[andyt]

Khar Khar:

We're going on a bit of a tangent here, Mustang, and because I tend to ramble a bit I'm going to cut myself short.

I'm not sure what you are responding to, to be honest, but I most definitely recognize your viewpoint and understand it, and this is more to just finish off my own viewpoint (since I never intended to tangle with someone else's in this thread, apologies if anyone feels slighted for what I have written). There is a difference between actual biological evidence and indications of potential biological evidence. The platforms indicated by both sides are analogous to similar debates involving religion, except in this case such positions are somewhat reversed. This was aptly summarized by Gunnair in one of his previous posts. Declarative statements such as "it is genetic" are positive statements which must be reinforced, not declared scientifically valid or given credence over dissenting opinion until factual evidence is provided. Ironically, what we see here is the opinion of necessary falsifiable hypothesizes in conflict and hence the entire discussion does actually play a bit of a role in that regards.

I tend to agree with your stance that the indicators are important, scientifically gathered bits of information, but this does not imply that what I initially replied to, the absolute position of genetic disposition has not been proven. It does not excuse this group or similar groups, nor am I disagreeing with what you are saying otherwise on the topic, as I agree it is not a choice. I am merely saying that bringing biology into this takes it no where.

Also, unfortunately there have been instances where assumptions were made like the ones you make and they have turned out to be false. Analogous evolution and development of analogous structures has occurred around the world, where species totally different from each other which never interacted developed in a similar manners (biological parent term is "Homology"). Evolutionary biology is full of these examples. Likewise, anthropological and paleontological evidence (weapon use, familial structures, caste systems, patriarchal/matriarchal societies) has instances where it supports or refutes similar assumptions that you have made in various other animals. It does not help in regards to homosexuality that much information retained from those periods are inferred today to mean something different based on certain expected traits or stereotypes of homosexuality. Personally, I think what you said is a weighty example of why it is genetic, but I simply cannot view it as the end-all of the discussion for myself and leap to the conclusion that it is genetic based on that and other forms of evidence provided alone, I can only assume that it's indications thereof and I personally feel that's where definitive scientifically verified positions end and interpretations begin.

Hence, I'm not really disagreeing with you, but more expanding on my own personal stance on the issue in regards to the veracity of evidence. I more or less agree with the opinions of, well, basically everyone who has posted (and am an ardent believer of homosexual equality and an even more ardent opponent to such things like this church is doing than most folks) otherwise. I guess I feel people are too ready to leap to conclusions, even if the conclusions are correct in my view, and prefer to air the details too.

God, I hope to never see it where you really let yourself go.

[andyt]

raydan raydan:

I read a piece a while ago (can't find it) where they presented sexual preference on a bell curve, with heterosexuality on one side and homosexuality on the other. This would mean that the middle (high point) of the curve is bisexuality. This suggests that there are few 100% purely homos and heteros and that "most" people could swing both ways (they DO have a choice), although most would "lean" one way or the other.

Social acceptance and upbringing plays a very large part in the number of people who lean towards their homosexual side.

As I said, i doubt if the guys in Iran or Saudi Arabia have a choice.

In the end tho, who cares if it's choice or not. Why worry about it - just do what feels right as long as it only involves consenting adults.

[Mustang1]

Khar Khar:

Also, unfortunately there have been instances where assumptions were made like the ones you make and they have turned out to be false.

Interesting - i made an assumption, according to you, regarding homosexuality and the fact that it is not simply a learned trait or "lifestyle choice"? Firstly, i accepted nothing without proof or evidence (which suggests that your view, despite pleas to the contrary, is that homosexuality is either influenced by nurture or environmental factors or that evidence suggesting otherwise is somehow problematic) and secondly, i'd be interested in following up with your erronous assumption (in the proper definition) that there are other parallels (which, of course, would mean, that homosexuality's innateness is indeed in question) with this.

$1:

It does not help in regards to homosexuality that much information retained from those periods are inferred today to mean something different based on certain expected traits or stereotypes of homosexuality.

Really? How exactly is it "inferred"? By whom exactly and what period?

[Khar]

$1:

God, I hope to never see it where you really let yourself go.

Haha, andyt!

There's actually a thread somewhere around here where I had to break down a post because it was close to 80000 characters, and it was too long for the forum to accept. I still had more to add but that is a situation where I let myself go a bit more and I'm trying to avoid doing it again because it totally kills discussion.

$1:

Interesting - i made an assumption, according to you, regarding homosexuality and the fact that it is not simply a learned trait or "lifestyle choice"? Firstly, i accepted nothing without proof or evidence (which suggests that your view, despite pleas to the contrary, is that homosexuality is either influenced by nurture or environmental factors or that evidence suggesting otherwise is somehow problematic) and secondly, i'd be interested in following up with your erronous assumption (in the proper definition) that there are other parallels (which, of course, would mean, that homosexuality's innateness is indeed in question) with this.

Man, I think you are taking this the wrong way, and the reason is because of poor English on my part. When I say "assumption" in this case, I should have said something synonymous to "theory." It doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means that that line of thinking might not definitively be true in this case and the examples I provided thereafter are of similar situations showing that it might not be true. I go on to say that I personally agree with that theory and feel that it's references are numerous enough that it's credence is more weighty than it is otherwise, but that is my own personal viewpoint where I agree with you.

As I said, I had no idea what you were responding to, but you basically declared something scientifically feasible but I didn't really see what you WERE declaring feasible, or HOW. Again, this is largely tangential -- the above post was, as I said previously in that post, to outline my own personal viewpoint and how they may potentially contrast with yours, and this is because I could not be sure what you were saying and did not want to infer excess meaning.

My "erroneous assumption" is not an assumption, it's just the falsifiable end of that theory which has not actually be falsified. Again, I'm sorry that you had to deal with my poor word use. Since I am saying that I feel we can't be sure about something else because of that comment, that was actually me providing evidence to a statement of positive disbelief (being that it did not repeatedly develop analogously). As I said before, I strongly agree with you on that topic but personally cannot be sure and don't consider it the end-of for that discussion. I did not intend for you to feel I was implying you were, and I don't think the way I wrote it implied it, but I most definitely can see how you inferred that and I apologize for the unintentional vagueness which lead to that communication issue. This is my own viewpoint on the provided evidence, how I interpret it and how I think it fits into my way of thinking. I did not intend to make implications about your own viewpoint as a result.

I'm really sorry that this is confusing, I have a nasty trend of babbling. Brevity is wit, and I don't have wit.

$1:

Really? How exactly is it "inferred"? By whom exactly and what period?

I don't know if it was you who referenced him a short time ago, but a great example was actually the historian Doctor Michael Grant. I think he was one of the first to identify that Roman and Greek acceptance of homosexuality was not as "open" as was earlier prescribed by some other historians, referencing negative connotations given to male bottoms and general implications of promiscuity being overstated. Given the differences in society, the implications of forms of promiscuity and how it was taken by other historians potentially misrepresented what was occurring as homosexuality. Religious tolerance on such things as sodomy, homosexuality, and use of slaves is also discussed repeatedly and from different viewpoints, and unfortunately what we have to go with are stereotypes from then of how homosexuals acted and how they acted today.

There's also notes from these historians of differences between classic examples of homosexuality for men and women, with much more emphasis being placed on men. This problem complicates the discussion further, especially since today, nebulous definitions of homosexuality and vague lines which define female sexuality when compared to male sexuality drive the discussions and debate.

I'm fairly certain he was the author of the works I read which discussed this and, again, the discussion on that field is ongoing but I think, from literary criticism I read (I took a class which touched on this in university, in case you were wondering why I know some tiny bits about something as oddly esoteric as literary criticism on historical literature relating partially to homosexuality) that it became the more accepted viewpoint that potentially we had taken homosexuality and how it was defined, inferred or attributed in the wrong direction historically in this case. This is one excellent example which is likely repeated in other cases of Classical Research.

[Mustang1]

Khar Khar:

Man, I think you are taking this the wrong way, and the reason is because of poor English on my part. When I say "assumption" in this case, I should have said something synonymous to "theory." It doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means that that line of thinking might not definitively be true in this case and the examples I provided thereafter are of similar situations showing that it might not be true. I go on to say that I personally agree with that theory and feel that it's references are numerous enough that it's credence is more weighty than it is otherwise, but that is my own personal viewpoint where I agree with you.

As I said, I had no idea what you were responding to, but you basically declared something scientifically feasible but I didn't really see what you WERE declaring feasible, or HOW. Again, this is largely tangential -- the above post was, as I said previously in that post, to outline my own personal viewpoint and how they may potentially contrast with yours, and this is because I could not be sure what you were saying and did not want to infer excess meaning.

My "erroneous assumption" is not an assumption, it's just the falsifiable end of that theory which has not actually be falsified. Again, I'm sorry that you had to deal with my poor word use. Since I am saying that I feel we can't be sure about something else because of that comment, that was actually me providing evidence to a statement of positive disbelief (being that it did not repeatedly develop analogously). As I said before, I strongly agree with you on that topic but personally cannot be sure and don't consider it the end-of for that discussion. I did not intend for you to feel I was implying you were, and I don't think the way I wrote it implied it, but I most definitely can see how you inferred that and I apologize for the unintentional vagueness which lead to that communication issue. This is my own viewpoint on the provided evidence, how I interpret it and how I think it fits into my way of thinking. I did not intend to make implications about your own viewpoint as a result.

I'm really sorry that this is confusing, I have a nasty trend of babbling. Brevity is wit, and I don't have wit.

Fair enough - we'll chalk this up to a miscarriage of interpretation, but to suggest that simply because there is no overwhelmingly, wholly objective, intangible proof that homosexuality is innate, doesn't in any way shape or form render it incorrect or grant credence to the its detractors. It's a slippery slope to intellectual relativism.

$1:

I don't know if it was you who referenced him a short time ago, but a great example was actually the historian Michael Grant. I think he was one of the first to identify that Roman and Greek acceptance of homosexuality was not as "open" as was earlier prescribed by some other historians, referencing negative connotations given to male bottoms and general implications of promiscuity being overstated. Given the differences in society, the implications of forms of promiscuity and how it was taken by other historians potentially misrepresented what was occurring as homosexuality. Religious tolerance on such things as sodomy, homosexuality, and use of slaves is also discussed repeatedly and from different viewpoints, and unfortunately what we have to go with are stereotypes from then of how homosexuals acted and how they acted today.

There's also notes from these historians of differences between classic examples of homosexuality for men and women, with much more emphasis being placed on men. This problem complicates the discussion further, especially since today, nebulous definitions of homosexuality and vague lines which define female sexuality when compared to male sexuality drive the discussions and debate.

I'm fairly certain he was the author of the works I read which discussed this and, again, the discussion on that field is ongoing but I think, from literary criticism I read (I took a class which touched on this in university) that it became the more accepted viewpoint that potentially we had taken homosexuality and how it was defined, inferred or attributed in the wrong direction historically in this case. This is one excellent example which is likely repeated in other cases of Classical Research.

I'm well aware of Grant (although, i don't have the information you suggest handy to look at its context - if i had to guess, he was likely articulating how homosexual behavior was regarded within the Roman temporal context), but this was the salient point of my position - homosexuality has transcended beliefs, cultures, worldviews, ethnicity and time, suggesting that it's been a trait inherent within human community despite cultural norms, mores, or environmental conditions. That's the crux - if it was a lifestyle choice, then it wouldn't be universal, anthropologically or historically. The insurmountable reality is that homosexuality has been here a long, long time.

[BionicBunny]

I knew of one guy who was straight and undecided about how to feel about gays (undecided in how to react). I said this "Look at it this way, if someone is gay, that means there is more women for you to date". It suddenly dawned on him what I was getting at and he realized in some way that gays couldn't be of any harm to him.

Odd I know but it put it into a nutshell for him that there were benefits of someone else being gay. lol

[Khar]

While I generally agree with you, Mustang, it's in interpretation of minor details where we diverge and I'll be honest in feeling that you're making a mountain out of a molehill in regards to my response and how it might differ from yours, loaded rhetoric aside.

The argument at the end isn't about whether or not homosexuality exists through the ages (we have three pages on this thread now, I'd hope that we're all on the same page that it does exist) so I am not sure how you managed to change it to that. Hence, no, it is not a "salient part of your argument" if you had tied what I said in that post to what I had said in the post before. As I quite clearly state three times now, it's about whether it developed independently in each of these cases. Did it develop in ancient Rome because of genes, or because they began using a certain familial structure, for example? Are these analogous developments? Similar developments in relation to homosexuality occurred, which Grant explored, so why can we not make similar explanations of homosexuality? For the record, these are rhetorical questions. While I don't feel these are analogous developments, but rather strongly feel that they are genetic ones which a fair degree of certainty, the possibility that there may be means that I, personally, cannot rectify it with my own agnostic (non-religious terminology, in this case meaning indifferent) philosophy and can only say it's a leaning or strong point for the potential of biological evidence. Keep in mind that you asserted "scientific legitimacy" in a previous post and that has been a key point I am trying to make that, for me, because we have these potential unknowns and no actual biological evidence, we cannot adequately state that the position it's genetic is entirely scientifically legitimate, only that it's likely to have evidence of scientific legitimacy being confirmed with biological, quantitative evidence down the road. Like what I said in my first post.

This is my own opinion, if you feel that you diverge heavily on it than that is down to you. I really feel like I've basically restated the same thing a few times now and, yes, I do feel that the problem here is more communication than not, so if you respond I might not for a while until I can develop a new direction to describe my perspective from.

[Mustang1]

Khar Khar:

While I generally agree with you, Mustang, it's in interpretation of minor details where we diverge and I'll be honest in feeling that you're making a mountain out of a molehill in regards to my response and how it might differ from yours, loaded rhetoric aside.

How delightfully presumptuous of you to conclude i'm "making a mountain out of molehill." Evidently you assume you're the final arbiter on reading into posts. We'll see how that plays out.

$1:

The argument at the end isn't about whether or not homosexuality exists through the ages (we have three pages on this thread now, I'd hope that we're all on the same page that it does exist) so I am not sure how you managed to simplify it to that. Hence, no, it is not a "salient part of your argument" if you had tied what I said in that post to what I had said in the post before.

Actually, the argument that homosexuality transcendes culture, ethnicity, religion and history is a valid argument - one that you've done little to dispute. In fact, i suggested this consistently in my posts as a means of refuting your retreats to intellectual relativism and if it's so "simple" we'll be waiting on your deconstruction.

$1:

As I quite clearly state three times now, it's about whether it developed independently in each of these cases. Did it develop in ancient Rome because of genes, or because they began using a certain familial structure, for example? Are these analogous developments? While I don't feel there are, the possibility that there may be means that I, personally, cannot rectify it with my own agnostic (non-religious terminology, in this case meaning indifferent) philosophy.

It developed, that's the point you seem incapable of accepting. The salient point is that it seems impervious to specific cultural norms, mores and views, will strongly suggests it simply isn't a manifestation of nurture. Again, you're more than welcome to offer up an anthropological examination that demonstrates the contrary, but until then, my point stands.

$1:

That there is no evidence to the contrary or to support it means I cannot say one way or the other personally, right? That response in regards to who I was talking about was directly in response to the question you gave, and was not tailored in response to the point you decided to take it to.

And you're passing post judgement on others after that one? Really?

$1:

This is one of the reasons I hate people breaking up a response to pick at one or two points at a time because it always ends with with people separating each point alone without heed to what was said elsewhere to put it in context. The reason this is a pet peeve of mine is because it's a failing of mine when I do that structure.

Practice what you preach - you've dodged points, invented positions, passed assumptions, and simply because it's in a verbose post, doesn't mean it rises to higher plane of posting.

[coaster_dot]

My pet peeve is when people say "if we allow same sex couples to get married, then where does it end"? I remember some guy on a show said "if we allow this, then why can't I get married to my dog, or cat"? These people are forgetting the fact that same sex couples are PEOPLE!

I would say that half of the people that I worked with this summer were gay. And after my first week sexual orientation didn't even come up in my mind at all. If I was at the bar and a guy started hitting on me all I had to say was "hey, Im straight" and that was that. Nothing bad came out of it at all.

I think these groups need to realize that they can't change the world. And that if it doesn't affect them that they should just leave it alone. They all have this mind set that homosexuality is hurting them. And I have a feeling that some of those people who are "homophobic" are really just fighting the feelings about their own sexuality.

[ASLplease]

Imo, homosexuality is deviant by definition, but the politically correct crowd has managed to shift public opinion into the 'acceptable minority' status.

I could care less what 2 consenting adults choose to do in their bedroom, but once they take their ideas out of the bedroom and into a public forum then I see no harm in disagreeing with them in a civilized manner.

I've always been against discrimination, so they need not worry about me just because I happen to disagree with them.

Actually, when it comes down to it, the new SSM definitions in law don't affect me, they affect ss couples, and laws affect how they are treated by organizations like life insurance companies, pension plan, etc. The idea that money grubbing insurance companies were able to disqualify surviving spouse benefits to a same sex spouse really pissed me off. I'm glad that SSM got better recognition.

[Khar]

$1:

How delightfully presumptuous of you to conclude i'm "making a mountain out of molehill." Evidently you assume you're the final arbiter on reading into posts. We'll see how that plays out.

I've been trying to be nice. Your posts have provided a tone which is not at ALL friendly or conductive for discussion. I've been very willing to accept that these communication issues are mine and I've been trying to be flexible in how I present my views to accommodate for that fact. These posts have been a continued expansion and restatement of the same ideal which I have taken exhaustive efforts out of respect for yourself to provide you the most thorough post I can provide without babbling too much. In response, you reduce this effort at the end of your post, and I have to admit that it does sting a bit, especially since what you said essentially restates what I've already said -- I have a problem with writing too much, and I'm already aware it doesn't make me any smarter. I will happily quote you, both in this thread and in dozens of other threads, where I have said that exact same thing to show you this.

I preach moderation in presenting views. I have stated SEVERAL times I felt this was a minor and unimportant aspect of our opinions and this post. I said the same thing in the terms "mountain out of a molehill" and you leap down my throat. This is very aggressive and all this sort of discussion achieves is polarization, which is what I've been trying to ardently avoid with my responses. In my mind, this was an excuse for you to take a personal jab at me.

I have made every effort not to apply tone to your posts. Since I personally try not to antagonize folks (and I am not implying you do) I go through a lot of work to apologize, restate myself, and make sure my language is as even as possible. However, in the case of your last one, I cannot attempt to mask the obvious aggression, personal barbs, and straight out accusations. To be honest, I feel that this is more of a case of "he who smelt it, dealt it."

If I was being overly presumptuous, I could have said much more.

$1:

Actually, the argument that homosexuality transcendes culture, ethnicity, religion and history is a valid argument - one that you've done little to dispute. In fact, i suggested this consistently in my posts as a means of refuting your retreats to intellectual relativism and if it's so "simple" we'll be waiting on your deconstruction.

Yes. Homosexuality is present throughout the ages. I have not disputed this at all. In any of my posts. So I have absolutely no clue how you have managed to come back to this point more than once now.

My point is that we cannot be sure rises or falls are not analogous structures which occur from time to time in major examples. Indeed, I have gone out of my way to provide evidence for my point of view, from discussing historical perspectives and how they are wavery, so we cannot be sure of what evidence we have of these periods or how consistent they are, to providing examples from biology which show that even in the most scientifically valid papers we discover these analogous constructions.

Does this mean that I am disagreeing with the idea that it is not genetic? No! This is the point I have been following (emphatically) this entire time, that just because I personally agree quite heavily with you does not mean I personally end up at the same result you have. All it means is that we cannot declare it scientifically valid because these theories have not been supported or refuted from my point of view.

For the record, I have gone through great pains to provide you with extra resources ranging from well known historians to well known biological facts. If you wish, I can quote you articles about positive disbelief because I feel that I have given you loads of information while all you have responded with is short retorts. If you wish to contest something I have said, either criticize that point with your own evidence instead of simply repeating the same phrase and expecting me to understand it differently because you have stated it exactly the same way yet again.

$1:

It developed, that's the point you seem incapable of accepting. The salient point is that it seems impervious to specific cultural norms, mores and views, will strongly suggests it simply isn't a manifestation of nurture. Again, you're more than welcome to offer up an anthropological examination that demonstrates the contrary, but until then, my point stands.

No, it is NOT the point I am incapable of understanding. Yes, it developed, and I have not made a single assertion to the otherwise. Anywhere. If I have, quote it and show me. In fact, I set you up the challenge of quoting exactly where I said anything you believe I said in your post.

My point I am trying to make is that we cannot be certain that this is not an analogous construct. Remember how I have stated that? In half a dozen posts now, with examples and references to the fields I am pulling it from? Remember how I stated, time and time again, that I don't actually believe it to be true, but that I cannot refute it and hence cannot reject the possibility? That because I cannot refute it, I cannot use it as a means to say there's "scientific validity" behind the idea that it's genetic? That I have backed this up with the very simple, unavoidable fact that there is no quantitative, biological evidence? Keeping in mind that that last comment has been wholeheartedly supported by other posters in this thread?

I have provided you with a biological theory which shows this. I have mentioned examples such as weapon use which developed independently in various aboriginal groups but many developed it the same way. I have mentioned caste structures, familial structures, and other such examples which are quite broad but are prudent examples showing how similar developments have occurred over time.

However, you have not provided anything to the contrary of my thoughts or opinions either. Speaking of moral and intellectual relativism indeed, the assumption that all of this must go one way is not only rude, given the time I have put into the responses to posts I have felt were ill mannered but chose to believe that was not intentional, disrespectful because of the effort I have taken to try and fill in your demands for evidence, but also entirely incorrect if you want to make claims like you have been making, that your idea is "scientifically valid."

If you want to make comments like this, and then follow it up by using such emotion laden terms like "practice what you preach," another case of "he who smelled it dealt it," then begin providing evidence for your point of views. This is a discussion. Not a dissertation. Not a paper. It is not a discussion when you have not provided an ounce of support for your own point of view, or an ounce of evidence which contradicts what I have been talking about. What you have provided in this thread is a sense of anger from me because of the response and claims you have laid on my back, without showing ANY evidence that these claims are correct -- both the ones about my thoughts, which I have already said many times are my own personal ones but which I have worked hard to back up anyways, but also the ones where you say I have been doing things which I have not without showing evidence of such.

And I now pose this request for you. Get me evidence. Any evidence. Of anything we have talked about. Anywhere. My own is admittedly not thorough, but that's because I have a life, and I know you have one too. Even just linking me to a research field, a paper, an author, someone, would be better than what you have provided thus far as validity for your own point of view while you have slapped away at me.

$1:

And you're passing post judgement on others after that one? Really?

You asked "Really? How exactly is it "inferred"? By whom exactly and what period?" to a very small section of a VERY large post, specifically "It does not help in regards to homosexuality that much information retained from those periods are inferred today to mean something different based on certain expected traits or stereotypes of homosexuality." I responded the historian and gave a brief summary of his work, and how he revamped the concepts in that field. I did not tailor it to your following response of "transcended beliefs, cultures, worldviews, ethnicity and time" and how it clearly, in your view, showed a trait being passed on.

As you can see, the topic you quoted and to which I responded is very different from the topic you ended up changing to. This is clear when viewing the quotes in context in their original posts.

Now you respond with nebulous criticism which does nothing to move this topic forward whatsoever. I have no idea what sort of judgment I have managed to pass here, but it was to tell you that I did not tailor my response to that question because I did not think that it was your question, and I responded as such to bring your attention to that.

$1:

Practice what you preach - you've dodged points, invented positions, passed assumptions, and simply because it's in a verbose post, doesn't mean it rises to higher plane of posting.

Ironically, I removed what this responded to because I felt that it did not read well, but I am absolutely fine with responding now since it was my own fault for submitting it without being happy with it since I do stand by what I wrote.

I have not dodged a single point. Hell, if you feel I am dodging anything, tell me what I dodged and I will show you I did not by quoting where I responded. I have no problem doing this because I took the time to be thorough with my responses here, and know that I have likely responded to your concerns. As I have said, out of respect I have taken the time to be extensive and thorough in my responses so I am confident I have touched on your points. You, however, have not responded to large parts of previous posts, or your responses have been short and fairly general in comparison which I feel is going to cause communication issues.

I have not invented positions. If you feel I have, quote them so that I can show you how they tie into previous positions. In this way you will see my thought process. These posts have been little more than restatements of the same idea in different ways for your benefit because I felt that this was a communication problem on my end. On the other hand, I can see continued use of the same tired statements in between each of my responses and, as previously suggested in this post, cases where you have taken a topic and gone on a tangent with it.

With assumptions, when you use nebulous language, you must expect it. I admit to misusing terminology once, but considering how much I have written you must expect mistakes. You do not see me pounding on your grammar or spelling errors. Nor have you seen me pounding on your loaded rhetoric and how negative and confrontational it sounded, because I decided to not infer tone or meaning where it didn't need to be. If you feel I have made assumptions, again, quote them, and if I have not already apologized or responded in kind (to which you responded what sounded like a sarcastic, condescending response but to which I decided to assume the best and believed it was only me inferring things) than I will happily defend my assumptions or, if I am wrong, admit to it.

I know my posts are verbose. As I have said in previous posts, this is a personal problem I am trying to remedy. As I have jokingly mentioned with "brevity is wit," I already know that it doesn't add anything extra to this post. To be honest, this reads as a jab at me personally, a condescending remark about "this is not how to sound smart."

My posts are long because I try to be thorough. I do this because I know I am representing Canada and my viewpoints on an international medium, because I am taking up your time, and because I must do a topic I feel is important to me personally full justice. I do this out of a sense of respect for all of the above, and more.

Yes, I admit to being hurt, and I edited this post to make sure that it shows through as little as possible. I truly hope that you do not take offense, as I have said before, to anything I have said. I am willing to forgive the fact that you have taken the rhetoric of this thread and turned it very hostile. I have told you how I have honestly perceived your posts and how hard I have worked to not take it the wrong way, and how I feel all I am getting for doing this for you is flack. I have done everything I can on my end only to not get anything coming the other way except hurtful comments and claims without support, both personal and on the topic at hand, about what I have stated were my own opinions. Opinions so unimportant because the distinction is only between "scientifically valid" and "likely to be scientifically valid." Opinions I have already stated at parallel with yours. This has been stated since my first response to you.

[ASLplease]

Khar, holy fruck man, has anyone ever accused you of writing too much?

[andyt]

ASLplease ASLplease:

Imo, homosexuality is deviant by definition, but the politically correct crowd has managed to shift public opinion into the 'acceptable minority' status.

I could care less what 2 consenting adults choose to do in their bedroom, but once they take their ideas out of the bedroom and into a public forum then I see no harm in disagreeing with them in a civilized manner.

I've always been against discrimination, so they need not worry about me just because I happen to disagree with them.

Actually, when it comes down to it, the new SSM definitions in law don't affect me, they affect ss couples, and laws affect how they are treated by organizations like life insurance companies, pension plan, etc. The idea that money grubbing insurance companies were able to disqualify surviving spouse benefits to a same sex spouse really pissed me off. I'm glad that SSM got better recognition.

So you sound pretty tolerant. What do you find to respectfully disagree with gays about in a civilized manner? Homosexuality is deviant in that it's not the norm, tho Lemmy's post would kind of argue against that. But if you say you don't discriminate against gays and don't want the govt to either, what is there to disagree about?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

ASLplease ASLplease:

Imo, homosexuality is deviant by definition, but the politically correct crowd has managed to shift public opinion into the 'acceptable minority' status.

Interesting point. But I bet you're glad that other definitions of "deviant" got cleared up. Remember when being left-handed meant there was something wrong, almost evil about you? And even that has been a relatively recent change in perception.
And don't forget gingers. Oh my god, those "creepy, pale skinned, red headed kids with freckles just HAVE to be evil, soul-less demon spawn." Just another group of "deviants" where we thankfully got rid of that idiotic perception.

Both of these "deviations" became an 'acceptable minority' because of the same type of shift in public opinion. We grew up and opened our eyes.

[kenmore]

ASLplease ASLplease:

Imo, homosexuality is deviant by definition, but the politically correct crowd has managed to shift public opinion into the 'acceptable minority' status.

I could care less what 2 consenting adults choose to do in their bedroom, but once they take their ideas out of the bedroom and into a public forum then I see no harm in disagreeing with them in a civilized manner.

I've always been against discrimination, so they need not worry about me just because I happen to disagree with them.

Actually, when it comes down to it, the new SSM definitions in law don't affect me, they affect ss couples, and laws affect how they are treated by organizations like life insurance companies, pension plan, etc. The idea that money grubbing insurance companies were able to disqualify surviving spouse benefits to a same sex spouse really pissed me off. I'm glad that SSM got better recognition.

So saith the right wing. People are people, human and entitled to everything everyone else has. Wasn't that long ago that people like you said blacks should ride in the back of the bus!