Saturday, November 1, 2008

Why do I do this to myself?

I need to stop clicking on the articles at The horrors inside...they are unfathomable. Spoiler alert: he's a moron talking about the evils of gay sex.

I listened to men justify oral sex on 18 month olds. How often I listened to men claim their pedophilia was an inborn trait; it was natural, ‘this is the way God made me.’

Ergo, no one has any inborn traits. Seriously, what the hell is this crap? Comparing homosexuality to pedophilia? Newsflash: homosexual relationships DON'T INVOLVE EXPLOITING THE SEXUALLY UNDEVELOPED! Consensual sex doesn't hurt anyone, forcing or tricking young kids into having sex DOES!
This “born that way” argument is fueling the case for same-sex marriage in California. Is it a good argument? I know this is a difficult and emotional issue for many people, but I think the reasonable answer is no.
You are right. It is not a good argument in of itself. But that is not factoring in one detail: you've robbed that argument of its context. "Born that way" is not a justification for being allowed to go through with destructive activities. Homosexuality is not destructive, so it doesn't need any such a justification, "natural" or no. Instead, it is argued by people like yourself and the religious to be inherently evil without having any tangible, harmful effect on the parties involved, or even those around them. You and your ilk argue that it is a sinful action chosen with free will, and the "born that way" argument is a rebuttal. And aWrong. good one at that (well....sort of).

Not only is the evidence for being “born that way” questionable, even if it were true, it should have no impact on our marriage laws.
First off: Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Second: of course "born that way" wouldn't have any bearing on the marriage laws. But, again, that argument is a rebuttal against reasons why they should be forbidden from getting marriage. Aside from the argumentum ad status quo, the argumentum ad "evil buttsecks" is pretty much all that your side can muster, and the "it's natural" argument destroys that argument of yours if you are not willing to turn into a Calvinist.

First, after many years of intense research, a genetic component to homosexual desires has not been discovered.
Glad you emphasized the word that you placed in there specifically to say "haha, no proof". I mean, in addition to making it so that something has to be genetic in order to have a biological cause.

Twin studies show that identical twins do not consistently have the same sexual orientation. In fact, genetics probably explains very little about homosexual

50%. If one is gay, then there is a 50% that the other one is. Compared to a 10% chance (or 3 to 4%) that a person becomes gay based upon the amount of them in the population, and that no such strong correlation exists with non-identical twin siblings. In fact, a fraternal twins has a 20% of being gay if the other twin is gay. This suggests that yes, there is a biological influence! But, this study also indicates that it is obviously not wholly genetic, and that there probably is some form of environmental factors, or "choice" (not the same thing, in case that needs noting).

How would a homosexual “gene” be passed on?

Recessive traits, motherfucker! Have you heard of them? Not that it even has to be a gene, but geez...don't be such a moron, dude.

Second, the “born-that-way” claim is an argument from design— “since God designed me with these desires, I ought to act on them.” But the people who say this overlook something more obvious— they were also born with a specific gender. This raises the question: Why are you following your desires but not your gender?

Responding to a rebuttal against religious claims again by removing its context as a rebuttal against religous claims? Niiiiice. Also: your counterargument fails, in that gender is not a drive. You are not obliged to have sex with a certain group based upon genitalia alone. It is the sexual desires themselves that give us the drive to do so, and the "God designed me with these desires" argument is an explanation of that: that they have been instilled with a desire to direct their genitalia towards a different group. The fact that they are a certain gender isn't a compelling rationale to have sex with a different gender anymore than having legs is a compulsion for a person with lower body paralysis to start walking (sorry if this analogy winds up suggesting that gay people are impotent).

Ignoring your desires may be uncomfortable, but ignoring the natural design of your body is often fatal.

Your desires are a product of the "natural design of your body" moron. The desire to eat, to drink, to have sex, to sleep, and even the higher cognitive desires to a lesser extent. Ignoring those desires are not just uncomfortable, they are psychologically damaging, physically harmful, or just plain fatal. More so than not knowing the obvious and undeniable TRUTH that is the holy gospel of "penis goes in vagina".

Third, even if desires are not a choice, sexual behavior always is.

That is true. Yet, the thing is, forcing people to repress their sexuality when the expression of it causes no harm is akin to torture.

If you claim that he is not—that sexual behavior is somehow uncontrollable—then
you have made the absurd contention that no one can be morally responsible for
any sexual crime, including rape, incest, and child molestation.

Ahem: PHAIL!!! That consent thing again, you homophobes always seem to forget about it. I guess you spend too much time reading Leviticus that you've forgotten to learn about the Golden Rule (or, more appropriately, Hippocrates, in that some people would very much like to be "done onto").

Laws are concerned with behaviors not desires, and we all have desires we ought
not act on. In fact, all of us were born with an “orientation” to bad behavior, but those desires don’t justify the behaviors.

Yes they are concerned with behaviors. Behavior that actually undermine society. Which consensual sex IS NOT.

For example, if you are born with a genetic predisposition to alcohol, does that
mean God wants you to be an alcoholic? If someone has a genetic attraction to
children, does that mean God wants you to be a pedophile?

Yes on both accounts. Except, for the first one, a tendency alcoholism doesn't come into play until you actually drink some(since it is an can't be addicted to something that hasn't enterred your system). Which means you have a good amount of choice up until that first sip. Homosexuality and pedophilia are innate and not triggered by your own actions (as far as we know). And then the consent problem again...

What homosexual activist would say that a genetic predisposition to anger justifies gay-bashing?

One who doesn't know the difference between being predisposed towards harmful and innocuous actions.

One can say that, but what’s loving about sexual activity that creates numerous health problems, increases medical costs to everyone, and reduces the lifespan of homosexuals by 8-20 years?

STD's: now the sole province of homosexuals, and objected proof that love doesn't exist. Ever occur to you that those dangers and shortened lifespans are caused by people like you discriminating against them (increasing the suicide rate for that segment of society) and depriving them of a means of getting out of the sex-tastic dating game?

But if the sex act is medically dangerous, the best way to love the other person is not to have sex with him. In fact, most of our loving relationships are non-sexual.

Yes, these are both good points. Except, that you are arguing about the "sex acts" being dangerous just on merits of being between homosexuals, not on the merits of one of the individual, you know, actually having an STD. So, close but no cigar.

Yet that’s exactly what government-backed same-sex marriage would do--- it would endorse and thus promote the false idea that marriage between a man and a woman is no better for children or society than marriage between same-sex partners.

How is that idea wrong? And why is the government "endorsing" homosexuality a bad thing, considering that there is nothing objectively wrong with it, and that it is (according to your hypothetical concession) a biological drive that they have? Is the status quo really a justification for depriving such segments of society from equal treatment, considering how many times we've had to destroy such histories before in order to get the semblance of egalitarianism we have today?

legally equating the two types of relationships breaks the link between marriage and childbearing which leads to higher illegitimacy and a chain of negative effects that fall like dominoes—illegitimacy leads to poverty, crime, and higher welfare costs which lead to bigger government, higher taxes, and a slower economy.

The slipperiest slope ever slipped. You know what really breaks the link between marriage and childbearing? Old people, impotent couples, people who already bear illegitimate children without the gays' dark influence, and, of course, those idiots who keep saying that marriage is about love. It's a child quota, and nothing more, obviously!

The bottom line is that desires, whatever their source, do not justify behaviors. In fact, there’s a word we use to describe the disciplined restraint of destructive behaviors– it’s called civilization.

Wait. You admit that "restraint of destructive behaviors" is the relevant issue? WHAT THE HELL!? Are you a half-wit who actually thinks that gay sex is inherently harmful to society, or individuals, or are you just a typical half-wit who accidentally contradicted himself? I would like to think it is a little bit of both.

Instead of restraining negative behaviors, homosexual activists are asking usnot just to tolerate, but to endorse them. For the sake of civilization, we allneed to restrain our destructive behaviors.
It's so cute when they try to pretend that they have an argument, don't you think? Okay...that was my post-Halloween venture into the depths of terror and insanity. I think I still have a case of the bends from it...

Until next rant, then.


Harvey said...

I think that the biggest fallacy in opposition to same gender marriage revolves around the contention that it somehow undermines traditional man-woman unions. Although marriage is regarded as a religious "sacrament" by most Christians, the real issue is the secular (legal) contract that is currently sanctioned by the state. It has nothing to do with procreation or child rearing; it recognizes certain legal relationships between individuals (i.e. marriage "contract") and carries several significant social and monetary benefits, at least in the USA. Please note that the presence or absence of church sanctioning of this contract is entirely beside the point. Even the ordained ministers who are licensed to legally marry people must have state approval. Since the absence of a church approved marriege has no legal status and since people frequently see fit to bear children "out of wedlock", I fail to see how the state allowing people of the same gender to enter into the same contract as any other two citizens harms anyone, least of all the people involved.

Asylum Seeker said...

" Although marriage is regarded as a religious "sacrament" by most Christians, the real issue is the secular (legal) contract that is currently sanctioned by the state. It has nothing to do with procreation or child rearing; it recognizes certain legal relationships between individuals (i.e. marriage "contract") and carries several significant social and monetary benefits, at least in the USA."

This is Truth. Otherwise, atheists would have a hard time getting married, right? And I could almost see the outrage if we were trying to force churches to marry gay couples as a religious ceremony instead of as a secular contract. But, that even if they hold that misconception, that isn't the limit of their complaint. They think marriage itself, as an institution that has existed long before their religion, and in countries all across the globe in one way, shape, or form, is their right to dictate. And it is pathetic. An argument from definition, with nothing but their sheer hatred of gays to back up the passion with which they oppose it. They are losing ground, thankfully, and rightfully so. Their position is incredibly devoid of merit, and gay marriage is popping up in Connecticut and California now. They are in panic mode, and will make even less sense than usual. Hope that Question 8 in Cali fails, to make the post-election days that much more hilarious.

vjack said...

That site really is like a bad car wreck. I know it is just going to upset me when I look, but I feel compelled to do so.

Asylum Seeker said...

"That site really is like a bad car wreck. I know it is just going to upset me when I look, but I feel compelled to do so."

Yes, but car wrecks generally make more sense than those articles. And, arguably, they more productive for society than, in that it may help to weed out the kind of people who let exist, i.e. drunks, morons, and people who have no frickin' idea what they are doing, but swear to GOD that can totally make it through that red light.

Pliny-the-in-Between said...

Hardly surprising but the Rollers seem to have missed any of the EVODEVO (not the alternative band) developments of the last couple of decades. Probably a much better biological explanation of homosexuality.

Harvey said...

It seems to me that whether Homosexuality is genetic, choice, or a combination of both is, again, entirely beside the point.
Unless one adheres to a particular brand of Christianity, wherein one's Pastors, Priests or Pope interpret Scripture as condemning it, there can be no reason for society in the USA to restrict or penalize such behavior as long as it transpires between individuals of the age of consent and does not otherwise run afoul of laws of the state regarding any type of sexual behavior between members of the opposite sex, as well. This is simply religion once again trying to impose its particular "morality" on the rest of a secular society. Certainly, there would be a monstrous hue and cry if anyone tried to require a church to honor either a sacrament like marriage or to force menbership for homosexuals under
fairness" doctrines (please note, as tax free institutions, one might make a case that Churches are at least partly supported by taxpayer's money); why should there not be the same when Christians seek to deny certain citizens full and equal rights under the law?

mac said...

I've been gone a few've been busy as usual :-)

I checked out Town Hall. Those assholes send me more email notifications than a Nigerian lawyer telling me of my millions bequeathed by my long-lost uncle.

Stop already, Town Hall !!

Asylum Seeker said...

Been wondering where you disapparated to, mac. Good to see that you are still among the living. And, on another note, is directly related to why I am so "busy": I have no life :)

The AOL Newsblog's e-mail authentication system was too annoying for me to bear. If you could post there without getting pissed off by their system, but not at Townhall, I'm not sure if I even want to try!

mac said...

Don't try !
I did. I have been bothered every since. they are like pitbulls without lipstick over there....they won't let go !

I never posted...I did make it through the maze that is their registration, but didn't have the energy to put anything forth.

And, It's good to be back :-)