Children and Same Sex Couples

[Mya Stone]

I know I'm not the only one thinking it:

What the fuck has happened to my happy little corner of the internet?

Alas, this is a subject for another thread. But FFS, some of the posts in this thread make my blood boil. I'm so happy we have such an educated, thoughtful, amazing group of people here, and that people are questioning logical discourse. Bravo, board of new. Bravo.

:rolleyes:

[Penguin king]

And what?

Can't you see I agree with you 100%?

I am only saying one has to not dismiss the others due to their opinions not agree with the majority or only on their own, because it is exactly this behaviour at the roots of all abuses we have experienced in the past, even those you have listed.

I can't see why you are making such a fuss out of what I said, it isn't anything particularly irrational.

Because I can't understand why you're sugesting we need to have a debate over whether it's a choice or not just because some people irrationally feel that that matters, especially if we're both agreed that it doesn't matter. What benefit can be gained from that discussion?

Do I have to argue it isn't a choice just because most homophobes say it is? or is it alright for me to suggest that maybe sometimes it is a choice and sometimes it isn't but either way it shouldn't make a difference to how people are treated?

[Mya Stone]

DID YOU EVEN CARE TO READ ANY FUCKING LINE I WROTE? :-/

Hint: All caps typing and throwing tantrums are not really the way to go here.

[Lord Flashheart]

Hint: All caps typing and throwing tantrums are not really the way to go here.

BUT CAPS MAKE ME SEEM LIKE A RATIONAL PERSON!!!!!!!!! DON'T THEY!!!!!!!

[Max Berg]

Hint: All caps typing and throwing tantrums are not really the way to go here.

And ascribing me things I've never said nor thought nor written is it?

BUT CAPS MAKE ME SEEM LIKE A RATIONAL PERSON!!!!!!!!! DON'T THEY!!!!!!!

Absolutely not, but it can be really stressful to repeat over and over a simple concept, not being understood at all and being ascribed things I've never said.

One thing is to disagree and to discuss the opinion I have with your own, another is ascribing me the opposite of what I wrote before.

[Sci-2]

DID YOU EVEN CARE TO READ A FUCKING LINE I WROTE? :-/

Yes. Here's your response on rights:

I didn't say rights shouldn't be granted where they are justified.

That's pretty open to interpretation since I don't know when you think rights are "justified".

It still isn't clear to me what you mean when you say some opinions should not be dismissed.

"Not dismissed", to me at least, implies some kind of obligation. I'm assuming you don't mean I should sit and listen to someone ranting about how much they dislike homosexuals, so I asked for clarification.

[Kolantero]

I agree. The whole "choice" debate is a red herring.

The red herring of the "choice" subject was actually introduced in the discussion by the person you are agreeing with.

The funny thing is that it actually did act as a "red herring" (although I think unintentionally) since it distracted people from the actual argument (whether there is proof for sexual orientation to be 100% genetic which in turn was a response to people making certain claims) to go against an argument that wasn't even made (whether sexual orientation is a choice or not)

Many gay activists and allies do make the claim that it's genetics*. I find that distressing, since it is both scientifically incorrect and relying on a faulty premise of argument. Mostly, I suspect it is due to a reaction to the constant attack of homosexuality being a choice of lifestyle, but there's also another part of it being argument from nature (i.e. if I am born this way then I cannot be morally culpable for this thing that is wrong).

Alright thanks.

[Penguin king]

The red herring of the "choice" subject was actually introduced in the discussion by the person you are agreeing with.

The funny thing is that it actually did act as a "red herring" (although I think unintentionally) since it distracted people from the actual argument (whether there is proof for sexual orientation to be 100% genetic which in turn was a response to people making certain claims) to go against an argument that wasn't actually made (whether sexual orientation is a choice or not)

Well to open it up a little, I find the nature vs nurture debate to be a red herring as well. Whether it was in their genes, or they saw 2 men kissing on a street corner at an impressionable age, or they woke up one day and decided to be gay, what does it matter?

[Max Berg]

That's pretty open to interpretation since I don't know when you think rights are "justified".

Yet, if you would have read the rest and my claim that rights within a society should be agreed by taking into consideration the opinions of all people considered equally, even those we don't like, you would have spotted that it isn't about me and what I think is justified, it is about what we all together as a society can agree that it is.

But coming into a compromise which will necessarily make some people unsatisfied and dismissing their persons and their opinions as irrelevant or not worthy to be listened are two completely different things. From one side we have the practical need of ensuring a lawful rights and equality, on the other side we have a different type of intolerance that instead of being directed toward certain categories is directed toward other categories.

That we like it or not, if some people have certain opinions and certain feelings it isn't their own guilty and it isn't because they are less human than us.

It was this line of thought, that certain people opinion was superior to that of other, that lead to abuses in the past. Therefore we must not repeat the same mistake now.

EDIT: this will be my last post on the subject. If I'm being still misunderstood after this post, then I don't know which words should I use to let you understand my thought.

[Kolantero]

Well to open it up a little, I find the nature vs nurture debate to be a red herring as well. Whether it was in their genes, or they saw 2 men kissing on a street corner at an impressionable age, or they woke up one day and decided to be gay, what does it matter?

It doesn't matter (or at least I don't see any objectively valid reason for it to matter).

Like I said however, this was only brought up as a counterargument to people claiming without proof that there are certainly no outside factors affecting sexual orientation. So the subject of the discussion was brought forward by that and not by people who responded naturally by asking proof for unsupported claims.

[Sci-2]

But coming into a compromise which will necessarily make some people unsatisfied and dismissing their persons and their opinions as irrelevant or not worthy to be listened are two completely different things. From one side we have the practical need of ensuring a lawful rights and equality, on the other side we have a different type of intolerance that instead of being directed toward certain categories is directed toward other categories.

Just to be clear, I'm not castigating you or trying to paint you into a corner.

I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.

If you're interested in continuing dialogue please answer the following:

Should gays be granted the same marriage rights as straights? Should same-sex unions be classified as "marrriage"?

If no to either question, why not?

[Zoë Sumra]

As far as I can agree with you that their sexuality don't harm me in any way, rejecting the previous debate under the light of this point is wrong. Reality proves us wrong, in fact there are people who feel harmed by sexuality choices and freedom of others. Dismissing their own feelings as "unimportant" is the same thing these people would like to do with the feelings of homosexual people and their need of love. We are not doing any more justice by behaving like them. Therefore it is rightful to debate on the same level and accept to discuss whether or not it is a choice, even if we don't understand their feelings.

The "old-fashioned guys", as you described them in your other post, aren't having their feelings dismissed. They can feel like falling in love and marrying. They can feel like visiting their spouse in hospital. They can feel like filing their taxes as a married couple if doing so provides a benefit to the household. They can feel like leaving their estate to their spouse free of tax. They can feel like kissing and holding hands in public without being the focus of derision.

These are the "feelings" that they want to dismiss in same-sex couples. If you don't think these are feelings, well...

[naz]

Sci, Max is not addressing that issue at all. He's basically saying that, for a democratic society to work properly, you can't shut off the opinions of people simply because you disagree with them. In doing so, you become exactly like the people who shut you off, or who hold your opinion irrelevant.

In a sense, I agree with that principle - that discourse and (eventual) understanding can really only come if you open yourself to the opinions that contradict yours, even if they're abhorrent to you. However, I do believe that there's a line, which is what some other people in this thread are saying. You would not, e.g. listen to a guy who says that we need to control the population by visiting playgrounds and murdering all the children we find there. But I don't think that's what Max is saying either.

eta: The debate in this part of the thread, though, as I understand it, is that the party in question, i.e. those that favor LGBT rights, do not actually feel that they're being dismissive of the right's opinions. The fact that they are enjoying the benefits of having those rights is, in itself, an example of tolerance of their view. The idea that the repressed party is not tolerant of the opposite party's view, when the opposite party enjoys freedoms that are perpetuated by the status quo sorta renders the idea of tolerance moot, in a way.

[bbstark]

I just googled homosexuality and went to the Wikipedia page that came up. It is quite extensive, and lists various studies, and quotes from authoritative institutions. And yes, different studies come up with sometimes conflicting results. Which is why I said that the final answer is still inconclusive.

Here it is:

http://en.wikipedia....i/Homosexuality

there's more to any one discipline of science than just studies that for whatever reason end up on wikipedia. In my experience, the references on the original wikipedia are typically neither seminal works, nor what is considered 'required reading' by the most respected authority in the field. As far as I can tell they are apparently randomly chosen papers from randomly chosen groups/labs/researchers. I sometimes wonder, are these editors just inflated scientist who want their work to show up on the wiki, even though there are works out there that have a higher Impact factor, or h index? it's possible, it's also anonymous, so you don't know. Not to mention that they are usually outdated.

If you are so invested in the topic, why not look up actual scientific, peer reviewed literature, instead of being so reliant on wikipedia? There's also to account for the respect the author gets in the community, as well as following the money? If it's a nationally funded project, it tends to have a lesser likelyhood of alternative agenda than a privately funded one, especially privately funded by special interest groups.

Lastly, there's the good old tale as old as time: Cheating!!!

Some scientists cheat! It's absolutely reprehensible, but it happens. Don't believe me? Check out this

The author claims these are novel, astounding new findings, and real TEM images ( Transmission Electron Microscopy), but it's actually just a shitty photoshop copy/paste job. There's cheating, and then there's cheating like a dumbass (How this got published is beyond me!) Not saying this would necessarily end up on wikipedia btw. The scientific process has checks and balances, but healthy skepticism is always in order.

Hope this helps!

[Seli]

I didn't say rights shouldn't be granted where they are justified.

I said that the opinions of everyone are worthy be listened and discussed, in democracy, and decisions so important should be taken considering the majority but showing everyone the same level of respect, not by silencing those we don't repute as sound and just and dismissing them as "bizarre" old-fashioned guys.

...

It looks like you have missed the really important point about our modern liberal democracies. With regard to things like rights what the majority thinks does not matter. If people are denied rights it is wrong. If people are uncomfortable by the recognition others have rights it is their problem.

And if people attack you on something you are sure you did not say it might be worth checking whether you said what you think you did.