Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

[MatthewLee]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

I define it by the preference. Most people I talk to do.

If you can only define it by the preference that puts choices based on innate preferences beyond moral discussion. If you judge someone for being a homosexual by your chosen definition then you are judging them solely on their preference, therefore, you are judging them unfairly on arbitrary characteristics. Preferences lead to actions. Actions are choices. Getting married is a choice based on a preference. Preferences are also not known externally until crystallized by declaration or action. Actions are the province of ethical philosophy and religion in determining their moral content.

 

[Akamia]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

I agree with you on the ethical philosophy bit. Not so much on the religion bit.

 

[MatthewLee]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

I agree with you on the ethical philosophy bit. Not so much on the religion bit.

I understand and respect your distinction. I can absolutely agree that this is a matter of opinion on the religion case.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

"i) you don't choose to be gay any more than you choose to be heterosexual
ii) being African American is more than just having a particular skin colour and facial anatomical structure - it consists of a whole suite of environmental factors."

"The U.S. Census Bureau must adhere to the 1997 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standards on race and ethnicity which guide the Census Bureau in classifying written responses to the race question:

White – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

Black or African American – A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa."

https://census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html

What exactly does the language of a census mean with respect to what I wrote? :? Don't tell me you think the map dictates the terrain?

As for the 'original peoples' what exactly is that supposed to mean? I just spent nearly 2 years studying the origins of all the different peoples of Europe, so I am utterly perplexed by how naive that statement seems.

Being African-American is about heredity derived from ancestry which, to my knowledge, is genetic. Is this not the case?

Even your own wording immediately presents some contradictions that should indicate to you where your statement fails... what's the genetic component of "-American" there, Matthew? Clearly, it says nothing about their genes, but about their citizenship.

Further, Africa's a continent, Matthew - how does a continent stand in place of a 'race'? It's a bloody big place with lots of different, easily genetically distinguishable groups of people.

Africa also happens to be the ultimate ancestral home of all humans, and the present populations living there represent some of the oldest groups of human populations in the world. Unsurprisingly therefore, a person from one part of Africa will often have very little genetic similarity to a person from another part of Africa on account of their ancestors rarely interbreeding. In fact, in terms of continents, Africa is the most genetically diverse place on Earth and always has been.

So what does the African component mean there in terms of race?

I'll tell you - it means bugger all when it comes to Biology because the term 'African American' is one made up by society to indicate people with dark skin who live in the US today whose great-great-great-great grandparents came from Africa usually as slaves.

Race simply isn't biological, Matthew - it's purely a social construct built on minor visible differences usually in skin tone. It's a folksy hold-out of the Victorian era. There are groups in Africa genetically much closer to Europeans than they are to other African groups (http://www.genetics.org/content/161/1/269) - that fact should really have put paid to any notion of 'African' being a race, and 'American' should clearly never have had anything to do with it when it's a nation, and one we know very well is comprised of people from all manner of distinct genetic groupings dramatically more diverse than the rest of humanity.

It's still arbitrary but the US Government and many others feel there is a difference significant enough to need to be classified for census purposes.

They can elect to choose any distinction they like on which to categorize people, but that doesn't mean that the map is actually the terrain.

When you are asked for your orientation they are not asking you the orientation of your ancestors, they are asking what you identify as. This identification has to do with behavior. Behavior is a choice.

You might want to fill in all those gaping holes in your logic.

What you identify as doesn't mean 'how you fancy describing yourself' - it means, would you say you are gay? Some gay people wouldn't say that they are gay for a number of reasons, but measuring identification is an entirely different ball game than measuring actual positions and practices.

Identification doesn't have anything to do with behavior. A person who's never had any form of sexual interaction at all but is natively attracted to members of their same sex is gay, regardless of any behaviors.

If being gay is a behavior, and behaviors are a choice - when did you choose to become heterosexual? How about you stop avoiding answering that question and acknowledge that it critically undermines your silly proclamations?

Further...

:roll:

HWIN said:
"Is there a white gene? Oh, wait, race is a social construct. So what this has to do with my point is beyond me. "

"When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European’s skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. "

And?

Yes. There are genes that make white people different from African-Americans and many African descended people because of heredity.

There are genes that make every single person on the planet different than every other person on the planet, Matthew, so your folsky analysis is rather inconsequential.

These are arbitrary differences because they come from heredity which is not a choice.

Your sentence does not parse.

This is why the comparison between LGBT orientations and racial distinctions is a point of contention.

Stop stonewalling the dozens of posts explaining your error.

Unless we establish that being Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual is a matter of heredity then the behavior that accompanies the preference implied by words like Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual must be a choice. What other option is there?

In reality, no one needs to do anything of the sort because it's irrelevant.

Akamia said "With respect, Matthew, you're making it more about race than all of us combined. We're not implying you're racist or anything about that; what's actually happening here is your consistency is being questioned.

The process that ended the ban on interracial marriage is the same as the one that ended the ban on same-sex marriage. That was the point of HWIN's reductio ad absurdum. It's not about race, it's not about sexual orientation, it's about the process. The process. You have claimed the process was wrong for the same sex marriage; for some reason you are not saying the same of interracial marriage. Instead you started talking about stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the point.

So. Was the process wrong in both cases, or is it right in both cases? Your position cannot be consistent otherwise."

You have created a false dichotomy. First... I do not believe that anyone actually called me a racist. I have said this, I think, but I will restate it to be sure. What I have said again and again is that I believe the religious disagreement in many faiths with LGBT concerns on some matters and what amounts to LGBT rights is not the same discussion about what amounts to racial discrimination although it is being conflated to be so.

So once again, your arguing against something no one has actually said. Convenient for you, perhaps, to trot out your precanned arguments, but to everyone else watching you tilt at windmills, it's a bit fucking pointless.

The difference is a category difference because we have not firmly established that LGBT status is derived from heredity.

Your repeated erroneous contention that comparisons between the societal treatment of African Americans and the societal treatment of homosexuals should be seen in terms of an argument about genes is dismissed. Respond to what's been written already.

This question has never been established in any conclusively proven scientific context.

And is completely irrelevant.

Choice is the key word here. Is it a choice? If it is not a choice and we can firmly establish this evidently with more than anecdotal evidence then it becomes a matter of discrimination on arbitrary characteristics and the comparison to racial discrimination holds. If it is a choice, and I am unaware of behavior which is not a choice, then it is a matter of moral/ethical discussion and religion is how many people handle these questions in many cases. This is the axis upon which the debate has always turned.

It is not a behavior, and it is not a choice.

Your lack of awareness of behaviors that are not choices indicates you should perhaps be asking questions rather than attempting to frame reality with your imagination.

Do you choose to blink, Matthew? Have you chosen each time you inhaled, Matthew? Did you choose to grow your nails a milimetre today?

No, so that's another argument dismissed.

Further, regardless of how many times you evade this, you are going to need to explain in detail how you went about making a choice to be heterosexual. Yes, still waiting for that.

Homosexuality is not a behavior, it's a latent sexual attraction, it's like how you get a boner when you see gyrating naked women, but not when you see gyrating naked men - that a choice, is it?

If you wish to argue it is, then go on and show it by CHOOSING to become gay for a day. See how well your body responds to your choice.

The difference between the cake baker case and Loving V Virginia is profound. The cake baker didn't deny them service entirely,...

Stop repeating rubbish that's already been identified as such.

... he simply doesn't want to make a custom cake that supports behavior he does not agree with.

Making a cake provides no intimation of support, whatsoever.

He won't make Halloween cakes, or ones that disparage LGBT persons either... he has specified this.

Then I wish him good luck in his future as something other than a baker.

He feels this is compelled speech supporting a choice he does not agree with.

Being homosexual isn't a choice.

The Loving family had their door kicked in and the pregnant wife hauled off to jail and were told to not come back to the state for 25 years based on an issue of the wife's heredity which is an immutable characteristic.

Sexuality is also an immutable characteristic, Matthew. Disagree? Go become gay for a day to prove me wrong.

No one has ever said that anyone chooses to be African American or that such a choice is valid. Ask Rachel Dolezal if one can "identify as African American." The answer is a resounding no.

You're confusing only yourself, no one else.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

I choose to cohabitate with a woman and I choose to participate in heterosexual, monogamous behavior because I chose to marry a woman. I suppose then you could say the firm choice to become a heterosexual was made on my wedding day.

So before that you could have chosen to be gay, Matthew?

Come on, stop avoiding it - can you CHOOSE to be gay? If not, doesn't it rather make you question your stupid notion that homosexuality is a choice?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

I don't think you're necessarily racist or a bigot, but you are manifestly ignorant about Biology, and due to that ignorance, you are making a slew of erroneous claims about the world that sadly impact negatively on the freedoms and equality of other people.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

If we must make this distinction then you need an article. He did not deny them service because it is proven he in fact sold them a cake, or gave them one. He provided a service. It was not the desired service. Therefore he did not provide them "a" service but that is not the same thing at all. He did not tell them that their orientation made them unfit to receive his products. He said he would not make a custom piece of art to support something his conscience was against. This is not a denial of service, completely, in the same way telling someone you won't host their wedding in your hotel absolutely is a denial of service or accommodation. The hotel room is not a piece of art supporting your choice.
But this question isn't just about cakes it's about where the right to exclusion extends to faith and does not extend to faith.

Cake, not art - craft.

If you won't read what I write, I won't bother adding any more detail to it.

What if a same sex couple comes to your place of worship and insists on having a wedding there, though? It is a public place in the public space which provides service to the community.[.quote]

I would, yes. I would make the same argument - if you want to operate in society, then you provide services equitably for all members of that society.

Would you require a Muslim Imam to marry a same sex couple in a Mosque?

Yes.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

I define it by the preference. Most people I talk to do.

Preferences lead to actions. Actions are choices.

Ergo preferences aren't choices.

Own goal.

 

[Tree]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

Interesting how the same people who insist bakeries run by Christians must bake cakes for gay weddings complete with custom pro-gay marriage messages (if requested) on it are typically the ones a-okay with getting racists (or perceived racists) fired for things that have nothing to do with their job performance.

I don't really care all that much what you support, as long as you stand on principle.

Is it okay or is it not okay to exclude someone from the market based on things that are legal and have nothing to do with ability to pay/ability to perform the service/deliver the goods?

If you support the notion that Christians must bake cakes used for gay weddings then by the same principle you would have to support an obligation of bakeries to bake a cake used for say a Nazi's birthday or a Nazi gathering AND they can't refuse to write "Heil Hitler/National Socialism rocks" on the cake if requested to do so. So long as the Nazi has the ability to pay the price of the cake and the service of course.

 

[MatthewLee]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

"

"MatthewLee wrote:
What if a same sex couple comes to your place of worship and insists on having a wedding there, though? It is a public place in the public space which provides service to the community.[.quote]

I would, yes. I would make the same argument - if you want to operate in society, then you provide services equitably for all members of that society.


MatthewLee wrote:
Would you require a Muslim Imam to marry a same sex couple in a Mosque?"

Sparhofoc replied

Yes."

This discussion ends on the fact that based upon your deeply held convictions you would be perfectly willing to require someone to act against their conscience and their deeply held religious belief by law and marry a same sex couple in a Mosque. Much of America feels this way and is willing to try and do the same. If you can't see how this is tyranny...

There we are, Trump.

 

[Tree]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

Biological sex: male, female, intersex (born with genitalia of both sexes), and asexual (born without any discernible genitalia);

Actually it's just male and female. For someone decrying creationists for their childish pseudo-scientific rejection of evolution, you should know better about this kind of propaganda spread by SJWs out of an exaggerated sense of tolerance for intersex people.

SJWs are the new creationists. There's no 3rd sex or more, these are very rare genetic disorders (affecting people who would otherwise be healthy males or females) and the people with these disorders are often sterile. Human reproduction is sexual AND binary, just like the human hand has 5 fingers. How is a form of intersex a different sex when it's often not even viable for reproduction?

I doubt you would be okay if a biology textbook described the human hand as having "anywhere between 0 and 6 fingers" because someone's irrationally afraid to offend the rare number of people who for whatever reason (accident, birth defect) don't have exactly 5 fingers on a hand. That's just not an accurate representation of the normal, healthy human condition. If someone's offended for being told they have an illness, that's their problem, not mine.

 

[Tree]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

This discussion ends on the fact that based upon your deeply held convictions you would be perfectly willing to require someone to act against their conscience and their deeply held religious belief by law and marry a same sex couple in a Mosque. Much of America feels this way and is willing to try and do the same. If you can't see how this is tyranny...

There we are, Trump.

A radical left-winger who thinks mosques should be legally forced to marry two men or two women (refusal to marry two men or two women is not a violation of non-aggression, they're free to go to a different church as well or make their own religion), but if you so much as hint that maybe they should be monitored by intelligence agencies on reasonable suspicion - based on the Islamic tenet of jihad (conquest of non-believers to make them Muslims, dhimmis or eliminate them if they refuse both) - of conspiring to commit sedition against the Sharia non-compliant non-Muslim secular government - which is an actual violation of the non-aggression principle and shouldn't be protected as religious freedom - then you're just "Islamophobic" and "a bigot"

No wonder there's so much moral confusion on the left. They see certain forms of aggression as legitimate exercises of freedom (excessive taxation, being forced into a social security system you don't want to be part of voluntarily or empowering 5th columns under the guise of religious or political liberty) and certain legitimate exercises of freedom (such as refusing to acknowledge that a man who thinks he's a woman is actually a woman) as forms of aggression.

 

[MatthewLee]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

This discussion ends on the fact that based upon your deeply held convictions you would be perfectly willing to require someone to act against their conscience and their deeply held religious belief by law and marry a same sex couple in a Mosque. Much of America feels this way and is willing to try and do the same. If you can't see how this is tyranny...

There we are, Trump.

A radical left-winger who thinks mosques should be legally forced to marry two men or two women (refusal to marry two men or two women is not a violation of non-aggression, they're free to go to a different church as well or make their own religion), but if you so much as hint that maybe they should be monitored by intelligence agencies on reasonable suspicion - based on the Islamic tenet of jihad (conquest of non-believers to make them Muslims, dhimmis or eliminate them if they refuse both) - of conspiring to commit sedition against the Sharia non-compliant non-Muslim secular government - which is an actual violation of the non-aggression principle and shouldn't be protected as religious freedom - then you're just "Islamophobic" and "a bigot"

No wonder there's so much moral confusion on the left. They see certain forms of aggression as legitimate exercises of freedom (excessive taxation, being forced into a social security system you don't want to be part of voluntarily or empowering 5th columns under the guise of religious or political liberty) and certain legitimate exercises of freedom (such as refusing to acknowledge that a man who thinks he's a woman is actually a woman) as forms of aggression.

This may be the dilemma we find ourselves in. You make a valid citation of Surah 9:29 in the Quran. I wonder what would happen if people knew about the Jizyah and the abrogation principle in the Quran. . The left defends Islam unilaterally and refuses to defend Christianity which makes me wonder At the logic. I am not aware of a single Muslim nation that entertains full LGBT equality let alone recognizes marriages of the same...

I get mixed messages from the left.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

This discussion ends on the fact that based upon your deeply held convictions you would be perfectly willing to require someone to act against their conscience and their deeply held religious belief by law and marry a same sex couple in a Mosque. Much of America feels this way and is willing to try and do the same. If you can't see how this is tyranny...

There we are, Trump.

The tyranny of living in society, so if you cowboys want to play civil like, then get in the fucking line with everyone else.

It's Durkheimian, chap! We all give up a little personal liberty to gain the benefits of living in an interconnected group. If we allow little ideological fiefdoms to carve society up based on their irrational dislike of the other, then we don't actually have a society.

There we are, Trump.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

Biological sex: male, female, intersex (born with genitalia of both sexes), and asexual (born without any discernible genitalia);

Actually it's just male and female.

Factually in error and you are contradicting Dragan Glas' reported facts.

For starters, the neuter gender is seen throughout nature in everything from insects to crustaceans to mammals - there's even something expressly Darwinian to it. In fact, the American biologist E. O. Wilson labeled humans a eusocial species in The Social Conquest of the Earth (2012).

Look up eusociality, then form an opinion.

Next up, hermaphroditism, particularly common in fish, can either be sequential or simultaneous. In the former case, an organism can switch sexes sometimes many times over the course of their lives. Guppies are a great example of this: fill a tank with females and some of them will begin to change shape and eventually become males - actually, the ones further back in the switch will stop when too many males become present and slowly switch back to being female. In simultaneous hermaphroditism, more common in annelids, gastropods and again fish, animals possess both sets of reproductive organs meaning that in a bonding species the couple can switch back and forth being mother or father, and some can even self-fertilize meaning their offspring's genetic material is wholly derived from a single parent.

So perhaps first inform yourself, then make informed assertions?

For someone decrying creationists for their childish pseudo-scientific rejection of evolution, you should know better about this kind of propaganda spread by SJWs out of an exaggerated sense of tolerance for intersex people.

One amusing element arising from the SJW phenomenon is a social example of Newton's Third Law of Motion. The equal and opposite force produced by the self-absorbed whiners are the self-absorbed assholes who need to counter them in every venue. SJW's drag all conversations onto topics that upset them and demand others listen, and anti-SJW's drag all conversations onto the topic of SJW's and why SJW's upset them.

Personally, I think they should both just get a fucking room.

SJWs are the new creationists.

Yeah, no.

There's no 3rd sex or more, these are very rare genetic disorders (affecting people who would otherwise be healthy males or females) and the people with these disorders are often sterile. Human reproduction is sexual AND binary, just like the human hand has 5 fingers. How is a form of intersex a different sex when it's often not even viable for reproduction?

So funny when someone is so confident while being so utterly ignorant of reality.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.

I doubt you would be okay if a biology textbook described the human hand as having "anywhere between 0 and 6 fingers" because someone's irrationally afraid to offend the rare number of people who for whatever reason (accident, birth defect) don't have exactly 5 fingers on a hand. That's just not an accurate representation of the normal, healthy human condition. If someone's offended for being told they have an illness, that's their problem, not mine.

How does lacking any sexual orientation at all, or finding both sexes equally attractive equate to an 'illness'? Do you have any actual scientific sources to back up your supposedly scientific claims?

Methinks there's someone emulating Creationists here, but only irony knows!

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

This discussion ends on the fact that based upon your deeply held convictions you would be perfectly willing to require someone to act against their conscience and their deeply held religious belief by law and marry a same sex couple in a Mosque. Much of America feels this way and is willing to try and do the same. If you can't see how this is tyranny...

There we are, Trump.

A radical left-winger who thinks mosques should be legally forced to marry two men or two women (refusal to marry two men or two women is not a violation of non-aggression, they're free to go to a different church as well or make their own religion), but if you so much as hint that maybe they should be monitored by intelligence agencies on reasonable suspicion - based on the Islamic tenet of jihad (conquest of non-believers to make them Muslims, dhimmis or eliminate them if they refuse both) - of conspiring to commit sedition against the Sharia non-compliant non-Muslim secular government - which is an actual violation of the non-aggression principle and shouldn't be protected as religious freedom - then you're just "Islamophobic" and "a bigot"

You can actually see the moment Tree's noodle goes pop.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

This may be the dilemma we find ourselves in. You make a valid citation of Surah 9:29 in the Quran. I wonder what would happen if people knew about the Jizyah and the abrogation principle in the Quran. . The left defends Islam unilaterally and refuses to defend Christianity which makes me wonder At the logic. I am not aware of a single Muslim nation that entertains full LGBT equality let alone recognizes marriages of the same...

I get mixed messages from the left.

You two are peas in a pod. Do you go to the same church?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/20/first-same-sex-marriage-anglican-church-uk-glasgow

St Mary’s Cathedral has become the first in the country to be given permission to conduct gay weddings, a month after the Scottish Episcopal church general synod voted overwhelmingly to allow its churches to host the ceremonies.

 

[MatthewLee]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/20/first-same-sex-marriage-anglican-church-uk-glasgow

St Mary’s Cathedral has become the first in the country to be given permission to conduct gay weddings, a month after the Scottish Episcopal church general synod voted overwhelmingly to allow its churches to host the ceremonies.

There’s tons of churches that do perform gay weddings. Hey, there’s even a Rainbow Bible which changed certain passages and ommitted the stuff they didn’t like. As for the weddings Biblical validity... There is no church which could do so with Biblical authority. Jesus was clear about this and the Church is specifically warned against this kind of thing many times. It’s a pretty big no no.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: What to do about North Korea?

There’s tons of churches that do perform gay weddings. Hey, there’s even a Rainbow Bible which changed certain passages and ommitted the stuff they didn’t like. As for the weddings Biblical validity... There is no church which could do so with Biblical authority. Jesus was clear about this and the Church is specifically warned against this kind of thing many times. It’s a pretty big no no.

One True Christianity?

How about when peoples' interpretations of the Bible conflict with yours? Is there an independent means of checking which is right?