Answering Seattles challenge ...

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Tooblue, I have a question for you. And I mean this with all due respect and sensitivity. You seem to want us to accept at face value your opinion on the "is being gay a choice?" issue simply because of your traumatic childhood experience, and without really elicudating for us the relevancy (indeed, you are a heterosexual). Why, on the same principal, do you dismiss out of hand the personal testimony of the vast majority of if not virtually all gays? It's their testament above all else that persuades me.

Please understand that my aim is not to convince you. I do not dismiss out of hand personal testimonies of many (it is not a vast majority) homosexuals. I accept the notion of genetic predispositions. I assert that choice is a significant factor. I can uniquely empathise with others who have been abused or who struggle with compulsion. The vast majority of homosexuals I have come in contact with suffered abuse and struggle with compulsion.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Marriage equals the pursuit of happiness? Since when. It equals the pursuit of consistent sex, companionship and friendship.

Doesn't society have the right to determine what it considers marriage and what it doesn't consider marriage?

The policy argument that society should include within its definitions as two same sex people as married benefits society how? We've been down this road and I've never been too impressed as they are basically emotionally arguments.

Society definitely has the right to do so. Our current society has exercised that right and most states seem to be opposed to SSM. The tide will continue to shift and eventually, gays will be allowed to marry.

I am not sure SSM "benefits" society and more or less than heterosexual marriage, but I don't see how it harms society. I do see it as a denial of civil rights, so in that sense, society benefits by extending civil rights to its constituents.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

To the extent that such a response is a choice. Read my post on vomiting on the first page. Have you ever had something like that happen to you? Was it a choice? Magnify that experience by a ridiculously high number and contemplate whether a response to sexual abuse would be a choice. Seems like an unfair label to me.

I ate Chili last Monday, around 7pm. Ended up coming down with stomach-flu symptoms at about 11pm, and vomited roughly four times over the next few hours. I'm considering eating Chili for lunch.

Meanwhile, several years ago, my wife ate some egg sandwiches. The eggs seem to have been bad, as she became sick & vomited that evening. The entire house smelled like rotten egg for a week. She didn't eat eggs for about a year, but eats them now.


There is, IMO, some degree of 'choice' in deciding to allow experiences to shape your personal tastes & desires, relating to each individual's ability to relegate such an experience as "atypical" and therefore psychologically unimportant. This is NOT intended to cast any sort of doubt regarding the mental capacity of sexually-abused-then-deciding-they-are-gay individuals, so please don't read that sort of thing into this. I'm simply pointing out that reactions are different for different people.

By the way, if you're planning on throwing up later, I don't recommend eating Chili within a day or two of the event!!! Definitely at the top of my 'don't throw up' list of foods, along with most Korean meals.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Society definitely has the right to do so. Our current society has exercised that right and most states seem to be opposed to SSM. The tide will continue to shift and eventually, gays will be allowed to marry.

I am not sure SSM "benefits" society and more or less than heterosexual marriage, but I don't see how it harms society. I do see it as a denial of civil rights, so in that sense, society benefits by extending civil rights to its constituents.

You're making a very circuitous argument.

Society defines whether it's a right, but society's failure to define is as a right is a denial of civil rights, which society hasn't defined as a civil right.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Society definitely has the right to do so. Our current society has exercised that right and most states seem to be opposed to SSM. The tide will continue to shift and eventually, gays will be allowed to marry.

I am not sure SSM "benefits" society and more or less than heterosexual marriage, but I don't see how it harms society. I do see it as a denial of civil rights, so in that sense, society benefits by extending civil rights to its constituents.

Here's the slippery slope ...

And what if it opens the door to the other types of government sanctioned marriages such as polygamy, human + animal etc.?

In Canada we have already seen such legislation effectively used to support arguements in favor of the rights of a pedophile to own child pornography. Currently it is legal for a person to own child pornography so long as he/she does not create or distribute it. Ignoring the fact that a child was abused in the first place in order to create it.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Spaz

I ate Chili last Monday, around 7pm. Ended up coming down with stomach-flu symptoms at about 11pm, and vomited roughly four times over the next few hours. I'm considering eating Chili for lunch.

Meanwhile, several years ago, my wife ate some egg sandwiches. The eggs seem to have been bad, as she became sick & vomited that evening. The entire house smelled like rotten egg for a week. She didn't eat eggs for about a year, but eats them now.


There is, IMO, some degree of 'choice' in deciding to allow experiences to shape your personal tastes & desires, relating to each individual's ability to relegate such an experience as "atypical" and therefore psychologically unimportant. This is NOT intended to cast any sort of doubt regarding the mental capacity of sexually-abused-then-deciding-they-are-gay individuals, so please don't read that sort of thing into this. I'm simply pointing out that reactions are different for different people.

By the way, if you're planning on throwing up later, I don't recommend eating Chili within a day or two of the event!!! Definitely at the top of my 'don't throw up' list of foods, along with most Korean meals.

At what point is having a drink no longer a choice to an alcoholic?

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by tooblue

At what point is having a drink no longer a choice to an alcoholic?

Is addiction the same thing as 'traumatic experiences creating a previously unexhibited disposition towards something' (if that makes any sense)?


BTW, I'm very much on the fence on this issue...I find SeattleUte's arguments to be pretty bland & without substance. I find yours and those in agreement with you to be more persuasive.

If I had to guess, I'd say choice exists for many who are homosexual. How many, I don't care to speculate on.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You're making a very circuitous argument.

Society defines whether it's a right, but society's failure to define is as a right is a denial of civil rights, which society hasn't defined as a civil right.

There was no specific constitutional language allowing blacks to sit at the front of the bus. They were allowed on the bus, so therefore they were technically given the same treatment.

Nonetheless, we all know that blacks were still being denied their Civil Rights.

It finally took the Civil Rights Act to codify what should have been the obvious, but for overwhelming public sentiment against blacks.

Right now, gays are on the bus, but they are not allowed up front. Some folks here enjoy riding in the front, so it seems.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Here's the slippery slope ...

And what if it opens the door to the other types of government sanctioned marriages such as polygamy, human + animal etc.?

In Canada we have already seen such legislation effectively used to support arguements in favor of the rights of a pedophile to own child pornography. Currently it is legal for a person to own child pornography so long as he/she does not create or distribute it. Ignoring the fact that a child was abused in the first place in order to create it.

If someone wants to marry an animal, I say mazel tav.

Come on over and lets all watch the Laker game. But please leave your wife outside. Afterwards, we can take your wife for a walk, have her fetch sticks, and then let her walk around for a bit.

If someone marries a dog, is that going to hurt heterosexual marriage, too?

[SeattleUte]

Slippery slope arguments are infamously flawed as stand alone generalizations.