[quote=Zeta-Flux;135084]Brian-E, did you completely misread what I wrote????! Every normal human has compulsions to procreate. It isn't insulting to point this out, and it is the [I]antithesis[/I] of insulting to point out that someone is putting said programming under their control. Please stop pretending that the comment was insulting. It is your comments, with regards to having no choice in your lifestyle, that are the insulting ones.[/quote]
Clearly I am not a normal human by your definition of the word normal. I have never had any compulsion to procreate. If I had, one good social way of doing so would be to donate my sperm to a woman or couple who for whatever reason cannot procreate directly. The options of whether or not I would be involved in the raising of the child(ren) could be carefully worked out and agreed in advance. But I have never experienced the desire to do this. Other people who are not in a man-woman relationship often do have the desire to procreate of course, and the possibilities of artificial insemination are available to them, but it is not the universal compulsion you say it is.
If my comments have insulted you I am sorry. I pulled back to a certain extent correcting the assertion that I had [B]no[/B] choice in how I lived my life by - in a somewhat ironic manner - listing possible choices I could have made which would have gone against my nature. To illustrate it I mentioned a well known American ex-evangelist who did just that and came to grief. I find your taking apart of this posting in your last contribution rather odd - it's almost as if you didn't understand the irony. Whatever, the overall point that I'm making is that people are asking for trouble if they try to impose a set of moral values on themselves which go against their true nature. The insult - which I still experience as such - is to do with your clear suggestion that my relationship is unworthy in that we should have chosen to ignore our feelings towards each other. If that isn't what you meant and if you in fact respect my gay relationship and value it as much as you would any heterosexual one such as your own, it would be really nice to hear that.
Brian.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;135090]Clearly I am not a normal human by your definition of the word normal. I have never had any compulsion to procreate.[/quote]Please excuse me for oversimplifying in my last post. I meant that a large majority of males have a compulsion to ejaculate, to make this technical. This is a biological necessity. I hope that is more clear. If you do not have such a compulsion, I do apologize as my comments would be inappropriate.

If your tubing is like the average human male, then I hope you can understand my comments in context, and that they were not meant to be the least bit insulting, but as a statement of fact.

[quote]I pulled back to a certain extent correcting the assertion that I had [B]no[/B] choice in how I lived my life by - in a somewhat ironic manner - listing possible choices I could have made which would have gone against my nature. To illustrate it I mentioned a well known American ex-evangelist who did just that and came to grief. I find your taking apart of this posting in your last contribution rather odd - it's almost as if you didn't understand the irony.[/quote]Oh, I caught the irony. But in your demostration that you understood my point you picked one of the *worst* alternatives. I just wanted to make it clear that my point is stronger than you made it look, and I also wanted to make it clear I wasn't advocating you do any of those things. You certainly could have chosen a worse path! I agree. But that doesn't imply that the path you have chosen is the best, nor does it imply that the path you have chosen isn't the best.

[QUOTE]Whatever, the overall point that I'm making is that people are asking for trouble if they try to impose a set of moral values on themselves which go against their true nature.[/QUOTE]And my point is that sometimes it is possible and worth the trouble to work against the "natural man."

Trying to justify same-gender unions by appealing to "true nature", at least [i]a priori[/i], overlooks whether such an attempt at overcoming the natural proclivities is a good thing or a bad thing for sociey. For example, we don't legislate against breathing, which is clearly a good thing. But we don't give legislate benefits for polygamist unions, even though that too could be viewed as an expression of "true nature".

[QUOTE]The insult - which I still experience as such - is to do with your clear suggestion that my relationship is unworthy in that we should have chosen to ignore our feelings towards each other.[/QUOTE]My only implication with regards to your specific relationship is that you should not [i]act[/i] on your feelings [b][i]IF[/i][/b] God tells you not to. I have beliefs about homosexual acts in general, but I do not judge your specific situation. Your feelings for each other are what they are. I am not judging your specific choices as I am not God. I have my own beliefs about what actions are acceptable to God in general, but you are free to choose your own path. If you find my beliefs insulting I don't know what to say except that if you are going to honestly discuss the topic of gay marriage you will be insulted by *everyone* who opposes it, as they are implicitly suggesting that your union is not equal (in some way or another) to a traditional one.

[QUOTE]If that isn't what you meant and if you in fact respect my gay relationship and value it as much as you would any heterosexual one such as your own, it would be really nice to hear that.[/QUOTE]I value the care you have for your partner, and I value the fact you remain faithful (which is what I was trying to say earlier--apparently with little success :)--with the spreading DNA comment). But, with regards to some of the acts within your relationship, I believe that they are reserved only for certain circumstances okayed by God. I recognize that this can be viewed as insulting. I think, however, that an open, honest discussion is what you want.

Best,
Zeta-Flux

Thanks for the reply Zeta-Flux. I appreciate the positive things you have just said (some of them personal) and acknowledge your individual set of values which makes you believe what you do. You and I will however clearly never see eye to eye on the issue of same-sex partnerships. I can live with that. I guess you can too.:smile:
Brian.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;135086]You could. Or you could acknowledge them. Or you could try to change them. Or you could revel in them. Or...etc....[/QUOTE]
If I have the urge or feeling for my neighbor's spouse, I could choose to act on those fellings, or deny them power.
Similarly, any urge or feeling for any forbidden class of person, what have you.
Similarly, any urge or feeling for forbidden drugs, weapons, etc.

I consider my feelings and chose to act in a manner that is sometimes contrary, because I think that it is the right thing to do. I sometimes act in accordance with my feelings, because I think that it is the right thing to do.

Note, I am applying the controls to myself, not others.

Don't flame me bro.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;135096]Thanks for the reply Zeta-Flux. I appreciate the positive things you have just said (some of them personal) and acknowledge your individual set of values which makes you believe what you do. You and I will however clearly never see eye to eye on the issue of same-sex partnerships. I can live with that. I guess you can too.:smile:
Brian.[/QUOTE]

Brian, thank you for your gracious response.

[quote=Uncwilly;135113]If I have the urge or feeling for my neighbor's spouse, I could choose to act on those fellings, or deny them power.
Similarly, any urge or feeling for any forbidden class of person, what have you.
Similarly, any urge or feeling for forbidden drugs, weapons, etc.

I consider my feelings and chose to act in a manner that is sometimes contrary, because I think that it is the right thing to do. I sometimes act in accordance with my feelings, because I think that it is the right thing to do.

Note, I am applying the controls to myself, not others.

Don't flame me bro.[/quote]
Yes, we all live by a set of rules drawn up by the society in which we live. The rules do indeed sometimes hold our purely natural instincts in check or even shape our instincts to something different than what they might otherwise have been. Usually the rules of society are based on the requirement for all of us to live our own lives, and live with each other, in as harmonious a manner as possible. But I have two fundamental objections to applying them to stop people who are attracted to their own sex from pairing up for life with another man or another woman:

(1) Your sexual orientation is much more fundamental to you - that is, if you are in good mental health - than any desire to risk your own health by trying out drugs, cause any inconvenience to others by anti-social behaviour, cause others hurt by stealing or having a fling with their loved one, or cause any serious harm to others by acts of violence. People who are in good mental health, and especially those who received a good and balanced upbringing, do not suffer any ill-effects from acting on society's requirement to keep such anti-social urges in check. Generally we are even perfectly able to lose such urges altogether. Your sexual orientation, however, is fundamentally different. It is so much a part of you that you can never change it. You can deny it for a time - in some cases people do that for many years because of their society's failure to accept homosexuality - but it returns because it is a fundamental part of you. There is some evidence that your sexual orientation is determined (at least in part) by your genes and very good evidence that it is permanently determined before the pre-pubescent years are over.

(2) Unlike most other societal rules, the rule that you must not fall in love with someone of your own sex is irrational. It may be based on religious beliefs (with many opponents of same sex marriage that is certainly the case) but it is not based on the requirement for us all to live in harmony with each other. By mutually choosing to share your life with a same sex partner you are doing what is right for yourselves and you are not harming or inconveniencing anyone else. And that is the only consideration which society ought to be taking when discussing the issue: religious beliefs and doctrine differ from one person to another and should most certainly not be used as a basis for societal rules.

You say that by living by your societal rules you are applying the controls to yourself, not to others. I'm very glad to hear that. Does that mean you would be in favour of lifting any ban on same sex marriage because it concerns other people and does not affect you?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;135149](1) Your sexual orientation is much more fundamental to you - that is, if you are in good mental health - than any desire to risk your own health by trying out drugs, cause any inconvenience to others by anti-social behaviour, cause others hurt by stealing or having a fling with their loved one, or cause any serious harm to others by acts of violence. People who are in good mental health, and especially those who received a good and balanced upbringing, do not suffer any ill-effects from acting on society's requirement to keep such anti-social urges in check. Generally we are even perfectly able to lose such urges altogether. Your sexual orientation, however, is fundamentally different. It is so much a part of you that you can never change it. You can deny it for a time - in some cases people do that for many years because of their society's failure to accept homosexuality - but it returns because it is a fundamental part of you. There is some evidence that your sexual orientation is determined (at least in part) by your genes and very good evidence that it is permanently determined before the pre-pubescent years are over.[/quote]From what I've been told by people who study this issue, there is actually very little evidence (especially in terms of professional refereed papers in journals) that genetics is what causes same-gender attraction. Also, from what I've been told, specifically from certain practicing psychologists, sexual preference is more fluid than you make it out to be. For example, one psychologist told me that in his practice, when treating people with same-gender attraction who wanted to change, almost all of the women did change their attractions, but none of the men did.

But apart from the science side of it, your specific point is not nearly as convincing to me as you could make it be. Let me try to explain why. Firstly, many people have different beliefs about what is "fundamental." Is the fact that Frank lost his legs in the war a fundamental part of himself? In my opinion, the answer to that question is how Frank reacts to the loss of his legs. He can make it fundamental, or he can work with it and not let it define his character. Society, for the most part, has chosen to take the position that this is fundamental enough that laws are needed to protect Frank, and entitle him to easy access to most places that we can go. We build wheelchair ramps, and elevators. We provide easy access parking spots, and so forth. This has both benefits and costs to society. We pass the law because we think that ultimately the benefits outweigh the costs.

Using another thought experiment, is the fact that George is strongly attracted to lots of pretty girls a fundamental part of himself? If so, should we use that argument as justification that George has a right to polygamous unions? Do the costs outweight the benefits? etc...

Same-gender attraction can certainly be a fundamental aspect of one's biology. But, as anyone who has remained celibate can tell you, one's sexual preference does not have to define you.

But even ignoring all of this, let us suppose for the sake of argument that humans evolved in a manner so that a small, but sizable, minority of them were attracted to the same-gender. If this is the case, we naturally ask, "Why? What is the evolutionary benefit?" It might be, for example, having extra people to raise children without producing more of them. It might be something else. But, if this is the case, how would you argue that this isn't filling a "lesser" and/or "different" role than the standard parents?

[quote=Zeta-Flux;135163]From what I've been told by people who study this issue, there is actually very little evidence (especially in terms of professional refereed papers in journals) that genetics is what causes same-gender attraction. Also, from what I've been told, specifically from certain practicing psychologists, sexual preference is more fluid than you make it out to be. For example, one psychologist told me that in his practice, when treating people with same-gender attraction who wanted to change, almost all of the women did change their attractions, but none of the men did.[/quote]

I said there is "some" evidence that genetics may cause sexual orientation "at least in part". But we are nowhere near a definitive conclusion on the root causes of homosexuality.

The psychologist you spoke to has, on his own admission, a very poor success rate of "treating" same-gender attraction. Most of these so-called professionals achieve 100% success in changing sexual preferences, so I do wonder how your psychologist friend was slipping up so badly with his male clients. The point is, Zeta-Flux, that people who go for such treatment want it to succeed so badly that they will let themselves be put through the most horrific psychological manipulation to do so. They are deeply unhappy with their true nature and will go through anything to change it. The "treatment" will then typically involve associating their true desires with pain, fear and disgust. How is the success rate then measured? How do you tell when someone is "cured" from their homosexuality? We expect high standards of testing and evaluation on this forum because we are mostly from a mathematical or at least scientific background here. So how would we evaluate such treatment? For how long would we subsequently observe our former patients to decide if the treatment had worked. How would we measure their emotions in the years that follow, the quality of their subsequent relationships, the precise nature and cause of the depressions and emotional breakdowns that they suffer in later years? Not easy, is it? I suppose we could count their suicides in later life, or the suicides of their subsequent partners, and compare that with general population.

I think your psychologist friend should not be practising psychology at all.

[quote]But apart from the science side of it, your specific point is not nearly as convincing to me as you could make it be. Let me try to explain why. Firstly, many people have different beliefs about what is "fundamental." Is the fact that Frank lost his legs in the war a fundamental part of himself? In my opinion, the answer to that question is how Frank reacts to the loss of his legs. He can make it fundamental, or he can work with it and not let it define his character. Society, for the most part, has chosen to take the position that this is fundamental enough that laws are needed to protect Frank, and entitle him to easy access to most places that we can go. We build wheelchair ramps, and elevators. We provide easy access parking spots, and so forth. This has both benefits and costs to society. We pass the law because we think that ultimately the benefits outweigh the costs.

Using another thought experiment, is the fact that George is strongly attracted to lots of pretty girls a fundamental part of himself? If so, should we use that argument as justification that George has a right to polygamous unions? Do the costs outweight the benefits? etc...

Same-gender attraction can certainly be a fundamental aspect of one's biology. But, as anyone who has remained celibate can tell you, one's sexual preference does not have to define you.[/quote]

The costs of redefining marriage consist of little more than persuading opponents like yourself to stop trying to see same-sex relationships as undesirable and in need of alteration, plus some work for the law-makers. The benefits are huge: around 6 percent of the population (somewhere between 3% and 10% is a good confidence interval) have the status of their relationships raised to equality with everyone else. The increase of self-esteem for this part of the population is incalculable.

[quote]But even ignoring all of this, let us suppose for the sake of argument that humans evolved in a manner so that a small, but sizable, minority of them were attracted to the same-gender. If this is the case, we naturally ask, "Why? What is the evolutionary benefit?" It might be, for example, having extra people to raise children without producing more of them. It might be something else. But, if this is the case, how would you argue that this isn't filling a "lesser" and/or "different" role than the standard parents?[/quote]

The evolutionary arguments are interesting. But using them as a basis for calling particular groups of people "lesser" and denying them benefits which others take for granted is a way of thinking out of which humanity urgently needs to grow. The historical precedents are horrible.

I've hesitated to mention this because this is both the wrong and the very right forum to mention this and don't want to step on any feelings of anyone who knew him...but Alan Turing got destroyed over this issue. Although if his troubles had occurred today I don't think he would have eaten the apple. Nevertheless I am seeing the same fundamental beliefs and reactions that make acceptance so hard. I truly want this issue to move forward and feel that it really could. Apologies for my blithe namedropping to anyone who knew him.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;135168]I said there is "some" evidence that genetics may cause sexual orientation "at least in part". But we are nowhere near a definitive conclusion on the root causes of homosexuality.[/quote]I agree. But, as I pointed out, if it isn't genetic then that cuts to the heart of how fundamental it is.

[quote]The psychologist you spoke to has, on his own admission, a very poor success rate of "treating" same-gender attraction.[/quote]For certain classes of people, yes.

[quote]Most of these so-called professionals achieve 100% success in changing sexual preferences, so I do wonder how your psychologist friend was slipping up so badly with his male clients.[/quote]I don't know about "so-called professionals", I only know the anecdotal evidence supplied by this one actual professional.

[quote]The point is, Zeta-Flux, that people who go for such treatment want it to succeed so badly that they will let themselves be put through the most horrific psychological manipulation to do so.[/quote]You are overgeneralizing and (unfairly) judging.

[quote]They are deeply unhappy with their true nature and will go through anything to change it.[/quote]You are begging the question calling it a "true nature", but of course they are deeply unhappy. Why else seek treatment?

[quote]The "treatment" will then typically involve associating their true desires with pain, fear and disgust.[/quote]That is one treatment option. There are others. I believe that the psychologist I referred to earlier mostly just talked with his patients, did some hypnosis, etc...

[quote]How is the success rate then measured? How do you tell when someone is "cured" from their homosexuality? We expect high standards of testing and evaluation on this forum because we are mostly from a mathematical or at least scientific background here. So how would we evaluate such treatment? For how long would we subsequently observe our former patients to decide if the treatment had worked. How would we measure their emotions in the years that follow, the quality of their subsequent relationships, the precise nature and cause of the depressions and emotional breakdowns that they suffer in later years? Not easy, is it? [/quote]These are all good questions for the psychologists to hash out, and then report in refereed, professional journals.

[quote]I think your psychologist friend should not be practising psychology at all.[/quote]You lack the credentials to even pretend to make such a decision. You seem to be judging those seeking treatment pretty harshly also.

[quote]The costs of redefining marriage consist of little more than persuading opponents like yourself to stop trying to see same-sex relationships as undesirable and in need of alteration, plus some work for the law-makers.[/quote]I disagree.

[quote]The evolutionary arguments are interesting. But using them as a basis for calling particular groups of people "lesser" and denying them benefits which others take for granted is a way of thinking out of which humanity urgently needs to grow. The historical precedents are horrible.[/QUOTE]I agree that the historical precedents are horrible. Which is why I find it strange that many people with SSA make the evolutionary claims.

The thing that made the historical precedents horrible is that the evolutionary assumptions were FALSE. Black people are NOT stupider, are not less advanced, etc...

[quote=only_human;135172]I've hesitated to mention this because this is both the wrong and the very right forum to mention this and don't want to step on any feelings of anyone who knew him...but Alan Turing got destroyed over this issue. Although if his troubles had occurred today I don't think he would have eaten the apple. Nevertheless I am seeing the same fundamental beliefs and reactions that make acceptance so hard. I truly want this issue to move forward and feel that it really could. Apologies for my blithe namedropping to anyone who knew him.[/quote]
The excellent biography of Alan Turing by Andrew Hodges re-awakened my own interest in mathematics after some years away from the subject and opened my eyes to the appalling persecution in Britain of homosexual people as recently as the 1950s. If anyone here has not read it, I highly recommend this superbly researched and written biography.
Yes, I think the issue of homosexuality will move forward too, only_human. It has done so in much of Western Europe now (tragically a few decades too late for Turing in Britain), also Canada, and it is doing so in Australasia, parts of South America, the rest of Europe, even parts of Asia. The USA must follow in time.