First  Prev  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  Next  Last
Post Reply Gay Marriage
280 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F
Offline
Posted 3/27/12 , edited 3/27/12

DomFortress wrote:

Wrong, when The Stanford Prison Experiment only showed how homosexual activity was used by decent US citizens, as one of several methods to further dehumanize and torture individuals.


Stanford Prison Experiment (Documentary)
In 1971, the psychologist Philip Zimbardo tried to show that prison guards and convicts would tend to slip into predefined roles, behaving in a way that they thought was required, rather than using their own judgment and morals.

Zimbardo was trying to show what happened when all of the individuality and dignity was stripped away from a human, and their life was completely controlled.

He wanted to show the dehumanization and loosening of social and moral values that can happen to guards immersed in such a situation.

Like a real life ‘Lord of the Flies’, it showed a degeneration and breakdown of the established rules and morals dictating exactly how people should behave towards each other.

The study created more new questions than it answered, about the amorality and darkness that inhabits the human psyche.

As a purely scientific venture, the experiment was a failure, but it generated some results that give an insight into human psychology and social behavior. The ethical implications of this study are still discussed in college and undergraduate psychology classes all across the world.

In the days of the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo abuses, the Stanford Prison Experiment is once again becoming relevant, showing that systematic abuse and denial of human rights is never far away in any prison facility.


Toilet facilities became a privilege, instead of a basic human right, with access to the bathroom being frequently denied; the inmates often had to clean the toilet facilities with their bare hands. Prisoners were often stripped and subjected to sexual humiliation, as a weapon of intimidation.
And before you overgeneralized the prison experiment data, the Scandinavian society known as Norway isn't a prison. Thus your baseless claim makes no scientific sense.


#1: You are so wrong. Prisoner behavior is EMPIRICAL evidence that everyone has the potential to be homosexual. Lala knows that you are aware of this. Lala just wonders why you are trying so hard.

#2: Everyone has a predisposition to bisexuality according to Sigmund Freud.


Innate bisexuality (or predisposition to bisexuality) is a term introduced by Sigmund Freud (based on work by his associate Wilhelm Fliess), that expounds all humans are born bisexual but through psychological development (which includes both external and internal factors) become monosexual while the bisexuality remains in a latent state.


#3: Lala knows that you are just spamming.

EDIT

Lala looked back at the start of this conversation. Lala remembered that you said people who refuse empirical evidences observable by your own sense, have no self-respect towards sensibility. Can Lala call you a bigot now? For calling Lala a bigot?


DomFortress wrote:

Just because you don't bother to look, doesn't mean that homosexuality in nature(that's a hyperlink if you didn't notice by now) would go away. And if you still refuse empirical evidences observable by your own sense, you've no self-respect towards sensibility.



papagolfwhiskey wrote:

No prisoner behaviour is evidence that some hetereosexual men see sex only in terms of power and are quite willing to rape another man if it makes them feel good about themselves.
280 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F
Offline
Posted 3/27/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:

#1: What exactly?

#2: I fail to see how that is "promoting" homosexuality. By that logic, everything short of disencouragement is promoting.

#3: Why would he? Unless you can come up with a motive for why he would make up a funny story about a family member, saying such a thing is nothing more than wild, desperate assumptions. If there is no reason to belive he had a reason to do it, he most likely didn't.

#4: Not likely. Even if homosexuality is accepted in Norway, it is by no means as common as heterosexuality. And if he was able to express with certainty that the kid had just recently found out that he was gay, it probably means that the kid had asked him to confirm it. Like "is it true that you are gay"? or something along those lines. This is yet another desperate "could be" assumption.

#5: No, but he is an example of how the general attitude affects children. And again, I can vouch for this myself.

#6: No, but they do understand the concept of attraction and love. To some degree anyway. And that means that if homosexuality was promoted, the kid would understand that being gay means being attracted to and/or loving members of their own gender, not just having friends of the same gender, like he thought.

#7: No, because being gay involves and encompass much more than just sexual acts.


#1: The whole thing.

#2: Lala is talking about the child's knowledge of the uncle's homosexuality.

#3: The uncle could not even exist. Maybe the website made up the whole story.

#4: Yet the uncle is encouraging homosexuality.

#5: No it does not. One made up story does not apply to the entire community.

#6: The child said he thinks being gay is playing with boys.

#7: Lala was saying that the boy does not even know what gay means.
Posted 3/28/12 , edited 3/28/12

LalaSatalin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Wrong, when The Stanford Prison Experiment only showed how homosexual activity was used by decent US citizens, as one of several methods to further dehumanize and torture individuals.


Stanford Prison Experiment (Documentary)
In 1971, the psychologist Philip Zimbardo tried to show that prison guards and convicts would tend to slip into predefined roles, behaving in a way that they thought was required, rather than using their own judgment and morals.

Zimbardo was trying to show what happened when all of the individuality and dignity was stripped away from a human, and their life was completely controlled.

He wanted to show the dehumanization and loosening of social and moral values that can happen to guards immersed in such a situation.

Like a real life ‘Lord of the Flies’, it showed a degeneration and breakdown of the established rules and morals dictating exactly how people should behave towards each other.

The study created more new questions than it answered, about the amorality and darkness that inhabits the human psyche.

As a purely scientific venture, the experiment was a failure, but it generated some results that give an insight into human psychology and social behavior. The ethical implications of this study are still discussed in college and undergraduate psychology classes all across the world.

In the days of the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo abuses, the Stanford Prison Experiment is once again becoming relevant, showing that systematic abuse and denial of human rights is never far away in any prison facility.


Toilet facilities became a privilege, instead of a basic human right, with access to the bathroom being frequently denied; the inmates often had to clean the toilet facilities with their bare hands. Prisoners were often stripped and subjected to sexual humiliation, as a weapon of intimidation.
And before you overgeneralized the prison experiment data, the Scandinavian society known as Norway isn't a prison. Thus your baseless claim makes no scientific sense.


#1: You are so wrong. Prisoner behavior is EMPIRICAL evidence that everyone has the potential to be homosexual. Lala knows that you are aware of this. Lala just wonders why you are trying so hard.

#2: Everyone has a predisposition to bisexuality according to Sigmund Freud.


Innate bisexuality (or predisposition to bisexuality) is a term introduced by Sigmund Freud (based on work by his associate Wilhelm Fliess), that expounds all humans are born bisexual but through psychological development (which includes both external and internal factors) become monosexual while the bisexuality remains in a latent state.


#3: Lala knows that you are just spamming.

EDIT

Lala looked back at the start of this conversation. Lala remembered that you said people who refuse empirical evidences observable by your own sense, have no self-respect towards sensibility. Can Lala call you a bigot now? For calling Lala a bigot?


DomFortress wrote:

Just because you don't bother to look, doesn't mean that homosexuality in nature(that's a hyperlink if you didn't notice by now) would go away. And if you still refuse empirical evidences observable by your own sense, you've no self-respect towards sensibility.
You didn't provide empirical scientific proof on how nurturing, as in education and socialization, can trigger certain hormonal changes on an individual's RNA level, thus express homosexual orientation on said individual's DNA level through epicgenetics. All you really have is baseless paranoia that makes no scientific sense.

National Geographic explains the biology of homosexuality
NatGeo explains how one's sexual orientation is determined during embryonic development. They look at how it is possible for one identical twin to be gay and the other to be straight. They address a new branch of Genetics called, Epigenetics. This area of Genetics explores and explains how one's DNA sequence is NOT the only factor in one's phenotypic (actual) outcome. This episode explains how both twins could have the gene for a disorder, yet only one twin actually has the disorder. The same science explains sexual orientation differences in twins.

The 'Gay Brain' Explained - Louann Brizendine
Dr. Louann Brizendine, author of The Male Brain, outlines the preliminary scientific results measuring the differences between the straight male brain and the gay male brain. She says that having "same-sex attraction" is "not some kind of a moral decision," but rather involves brain circuitry, genes, and hormones.

Furthermore, Sigmund Freud and his associate Wilhelm Fliess were wrong with their hypothesis/assumption on how humans' "innate bisexuality" was psychologically made either heterosexuals or homosexuals. When the process was later on discovered to be hormonal in nature before birth and during children and youths' neural biological brain development, not psychological. This was because during Freud's time, evolutionary biology and genetic sequencing didn't even exist. The fact that your own Wikipedia source, which you copied/pasted words from words but without yourself citing the actual source itself for transparency and accountability(a lack of scientific ethics), had mentioned here that modern "innate bisexuality" is now based on the 1948 "Kinsey Reports" by Alfred Kinsey. This means that your argument shares the same weakness as Kinsey's rather biased sample group.

Academic criticisms were made pertaining to sample selection and sample bias in the reports' methodology. Two main problems cited were that significant portions of the samples come from prison populations and male prostitutes, and that people who volunteer to be interviewed about taboo subject are likely to suffer from the problem of self-selection. Both undermine the usefulness of the sample in terms of determining the tendencies of the overall population. In 1948, the same year as the original publication, a committee of the American Statistical Association, including notable statisticians such as John Tukey, condemned the sampling procedure. Tukey was perhaps the most vocal critic, saying, "A random selection of three people would have been better than a group of 300 chosen by Mr. Kinsey." Criticism principally revolved around the over-representation of some groups in the sample: 25% were, or had been, prison inmates, and 5% were male prostitutes. Psychologist Abraham Maslow asserted that Kinsey did not consider "volunteer bias". The data represented only those volunteering to participate in discussion of taboo topics. Most Americans were reluctant to discuss the intimate details of their sex lives even with their spouses and close friends. Before the publication of Kinsey's reports, Maslow tested Kinsey's volunteers for bias. He concluded that Kinsey's sample was unrepresentative of the general population.(citation)
And another historical fact you didn't consider is that until 1962, homosexual behavior is a federal felony due to the US sodomy law. This is also how and why back in 1948, the US prisons were overrepresented by homosexual and bisexual men; they were imprisoned because they're illegally gay and bi to begin with. Not the other way around. In other words, the prisons didn't made them gay or bi, while making homosexual behaviors illegal didn't prevent men from turning gays due to hormones back then.

Finally, you also didn't consider how sexual behaviors in prisons now is just sexual battery conducted by figures of absolute authority.

Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves Persistent, Pandemic

by Gary Hunter

Due to the nature of prisons as “total institutions,” it is impossible for prisoners to voluntarily consent to sexual advances by staff members who exert complete control over their lives – and in some cases over their release from prison.

Past issues of PLN have pushed this significant problem to the forefront. We would like to report that exposure of this issue has eased the problem. It hasn’t. We would like to say our continued coverage on this subject has deterred sexual abuse by prison staff. It didn’t.

Prison and jail employees are more out of control than ever. From state to state, north to south, east to west, sexual misconduct by guards and other staff members continues to weave its way through the fabric of our nation’s prisons. A common thread of rape, debauchery and even sexual torture is present in detention facilities nationwide.

So not only that you're a bigot, you're also rather sloppy for a researcher and critical thinker, who let her irrational fear of homophobia ran out of control. When you're needlessly worrying that legalizing gay marriage might somehow psychologically "encourage" more people into homosexual orientation, without yourself presenting any empirical epicgenetics finding, on how mere thinking can cause hormonal and neural biological changes that dictate human sexual orientation. While you completely ignored how almost half a century ago, the same society that you based your "prisoner behavior" argument from, was abusing the power of the legal institution, to legally punish, imprison, torture, if not down right murder anyone who wasn't a heterosexual for more than 180 years.

In 1778 Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in Virginia which contained a punishment of castration for men who engage in sodomy, however, what was intended by Jefferson as a liberalization of the sodomy laws in Virginia at that time was rejected by the Virginia Legislature, which continued to prescribe death as the maximum penalty for the crime of sodomy in that state.(citation)
With such a longstanding and rich cultural legacy of thoughtcrime and genocide embedded within an oppressive and authoritarian legal institution, which "discouraged" anyone who wasn't a heterosexual, or any visible minority group other than the politically powerful and the financially wealthy, I have every rights to call you out as who you are, for yourself favoring such inhumane and cruel heavy-handedness of the laws, a fascist and sexist bigot.
3520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/28/12

LalaSatalin wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:

#1: What exactly?

#2: I fail to see how that is "promoting" homosexuality. By that logic, everything short of disencouragement is promoting.

#3: Why would he? Unless you can come up with a motive for why he would make up a funny story about a family member, saying such a thing is nothing more than wild, desperate assumptions. If there is no reason to belive he had a reason to do it, he most likely didn't.

#4: Not likely. Even if homosexuality is accepted in Norway, it is by no means as common as heterosexuality. And if he was able to express with certainty that the kid had just recently found out that he was gay, it probably means that the kid had asked him to confirm it. Like "is it true that you are gay"? or something along those lines. This is yet another desperate "could be" assumption.

#5: No, but he is an example of how the general attitude affects children. And again, I can vouch for this myself.

#6: No, but they do understand the concept of attraction and love. To some degree anyway. And that means that if homosexuality was promoted, the kid would understand that being gay means being attracted to and/or loving members of their own gender, not just having friends of the same gender, like he thought.

#7: No, because being gay involves and encompass much more than just sexual acts.


#1: The whole thing.

#2: Lala is talking about the child's knowledge of the uncle's homosexuality.

#3: The uncle could not even exist. Maybe the website made up the whole story.

#4: Yet the uncle is encouraging homosexuality.

#5: No it does not. One made up story does not apply to the entire community.

#6: The child said he thinks being gay is playing with boys.

#7: Lala was saying that the boy does not even know what gay means.





#1: Please be more specific.

#2: Yes. And how is hinting at the uncle's homosexuality = promoting homosexuality?

#3: Why would they make it up? Again, don't throw things out there unless you can provide some sort of reasonable motive for it.

#4: How? The nephew had just recently found out that the uncle was homosexual, and the only indication we have to the uncle encouraging homosexuality at a later point is that he says he will take the kid to a gay bar if he is interested.

#5: You can not say that the story about the kid is made up and then run with it as if it was the truth if you have nothing to back it up with. That only shows how desperate you are.
And AGAIN - I can vouch for this. I know what the general attitude towards homosexuality is in Norway, and it fits perfectly. There is nothing peculiar or out of place with the story about the kid.

#6: Exactly, which proves that there was no such thing as "promoting of being gay". Because if there was, the kid would know what being gay was really about.

#7: See above.
Posted 3/31/12
people can get married to whoever or whatever they wish

even marry yourself if that floats your boat ^_^
846 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / in ur room on ur bed
Offline
Posted 4/1/12
i aprove gay marraige not just because i am myself but because i think everyone should be equal
31 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 6/19/12
I approve of gay marriage as something to be used for now until we can just sort out this mess that is marriage.

My belief is that marriage should be abolished completely (only to be recognized by a church and supplies no governmental rights to those in a marriage) by governmental recognition and should instate a new form of partner commitment that is recognized by the government that is inclusive to everyone.

Why you ask? Because gay marriage gives homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals? WRONG.
While legalizing gay marriage will provide some equal benefits it is FAR from creating an equal society.

By just legalizing gay marriage instead of creating a new an INHERENTLY inclusive system, all that is happening is the patriarchal white male way of living in society is winning. Instead of a system that includes everyone already, homosexuals must be GIVEN this right that is MEANT for heterosexuals. It's like a present, a privilege we had to earn that someone else just got without question? That is wrong. That is just white male patriarchy reaching out to the little guy and going "oh sorry I guess you can have my stuff too" instead of "we were wrong, here, let's all live equally."

I know this view is more radical and I didn't explain very in depth, but feel free to ask me any questions!
4607 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / LV.
Offline
Posted 6/27/12
I am totally for it! Gay marriage should be legal everywhere.

But there's something I always wondered when it comes to the argument against gay marriage. The most common argument against gay marriage is it's wrong because being homosexual is a sin in the Bible. Do they say this to Atheists too if they want to get married?

Would an Atheist couple getting married be more wrong in the Bible God's eyes than a Christian/Catholic gay couple wanting to get married?
9811 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / The Library
Offline
Posted 6/27/12
same here, i find it very rude and offensive how society pushes religion onto others. Freedom of religion isn't actually free if you cannot marry due to religion. Also i find religion now, to be more political in this world than before. Due to the fact that there is a leader of the pack to distribute money to the family and society. and etc. but that's just a quick thought that choo-chooed out of my head -3-
3274 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / United States
Offline
Posted 7/25/12
Why do other people worry so much about who's getting married to who? Your marriage must be really weak if you're going to believe that other men marrying men and women marrying women is "destroying the sanctity of marriage."
Posted 7/31/12 , edited 7/31/12
I think gay marriage is perfectly fine. They can adopt a kid if they really want one and i don't see how they would be bad parents. They grew up the exact same way everyone else has, they should have the same rights.
8753 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / North Carolina
Offline
Posted 8/12/12
What about single fathers? Should they not be allowed to have kids? What if a man's wife died or left (it does happen believe it or not) and the man has to take the responsibility of the children on his own?

And don't say "well there are grandmothers or sisters or female friends". Gay people have those as well.

Does this mean you're fine with lesbians adopting because they're women? Kind of reverse sexist, no?

The trauma I understand, kind of. However, the rest of your argument is just as unsupported as the examples given by the op.
67903 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 8/20/12

ohraii wrote:

I am totally for it! Gay marriage should be legal everywhere.

But there's something I always wondered when it comes to the argument against gay marriage. The most common argument against gay marriage is it's wrong because being homosexual is a sin in the Bible. Do they say this to Atheists too if they want to get married?

Would an Atheist couple getting married be more wrong in the Bible God's eyes than a Christian/Catholic gay couple wanting to get married?


If they were getting married in a practicing church, actually. YES. or at least just as wrong. Now nothing is stopping an atheist couple from getting a JP wedding.

but most preists, pastors, druids even... and their respective congregation expect you to participate in their faith before they'll marry you in their church. and you know what. That's their right. I support gay marriage, I don't support the state marching a religious figure and or her congregation into church and forcing them to marry an outsider at gunpoint. That's just dumb.

I'm arguing and fighting for the former. But I understand why some religious types fear the latter.

'marriage' when we speak of civil rights concerns the legal and state supported entity of marriage. It is things like survivor benefits in wills. Who is allowed to make decisions for patient care, or for an incapacitated person's other life choices. Who get's the money, should you actually cash in on one of those products that insurance companies always try to sell you on the basis of fear. These are all part of of the legal and social entity that is marriage. and with proper separation of church and state that should be independent of weather or not you swore vows in a synagoge, temple, mosque or whatever.

324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Wonderland
Offline
Posted 9/9/12
Let the gays get married and life moves on

Honestly I don't understand why this is such an issue...why does the love between two people matter to anyone?

If they want to get married then let them, I don't see the problem

Homosexuals are people too ya know
4930 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Singapore
Offline
Posted 9/30/12
States should allow them to marry but they shouldn't impose it to religious congregations which are against it.
First  Prev  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.