kerr]

What is it exactly that homosexual couple's don't equally contribute to society?

They don´t have as many children (in the opinion of those that think that) ?

 

[blackout]

They don´t have as many children (in the opinion of those that think that) ?

And how many children are there already out there in need of loving homes?


As well, popping out children beyond your economic and personal means to parent and provide, is not a good idea for ANYONE.

There's nothing so outstanding or exceptional about "making" a baby.
It is the years of nurturing, happiness, and provision that is the important thing.

 

[Kerr]

And how many children are there already out there in need of loving homes?


As well, popping out children beyond your economic and personal means to parent and provide, is not a good idea for ANYONE.

There's nothing so outstanding or exceptional about "making" a baby.
It is the years of nurturing, happiness, and provision that is the important thing.

Yeah, I agree. But some people... all I can say is...

 

[Kerr]

And how many children are there already out there in need of loving homes?


As well, popping out children beyond your economic and personal means to parent and provide, is not a good idea for ANYONE.

There's nothing so outstanding or exceptional about "making" a baby.
It is the years of nurturing, happiness, and provision that is the important thing.

This gives me an idea... sime homosexuals obviously cannot have children on their own (all those fundamentalists cannot possibly be wrong )... maybe we need more gays around to take care of all the kids all us breeding hetrosexuals leave behind!

 

[Commoner]

This gives me an idea... sime homosexuals obviously cannot have children on their own (all those fundamentalists cannot possibly be wrong )... maybe we need more gays around to take care of all the kids all us breeding hetrosexuals leave behind!

Nah, you just keep producing babies and god will take care of them. Planning ahead is for losers:

"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." (Matthew 6:34).

 

[blackout]

This gives me an idea... sime homosexuals obviously cannot have children on their own (all those fundamentalists cannot possibly be wrong )... maybe we need more gays around to take care of all the kids all us breeding hetrosexuals leave behind!

And the vast majority of baby poppers... erm... highly contributing members of society:cover:...
would rather keep homosexuals from adopting babies into loving, nurturing homes,
to leave these children instead unsettled and unloved in foster care and orphanages...
while they themselves are busy contributing ever more... and more... and more...
(to the problem).

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I guess?

??

So I could sit here and ask myself "could I ever feel attraction to men?" and I could tell myself that I couldn't. But that's not to say that someday that would change.

I doubt that it is possible (using the evidence i have at my disposal so far) but i think it is a fair and good statement you made above.
An interesting and honest reply.

 

[blackout]

Well, Roman Catholic upbringing had made sexuality so taboo for me
in certain areas in particular,
that I didn't realize my true sexual nature till just a couple years back.

I am both bisexual and polyamorous in nature,
it is where I have FINALLY found fulfilment.
(after all these years of trying miserably to do things the "accepted" way)

It may seem as if "I changed", but really
the problem was, before, I was not allowed to look in those directions.
I "stuffed" all of my feelings and disapointments and unfulfilment
until I was dying inside.
Then I said "f*** it". I need to live. For me. For my children.
I need to ignore everyone, and find mySelf, my rhyme and reason.
Almost as soon as I allowed myself to masturbate,
to love my body sensually...
as an integral and important part of who I was,
I realized I needed and desired a woman in my life,
to share intimacy with.

I did not change.
I just finally came out to my own Self.

It's so sad that it took so many years.
I have tears in my eyes typing this.