Posted on 05/29/2003 11:42:24 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
True enough, but let's not make any false (and slanderous) comparisons. Consensual homosexuality is not cannabalism and would seem you have a fondness for hyperbole just to make such a comparison.
even if the activity hurts no one but the two involved, homoerotic behavior is wrong and should be discouraged if not outright outlawed.
You better hope that mentality never takes hold politically. There may come a day when those in power (can you say President Hillary Clinton) decide your particular opinion or behavior should be "discouraged if not outright outlawed."
Moral relativist Liberaltarians like tdadams think they live in a bubble. My guess until he has kids he'll remain thinking that until an epiphany that some, very few, parts of society should be regulated.
Priceless...I'm adding this one on to your non-credability list.
So why again is your data more compelling than others? Come on Mr. Credibility, can you muster an answer or are you all out of sophistry?
No, it's a common rhetorical technique when two people disagree. You start at a point of obvious agreement, then work toward the point of disagreement and demonstrate a commonality. I was trying to establish that a genetic influence for a behavior is not a compelling reason to allow or encourage that behavior - a point with which you have agreed. Therefore, you can stop with your twin studies and get on with the issue of homoerotic behavior.
You better hope that mentality never takes hold politically. There may come a day when those in power (can you say President Hillary Clinton) decide your particular opinion or behavior should be "discouraged if not outright outlawed."
Actually, there is no other political mentality. All political decisions are based on a concept of morality. And today I find there are lots of laws being proposed that would make it illegal for me to believe homoerotic behavior is immoral. So it's only a matter of whose viewpoint comes out on top.
If there is such a thing as a moral law (which I believe there is) then the important thing is to determine whether homoerotic behavior is against that moral law, no matter what people think. If there is no such thing as a moral law, then those who believe homoerotic behavior is destructive have just as much a right to pursuade our opinion in the political arena as anyone else.
Shalom.
"Taken as a whole, how many studies have found a significant correlation versus studies that have found no correlation? I draw my own conclusions."
"The body of scientific study is constantly evolving. I realize this."
If, in these moderate statements you somehow percieved me as saying "My study trumps your study", well, I can only suggest you take a remedial reading comprehension class.
Neither is it a valid reason for the government to assume the power to criminalize that behavior when it harms no one (except maybe the one engaging in it), when doing so is a blatant violation of their basic human rights (with the necessary disclaimer that we're talking about consenting adults in the privacy of their own home).
We don't live in a nation where rights are granted by government approval and all activities outside that which is government approved is criminal.
Your reply to me.
"...I pointed out that several other studies have consistently shown a higher correlation of sexual orientation among identical twins than among fraternal twins, thus shattering your risible argument.
Digging a hole to China?
Except when it conflicts with the 10th amendment.
Shalom.
I agree, which is why I want to discuss those issues, and not the issue of a genetic link. Since mankind has recognized that homoerotic behavior is damaging to both individuals and society for at least 6,000 years, I'll ask you to tell me why you think it harms no one with the possible exception of those engaging in it. In other words, you are asking for a change in the status quo. Why?
Shalom.
I've come to understand you have a reactive need to protest when you're shown to be wrong, but come on. Are you trying to convince me that you're completely incapable of an honest assertion?
I would dare say you are not correct. Not all societies through all of time has considered homosexuality aberrant or harmful. And 6,000 years ago, people thought the earth was flat. Why should we change the status quo?
That's true, but those that thought otherwise did not last, and the people who came after them returned to an exclusively heterosexual society. They saw the results and applied them such that we still recognize homoerotic behavior as aberrant and harmful. Been there, done that, know it's stupid.
And 6,000 years ago, people thought the earth was flat. Why should we change the status quo?
Because we've been to the moon and know it is not.
Can you see the distinction. WRT homoerotic behavior all the evidence is against it, where as with a spherical earth all the evidence is in favor of it.
A far better example for you to have used would have been slavery. And there were many who probably argued against abolition as being a change to the status quo. But once it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that blacks were not sub-human, slavery had to go. Evidence that slavery was wrong, coupled with the fact that our society is stronger for abolishing it, are sufficient to justify never reestablishing the age-old institution of slavery.
Why should we normalize homoerotic behavior? Give me one good reason.
Shalom.
And we can all be certain that their demise was due solely to their tolerance of homosexuality, right?
A far better example for you to have used would have been slavery. And there were many who probably argued against abolition as being a change to the status quo. But once it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that blacks were not sub-human, slavery had to go.
You know you're right. That is a good analogy. I would suggest to you that we are in the midst of a very similar cultural shift where a good number of people, perhaps soon a majority if not already, see homosexuals as fully human also and wish for them to participate in the full range of rights and dignities as all others without having to pretend they're something they're not.
Societal changes may not be as perceptible as seeing the earth from the moon, but societies, cultures, and common ways of thinking do change. They are changing. You can choose to be anachronistic if that suits your personality. You can deny the changing world around you and fight it if you choose, but that only leaves you standing still while the world moves on without you, making you more and more irrelevant.
C'mon, don't play games with me. What we can be certain of is that homoerotic tolerance did not lead to longevity, nor did it recommend itself to the civilizations that followed. If it had been a good idea, don't you think it would have caught on?
You know you're right. That is a good analogy. I would suggest to you that we are in the midst of a very similar cultural shift where a good number of people, perhaps soon a majority if not already, see homosexuals as fully human also and wish for them to participate in the full range of rights and dignities as all others without having to pretend they're something they're not.
With a huge difference. Black slavery is different from any other slavery ever encountered in history because it was based on the absurd notion that people could be "sub-human", a notion you can lay at the feet of Charles Darwin and those whose opinions he followed. The flawed concept was that blacks were something other than human.
Homosexuals have never been accused of being something other than human. If they were thought to be different, they would be much more tolerable. The problem is that everyone knows that homosexuals are human and knows they are mentally ill. The only argument the gays have left to them is, "If it hurts nobody, why bother about it?" The answer to that is clear, if gays would keep their sexual preference private, we wouldn't bother about it. It's their attempt to politicize their private sexual habits that have caused them the problem.
I told you that slavery was a better analogy, it was still not a good one. You should know better than to accept a handout from your opponent. His goal is to defeat you, not help you.
See if you can find an example of a behavior that was known for all of recorded history to be wrong, and has been shown in recent times to be normal. That's the kind of analogy you want.
Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.