Gov/public school: social engineering?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmmm...sure no prob...I think I was about 12, going through puberty when I started noticing girls...from then on I have been looking ever since. That was serious, I can pinpoint mine, how about you? I am not against the lifestyle, but I am against blaming something homosexuals choose to do on biology, thats a BS excuse that cannot be proven.
Click to expand...

You said you started noticing girls...I assume that means it happend without any imput on your part? you didnt actually choose to notice girls did you? Your body/hormones did that for you.
 
Of course you were. Let's be frank. You didn't like the answer to the question I posed, so you answered the question you wanted to answer. That is an evasion.
Click to expand...
Look, when you intentionally twist the discussion to suit your needs and then play the victor you lose a lot of credibility. If you're going to have this debate at least do so honestly.

Then the non-evasive answer to my question is "No", not "yes".
Click to expand...
Because it's utterly ridiculous for you think for a moment I was suggesting that infants come out of the womb doing the horizontal shuffle. C'mon now. :rolleyes:

If I was unclear in what I said, just say so, but don't pretend I was being evasive because it makes you think you've somehow won a battle.
So a homosexual sexual assault is not a homosexual experience?
Click to expand...
You're misinterpreting what I said.

It is the sexual assault that most likely causes the psychological trauma, not the fact that it is also a homosexual sexual assault. If that same man were sodomized by a very large and very unattractive woman with some sort of object it would not be a homosexual experience yet it would still be a sexual assault and could very well have the same result.
I don't think that arguing what is "natural" works for your position. First, this inevitably leads to the teleology of sex, which is reproductive. Second, by this measure, all abnormal sexuality is "natural". Third, though you assert that homosexuality would be natural even in the absence of civilisation or society, you've little chance of finding an example to prove it.
Click to expand...
Sex is not merely reproductive in the human animal. Our females do not go into heat, do not have limited reproductive cycles and do not completely stop having sex once pregnant. Sex in humans - as with other primates - is as much an interpersonal phenomenon as it is a means to reproduce.

As for your third comment, I've already provided a list of animals that exhibit homosexuality. They don't have civilization or culture. We also see homosexuality in our closest genetic neighbors, the primates.

Finally, you still would not be meeting the issue involved in teaching children what they should or should not do, as opposed to "be". People are responsible for their conscious acts, even those toward which they may be predisposed. Again, race is a poor analogue, because no one is responsible for choosing his race. Teaching children that abnoraml sexual conduct is to be accepted as if it were normal is a moral, ethical and philosophical matter that cannot be dismissed by facile reference to what may be natural.
Click to expand...
People are responsible for their conscious acts but they are not responsible for the innate sexual desires that arise from biological influences. If you want to talk about immorality then a gross injustice is telling a group of people they should deny their biological imperatives - ones that do no inherent harm to anyone else - because another group of people find it icky or read it in a religious text.

Homosexual and bisexual tendencies are natural in the same way that heterosexual tendencies are natural. The book in question is not encouraging children to start "acting gay" or picking up any lifestyle, it's explaining to children that homosexuals are a part of nature and should not be discriminated against for something they have no control over.

Race is not a poor analogue. No one is responsible for choosing their sexual preference or gender identity.
 
Another point against the "it's natural to me so it should be accepted as a norm" argument is that every other sexually diverse person can use the same argument. What about bisexuals? When do we teach the kids that's normal and should be accepted?
Click to expand...
How is being bisexual any "worse" than being homosexual? It's equally as normal as homosexuality.
The pro-gay arguments always dismiss anything that shows any degree of choice, like the identical twins or ex-gays. Their point of view never counts. Yet when you ask for the physical cause we get "it's too complex for that" answers. It could have an element of genetic predisposition but you can't rule out environmental factors. And teaching kids that early on will absolutely be a major environmental factor.
Click to expand...
Twins and "ex-gays" are not evidence of choice. Twins - even identical twins - will not always have the exact same biochemical reactions that dictate sexuality or a variety of other issues because despite their identical DNA they often have difference in which genes are actually activated, leading to great variety in hormonal influences.

As for ex-gays, they only suggest that people are able to suppress their biological tendencies. The point of view of ex-gays is controversial due to the nature of their therapy in the first place but even if fully accepted - and for the sake of argument, we'll assume it - does not outweigh the far greater amount of evidence that their "choice" is not a choice at all, that homosexuality and bisexuality occur on a biological level across many animals.
 
Hmmm...sure no prob...I think I was about 12, going through puberty when I started noticing girls...from then on I have been looking ever since. That was serious, I can pinpoint mine, how about you? I am not against the lifestyle, but I am against blaming something homosexuals choose to do on biology, thats a BS excuse that cannot be proven.
Click to expand...
Wait, you're saying at 12 years old you actually chose to be straight? That you chose to notice girls and it had nothing to do with the biochemical changes in your body at the time? That it was purely a conscious decision and you weren't influenced by the influx of testosterone in your system nor your own genetic makeup?

Care to explain how you sequenced your genome at such a young age in order to ensure that your sexuality was a blank slate and how you figured out how to exhibit such superhuman control over endocrine system in order to regulate your own hormones?
 
I find it amusing that the "gayness is unnatural" crowd argue that they know so much about being gay, yet no one wants to address RedneckFur's replies.
 
The scientific community as a whole does not hold press conferences to say "hey guys, this is what we think". A scientific consensus is when the vast majority of research points to a single set of related and similar conclusions.
Click to expand...

No thats not right. Various medical and scientific groups do have national meetings where current theories and practices are discussed, national practice guidelines are outlined, etc. This is the medical equivalent of a press conference.

Also textbooks represent a general consensus summary. Medical textbooks are usually written by dozens of different authors, and then the material is reviewed by an editorial board. Only the consensus opinions end up in the textbook. Just show me where in any textbooks of psychiatry or psychology it says that sexual preference is completely involuntary, and I will yield the discussion to you.
 
Quote:
Of course you were. Let's be frank. You didn't like the answer to the question I posed, so you answered the question you wanted to answer. That is an evasion.
Look, when you intentionally twist the discussion to suit your needs and then play the victor you lose a lot of credibility. If you're going to have this debate at least do so honestly.
Click to expand...

Asking a question is not dishonest and doesn't twist a discussion -- it asks a question.

Quote:
Then the non-evasive answer to my question is "No", not "yes".
Because it's utterly ridiculous for you think for a moment I was suggesting that infants come out of the womb doing the horizontal shuffle. C'mon now.
Click to expand...

It is ridiculous to think that you were answering the question?

Quote:
So a homosexual sexual assault is not a homosexual experience?

You're misinterpreting what I said.
Click to expand...

You said my example of a homosexual sexual assault was not "a homosexual experience".


You may have meant something else. Perhaps you could discuss this without imputing twisting, misinterpretation and dishonesty to people for having the audacity to differ with you.
 
just that they have been beaten into submission to deny their inner desires.
Click to expand...

So if I born with an inner desire to go on a killing spree does this make it right?? The key word being "inner desire" Chocolate or sugar could be considered the same.

Redworm and others have made these claims about animals and lab studies I have to ask what his background around animals is. Here's a perfect example. Years ago they did a study in a lab by giving cocaine to primates. I have yet to see any primates in the wild killing each over drugs. Of course I may have missed that. Anytime an animal is put in a lab it's behaviour is subject to the sceintists that put it there. As far as my backgorund I've lived on and farmed for 20 years. I've seen animals and known animals. and I can tell you regardless of what someone in a lab coat says. Domesticated animals will not engage in "Gay" behaviour unless an outside force is applied.

eta:

A scientific consensus is when the vast majority of research points to a single set of related and similar conclusions.
Click to expand...
They can't even aggree on how to control soybean aphids, how can you tell me they agree on something as complicated as human sexuality? There is no "scientific consensus" if there was sceintists would all hold a press conference and find different jobs because there was nothing more to research. It is the constant disagreement between sceintists that leads to new studies and new discoveries.
 
When all is said and done, parents still have the right to decide when or if they want their children exposed to alternative lifestyles.
 
No thats not right. Various medical and scientific groups do have national meetings where current theories and practices are discussed, national practice guidelines are outlined, etc. This is the medical equivalent of a press conference.

Also textbooks represent a general consensus summary. Medical textbooks are usually written by dozens of different authors, and then the material is reviewed by an editorial board. Only the consensus opinions end up in the textbook. Just show me where in any textbooks of psychiatry or psychology it says that sexual preference is completely involuntary, and I will yield the discussion to you.
Click to expand...
http://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Sexual-Orientation-Behavior-Identity/dp/0313285012
http://www.amazon.com/Lesbian-Bisexual-Identities-Youth-Psychological/dp/0195119533/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_2
http://www.amazon.com/Textbook-Homo...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203471972&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Orientation-Toward-Biological-Understanding/dp/0275956512

Don't tell me I have to buy each book and take pictures. :p
 
So if I born with an inner desire to go on a killing spree does this make it right?? The key word being "inner desire" Chocolate or sugar could be considered the same.
Click to expand...
I hope you're not comparing homosexual acts to homicide. The latter harms others, the former does not.
Redworm and others have made these claims about animals and lab studies I have to ask what his background around animals is. Here's a perfect example. Years ago they did a study in a lab by giving cocaine to primates. I have yet to see any primates in the wild killing each over drugs. Of course I may have missed that. Anytime an animal is put in a lab it's behaviour is subject to the sceintists that put it there. As far as my backgorund I've lived on and farmed for 20 years. I've seen animals and known animals. and I can tell you regardless of what someone in a lab coat says. Domesticated animals will not engage in "Gay" behaviour unless an outside force is applied.
Click to expand...
My background is in evolutionary biology so I do have some experience with lab animals.

I don't get the point of your observation of primates.

Fortunately the personal experiences of one farmer do not outweigh the collective knowledge, research and experimentation methods of the scientific community.
They can't even aggree on how to control soybean aphids, how can you tell me they agree on something as complicated as human sexuality? There is no "scientific consensus" if there was sceintists would all hold a press conference and find different jobs because there was nothing more to research. It is the constant disagreement between sceintists that leads to new studies and new discoveries.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. :p When there's consensus we do more research. Just because a bunch of scientists agree on a subject doesn't mean research just ends. We take that conclusion and expand upon it. We research it more to see if it holds up to the test of time or needs to be modified.

And consensus can certainly exist without a formal announcement.
 
When all is said and done, parents still have the right to decide when or if they want their children exposed to alternative lifestyles.
Click to expand...
I agree. However, penguins do not have lifestyles therefore homosexuality in penguins is not "alternative" to anything at all. It's a fact of life that homosexuality exists in nature, not a "lifestyle choice" made by these animals.

Parents should not have the right to deny their children basic knowledge of the world around them nor should they have the right to encourage intolerance of others.
Well, not as long as you use enough K-Y.
Click to expand...
Now why would girls need to use K-Y? :p
 
Come on RW. You really think they put that in there because they want to educate the kids about the sexual diversity of animals?
 
Alright...time to say a word or two.

While I have to commend the participants of this thread for the civilized and restrained manner of the debate, this thread has drifted into an exclusive debate on homosexuality, and as such has no bearing anymore on L&P issues, or the TFL mission.

Those who wish to continue the discussion may avail themselves to PMs and emails.

Thanks, folks, but this one's done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top