Well almost. Now there’s something I didn’t know. Apparently there is no Greek translation of the word, ‘fuck.’ (Really, now. That would be a fucking shame.)
…ooorrrrrr…
babelfish doesn’t translate obscenities?
hmmm.
What is sexuality? Is it strictly shtubbing and popping offspring like animatronic mechanisms, or is there a huge spiritual dimension to it? Could it be that sexuality is akin to a ‘divine spark’, that sustains and animates people through their whole existence? I think if we are to grant a spiritual dimension to sexuality, then we must grant it the absolute freedom, as we grant to all things of spiritual nature. Don’t we hold true that human spirit is to be free? Everybody supports freedom of conscience. Nobody is born Republican or Democrat, for instance. People can change their minds. My present set of convictions might differ from the one I will have in few years, based on multitude of experiences.
Look at the classic ancient world, where homo- and heterosex coexisted without much problem. Same people rearing big families, regularly had same sex partners, seemingly without much public ado. Same sex liasons were noted and commented upon, but society was not split whether it was right or wrong. No ancient philosopher bothered to inquire whether sexual preferences are the matter of Predestination. The whole matter was accepted as a fact of life and left to the choice of participants. Clearly, there was an open choice back then.
Come Monotheism and beginning of crackdown on same sex. Masses of people were becoming increasingly hostile to same sex in their midst. Where did homosex survived and flourished? In the palaces, among the Kings, Bishops etc. Those people were privelleged enough to do what they wanted. They had wives and kept courtesans of both sexes at the same time. Clearly, it was a matter of choice for them.
Come Democracy and Equal Rights for all… Why has same sex suddenly became a matter of predestination? Why suddenly people are not free to choose?
Just think, when Kerry says that same sex is ‘not a choice’, he really says that people who engage in same sex are somehow damaged and need special treatment. What Kerry is saying is that ‘we won’t beat you up anymore, because we know you are a cripple’.
What is the error message you see under DOS if there is not the presence of one penis and one vagina.
I’ll take computer error messages for 400, Alex.
All your business are belong to us?
I don’t see it that way, at least not 100 percent. The ancient world was more apathetic about it. Sure there were/are bi people who can easily raise a family and keep a boyfriend or two. There probably were also those who were exclusively one way or the other too. Either way, nobody cared.
If someone is bi, they can choose who to play with based on convenience and availability or preference - even a bi will still prefer to choose one or the other. The important thing is, that choice was not taken away from them. With someone who is exclusive, and has no interest or desire, it gets a bit tougher. Someone who is exclusively straight has no interest in the same sex, someone who is exclusively gay has no interest in the opposite sex. It may even be as extreme as a total inability.
Why force people to “choose” or do without, based on something that should not even matter?
As far as Kerry goes, I don’t interpret what he says in the same way. Same sex or hetero sex or even bi is not a choice. People are born with a leaning one way or the other. Many can go both ways, but again, they will lean more in one way or the other. Kerry is saying “leave people be”. he isn’t talking about special treatment, he is talking about equal treatment. He is talking about the way “we”
exclude and marginalize anyone who is “not like us” and the way we deny job protection, health benefits, rights of property transfer, even the ability to have our SO visit us on our deathbed to a large portion of society based on some sort of “icky factor”.
The Ancients had it right when they treated it as a non-issue.
Given what we know about the ancient Greeks, that’s very surprising indeed.
That’s moronic. I applaud your consistency.
What Kerry is saying is true. If you want to make up a stupid interpretation of it, go ahead. (What am I saying? You already did.) But what he’s actually saying is that science has proven that people don’t choose their sexual orientation, which should have been common sense anyway when you think about it. The point is that when nobody is being harmed, it’s wrong to deny people their rights based on who they are.
I agree. Also agree with your assessment of St. Augustine.
What science are you talking about? People do choose what they do with their genitals all the time. I’d like to see you say that to some famous bi-sexuals in history, such as Lucretia Borgia or Marquis de Sade, that they didn’t get to choose who they took to bed.
I agree with that statement wholeheartedly, but I’d like to abridge it a bit. “When nobody is being harmed, it’s wrong to deny people their rights”, period. It is everyone’s god given right what to do with their genitals. It is nobody’s business. You wanna trade this right to politicians in exchange for protection? Wanna claim a victim status? Wanna put yourself into a niche? Giving your rights away is very easy, reclaiming them is very hard.
I think every single poster in this thread has already told you that you’ve totally missed the point. I’ve never heard anyone say that people don’t choose who they sleep with. I said they have choice over that. It’s sexual ORIENTATION that isn’t a choice. It’s probably stupid of me to expect you to get it this time.
:smack: The issue in the question you have been so mortally offended by was whether homosexuality is a choice. That’s a sexual orientation. Everyone has a choice in who they take to bed. That was never the issue.
What the flying fuck are you talking about?
Let me try one more time. I think nobody is born homo- or heterosex. In fact, observations of children show that their sexual personae is in the state of flux. I think establishing one’s sexual preferences involves a great deal of experimentation and, finally, a conscious choice. All people conduct those experiments in realms of fantasy and a certain number carry them out in real life. It’s kind of like with favorite foods. You might favor fish, while I might prefer steak (or vice versa), but we don’t settle in our habits and make a decision until we try a whole variety of other foods. And the fact that we have preferences in food, doesn’t mean we refuse to eat anything else, or that we should be denied them. So do I get it, or are you, indeed, stupid?
However, the bigger issue that irks me is why are we allowing the politicians make political hay on that issue? When politician, like Kerry, say
what does that solve and who does it help? Or does it introduce yet another bulwark of bureaucracy, usurping the most sacred of human freedoms? Right now, one can raise a family and have same sex partner. Once the dogma that sexual orientation is not a choice becomes accepted by the system, will the choice still be there? Or will people be branded one way or another and would have to jump through numerous legal and administrative hoops every time they reconsider their sexuality? For example, by legalizing same sex marriage, aren’t we introducing a definite probability of spike in bigamy convictions?
The whole issue needs to be resolved on the principle of universal tolerance, not special needs. The kind of tolerance that made ancients indifferent to the whole issue. We were going in the wrong direction for 2,000 years now, and assigning permanent sexual labels to people will only make things worse, imo.
You think? But then you offer some vague reference to an “observation” that you don’t have a cite for? Nice.
Christ, that crappy argument again? Why would legal same sex marriages introduce bigamy? Please include in your answer a reference to the fact that a marriage is a legal contract, which can only be entered into by two (and only two) consenting adults.
You’ve yet to prove (a) labels are being applied, (b) they’re permanent and © what these labels restrict (in a purely legal sense).
If you’re talking about legal protection against discrimination, I imagine nobody wants to be a victim, but like it or not people are victims of discrimination. Should we choose to turn a blind eye to things like employers firing gays for no other reason than because they are gay? Or should there be legal protection to prevent that from happening?
Works of Freud and Karl Young on children’s sexuality.
I think that is inevitable outcome of legalizing any informal issue.
In the nutshell, I think it is wrong for any politician to mount the podium, point a finger at the crowd and declare, “Look, that person over there is different!” I don’t care if the difference pertains to sexual practices or something else. I don’t care if the name mentioned is Mary Cheney or Barney Frank. It is WRONG to allow politicians to do that. WE are WRONG to allow that! Such politician needs to be immediately pulled down, tarred, feathered and driven out of town on a rail.
In fairness to Kerry, I don’t think he relishes to answer such questions and it is not his fault he is being asked them. Again, we are wrong to allow this debate to go on at all. The whole issue needs to be resolved on principles of universal tolerance, absolute personal freedom and strict legality.
In principle, I don’t believe in legislating morality. I know such things take place and I wish they weren’t. I’m only saying that we are going about the whole business in completely wrong way. Why can’t we learn from the ancients?
Got anything from the last, say, 50 years?
Interesting use of the words “legalizing” and “informal” in the same sentence. Sadly, you are still making absolutely no sense, and haven’t addressed the question.
Except in this instance, didn’t Kerry mount a podium, point a finger at the crowd and declare, “Look, that person over there is no different than anyone else!”?
I agree completely. I’m going to side with Marley and say you’ve completely missed the point.
No. Can you provide any recent research supporting your implicit statement that people are born predisposed to certain sexual orientation?
For such a discussion, one could start in this current Great Debates thread, or do a quick search on any of the other eighty bazillion threads on the subject. Regardless, I see you’ve ignored the rest of the points raised.
Which of Freud’s “works” are you referring to? Perhaps you mean Anna Freud? Who is Karl Young? Perhaps you mean Karl Jung?
Neither Sigmund nor Anna Freud, nor Jung would be particularly good references for resolving the issue of whether there is a biological basis for homosexuality.
I was born gay. I have always been gay. As long as I have been conscious of sexuality, I have known I was gay. I did not choose to be gay. If I had a choice, I would have chosen differently. It is who I am. Nothing can change it. It is one of the few core, immutable, defining facets of my humanity. Belittling it as a choice is an assault on my decency and humanity.
Yes. Thank you.