The fun of frustrated homophobes.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not suggesting that you want it, but that you need it.

I doubt that the man upstairs really gives two hoots. Just make her someone nice.

Needs are different from wants. I want it, but I don't need it.

I don't mind friendly banter, but this is going a little beyond that Aggie.

[Ben Kenobi]

Please, tell me again how my involuntary erections for members of the same sex are a concious choice beyond going stiff or staying limp.

Are these erections part of you?

They may be involuntary, but you cannot voluntarily change the colour of one hair on your head.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Are these erections part of you?

No, I purchased my cheney from Best Buy about 6 years ago. The erections are a defect that would have been covered had I purchased their extra warrantee protection.

They may be involuntary, but you cannot voluntarily change the colour of one hair on your head.

Yes I can. Ever heard of markers?

[DRoseDARs]

Hell, if I'm careful and use enough aluminum foil, I can use coloring out of a bottle to voluntarily change the color of one strand of hair. I can also voluntarily choose to increase my stress level ... like I'm doing now.

[Tuberski]

Just don't mention erections again.

ACK!

[DRoseDARs]

I get erections when I see hot guys. Ben gets erections when he fantasizes about Ann Coulter and Mariah Carey in hot leather strap-on lesbian action. He's more different from you than I am.

[Whaleboy]

That if a person desires to change, they can.

No no, you don't get off that easily, supposing they can change, what does that mean for your argument?

At this point? All I'm saying is that if a person is not happy with this aspect of their life they can change this. Whether one ought to change this part is an entirely different question.

But is it not you're implication? It seems ludicrous to go to this trouble to make a (flawed but we've covered that) point unless that entirely different question is answered accordingly. Would you care to elaborate on that question?

This is really the heart of the conversation I had with Jon. What is the problem here? Is it so much with the gay people, or with our sexuality in general. Really, the problem is with everything, and not just the one thing. What is the proper expression of our sexuality? What are the consequences for those who deviate from this path?

I think it's ludicrous to claim that knowledge of homosexuality, just as the dynamic of any relationship, is harmful for children. If you want a society where homosexuality is legal and tolerated as non-deconstructive and legal behaviour, and then give children no information about it, there is a contradiction there. With regards to sex, yes that should be kept away from young children, as should be heterosexual sex, which is why gay literature is not erotic gay literature. See the difference there?

This is why I argue that to approve the one, will lead to the question, as to why should there be any restrictions on sexuality at all?

Because there is a necessary difference between sleeping with a man or any consenting adult, and sleeping with someone who does not, or cannot consent. Hence my position is that sex between consenting adults with the ability to consent should be legal in the context of society, whereas sex between non-consenting entities is not. That leads to gay, straight and group sex for all adults regardless of gender, political, religious, or childbearing status. Choices made on top of that are of course moved into the context of subjective individual (non "universal should" choices).

It is not part of their nature.

It is not part of a gay persons nature to be gay?

Properties. They are not the essence in itself. Our properties change alongside our proportions though our essence does not.

But what do you define as essence in this context and what makes it necessarily the case that it is not a subjective and descriptive (thus emotive) statement?

Why then is this a cogent rebuttal to the claim that these desires can change?

Because people do not agree with your statement, and also there is an (admittedly misguidedly pragmatic) cause to deny the opposition the premise for their argument, thus attacking that argument on two fronts (premise and conclusion). I happen to take the question of change/no change as a question of necessary or sufficient subjectivity, which naturally favours the no-change position in terms of this argument.

BK, you speak of "part of you" and the essence (and really any barely-competent existentialist will have you by the balls on that one ) but what gives you the ability to make a necessary claim over, what looks to me as your own value judgement (fact-value distinction, where the facts (premises) seem to be based upon your own position. As a result, the whole argument as you vaguely display it affirms the consequent, known as a formal fallacy. However, for the sake of debate, instead of picking pedantic holes in responses, I would ask you to coherently write your own argument with regards to this issue, including the conclusion of your "homosexuality is a choice" argument.

[DRoseDARs]

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
I get erections when I see hot guys. Ben gets erections when he fantasizes about Ann Coulter and Mariah Carey in hot leather strap-on lesbian action. He's more different from you than I am.

What red blooded heterosexual male wouldn't????




I mean..... EW GROSS!!!!!!!

ACK!

[DRoseDARs]

Ann's the man.

Ben's just reading it for the articles...

[Agathon]

I don't mind friendly banter, but this is going a little beyond that Aggie.

What, because I think that organized religion's views on sex are a load of rubbish?

They are. In the history of the Xtian religion these things have waxed and waned. The sex rules have a hell of a lot more to do with later puritanism than with anything that came out of JCs mouth.

[DRoseDARs]

Ben, I care about you so I'll give you a friendly little bit of sexual adivce. Steer clear of that harpy Ann Coulter.

Exhibit A:

[Agathon]

Yeah, I second that. She's obviously a slut.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Why then is this a cogent rebuttal to the claim that these desires can change?

I suggest you argue the point at hand, and not the point you would like to have.

Gay people do deny, that such sexuality can change, and they defend themselves, as their sexuality. Thus they confirm the point made earlier in the thread.

For the record, fundies and gays who seek to "convert" are not the only people who mistakenly believe that sexual orientation is a choice.

There are some gays out there who are not ashamed of their sexual orientation, and are happy being gay, but they still mistakenly believe it is a choice.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
For example, I beleive it is a sin to work on the Sabbath.

Bull, you are just a lazy bastard. Seven day work weeks for my minons.