| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Be Ye Not Gay | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 25 2011, 05:32 PM (3,712 Views) | |
| kenny | Oct 30 2011, 09:30 AM Post #201 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
What you are attracted to. Not how you live, what you have sex with, whether you like Cher, how masculine or feminine you appear, how you say Ss, or how well you take care of your appearance. Since "What you are attracted to" is known only to you in the privacy of your own mind science cannot identify your sexuality. These people cannot be counted, sorted or classified. . . . and yes, I agree that people do land on a continuum somewhere between being attracted only to one or the other gender. Further, where they are today may differ from where they were before or will be in the future. This is awkward for relationships and classifying people, but too bad. |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Oct 30 2011, 09:32 AM Post #202 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
That's what's behind all this. That's what's behind religion too. You get to feel you are more groovy than others. Equality means the end of superiority. People fight to maintain the status quo, their superiority. |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Oct 30 2011, 09:48 AM Post #203 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
If you think all religions seek to do the same for people, and that all religion seeks to make one feel more groovy than another, then I would suggest a simple 100 level Philosophy of Religion course at your local Community College. I mean that in the kindest, genuine, and sincere way. I think it would help you to better understand some facts about what major religions actually believe.
Edited by KlavierBauer, Oct 30 2011, 09:49 AM.
|
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Oct 30 2011, 10:01 AM Post #204 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
you're probably right but |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Oct 30 2011, 10:01 AM Post #205 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
|
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Horace | Oct 30 2011, 10:15 AM Post #206 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I think it would be cheaper, quicker, and of more educational value to just read a book about it. |
| As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good? | |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Oct 30 2011, 10:22 AM Post #207 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Good advice Horace. I'd also add that his isn't just to learn what religions believe, but also what they teach, and endeavor to do as belief systems. Just the most obvious example (to me anyway), would be the assumption that Christianity teaches, or endeavors to make one feel superior or "groovier" than another. It simply misses the entire point of the belief system for that to be the main take away, yet that seems to be a common secular understanding. High altitude point here - broad generalization - but both Buddhism and Christianity seek to better oneself through admission of their own faults and diligent effort to change their behavior toward unconditional love toward all. (in the Buddhist sense, 'faults' might not be the best word, but self reflection and determined action are paramount). |
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
| LWpianistin | Oct 30 2011, 10:37 AM Post #208 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
One thing I've wondered for a while: why do some gay men do that slight lisp on S's? Where does it come from?
|
| And how are you today? | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Oct 30 2011, 10:42 AM Post #209 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
A qualified speech pathologist can usually rehabilitate a lisp. Best to get them to the SLP and into therapy when they're young. |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Oct 30 2011, 11:55 AM Post #210 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Perhaps gay-therapy could include speech-therapy all on the same campus? |
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Oct 30 2011, 12:24 PM Post #211 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
KB wrote:
I think I've asked that question at least 4 times in this thread, using different approaches. I haven't gotten an answer. Wanna take a crack at it? Secondly, if you can't identify all of them, tell me why you want to give a class of people civil relief, when they cannot be identified? Haven't gotten an answer to that one either. Feel free to take your best shot. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Oct 30 2011, 12:31 PM Post #212 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I don't - I was asking, not offering answer. It seems paramout to the discussion, and your original assertion though.
Well first: this thread is about the assertion that people either are, or aren't born with a sexual identity. Put forth as evidence, is a study that showed people who called themselves one thing, could at some other point in time call themselves something else. A couple of us have pointed out that any correlation between the two ideas is a complete non-sequitur. Your quote above does nothing to address this correlation, which you have personally introduced into the discussion. The discussion isn't about civil rights - the discussion you started has to do with whether or not people calling themselves straight after previously calling themselves gay has anything to do with whether or not they were born to prefer men or women sexually. Second, you enjoy civil liberties and special freedom/rights afforded anyone who self identifies as "religious" - yet there is also no known scientific way to identify these individuals who are guaranteed these freedoms. Furthermore, religious people would argue that they - in fact all mankind - are born that way (with the proclivity to be religious and seeking of God). I won't toss that back on you as a question though - because again, that isn't the point of this discussion. It is an interesting observation though, if one is seeking an analog to self identifying people seeking protection from laws which might inhibit their beliefs which they by their own account have naturally engrained in them, without much choice on their part. |
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Oct 30 2011, 12:32 PM Post #213 |
|
Cheers
|
I've seen you ask the question or make the point, I'm just not sure how important it is. In practice, self-identification of self-selection seems to work ok in the examples I can think if. Can you give me a realistic example where self-identification would lead to issues in applying protections? |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Oct 30 2011, 12:44 PM Post #214 |
|
Cheers
|
The piece in the baptist press mentioned no such conclusion of the study. AFAICT that conclusion was Jolly's. If, in fact, the study also made that conclusion but it simply wasn't reported in the baptist press piece, then I disagree with that particular conclusion of the study as well. Obviously. I haven't paid the fee to read the actual study, of course, but I would find it odd if the study's authors drew such a conclusion and the Baptist Press failed to report it. I would find it even more odd if the study's authors drew such a conclusion and got it published in a respected peer-reviewed journal. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Oct 30 2011, 12:48 PM Post #215 |
|
Cheers
|
Posted apparently without irony. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Oct 30 2011, 01:03 PM Post #216 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
As I understand it a non sequitur is a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise. Part of the conclusion is that biology cannot be destiny, since no one can point out the biological factors which produce homosexuality. Since it is shown that some people can be "cured" of homosexuality, or at the very least remain celibate, is not that part of the conclusion logical? |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Oct 30 2011, 01:06 PM Post #217 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Jolly: What "does not follow" (non-sequitur), is drawing a correlation between the study and biology/genetics. |
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Oct 30 2011, 01:08 PM Post #218 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
AFAICT, a) the study does not say anything about sexual origin other than it can evidently not be ascribed entirely and in all cases to genetic and/or that it is necessarily a permanent fixation; and therefore b) the study does not ask about sexual origins but gives evidence against the prevalent view that homosexuality is a permanent, fixed and immutable trait. AFAICT, Jolly's concern is that if the conclusions are correct (and Jon does not seem to have any argument against the study or its conclusions) then why should we be enacting laws and setting public policy as if homosexuality were a permanent genetic trait that was inescapable (as, for instance, race). I think that about 95% of this thread can be boiled down to those points. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Oct 30 2011, 01:10 PM Post #219 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I ask questions for clarification, Apple, not to evade. If it is unclear what someone is actually asking, it seems better to ask a question to make sure you understand them first. If you or Jon think that is evasion, that would be your problem, not mine. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Oct 30 2011, 01:15 PM Post #220 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
And Jon agrees with you that the study says nothing about sexual origin. Your second point is a presumption I think that Jolly is asserting, but which some of us disagree on. I don't think the study is "evidence" of anything scientifically, other that when you ask people questions (i.e. "are you gay?" or "are you straight?") they can answer with either option. That's basically been what Jon has said repeatedly - this study is evidence of nothing, and so the huge jump to whether or not this should inform policy is irrelevant, as the premise (that the study is some sort of evidence of something) is hugely flawed. As Jon has said, the study (by all appearances) is boring and worthless (as science anyway). |
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Oct 30 2011, 01:17 PM Post #221 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
So is your complaint with the interpretation of the study given in the link? The interpretation was given by "coauthor Stanton L. Jones, a psychologist at Wheaton College". Jolly didn't make up any conclusion that was not already indicated, or strongly implied, by the co-author of the study. I already linked you to that paragraph numerous times trying to help you understand. Or do you really think that the coauthor of the study is making a press statement about something other than what his study purports to show? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Oct 30 2011, 01:26 PM Post #222 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I don't understand that. The study does purport to be evidence that some people can be redirected from a same sex attraction to a heterosexual attraction. Are you quibbling about ""evidence" of anything scientifically"? It seems you don't like their methodology or conclusion or just don't accept the validity of the study for whatever reason. You can argue with all the points about the validity or methodology of the study or how it confirms or disagrees with your assumptions, (see my post 134), but then you are not really talking about the conclusions of study as the article presents. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Oct 30 2011, 02:42 PM Post #223 |
|
Cheers
|
Again, the article made no mention of such a conclusion. I've done no further reading beyond the article itself. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Oct 30 2011, 03:13 PM Post #224 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
We may simply think different things when we read these words, and that's ok. It sounds as though you're making this logical assumption to combat some false notion that being genetically wired to be gay means that no one ever acts differently, but I don't hear any opposition to you or Jolly in this regard. I think it's clear that someone can be gay and act straight, or be straight and act gay, so a study showing people changing their preference doesn't logically (in my opinion) implicitly indicate that people can't be born gay or straight. So when I mention a lack of scientific evidence, I'm saying that there's no observation or measurement that I'm seeing here that 1) defines how one is objectively gay or straight other than their self identification, and 2) connects sexual origin with change in self-identification. The only way I can see correlating the study with sexual origin, is to presume that one's position is either that sexuality is 100% nature, or 100% choice. I don't think anyone's arguing that (based on what I said in the previous paragraph). Edited by KlavierBauer, Oct 30 2011, 03:14 PM.
|
|
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper "He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Oct 30 2011, 04:38 PM Post #225 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
""The results that we report in our study suggest that change is definitely not impossible, and it's probably not uncommon, either," coauthor Stanton L. Jones, a psychologist at Wheaton College, told Baptist Press." "The results... suggest..." Sounds like a conclusion to me. It might be a weak conclusion, it may be the only responsible conclusion one can draw from the data, but when the author talks about "results" of a study, they are talking about what their research has concluded. So basically this 200+ post thread is nothing more than you quibbling over "results" and "conclusion". Okey dokey. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |









Where does it come from?


4:15 PM Jul 10