Oh, I thought it was a joke. Ya know, maybe back to that point I made in the first about regular p*rn featuring multiple ladies n such. Was nice for a chuckle.
Under that reasoning though couldn't Muslims and Jews say they are against the government telling their kids its OK to eat pork when their parents are telling them its not OK. You're claiming a victimization here by the government when none exist. I noted this before in a few threads that it is a fallacy of logic to claim an impostion of a belief in regard to the absence of a legal ban. Not banning gay marriage is an improvement in civil rights in that it is removing a previously held ban but until the government actually encourages or mandates gay marriage it isn't in favor of gay marriage but is neutral on the issue. You are still free to tell your kids whatever you want. Freedom means that while gays can get married you are still free to disagree and teach your children otherwise.
I'd rather couples think two or three times before getting married. But divorce is not outlawed in the bible. Divorce is a lot like abortion. Abortion should not be used as whimsical birth control. Divorce should not be used as a reset button because your spouse cant seem to flush the toilet or clean the dishes in a timely manner. There is criminal prosecution for lying. Fraud is lying. You can get prosecuted for it. Sure, nothing happens for telling your neighbor you make 40K when you only make 20K. There is also nobody attempting to create a statute to where habitual liars can have some kind of outward sign of a liars club. Well....except maybe lawyers.... Parents deal with disrespect in their own ways, though unfortunately the government is getting a bit too involved there with CPS and stuff. And I never understood the shellfish thing. That must be some obscure old testament verse talking about bad fish or something.
There are various ways. One is through asking control questions to determine how truthful or untruthful someone might be. Follow up questions to weed out contradictions. The other is in how questions are phrased, such as by not asking them directly what their experience is but in general what they know about their cohorts. Finally you can assume that there is a certain amount of untruthfulness and consider that in all previous studies so that you aren't looking at total numbers but just in changes from study to study.
I actually had a conversation with my girlfriend last night that covered pretty much all of these disjointed topics. One thing you didn't mention that we did: Have increasing gay rights and general gay-acceptance in recent years caused an increase on the percentage of actual homosexuals? Not proclaimed homosexuals, actual homosexuals. You know, gayture vs. nurture...
Oh, a law that doesn't ban gay marriage is very different from one that actually institutes it. I think I would actually support the former rather than the latter. I am not a Muslim so wouldn't be able to fully prepare something on that. I know Muslims have a period over a month or so where they don't eat while the sun is up. Back to the gay marriage ban, I think some perceive a NON-BAN on gay marriage as a law FOR it. When actually it's like you described.
Yes, disjointed. Couldn't have described it better myself. And I had some thoughts on that, but as you said it was already disjointed and wanted to get something out there to banter about with. Though I did mention it a little when talking about the real ones vs the ones who just do it because it feels a little bit better or whatever. I believe that there is more proclaimed homosexuals, but I think the actual ones are probably of similar percentage as the previous few decades.
Yeah, I didn't word that quite right. I meant you touched on it, but didn't exactly address it. I'm pretty sure it does have an impact on true-homosexual percentages. There are those who are confused about their inborn sexual wiring, but never have a chance to find their true sexual nature after getting swept off to the backseat of a limo at prom by society's standards.
My opinions: Yes, just as being straight simply means you're attracted to the opposite sex. Well, if you were noticeably attracted to both I'd say that makes you bi. No, being gay is a sexual orientation. Nothing more, nothing less. That would be the million dollar question. For what it's worth, I'm an identical twin... I'm straight and my brother's gay. So that would seem to indicate to me that perhaps it has more to do with development. HELL NO. I always laugh at this question. No one arbitrarily decides "hey, I'd like to be treated like crap, discriminated against, and have my rights taken away by larger society, and also never be able to have kids as well! That sounds great!" A few related thoughts: 1. Purely from my own experience, I think a fair percentage of people who profess to be bi are actually gay/lesbian, but they claim to be bi (at least for awhile) because they believe it is considered more socially acceptable. I know quite a number of people who openly admitted their hetero relationships were a charade all along. 2. I also believe that since women are held up as sexual objects FAR more than men in popular culture, people (including women) are more likely to conclude that desiring a female sexually is "correct" and/or more socially acceptable than desiring a man, which is one reason lesbians seem to have a slightly easier time than gay men.
Ordinarily I would agree with you, but I think there may be a small percentage who go with the gay thing to give them a sense of belonging. I think some folks need an artificial hardship(no, not the ones who actually do have hardships) to overcome. I believe these people are not actually gay, but probably bi that try to keep the homosexual relationships in the forefront. Nothing surprises me in people any more, so it's possible, if just slightly. Along the persecution line, how many gays do you think wish they could just snap their fingers and turn hetero??
Hard to generalize about that. For one, my twin brother really wishes he was straight. That's the only one I can be sure of.
It can't go both ways (pun intended). If there's meaning in marriage to the point where there's political demand on what it should be, then divorce would be something worse if one held up to those Christian principles. House and wealth are inherited from fathers, but a prudent wife is from the LORD.- Proverbs 19:14 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. -Ephesians 5:25-28 Paul is an interesting guy... It seems like a wife or spouse is a gift from God with marriage as the covenant. It's not because the Bible suggests that God frowns upon divorce, so none should be given whatsoever, but rather if you land in a marriage without love, then you look deep within yourself on how you can grow individually within those trials and act in a manner that would best serve Him. In other words, don't force yourself to grin and bear a joyless marriage, but work hard to bring joy in it if you are in one. I think the attempts by the Religious Right to preserve the literal meaning of marriage are misguided in the sense that they have lost the will or direction to preserve and promote the spirit of it. There is an argument that homosexuality isn't a sin, but sodomy is. Is it really the act itself as the Bible writes out, or is it the perceptions of lust and promiscuity that was attached with it in that era? I don't know if there's a clear cut answer in that, but if it's the latter, there will be homosexuals who want to marry that are attempting to follow in that spirit.
Just a mini-note: For a Muslims it's no. You voice your opinion to those who are making the rules and if unsuccesful, then it is best to leave the country. There's no expectation to make an entire government or country agree with you. You just find a place which matches your values more closely. If you can't afford to leave, then you do the best you can and wait for change or a chance to leave.
If you think sexuality is cut and dried just google ambiguous genitalia. Your sexual attraction is supposed to be dictated by the hormones that determine you genitalia but nature isn't so good with absolutes. There is every shade of gray between the black and white of male hetero and female hetero. And you can multiply that complexity when you throw in the socialization process, neural development and conscious will.
This is why I try not to go "biblical" on the gay issue, because people start bringing up old testament law on pork, shellfish (shrimp and lobster which are yummy) divorce, theft, etc.. Best just to argue the whole "homosexuals can't procreate so it makes no sense" thing. Side with Darwin this time, natural selection, etc. The people I have known that were gay (and I'm not saying it's this way for all people who were gay so don't flame me) all had issues and weird circumstances during their childhood/developmental years or their life that helped 'sway' or 'guide' them towards being gay. I didn't say those things made them gay, just that they contributed to it and made it easier to choose being gay. Is it possible they had some genetic predisposition to like the other sex? Maybe, I don't know. I'm sure we've all seen guys that are kind of 'femine' and some people automatically label them as gay, but I've learned not to do that. But does being a guy that's naturally 'feminine' contribute or make it easier to be gay? Are you born 'feminine' or is it an "environmental influence" thing? I don't know. I'm not sure if I helped or if I just introduced more questions. Couple words for those who are worried about gay/homosexual education in public schools and the possiblity that it will be shoved down their kids' throats: private school.
Not exactly. I posted this link in another thread: http://www.newscientist.com/article...l-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html Many species engage in homosexual behavior and there very well may be evolutionary reasons for homosexuality. Anyway natural selection isn't about every member of the species being able to procreate but actually works to prevent many individuals from procreating. In many species only a few individuals get to procreate, ie in ants and bees only a very small minority of any hive gets to reproduce.
So I read the article, becuase I don't like to comment on stuff without reading it, and uh, yeah, I don't know, I just don't feel comfortable with trying to compare animal behavior to human behavior when it comes to sexuality. We're about the only species (human) who really has this whole thing called "love", maybe "emotion", as opposed to animal instinct, so the whole animal thing gets weird to me. Don't get me wrong, I see the arguments, I'm sure the research/info will get better as time goes on, but, I don't know. I mean, this for instance: That's interesting, but what would that promote in humans? Multiple partners? I mean, call me old-fashioned but that's not something I want encouraged in society.
We are also one of the few species who do it for fun. Others do it to "plant their seed." Other species WANT to make babies.
