"Christian" couple leaves anti-gay rant instead of tip

[Deleted]

Since people are, indeed, born gay

Asserting facts not in evidence. I've explained my reasoning and I respect yours, but this is not the settled point you're treating it as, and it's potentially very damaging to go down this road.

What other paraphilias are we comfortable calling innate and ruling beyond moral judgement? Sadomasochism? Bestiality? Pedophilia? Necrophilia?

If you really cannot help who you love - and the moral principle adopted by society is "if you can't help who you love, we can't penalize you for it" - there's a huge moral hazard there. It is not at all clear what principle we rely on to prevent the free expression of those other paraphilias I listed if we affirm homosexuality on this basis.

Whether or not you can help who you love - and there are plenty of straight people who fall in love with eg. students, patients, married coworkers, and don't act on it because of the moral implications - the moral principle that "you have the right to choose who you love, but the responsibility not to hurt anybody thereby" is less problematic, I feel.

I'm coming at this as a libertarian, who wants to defend the liberties of same-sex couples rather than constrict them with definitions. A same-sex couple is two people of the same sex who choose to live together as a couple; end of story. It doesn't matter if they're doing it because they're born that way, because they were brainwashed, because they're coping with the aftermath of traumatic incidents with a parish priest, or just to scandalize their neighbors; none of those etiologies affect, or should affect, their right to equal treatment. That's all I'm saying.

[mmhmm]

Oct 29, 2013 13:27:07 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

That's it exactly. The gay people I know are just like everyone else. I wouldn't know unless they told me. Now someone flamboyant, that's another story but most gay people seem to be like everyone else. I don't care if you're having sex with a goat, as long as it isn't my goat.

LOL, zib!  I've always said:  As long as you're not doing whatever it is in my bed, with me in it, carry on!       

[mmhmm]

Asserting facts not in evidence. I've explained my reasoning and I respect yours, but this is not the settled point you're treating it as, and it's potentially very damaging to go down this road.

I beg to differ.  My assertion is that of the many gay people I've known over the years.  They have direct experience with this issue.  You do not.  Neither do I.  Therefore, in my estimation, their assessment is more valuable than either mine, or yours.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

yes, but a person could choose to be gay, too.

No, they'd be choosing to live a "gay lifestyle" - however you want to interpret that - but they still would not BE gay.

[Deleted]

I have a sister who's in a happily married lesbian relationship, which probably gives me more intimate insight into how she arrived at that state than you have with your "many gay" associates. Not that it's a contest, but I don't appreciate you getting holier-than-thou with me about it.

I absolutely understand why "born this way" is a comforting frame for the individual. I don't think of it as a conscious choice, it's not like "I'll have the steak" or "I'll wear the blue tie." It's a selected behavioral adaptation to id-imperatives. I still don't believe in gay babies, in the same way as some of you don't believe in bearded wizards in the sky. My long associations with many fine people of faith don't lead me to disregard your opinions.

I guess I was born that way.

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2013 13:44:06 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

yes, but a person could choose to be gay, too.

No, they'd be choosing to live a "gay lifestyle" - however you want to interpret that - but they still would not BE gay.

Assuming that only the person choosing to live the gay lifestyle would be privy to that info, then there would be no difference in someone being born gay and choosing to be gay.



And in both cases, each would be gay.

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2013 13:44:06 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

yes, but a person could choose to be gay, too.

No, they'd be choosing to live a "gay lifestyle" - however you want to interpret that - but they still would not BE gay.

Even I'm finding that something of a semantic argument

"I close my eyes, and lose consciousness for a few hours... but I wouldn't say I really sleep."

[mmhmm]

What other paraphilias are we comfortable calling innate and ruling beyond moral judgement? Sadomasochism? Bestiality? Pedophilia? Necrophilia?

Ooooooh, no you don't!  Is there a victim associated with any of those paraphilias?  As long as the masochist isn't complaining, I've got no problem with sadomasochism.  Not for me, but I'm not qualified to sit in condemnation of another's choices.  If, however, the victim of a sadist is not a masochist who has agreed to be hurt, a crime is being committed.  An animal cannot acquiesce; neither can a child, and neither can a corpse.  That eliminates the other three examples from fair consideration.

[kittensaver]

Oct 29, 2013 13:33:43 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Oct 29, 2013 13:26:09 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

A person doesn't "choose" to be gay. They're either born gay, or they're not.

yes, but a person could choose to be gay, too.

Agree to disagree. I too grew up in a conservative family that believed being gay was a choice and a sin. It's only when I got out in the world that I realized that it's pretty much been proved (medically) that sexual orientation is an inborn characteristic, NOT a choice.

Can a straight person choose to experiment with a same-sex person? Of course they can. Can a gay person choose to participate in a relationship with a person of the opposite sex? Of course they can (look at how many gay people were married to opposite sex partners and even had children with that partner before they came out). But that does that "make" you something other than what you are? In my book, no. It is merely a choice to experiment with behavior, and does not fundamentally change one's orientation.

[mmhmm]

Oct 29, 2013 13:45:19 GMT -5 @thatmojoguy said:

I have a sister who's in a happily married lesbian relationship, which probably gives me more intimate insight into how she arrived at that state than you have with your "many gay" associates. Not that it's a contest, but I don't appreciate you getting holier-than-thou with me about it.

I absolutely understand why "born this way" is a comforting frame for the individual. I don't think of it as a conscious choice, it's not like "I'll have the steak" or "I'll wear the blue tie." It's a selected behavioral adaptation to id-imperatives. I still don't believe in gay babies, in the same way as some of you don't believe in bearded wizards in the sky. My long associations with many fine people of faith don't lead me to disregard your opinions.

I guess I was born that way.

Wrong.  One of the many gay associates is, indeed, my uncle ... with whom I was raised as a child.  I couldn't know many people more intimately than I know him.  Don't assume, Mojo.  It always leads to trouble.  I'm not playing holier-than-thou.  I'm stating the truth I have learned.  I can, and I will disagree with you.  It's not about a comfortable frame.  It's about what is real to these people.  It may not be real for you, or for me; however, I accept their word it's real for them.  I'm not about to impose my ideas about something I've never experienced on other people.  I find it quite arrogant to do so.

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2013 13:48:20 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Oct 29, 2013 13:33:43 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

yes, but a person could choose to be gay, too.

Agree to disagree. I too grew up in a conservative family that believed being gay was a choice and a sin. It's only when I got out in the world that I realized that it's pretty much been proved (medically) that sexual orientation is an inborn characteristic, NOT a choice.

Can a straight person choose to experiment with a same-sex person? Of course they can. Can a gay person choose to participate in a relationship with a person of the opposite sex? Of course they can (look at how many gay people were married to opposite sex partners and even had children with that partner before they came out). But that does that "make" you something other than what you are? In my book, no. It is merely a choice to experiment with behavior, and does not fundamentally change one's orientation.

Semantics, I guess.   If you are gay and you choose to live a heterosexual life.  Are you gay or are your straight?  If you are straight and you choose to live a gay lifestyle, are you straight or gay?   If you aren't sure and you have both straight and gay relationships are you straight or gay?

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2013 13:47:28 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

What other paraphilias are we comfortable calling innate and ruling beyond moral judgement? Sadomasochism? Bestiality? Pedophilia? Necrophilia?

Ooooooh, no you don't!  Is there a victim associated with any of those paraphilias?  As long as the masochist isn't complaining, I've got no problem with sadomasochism.  Not for me, but I'm not qualified to sit in condemnation of another's choices.  If, however, the victim of a sadist is not a masochist who has agreed to be hurt, a crime is being committed.  An animal cannot acquiesce; neither can a child, and neither can a corpse.  That eliminates the other three examples from fair consideration.

EXACTLY.

So the moral principle doesn't care whether the person was born craving the sweet sweet love of a chicken; it just cares that the chicken finds it substantially less sweet. Bingo. That's what I'm talking about. "Born this way" is at best a distraction; at worst it muddies these waters. NAMBLA is hard at work contesting your (and my) notion of childish innocence for example, and when nine- and ten-year old boys are capable of rape and sexual assault (grimly, this stuff is in the news these days), their 'case' gains merit. "Informed consent" is a better bright line to draw for the law, and the law follows the mores of society. Hence, for me, the importance not only of reaching the right result but in having the right theory with a mind to future test cases citing precedent. I'm a legalist as well as a libertarian.

[kittensaver]

Oct 29, 2013 13:55:16 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Oct 29, 2013 13:48:20 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Agree to disagree. I too grew up in a conservative family that believed being gay was a choice and a sin. It's only when I got out in the world that I realized that it's pretty much been proved (medically) that sexual orientation is an inborn characteristic, NOT a choice.

Can a straight person choose to experiment with a same-sex person? Of course they can. Can a gay person choose to participate in a relationship with a person of the opposite sex? Of course they can (look at how many gay people were married to opposite sex partners and even had children with that partner before they came out). But that does that "make" you something other than what you are? In my book, no. It is merely a choice to experiment with behavior, and does not fundamentally change one's orientation.

Semantics, I guess.   If you are gay and you choose to live a heterosexual life.  Are you gay or are your straight?  Vice versa.

Agree - sort of. One's orientation and one's behavior CAN be - and sometimes ARE - two very different things. One's behavior does not change one's basic orientation. At least to me, that's kinda why these arguments/discussions go round and round. Any kind of why they can be fruitless.

PS - I just bit you! lol

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

(look at how many gay people were married to opposite sex partners and even had children with that partner before they came out).

That was one of my aunts. Back in the late 50's-early 60's, being gay wasn't as open nor accepted as it is today.

She married my uncle, and they had 3 kids. It wasn't until the youngest was nearing his teens that she came out.

She lived a 15-year lie - (probably miserably) to conform to what the rest of society considered a "proper lifestyle" back then.

Being gay had a negative stigma to it then - especially in the church they belonged to. Gays were often considered sexual deviants or other similar titles by a big chunk of society - because people weren't as educated about it as they are today - nor as accepting.

[mmhmm]

There is strong evidence gays are born gay.  There is no such evidence pedophiles are born that way.  There is a great deal more evidence these are people who enjoy exercising control over the helpless.  That's a whole different can of worms, Mojo, no matter what NAMBLA says.  A child cannot make a decision as to whether to indulge in such behavior, or not.  It has been conclusively proven his/her brain is not prepared to make such decisions.  I'm talking biology here, not morals.  You talk morals.  I'm sure there are those who will happily indulge you. I'm not one of them.

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2013 13:59:38 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Oct 29, 2013 13:55:16 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Semantics, I guess.   If you are gay and you choose to live a heterosexual life.  Are you gay or are your straight?  Vice versa.

Agree - sort of. One's orientation and one's behavior CAN be - and sometimes ARE - two very different things. One's behavior does not change one's basic orientation. At least to me, that's kinda why these arguments/discussions go round and round. Any kind of why they can be fruitless.

PS - I just bit you! lol

arghhhhhhgghghg..... 




arguments that go round and round are the best kind because they never have to end.


My sister just married a woman who was married previously.   My sister is her first gay relationship.   I wonder if she was gay and previously experimenting with a heterosexual lifestyle, or is heterosexual and currently experimenting with a gay lifestyle.    She just better make my sister happy...

[Deleted]

I'm not about to impose my ideas about something I've never experienced on other people.

Except when you tell me, who's made a study of the scientific literature on the biological question that contradicts you, that people are born gay, on the strength that your uncle - presumably born before you, and presumably not a leading expert in homosexual genetic research - feels that he was. You and he could well be right, and the science just hasn't caught up yet: but what if it never catches up? What if it becomes a virtually settled question that there are no perpetual-motion machines, no faster-than-light particles, and no born gays? Should that matter to a couple who want the same rights in their marriage that I enjoy in mine?

Insofar as both of us want the law to look favorably on your uncle and my sister, inter alia, we're both actively supporting the imposition of at least one of these ideas on the whole nation in perpetuity. It's not arrogance to take that responsibility seriously. Not that you're being unserious in disagreeing with me.

[kittensaver]

Oct 29, 2013 14:03:04 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Oct 29, 2013 13:59:38 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Agree - sort of. One's orientation and one's behavior CAN be - and sometimes ARE - two very different things. One's behavior does not change one's basic orientation. At least to me, that's kinda why these arguments/discussions go round and round. Any kind of why they can be fruitless.

PS - I just bit you! lol

arghhhhhhgghghg..... 




arguments that go round and round are the best kind because they never have to end.


My sister just married a woman who was married previously.   My sister is her first gay relationship.   I wonder if she was gay and previously experimenting with a heterosexual lifestyle, or is heterosexual and currently experimenting with a gay lifestyle.    She just better make my sister happy...

And in the end . . . that's all that really matters, right? Gay, straight or somewhere/anywhere along the continuum between the two . . . 

[billisonboard]

Is sexuality a couple little boxes or is it a continuum?

[Deleted]

There is strong evidence gays are born gay.

There really isn't. There is a strong political will to present the evidence as being strong, because there is a political agenda to rebut the Christian dogma that God considers homosexuality a sin, and it's felt that the best way to do that is to show that "God made homosexuals." Leaving aside the theodical naivete of that approach, the science does not make a strong case for homosexuality-at-birth anymore than it does a preference for rock music or Chinese food.

We could have the same debate on the speciously-less-emotive territory of "climate change" (formerly "global warming"). What the science says, compared to what the opinion-formers say the science says, is very seldom what the lay audience believes.

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2013 14:07:12 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Is sexuality a couple little boxes or is it a continuum?

In my case, it is only one little box, for the rest of my life.....

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2013 14:07:12 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Is sexuality a couple little boxes or is it a continuum?

That depends on if you view it as a binary product of genetic switches, or as an analog product of life experiences...

I was born bisexual, I just haven't met the right man yet.

[mmhmm]

Mojo, I don't give a flying flip about homosexual genetic research at this point.  Unless the people doing that research have actually experienced that which they're researching, they're not any more experts than the person who is, and has been gay since childhood.  I shall believe the latter over the former.  You may do as you wish.

Additionally, I don't see any problem with imposing decency and honor on the whole nation.  I rather like the idea.  To say a gay couple cannot have the same rights accrue to their union as accrue to the union of two people of opposite gender is neither decent, nor honorable in my opinion.  Your opinion may differ.  Fine by me.  I'll cleave to mine, if it's all the same to you.

[Deleted]

To say a gay couple cannot have the same rights accrue to their union as accrue to the union of two people of opposite gender is neither decent, nor honorable in my opinion.

I agree with you. I just want the law to respect a universal human right, not to define a population as different for the purpose of special pleading.

[steff]

Oct 29, 2013 14:09:22 GMT -5 @thatmojoguy said:

Oct 29, 2013 14:07:12 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Is sexuality a couple little boxes or is it a continuum?

That depends on if you view it as a binary product of genetic switches, or as an analog product of life experiences...

I was born bisexual, I just haven't met the right man yet.

at what point/age did you make your choice to be a straight man? 

[kittensaver]

Oct 29, 2013 14:07:12 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Is sexuality a couple little boxes or is it a continuum?

Well I certainly will not pretend to speak for the world, but when I took my two required graduate school classes in human sexuality (for a master's degree in counseling psychology) all of the evidence we read and researched told us that sexuality exists on a continuum. And that continuum holds true for all species that need two genders to produce young (sexual reproduction as opposed to asexual reproduction).  Go figure. In the end we all "believe" what we want to believe, whether it is true or not. And some of us are bound and determined to not let mere pesky facts get in the way of our beliefs.

[Deleted]

gay since childhood

Children can't acquiesce in sexual relationships...

[mmhmm]

Oct 29, 2013 14:08:03 GMT -5 @thatmojoguy said:

There is strong evidence gays are born gay.

There really isn't. There is a strong political will to present the evidence as being strong, because there is a political agenda to rebut the Christian dogma that God considers homosexuality a sin, and it's felt that the best way to do that is to show that "God made homosexuals." Leaving aside the theodical naivete of that approach, the science does not make a strong case for homosexuality-at-birth anymore than it does a preference for rock music or Chinese food.

We could have the same debate on the speciously-less-emotive territory of "climate change" (formerly "global warming"). What the science says, compared to what the opinion-formers say the science says, is very seldom what the lay audience believes.

Again, I believe there is.  I don't give a flip about your politics, either.  Doesn't mean a hill of beans to me.  I don't care about Christian dogma and don't subscribe to it.  When "science" can actually experience that which they're assigning attributes and faults to, I'll pay a lot more attention.  As long as we're talking about human beings and what they feel, I'll listen to their voices.  "Science" doesn't know everything, and that's coming from someone whose degrees are in that area.  There's a huge grey area in our scientific knowledge between the physical aspects of our biology and those aspects that are not necessarily rendered in the physical.

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2013 14:12:51 GMT -5 @thatmojoguy said:

gay since childhood

Children can't acquiesce in sexual relationships...

But he loved show tunes. so, you know.

[mmhmm]

Oct 29, 2013 14:11:47 GMT -5 @thatmojoguy said:

To say a gay couple cannot have the same rights accrue to their union as accrue to the union of two people of opposite gender is neither decent, nor honorable in my opinion.

I agree with you. I just want the law to respect a universal human right, not to define a population as different for the purpose of special pleading.

For crying out loud, Mojo!  That's exactly what I've been saying!  Gay people aren't different!  They're people!  They simply don't act like some other people.  Hell, neither do I!  So the freak what?!?