Answering Seattles challenge ...

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

In my mind, it is more that the gay community is more active and therefore cause politicians to react to their activism, couple that with the popular media sharing the perspectives of the gay activist groups and you'll see laws enacted accordingly. The ignorant masses often just sit on their hands and might not care.

More active and committed than the Christian right? You're deluded. Look who's been president and controlling Congress the past eight years.

Archaea, you've always had a hard time with this issue. I'm glad your rhetoric on it has become more civil, albeit no less misguided and guided by prejudices.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

So you are saying that you are physically capable of becoming sexually aroused by and attracted to men if you simply put your mind to it? This seems unlikely.

I would have to want to change, and I don't.

Have you ever forced yourself to continue eating food you just hate? Over time, you can acquire taste for it, don't you think?

Frankly, I am unaware how much volition can affect sexuality, but to dismiss it out of hand seems irresponsible.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I still don't think you have explained what "choice" means to you.

What does it mean to say homosexuality is a choice? Do you mean there are no factors at play other than our own decision? If so, I disagree. Do you mean biology doesn't mean anything? I disagree. Do you mean choice as a result of sexual abuse? I don't call that choice. Just trying to figure out what you are talking about here.

I have been very clear. Choice is a significant factor in the equation as outlined by SIEQ's quoted post. However in the context of Seattles poll that lacks nuance I must choose 'choice' as the reason.

IMO It is NOT purely genetics or choice but rather a combination of many factors. Seatlles poll does not permit a broader declaration.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Abusers don't just happen they are created. Ergo the heterosexual commiting the abuse was in fact a victim of abuse in his/her childhood.

How could you conclude that? Logically, it can't be true that all abusers were abused. Otherwise, there wouldn't have ever been a first abuser.

[SeattleUte]

Tooblue, I have a question for you. And I mean this with all due respect and sensitivity. You seem to want us to accept at face value your opinion on the "is being gay a choice?" issue simply because of your traumatic childhood experience, and without really elicudating for us the relevancy (indeed, you are a heterosexual). Why, on the same principal, do you dismiss out of hand the personal testimony of the vast majority of if not virtually all gays? It's their testament above all else that persuades me.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I would have to want to change, and I don't.

Have you ever forced yourself to continue eating food you just hate? Over time, you can acquire taste for it, don't you think?

Frankly, I am unaware how much volition can affect sexuality, but to dismiss it out of hand seems irresponsible.

I served in Bolivia, so I know all about developing a taste for awful food.

Ultimately, isn't the issue whether homosexuality is 100% volition? If there is even 5% of it that is beyond our "control," then I feel that it is unfair to disallow marriage and pursuit of happiness.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

More active and committed than the Christian right? You're deluded. Look who's been president and controlling Congress the past eight years.

Archaea, you've always had a hard time with this issue. I'm glad your rhetoric on it has become more civil, albeit no less misguided and guided by prejudices.

Now, you're just engaging in rhetorical devices.

We have two somewhat prominent issue groups, and you merely point to them and say, "how can you accuse gays of being more vigilant than bible thumpers?"

However, bible thumpers have many issues whereas gays have fewer.

BTs worry about abortion, creationism, prayer, drugs and gay marriage.

For gay activists their entire world involves predominantly gay issues, not ancillary issues to divert their attentions and resources.

Your argumentation is not compelling and may not show up on a correlative study, though you may try to use it in a moot court competition.

[Taq Man]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Abusers don't just happen they are created. Ergo the heterosexual commiting the abuse was in fact a victim of abuse in his/her childhood.

Indeed. I would add that 99% of the child abuse cases involve a family member or boyfriend.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

How could you conclude that? Logically, it can't be true that all abusers were abused. Otherwise, there wouldn't have ever been a first abuser.

It is a fact Cali. And it is not just me who has come to that conclusion. Every therapist I have ever met concurs based upon the many hours of therapy they have participated in and the research.

That does not mean that pedophiles are created. There is a clear distinction between a victim of abuse and a genetically compelled predator. That is why it is reprehensible to compare a homosexual to a pedophile.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I served in Bolivia, so I know all about developing a taste for awful food.

Ultimately, isn't the issue whether homosexuality is 100% volition? If there is even 5% of it that is beyond our "control," then I feel that it is unfair to disallow marriage and pursuit of happiness.

Marriage equals the pursuit of happiness? Since when. It equals the pursuit of consistent sex, companionship and friendship.

Doesn't society have the right to determine what it considers marriage and what it doesn't consider marriage?

The policy argument that society should include within its definitions as two same sex people as married benefits society how? We've been down this road and I've never been too impressed as they are basically emotionally arguments.