Do we support equality at DPC? - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR

07/08/2009 11:49:40 PM · #153

Originally posted by Blue Moon:

I don't mean to "backhand" anyone. However, I want to point out that there is actually psychological data that shows that many straight men in our culture (and many others) are indeed NOT in touch with their feelings. You are probably not aware of this since Psychologists only started considering that being homosexual was not a disorder about 20 years ago and began comparing them with the straight population. Thus, being in college now, I am far more exposed to knowledge on this subject that you were not aware of when you were in school. Think about it, when little boys cry, they are usually told to stop it because "big boys don't cry," where as girl's emotions are more nurtured by parents. This is effectively telling boys to shut out their emotions because if they let them out, they will never be men. Similarly, in a relationship, if there is an argument, it is usually the man who does not know how to verbally express his emotions and keeps quiet, or just says "whatever" than communicate with the woman, who is much more verbal with how she feels. Interestingly, it has been found that men are naturally more verbal than women, but that block that was put in when they were toddlers, doesn't allow those words to come out. This is why there have been cases where a man will see a psychologist, start actually talking about how he feels, and then have pointed out by the psychologist that he is crying, when the man himself did not realize it.
Article over-viewing emotional differences in men

Now, I'm not saying that this isn't the case with some gay men, but often gay men are associated with being effeminate. This was thought to be a behavioral choice, until a study was done last year showing that a gay man's brain is much more similar to a heterosexual woman's than a heterosexual man. This was the reason for my argument that they are more sensitive and in touch with themselves.
NY Academy of Sciences study. homo brains vs. hetero brains
This study also showed that gay men were much better at a verbal test than straight men.

As far as being sexually promiscuous, I think it has more to do with culture in the gay community than them naturally being more promiscuous (by the way, I hope you didn't associate my earlier use of the word "passionate" with "promiscuous", because that is not at all what I meant). I think being straight allows us to have more options and thus we can be more selective. Gay people are much harder to come by, so I think when they find each other, they are more likely to "pounce" than be as selective (and by this I don't mean that they don't have standards, just less options). The above study also showed that the part of the brain that controls sexual desire was actually smaller in gay men than in straight men. As for studies surrounding safe sex and number of parters in homosexual and heterosexual, there are many different results depending on the area in which they live. However, the consensus seems to be that yes, gay men are less safe and have more partners, but there is a much smaller gap in the statistics than one might think.

Studies showing promiscuity homo vs. hetero men

Just because I like to argue...(meaning I'm having fun here and as soon as you aren't we can stop)...

Your first paragraph about "boys not crying" is anecdotal at best and at times is downright false. "it has been found that men are naturally more verbal than women" being a good example. There is, for example, no evidence to support the conventional wisdom that women speak more words per day than men. In fact, the study I could find says it's the same. ("Women are generally assumed to be more talkative than men. Data were analyzed from 396 participants who wore a voice recorder that sampled ambient sounds for several days. Participants' daily word use was extrapolated from the number of recorded words. Women and men both spoke about 16,000 words per day.") Even if we assume no evidence the assertion makes no sense. How would one come up with these results if the male has an "artificial block" placed at age three? Would you do studies in children less than three and extrapolate the findings to their adult lives? If the findings change it must be artificial manipulation that causes it? I think that would be very hard to prove. And even if it were somehow true, how can we blame a difference in treatment at age three or less for gay men being more "in touch" with their emotions? At that age I would assume children's sexual orientations are nebulous and everybody would be treated, on average, the same (Unless you are proposing a purely environmental cause for homosexuality where the three year olds are gay because they are treated differently. I doubt that's your intent.)

Your second paragraph is probably the best of your three arguments, but I hate links that are secondhand information. I'd love to see the original study which is mentioned, but not cited in the article.

I closely read the beginning of the third link then skimmed the rest. The essayist makes a poor argument in the beginning which gives me less reason to trust the rest of his argument. His counter to this article by David Glesne (no link provided) basically says, "because some gay men are not promiscuous it is "bad science" (his words) to report findings from population studies." Since we cannot necessarily draw lessons from the population to the individual we should ignore the population data. This is, of course, ridiculous. Certainly individuals do not necessarily follow their peers, but this does not mean that population data should be ignored when comparing different populations. To be fair, I don't have a link to Glesne's data so I can't assertain whether it is reasonable or not.

Anyway, I'd like to dig up some of the original works because it's always interesting to read the primary stuff.

Message edited by author 2009-07-08 23:58:05.

RulerZigzag

Nikon D750

07/09/2009 01:03:19 AM · #154

Originally posted by Blue Moon:

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
Thank you ! There are some people on here who called for my head and were completely ignorant on the true meaning of marriage.

You best not be referring to me (or anyone here) as ignorant. Just as you take 1 step forward in terms of respect, you take 2 backwards again. What a shame. And there is that "true" word again. Could you please tell me how you know what is true? I don't pretend to know the truth in the world because I know that I have to question everything in life in order to hopefully rule out any possible lies. Do I expect to ever find the truth? I hope I can find it in myself, but I will never impress it upon others as the one and only belief.

Blue, looks like you have it out for me, didn't go back too far in the thread to know who I was referring to as ignorant to the meaning of marriage. Not ignorant totally, just on the topic. If anything I find you to be very intelligent from what I have seen on a few threads here and there. Far from apathetic, which is a great thing. But it does seem as if you still don't understand what I'm trying to say so I'll try to extricate a bit more.

Truth is found from within yes, only after deciphering all the information. I put alot of stock in what I learned at Catholic school, and straight up books. Marriage is a sacrament. I explained it on here. and if You want to learn the meaning of marriage go ask a priest. He will tell you the same as I did on this thread. This is why people get married in Churches....back in the day, it was the only way; today, I could get married on top of the Empire state building for free every Wednesday. The word Marriage has evolved over time just like everything else does. Like I said, Gay marriage is not possible. It means more than what its taken for today. I think its actually taken for granted.

Now in response to what you said-

"Is it a coincidence that many gay people who are "out" are sensitive and maybe even more passionate and in touch with their inner selves than most straight people (especially men)? Could this be because maybe they were meant to mother the world's unloved children? Now, coming back to marriage, the bible states that 2 should be married before having/raising children. Therefore in this scenario, gay people should be able to marry in order to take care of those children.
"

I agree about most of this. I did say Gays are very sweet and passionate people. Perhaps you missed it. But there are some men out there who aren't gay that do have feminine sides. Don't have a disdain for men because they don't have the emotional stamina for you. As for your last sentence, it doesn't make sense if compared to the true meaning of marriage. It might not be true to you, but true for me.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
--Genesis 2:24

But science rules todays world, and these new laws are considered adapting with the times.

Message edited by author 2009-07-09 02:15:21.

RulerZigzag

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR

07/09/2009 01:21:15 AM · #155

Oh and pretty decent articles

drachoo

I wanted to respond to your statement-

"Your first paragraph about "boys not crying" is anecdotal at best and at times is downright false. "it has been found that men are naturally more verbal than women" being a good example. There is, for example, no evidence to support the conventional wisdom that women speak more words per day than men. In fact, the study I could find says it's the same. ("Women are generally assumed to be more talkative than men. "

Now I do agree men aren't completely wooden. Some posters on this thread make it appear as if men are cold hearted. Completely ridiculous. But..it is true that women are more emotional. There are times when we should govern our passions too. I guess being over-passionate could be good and bad. A man needs emotional support of a woman, and a woman needs the logic of a man to have that "Balance" in a relationship. Don't hate the man because he appears cold sometimes. Dont hate the woman because she is overly sensitive. Opposites attract for a reason. It's a natural law.

Now in one of the articles it compared the brains. I think there are two types of Gay people in the world.
1- The type that are not physcially gay, but mentally. Yes, its sounds gay, but I think its safe to say. This type of homosexual are probably the type that psychotherapists considered to have turned homosexual due to emotional trauma.

2- The physically homosexual- Some people are born with the bodies of a particular gender, but have the soul of the opposite. Like a man with a feminine voice, could be related to the mind, a hormonal reason perhaps.

Message edited by author 2009-07-09 02:43:47.

Blue Moon

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

07/09/2009 04:04:32 AM · #156

I'm not meaning to paint men as cold and emotionless, I was just pointing out that I was taught and have read over the years that they have trouble expressing those emotions at times. I have met quite a few men who are sensitive, loving, and nurturing. Just last Sunday night I was having a heartfelt conversation with a coworker and his daughter and he started to cry (happy tears) and he didn't try to hide it. However, I was taught in psychology last year that parents are usually more strict in terms of their child expressing emotions when they are boys because they want them to grow up to be tough and strong. I was shown various studies and I am just sharing that information with you. There will always be clashing studies with opposite results in many cases, so I can only present what I have been taught in a college learning environment. Having said that

DrAchoo, I have no idea where you are getting age three from. I never said anything about the age of three and would like to know where your source for that statement came from?

I will continue posting tomorrow. Goodnight, debaters.

dcanossa

Nikon D3300

07/09/2009 10:16:00 AM · #157

Seems like we are getting somewhat off topic here. My intention was to debate about the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) and know if a community like this, which includes both gays and straights, would be supportive of this equality cause. It seems like all in all it is a supportive community and I am glad about it.

It's interesting though to see people rather nicely debating about the "origins" of homosexuality. This shows this is a civilized community! :)

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

07/09/2009 11:41:36 AM · #158

Originally posted by Blue Moon:

I have no idea where you are getting age three from. I never said anything about the age of three and would like to know where your source for that statement came from?

In pediatrics a one to three year old is generally considered a "toddler" which was a word you used ("but that block that was put in when they were toddlers, doesn't allow those words to come out."). I was using the upper end of that. Maybe you had a different meaning in your mind.

Message edited by author 2009-07-09 11:41:46.

Blue Moon

Canon EOS-40D

07/09/2009 11:04:26 PM · #159

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Blue Moon:
I have no idea where you are getting age three from. I never said anything about the age of three and would like to know where your source for that statement came from?

In pediatrics a one to three year old is generally considered a "toddler" which was a word you used ("but that block that was put in when they were toddlers, doesn't allow those words to come out."). I was using the upper end of that. Maybe you had a different meaning in your mind.

Ahh, I understand now. I was just thrown off by your specificity.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

07/09/2009 11:07:01 PM · #160

Originally posted by Blue Moon:

Ahh, I understand now. I was just thrown off by your specificity.

Freaking doctors! :P

Mousie

07/23/2009 09:14:18 PM · #161

Originally posted by dcanossa:

I'm against it. Wouldn't the net effect be to let more gays into the country?

We can't have that.

dcanossa

Nikon D3300

08/06/2009 12:49:48 PM · #162

Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by dcanossa:
Seems like we are getting somewhat off topic here. My intention was to debate about the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) and know if a community like this, which includes both gays and straights, would be supportive of this equality cause. It seems like all in all it is a supportive community and I am glad about it.

It's interesting though to see people rather nicely debating about the "origins" of homosexuality. This shows this is a civilized community! :)

I'm against it. Wouldn't the net effect be to let more gays into the country?

We can't have that.

Lordy, Lordy! NO COMMENTS!

Mousie

08/06/2009 01:35:35 PM · #163

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

Like I said, Gay marriage is not possible.

Being gay, and married, I can assure you that gay marriage is absolutely possible, and your willful ignorance is both dehumanizing and infuriating.

How dare you tell my family or I that we do not know the true meaning of marriage? The hubris! Your assertion is so damn sanctimonious I want to spit the bad taste from my mouth.

I have a proposal for you. Would you like to give my mother a call and explain to her why my marriage, the marriage I have the legal documents to prove, the marriage that was attended in uniform joy by both sides of my family (you know, my genetic family and the one I married into), THAT marriage, is not a true marriage? Tell her how she and all of my relatives are wrong, and how you know better? I have preemptively obtained her approval for just this sort of request. She is willing to hear you out.

Perhaps better, why not explain to my mother why my husband is not, in fact, her son. That she's completely mistaken.

So. Are you willing to call a adorable little old lady to tell her that the family she thought she had is a total lie, that she's not actually legally related to my husband's family, and that all this is because her son is a sinner for putting the wrong appendage in the wrong hole and therefore god does not accept our love?

She's a dear. Go ahead. Hurt her! She's willingly volunteered, much like the flagellants of the 13th century.

Mousie

08/06/2009 02:15:19 PM · #164

I find it a bit shocking that some people carry a stereotype of gays as somehow more 'gentle' and 'sensitive' than men in general. Maybe on TV, but not from my experience. And I bet I know more gay men than you. Just guessing. Definitely in the biblical sense.

In fact, there's a whole swath of the gay population that takes masculinity even further than a straight dude would ever go. Ultra-buff. Ultra macho. Bearded, hairy, beer-swilling, belching, greasy, sweaty, jack-booted, holes-in-the-filthy-mechanic's-jump-suit-showing-off-a-poorly-taken-care-of-jockstrap-hyper-masculinity bordering on parody. Why? Because they think GUYS are hot. They're not looking for a vagina replacement, or a mock wife. They don't want soft. They want, for lack of a better double entendre, hard.

I'd think the tenor of my own posts would go a long way to debunk this sensitive stereotype, too. You know, as a token gay male voice here on the DPC. A sardonic, snarky gay male voice. A voice that might take the easy way out and simply despise you if we disagree and you're being an idiot about it. Not gentle. Hardened by having to deal with so much unthinking abuse directed at homosexuals every single day. I see it. Every. Single. Day. It effects a man.

Here's my own take on it: Men are pigs. Gay men are men. Gay men are pigs. This, I feel, is a much more accurate stereotype, if a stereotype nonetheless.

How one population can simultaneously be described as both super in touch with it's 'womanly' feelings AND derided for practicing constant, no-strings-attached, feelings-free promiscuity boggles my mind.

Sorry for straying off topic and making the DPC my soapbox again, but jeeze! These subjects seem to get unavoidably dragged into every debate on equal rights for homosexuals, and I feel the need to address them. I hope that being in the trenches (oh man, was that another double entendre?) gives me some useful perspectives to share.

08/06/2009 04:44:56 PM · #165

the problem with this thread, and with any other that gets religion-related, is that people often forget tha the bible did not fall from the sky. It was written by men, and it was a exclusively mouth-to-ear communication for hundreds of years before it was actually written down. People heard God's message (true or not, that depends on you belief) and transmitted it... God did not write the bible then threw it at us.

Anyway, to me, quoting the bible to "prove" that homosexuality is wrong is like quoting someone's autobiography to prove that he's a nice guy.

Simms

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/06/2009 04:54:34 PM · #166

I'm starting to think that Mousie is gay.. anyone else picking that up on their gaydar?

;)

Originally posted by Mousie:

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/06/2009 04:59:01 PM · #167

Psychologists Reject Gay "Therapy"

klkitchens

Pentax K-1

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

08/31/2009 11:23:34 AM · #168

Originally posted by dcanossa:

I have just been wondering if people out of the gay community supports equality. I don't know if any of you has ever heard of the UAFA (Uniting American Families Act), a bill that was sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Patrick Leahy and in the House by Rep. Jerrold Nadler.

Americans in loving and committed relationships are often forced to make heartbreaking decisions to maintain their relationship. More often than not, these include having to leave the United States in order to be with the person they love.

There are American citizens forced to give up careers, leave behind aging parents and young adult children who rely on them and leave a community which benefits from their ongoing and active participation.

The Uniting American Families Act simply seeks to provide gay and lesbian U.S. citizens and permanent residents the right to sponsor their partners for immigration. It includes the same process and penalties as applied in heterosexual sponsorship applications.

Do we support equal Civil Rights for everyone at DPC? It will be interesting to hear what you think!

Thank you!
Diego
PS. If you want/need more information about UAFA, you can go to www.out4immigration.org and www.immigrationequality.org

All humans (in the USA) have equality (unless they forfeit it, like felons, for example).

Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman -- everyone in this country can get married if they choose to. A man or woman who has chosen to live out a gay lifestyle is not inherently prevented for getting married to a woman or a man (respectively). However, due to their lifestyle choice, they may not feel comfortable with the requirements for marriage.

But they, as a human, still have that right.

Likewise, any person can own a home if they want to, but if they choose to live in an apartment, they cannot rightfully call themselves a homeowner. They have not lost their right. But they have chosen not to exercise that right. Redefining "owner" to include renters never truly makes them a homeowner.

Redefining marriage to change any of the formula's elements: (one)(man)(plus)(one)(woman) does not actually change was marriage truly is.

One man + one man != marriage
One woman + one woman != marriage
Two men + one woman != marriage
and so on...

Common sense.

This does not deny the ability of any individual to "love", cohabitate, develop a physical attraction for, or engage in a physical relationship with another person of the same sex. This does not deny or reject their rights as a human being. It simply says you cannot redefine a term to make it fit situations that otherwise are outside of that definition.

EQUAL rights for all. Not SPECIAL rights for a self-selected group.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

08/31/2009 11:46:24 AM · #169

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

A man or woman who has chosen to live out a gay lifestyle is not inherently prevented for getting married to a woman or a man (respectively). However, due to their lifestyle choice, they may not feel comfortable with the requirements for marriage.

But sexual orientation is NOT a choice

Let me reverse the question: When did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual? I don't mean "notice you were attracted to the opposite sex", I mean really "CHOOSE", weight the pro and cons and then made a decision? never, you are heterosexual because you are, you did not choose your sexual orientation. LIke you never chose to like a certain meal better than another.

I never chose to be attracted to girls... Many years ago, I started to notice that girls smelled good, that they were cute and that I wanted to hold one in my arms. It is not a choice I made, it's who I am.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

08/31/2009 11:59:56 AM · #170

Originally posted by merchillio:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
A man or woman who has chosen to live out a gay lifestyle is not inherently prevented for getting married to a woman or a man (respectively). However, due to their lifestyle choice, they may not feel comfortable with the requirements for marriage.

But sexual orientation is NOT a choice

Let me reverse the question: When did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual? I don't mean "notice you were attracted to the opposite sex", I mean really "CHOOSE", weight the pro and cons and then made a decision? never, you are heterosexual because you are, you did not choose your sexual orientation. LIke you never chose to like a certain meal better than another.

I never chose to be attracted to girls... Many years ago, I started to notice that girls smelled good, that they were cute and that I wanted to hold one in my arms. It is not a choice I made, it's who I am.

I wouldn't worry about it. That argument he's using is pretty much a last gasp, and merely serves to hide deeper anxieties and prejudices. Clinging to something semantic is pretty much all that's left. The world is moving on, and forward, and that's always scary for some people.

klkitchens

Pentax K-1

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

08/31/2009 01:35:43 PM · #171

Originally posted by merchillio:

Heterosexuality is not a choice -- it's the default condition every human is born with. Just like breathing air. When did you choose to breath oxygen?

Strawman arguments get you nowhere.

klkitchens

Pentax K-1

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

08/31/2009 01:36:26 PM · #172

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by merchillio:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
A man or woman who has chosen to live out a gay lifestyle is not inherently prevented for getting married to a woman or a man (respectively). However, due to their lifestyle choice, they may not feel comfortable with the requirements for marriage.

But sexual orientation is NOT a choice

Let me reverse the question: When did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual? I don't mean "notice you were attracted to the opposite sex", I mean really "CHOOSE", weight the pro and cons and then made a decision? never, you are heterosexual because you are, you did not choose your sexual orientation. LIke you never chose to like a certain meal better than another.

I never chose to be attracted to girls... Many years ago, I started to notice that girls smelled good, that they were cute and that I wanted to hold one in my arms. It is not a choice I made, it's who I am.

I wouldn't worry about it. That argument he's using is pretty much a last gasp, and merely serves to hide deeper anxieties and prejudices. Clinging to something semantic is pretty much all that's left. The world is moving on, and forward, and that's always scary for some people.

Not a last gasp at all, just foundational reasoning and common sense that pretty much tears away any argument to the contrary.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/31/2009 01:45:57 PM · #173

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by merchillio:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
A man or woman who has chosen to live out a gay lifestyle is not inherently prevented for getting married to a woman or a man (respectively). However, due to their lifestyle choice, they may not feel comfortable with the requirements for marriage.

But sexual orientation is NOT a choice

Let me reverse the question: When did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual? I don't mean "notice you were attracted to the opposite sex", I mean really "CHOOSE", weight the pro and cons and then made a decision? never, you are heterosexual because you are, you did not choose your sexual orientation. LIke you never chose to like a certain meal better than another.

I never chose to be attracted to girls... Many years ago, I started to notice that girls smelled good, that they were cute and that I wanted to hold one in my arms. It is not a choice I made, it's who I am.

I wouldn't worry about it. That argument he's using is pretty much a last gasp, and merely serves to hide deeper anxieties and prejudices. Clinging to something semantic is pretty much all that's left. The world is moving on, and forward, and that's always scary for some people.

Not a last gasp at all, just foundational reasoning and common sense that pretty much tears away any argument to the contrary.

I'm not sure how a choice that isn't one constitutes common sense.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

08/31/2009 01:55:47 PM · #174

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Heterosexuality is not a choice -- it's the default condition every human is born with.

Modern science says you are wrong about this.