<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Hypocrisy? I don't follow. I never said being gay is rational. Why would I think that, when I don't even believe it's a choice?</div> You said just because it's a natural reaction doesn't mean it is rational. That's what people who don't believe in homosexuality say (thus you're a hypocrite). Hey look, you really want to support homosexuals and that's fine, but I don't see why it's so damn unreasonable for a guy to not want to take off his clothes in front of them. I want my "rights" supported along with their's.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">You said just because it's a natural reaction doesn't mean it is rational. That's what people who don't believe in homosexuality say (thus you're a hypocrite).</div> To repeat, I never said being gay is rational. People don't have reasons for being gay. They just are. If you want to accuse me of being a hypocrite, you have to actually point out the hypocrisy. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Hey look, you really want to support homosexuals and that's fine, but I don't see why it so so damn unreasonable for a guy to not want to take off their clothes in front of them.</div> There is no reason for it. That's why it's unreasonable. In our society, most of us will feel uncomfortable taking our clothes off in front of gay men. It's like being afraid of flying. Even if you guarantee to such a person that the plane won't crash, they'll still feel very uneasy in the plane. Well, would you also feel very uneasy naked in front of a gay man even if it was guaranteed that they wouldn't make an advance towards you? If so, would you call that "reasonable"? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> I want my "rights" supported along with their's.</div> Your "right" would be based on an irrational condition you (and many others, even myself to be honest) have. Is it fair to revoke the right of homosexuals to use a locker room just so you'll feel comfortable? I think that's comparable to keeping blacks out of white bathrooms way back when. Your "right" to be separated from homosexuals is based on homophobia, while their right to be separated from blacks was based on racism.
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">To repeat, I never said being gay is rational. People don't have reasons for being gay. They just are. If you want to accuse me of being a hypocrite, you have to actually point out the hypocrisy. </div> You said just because I have natural reactions/feelings, doesn't mean thay are "rational". Many gay bashers will say that just because one is born with a certain condition, that doesn't mean it is a rational way of living life. Now, since you admit that being gay is not rational, but said "they just are" (let them be), then let me be uneasy with them walking around the locker room as well (or else you're a hypocrite). <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> There is no reason for it. That's why it's unreasonable. In our society, most of us will feel uncomfortable taking our clothes off in front of gay men. It's like being afraid of flying. Even if you guarantee to such a person that the plane won't crash, they'll still feel very uneasy in the plane. Well, would you also feel very uneasy naked in front of a gay man even if it was guaranteed that they wouldn't make an advance towards you? If so, would you call that "reasonable"?</div> But you can't guarantee that. I don't want to deal with it, and I'm quite sure there would be various players on the team that the gay guy would be attracted to (like groupies are attracted to a bunch of famous ballers). I presume some men on teams already have to deal with a bunch of staring and the like; it's a distraction and takes focus off the game. I presume that's also why the Military doesn't want gay people, it disrupts the unit (with distractions and uneasy feelings). <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Your "right" would be based on an irrational condition you (and many others, even myself to be honest) have. Is it fair to revoke the right of homosexuals to use a locker room just so you'll feel comfortable? I think that's comparable to keeping blacks out of white bathrooms way back when. Your "right" to be separated from homosexuals is based on homophobia, while their right to be separated from blacks was based on racism.</div> People were conditioned to hate black people. Not being attracted to the phallus of another man is a trait I was born with and is empirically natural. They could just get another locker room, NBA organizations are freaking loaded.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">You said just because I have natural reactions/feelings, doesn't mean thay are "rational". Many gay bashers will say that just because one is born with a certain condition, that doesn't mean it is a rational way of living life.</div> There's a difference between being gay (having a particular sexual orientation) and choosing to live a gay lifestyle. Don't conflate the two. Having a particular sexual orientation is not a rational choice in my view (it isn't a choice at all). But I don't think it's irratoinal to pursue relationships based on that orientation. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Now, since you admit that being gay is not rational</div> Yes, in the same way "being straight" isn't rational. It's not like I conceded a point here. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">but said "they just are" (let them be), then let me be uneasy with them walking around the locker room as well (or else you're a hypocrite).</div> Sure. I never said you should be forced to feel otherwise. That wouldn't even make sense. If you feel uneasy, you feel uneasy. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">But you can't guarantee that. I don't want to deal with it, and I'm quite sure there would be various players on the team that the gay guy would be attracted to (like groupies are attracted to a bunch of famous ballers). I presume some men on teams already have to deal with a bunch of staring and the like; it's a distraction and takes focus off the game. I presume that's also why the Military doesn't want gay people, it disrupts the unit (with distractions and uneasy feelings).</div> That's not a legitimate reason to ban someone from playing in the NBA, in my view. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">People were conditioned to hate black people. Not being attracted to the phallus of another man is a trait I was born with and is empirically natural.</div> I wasn't comparing not wanting to share a bathroom with black people to not being attracted to other men. I think you misunderstood the analogy.
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">There's a difference between being gay (having a particular sexual orientation) and choosing to live a gay lifestyle. Don't conflate the two. Having a particular sexual orientation is not a rational choice in my view (it isn't a choice at all). But I don't think it's irratoinal to pursue relationships based on that orientation.</div> Hah, true. That I can agree with (when worded in that exact manner at least). <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Yes, in the same way "being straight" isn't rational. It's not like I conceded a point here. </div> Ok but now I don't know what you're talking about. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Sure. I never said you should be forced to feel otherwise. That wouldn't even make sense. If you feel uneasy, you feel uneasy. </div> No, I also meant let me have my own locker room. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> That's not a legitimate reason to ban someone from playing in the NBA, in my view. </div> If someone comes out and it really messes with the team then I could see that as a problem. In fact, it might already be an issue for some players right now. It's not like gay people can't practice with their teammates or ride on the same bus, the current topic is simply about the locker room. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> I wasn't comparing not wanting to share a bathroom with black people to not being attracted to other men. I think you misunderstood the analogy.</div> Let's take a look at your previous analogy: <div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">I think that's comparable to keeping blacks out of white bathrooms way back when. Your "right" to be separated from homosexuals is based on homophobia, while their right to be separated from blacks was based on racism.</div> I don't think I "misunderstood" anything.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> Let's take a look at your previous analogy: <div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">I think that's comparable to keeping blacks out of white bathrooms way back when. Your "right" to be separated from homosexuals is based on homophobia, while their right to be separated from blacks was based on racism.</div> I don't think I "misunderstood" anything.</div> I'm comparing racism to homophobia. You're talking about your orientatoin -- how you naturally aren't attracted to other men. I don't see the connection. Homophobia, like racism, is conditioned. Sexual orientation may or may not be.
I would concur with durvasa's comment about catagorizing homosexuality as a symptom of some kind of weakness. Phrasing something that way, even if it's unintentionally offensive, is nonethteless extremely offensive. It projects the notion that a person can't be a homosexual without possessing some sort of "mental weakness," as was said. As to the issue of homosexuality being a choice... because there is, to my knowledge, no concrete scientific way to determine how homosexuality occurs, I'm forced to accept in my mind what strikes me as most logically reasonable. It does not seem reasonable that every gay person I've ever met lied to me when they said they are not emotionally or physically attracted to women, and that they feel they were born that way. It is similarly not rational for me to assume that attraction to certain people, regardless of gender, is a choice. If that were the case, many people, myself included, would never have to deal with the feeling of unrequited love because they'd be able to shift their affections to somebody else without any problem. And lastly, it is not rational for me to assume that the romances of two people of the same sex is in any way inferior or wrong when I can see in those relationships just as much devotion and love as I do in my own feelings, and in those of my friends. So, well, yeah. I'm not very good at conclusions, so I'll just have to let that rest.
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I'm comparing racism to homophobia. You're talking about your orientatoin -- how you naturally aren't attracted to other men. I don't see the connection. Homophobia, like racism, is conditioned. Sexual orientation may or may not be.</div> Uh yes it is. Now to what extent is uncertain. I tend to believe in the scientific jargon I read in that last article I posted about this subject. <div class="quote_poster">Montaman Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I would concur with durvasa's comment about catagorizing homosexuality as a symptom of some kind of weakness. Phrasing something that way, even if it's unintentionally offensive, is nonethteless extremely offensive. It projects the notion that a person can't be a homosexual without possessing some sort of "mental weakness," as was said.</div> Now how should I know if they are mentally weak? But I don't see any "end all point" that justifies your perspective; whereas on my side there at least is the "detailed" (look at the link) evidence that homosexuality is a predisposition. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">As to the issue of homosexuality being a choice... because there is, to my knowledge, no concrete scientific way to determine how homosexuality occurs, I'm forced to accept in my mind what strikes me as most logically reasonable. It does not seem reasonable that every gay person I've ever met lied to me when they said they are not emotionally or physically attracted to women, and that they feel they were born that way. </div> But I would state that your opinion is not as knowledgeable as, let's say, someone from a British Medical journal. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> It is similarly not rational for me to assume that attraction to certain people, regardless of gender, is a choice. If that were the case, many people, myself included, would never have to deal with the feeling of unrequited love because they'd be able to shift their affections to somebody else without any problem. And lastly, it is not rational for me to assume that the romances of two people of the same sex is in any way inferior or wrong when I can see in those relationships just as much devotion and love as I do in my own feelings, and in those of my friends.</div> First see above, but I'm also sure that I've heard this exact same argument for incest. Really it's a matter of taste for me, but I draw the line at certain points.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Uh yes it is. Now to what extent is uncertain. I tend to believe in the scientific jargon I read in that last article I posted about this subject.</div> The article you posted didn't offer a theory one way or the other, unless I missed something; it only eliminated a specific theory from some other scientist(s). As you say, the extent is uncertain. It could be to no extent. Hence, "may or may not." Regardless, what I was referring to with the analogy is one's level of discomfort around gay people, not how natural it is to be straight versus gay.
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">The article you posted didn't offer a theory one way or the other, unless I missed something; it only eliminated a specific theory from some other scientist(s). As you say, the extent is uncertain. It could be to no extent. Hence, "may or may not."</div> No the article did state a predisposition. May not would imply 0%. I've known enough gay people to know nurture is a factor anyway. You seem to be picking and choosing the sections of the article you liked, that's not how science works, which was the MAIN purpose of the entire analysis. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Regardless, what I was referring to with the analogy is one's level of discomfort around gay people, not how natural it is to be straight versus gay.</div> I don't care for discussing semantics. It absolutely seem to come off in the manner I first reacted to it. This is a small point either way. I'm sorry if you expected me to use the bible as some sort of reason why I don't like homosexuality, because I don't do that. I like to report the news, not create personal theories to discredit scientific journals; as you have mostly done recently.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">No the article did state a predisposition. May not would imply 0%. </div> Can you quote the section where they showed that homosexuality is, to some extent, conditioned. I don't see it.
Here you go fellow. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">To begin with, we must ask what LeVay and Hamer have not shown. LeVay has found no proof of any direct link between the size of INAH 3 and sexual behavior. Size differences alone prove nothing. He was also unable to exclude the possibility that AIDS has an influence on brain structure, although this seemed unlikely, since six of the heterosexual men he studied also had AIDS. Moreover, Hamer did not find a gene for homosexuality; what he discovered was data suggesting some influence of one or more genes on one particular type of sexual preference in one group of people. Seven pairs of brothers did not have the Xq28 genetic marker, yet these brothers were all gay. Xq28 is clearly not a sine qua non for homosexuality; it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause by itself. And what about women? Although the genitalia of women as well as men are clearly biologically determined, no data exist to prove a genetic link, or a link based on brain structure, with female sexual preferences, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Finally, neither study has been replicated by other researchers, the necessary standard of scientific proof. Indeed, there is every reason to suppose that the INAH 3 data will be extremely difficult to confirm. Only a few years ago INAH 1 (located close to INAH 3) was also thought to be larger in men than in women. Two groups, including LeVay's, have failed to reproduce this result. ... LeVay and Hamer on the one hand, and Katz, on the other, evidently have taken completely antithetical positions. <font color=""Red"">But Katz's extreme intellectual reductionism makes him as guilty as the more simplistic biologists and journalists who inflate claims about every new genetic discovery. </font>After convincingly undermining the distinction between gay and straight, he then accepts the naive dualism of nature vs. nurture. It is such attempts as Katz's to put into opposition forces that are not in opposition which argue so strongly for planned research free from the ideological temptations that he succumbs to. Biological research into sexuality will indeed be misconceived if we assume that we already understand the differences between the sexes. In part the results of that research often contradict any such assumption. Katz demands that "we need to look less to oracles [presumably biological], and trust more in our desires, visions, and political organizing." But to take this path risks perpetuating a debate based on ignorance rather than one based on evidence. It is true that the research of Hamer and LeVay presents technical and conceptual difficulties and that their preliminary findings obviously need replication or refutation. Yet their work represents a genuine epistemological break away from the past's rigid and withered conceptions of sexual preference. The pursuit of understanding about the origins of human sexuality --the quest to find an answer to the question, What does it mean to be gay and/or straight?--offers the possibility of eliminating what can be the most oppressive of cultural forces, the prejudiced social norm. </div>
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">No the article did state a predisposition. May not would imply 0%. I've known enough gay people to know nurture is a factor anyway. You seem to be picking and choosing the sections of the article you liked, that's not how science works, which was the MAIN purpose of the entire analysis.</div> Can you quote the section where they showed that homosexuality is, to some extent, conditioned? I don't see it. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I don't care for discussing semantics. It absolutely seem to come off in the manner I first reacted to it. This is a small point either way.</div> Semantics? Not being gay, and being uncomfortable around gays isn't "semantics". They are completely different issues. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I'm sorry if you expected me to use the bible as some sort of reason why I don't like homosexuality, because I don't do that. I like to report the news, not create personal theories to discredit scientific journals; as you have mostly done recently.</div> What makes you think I expected you to use the bible? What personal theory did I come up with? How did I discredit a scientific journal? Now I remember why I don't like debating with you on these boards. You call me a hypocrite without actually showing hypocrisy, and now you're making up more crap about me. I'm bailing from this discussion.
Here you go fellow. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">To begin with, we must ask what LeVay and Hamer have not shown. LeVay has found no proof of any direct link between the size of INAH 3 and sexual behavior. Size differences alone prove nothing. He was also unable to exclude the possibility that AIDS has an influence on brain structure, although this seemed unlikely, since six of the heterosexual men he studied also had AIDS. Moreover, Hamer did not find a gene for homosexuality; what he discovered was data suggesting some influence of one or more genes on one particular type of sexual preference in one group of people. Seven pairs of brothers did not have the Xq28 genetic marker, yet these brothers were all gay. Xq28 is clearly not a sine qua non for homosexuality; it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause by itself. And what about women? Although the genitalia of women as well as men are clearly biologically determined, no data exist to prove a genetic link, or a link based on brain structure, with female sexual preferences, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Finally, neither study has been replicated by other researchers, the necessary standard of scientific proof. Indeed, there is every reason to suppose that the INAH 3 data will be extremely difficult to confirm. Only a few years ago INAH 1 (located close to INAH 3) was also thought to be larger in men than in women. Two groups, including LeVay's, have failed to reproduce this result. ... LeVay and Hamer on the one hand, and Katz, on the other, evidently have taken completely antithetical positions. <font color=""Red"">But Katz's extreme intellectual reductionism makes him as guilty as the more simplistic biologists and journalists who inflate claims about every new genetic discovery. </font>After convincingly undermining the distinction between gay and straight, he then accepts the naive dualism of nature vs. nurture. It is such attempts as Katz's to put into opposition forces that are not in opposition which argue so strongly for planned research free from the ideological temptations that he succumbs to. Biological research into sexuality will indeed be misconceived if we assume that we already understand the differences between the sexes. In part the results of that research often contradict any such assumption. Katz demands that "we need to look less to oracles [presumably biological], and trust more in our desires, visions, and political organizing." But to take this path risks perpetuating a debate based on ignorance rather than one based on evidence. It is true that the research of Hamer and LeVay presents technical and conceptual difficulties and that their preliminary findings obviously need replication or refutation. Yet their work represents a genuine epistemological break away from the past's rigid and withered conceptions of sexual preference. The pursuit of understanding about the origins of human sexuality --the quest to find an answer to the question, What does it mean to be gay and/or straight?--offers the possibility of eliminating what can be the most oppressive of cultural forces, the prejudiced social norm. </div> <div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post"> Now I remember why I don't like debating with you on these boards. You call me a hypocrite without actually showing hypocrisy, and now you're making up more crap about me. I'm bailing from this discussion.</div> You use arguments that gay bashers have. What more needs to be said? Get the hell out of here then, I don't care. I don't like people that discredit an entire intricate article because their good friend or whatever is gay. You're not as objective as Horton. But for the record, I mostly didn't have a problem with most of your points, just your obnoxious refutation of this particular study. Everyone in the NBA could be Gay, I don't mind.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">You use arguments that gay bashers have. What more needs to be said? </div> Um, you can actually show how I did that in a clear, intelligible manner. Which you haven't done. Calling someone a hypocrite without actually explaining why is pretty lame. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">You're not as objective as Horton. But for the record, I mostly didn't have a problem with most of your points, just your obnoxious refutation of this particular study.</div> I didn't refute their study, or even critique their study. I'm disputing the conclusions you drew from their study. Oh wait, is that just "semantics." <div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Here you go fellow.</div> They are critiquing a specific theory made by another scientist. That doesn't prove homosexuality is conditioned. They never even make that claim or offer evidence to suggest that. That's a conclusion you're apparently drawing on your own.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I didn't refute their study, or even critique their study. I'm disputing the conclusions you drew from their study. Oh wait, is that just "semantics." </div> Jesus man, do you know what the study was trying to prove? LeFay and his friends were BSing people. Please. "But Katz's extreme intellectual reductionism makes him as guilty as the more simplistic biologists and journalists who inflate claims about every new genetic discovery." What does this mean then? You sure sound like a simplistic biologist. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Um, you can actually show how I did that in a clear, intelligible manner. Which you haven't done. Calling someone a hypocrite without actually explaining why is pretty lame. </div> It's not highly important to me that I prove your hypocrisy. The debate is about other issues. I feel you have been hypocritical, but it doesn't really matter does it? Achieving an elegant prose to satisfy your standards is not my problem at this moment. Let's recap what we are dicussing right now: You're pissed because I don't think homosexuality is entirely genetic. I however, think it is genetic and a choice, and have presented various quotes to uphold my belief. How are you going to prove that all homosexuals are born in that fashion? My job is much easier though.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Jesus man, do you know what the study was trying to prove? LeFay and his friends were BSing people. Please. "But Katz's extreme intellectual reductionism makes him as guilty as the more simplistic biologists and journalists who inflate claims about every new genetic discovery." What does this mean then? You sure sound like a simplistic biologist.</div> That means that they believe Katz's theory on how homosexuality is natural is worthless. They do not claim that homosexuality therefore must be conditioned, and it would be a logical fallacy to draw that conclusion based on their critique. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">It's not highly important to me that I prove your hypocrisy. The debate is about other issues. I feel you have been hypocritical, but it doesn't really matter does it?</div> Yes, it does. If you call someone a hypocrite, you damn sure better be prepared to back it up. That's insulting.
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">That means that they believe Katz's theory on how homosexuality is natural is worthless. They do not claim that homosexuality therefore must be conditioned, and it would be a logical fallacy to draw that conclusion based on their critique.</div> It also means that LeVay and such were reckless as well. But since you missed it, I'll post another section: <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> To begin with, we must ask what LeVay and Hamer have not shown. LeVay has found no proof of any direct link between the size of INAH 3 and sexual behavior. Size differences alone prove nothing. He was also unable to exclude the possibility that AIDS has an influence on brain structure, although this seemed unlikely, since six of the heterosexual men he studied also had AIDS. Moreover, Hamer did not find a gene for homosexuality; what he discovered was data suggesting some influence of one or more genes on one particular type of sexual preference in one group of people. Seven pairs of brothers did not have the Xq28 genetic marker, yet these brothers were all gay. Xq28 is clearly not a sine qua non for homosexuality; it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause by itself. And what about women? Although the genitalia of women as well as men are clearly biologically determined, no data exist to prove a genetic link, or a link based on brain structure, with female sexual preferences, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Finally, neither study has been replicated by other researchers, the necessary standard of scientific proof. Indeed, there is every reason to suppose that the INAH 3 data will be extremely difficult to confirm. Only a few years ago INAH 1 (located close to INAH 3) was also thought to be larger in men than in women. Two groups, including LeVay's, have failed to reproduce this result.</div> Yet like you, these scientists still made the claim that homosexuality was completely linked to nature. I think not. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Yes, it does. If you call someone a hypocrite, you damn sure better be prepared to back it up. That's insulting.</div> Walk it off, seriously. You said essentially "let them be" (referring to gay people), but at the same time, I don't want gay people in my locker room for similar reasons ("natural" reaction), yet you're not supporting my cause. Thus I posed a question, which was "hypocrite?". Next you changed your story around a bit (like with the analogy). You were able to cover your tracks a bit, but not completely imo. Lastly, I'll say it once again, I don't have anything against gay people in the NBA (or you, heh). If I had to, of course I would be in a locker room with them as well, but homosexuality is not caused solely by genes, so lay off. You're making large generalizations.
<div class="quote_poster">huevonkiller Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">It also means that LeVay and such were reckless as well.</div> Yes, but where do they show that homosexuality is conditioned, as you claim?
<div class="quote_poster">durvasa Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Yes, but where do they show that homosexuality is conditioned, as you claim?</div> In the part where no one has ever found a genetic link. I know you've put a lot of stock into this thread, but you're out of it on this one. Realize that what I'm trying to prove is much simpler than the side you're representing.
