Study: Homophobes Might Be Hidden Homosexuals

[ok doser]

Yeah, you're right. The whole marriage thing was just a charade they were in on. lain:

homosexuals were never prevented from marrying

 

[Quetzal]

homosexuals were never prevented from marrying

:rotfl: Finally, a decent joke/troll post. Either that or you are being purposefully dense in an attempt to spur an argument. Either way, well done!

 

[ok doser]

true statement

homosexuals were never prevented from marrying

 

[Quetzal]

true statement

homosexuals were never prevented from marrying

Ah yes, now I say "Yeah huh" and you say "nu nh!" Then you drop the logical bomb you have been holding on to since this morning: "They could get married, just not to each other. To say, same sex couples could not get married to one another." You laugh and I die a little on the inside.

 

[ok doser]

or you could just go away and find another website to troll :idunno:

 

[Quetzal]

or you could just go away and find another website to troll :idunno:

Aww comon Dozie. I thought we were past all this animosity?

 

[alwight]

Sexuality is fluid, though discussing it is made much more difficult by the constraints of the current language dealing with sexuality.

"Sexual orientation" is a phrase based on Essentialism that assumes that a person's sexual desires are fundamentally biological and cannot change. The "sexual orientation" of a person can be generally classified as a sexual preference for heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual sex.
"Sexual identity" has been added to explain differences between the sexual preference shown by a person's sexual behavior and that person's stated sexual preferences.

Another term, "sexual fluidity", has also been added to explain why some people change sexual orientation throughout their lives.

_____
Sexual fluidity

The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states, "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time." The American Psychiatric Association's "LGBT-Sexual Orientation" entry says that "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime. Individuals maybe become aware at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual".
_____​

People have been conditioned into discussing sexual orientation as being fixed and unchangeable, so most of the people you meet who have made the choice will not think in terms they have made a choice about their sexual orientation. Instead most people that are aware a choice has been made will say something like the following:

• "I thought I was heterosexual, but found out I am really bisexual."
• "I am not bisexual, I am pansexual."
• "Well, yes I just had sex with a woman, but it didn't 'cure' me. I am still a homosexual."
• "I am not a fag because I let a guy give me a blowjob. I like women, not guys."

If you have heard anyone say something like those statements, then you have met people that have changed their sexual preference (the so-called "sexual orientation"), even if it was only for a single encounter.

That all smells very similar to bovine scatterings if you ask me.
People come with a broad spectrum of sexuality and we each have elements of the opposite sex to some degree built in. Bisexuals are apparently able to find either sex stimulating. Some people may interpret their own innate sexuality but I still don't see anyone actually choosing it. :nono:
Find me someone historically heterosexual say from perhaps having an involuntary "strange" reaction to seeing naked pictures of the opposite sex, as an adolescent, who could now choose not to have a similarly inspired reaction and then somehow magically now gets that very same reaction to the same sex.
It simply doesn't happen!lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

so that kid i hired to shovel my snow and cut my grass was hired illegally?

A mixed answer, depending on the mower. But you didn't have a binding contract in either case, and neither would a credit card company or anyone extending credit to a minor absent some fairly particular exceptions relating to emancipated minors.

As for what sort of employment is permissible, see: http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/childlabor101_text.htm#6

right, and your contention, that i responded to, was that children have no capacity

No. That's your mistaken summary. Rather, they lack the capacity to give informed consent. They have judgment, aren't without mental process, which is what "no" capacity would amount to.

For a fuller understanding of their limitations, just read the rest of your assumptive, emotionally driven nonsense and you'll see the problem where reason takes a back seat and speaks from it.

 

[ok doser]

A mixed answer, depending on the mower. But you didn't have a binding contract in either case, and neither would a credit card company or anyone extending credit to a minor absent some fairly particular exceptions relating to emancipated minors.

none of that has anything to do with my neighbor's kid's ability to consent to do chores for me

which was, to the point, present, and not "literally, biologically ... incapable of informed consent"

 

[alwight]

The idea that homophobes are repressed homosexuals is begging the question since it assumes the conclusion that "sexual orientation" is fixed.

I have been trying to address this fundamental flaw in the topic of the thread.

The idea is that some homophobes are repressed homosexuals who are trying to fit in with straight homophobes. It seems reasonable imo to suspect that the most outspoken homophobic bigoted nutters may well be demonstrating to others just how not gay they are, but it also gives them a rather too convenient excuse perhaps to wallow in homoerotic material that other homophobes genuinely have disgust or no interest in nor would they want to search it out, obsessively.

 

[Quetzal]

none of that has anything to do with my neighbor's kid's ability to consent to do chores for me

which was, to the point, present, and not "literally, biologically ... incapable of informed consent"

The overall topic isn't the same, either. Even someone like you should be able to understand the difference between consent to rake leaves and consent to having sex.

 

[Town Heretic]

none of that has anything to do with my neighbor's kid's ability to consent to do chores for me

That's an empty statement. You can ask a two year old if he will drive your car and he may say yes, have the ability to say yes and roughly understand what he is saying yes to. But he lacks the capacity to give informed consent and the judgement to make that decision.

So, again, no one is saying children lack any judgement or all capacity, or that they can't and won't make any number of decisions. What we recognize is that their judgment is biologically and experientially impaired and so we won't allow them to make serious, life altering decisions, like those regarding sex, the use of dangerous implements, or encumbering themselves with serious debt.

 

[Rusha]

That's an empty statement. You can ask a two year old if he will drive your car and he may say yes, have the ability to say yes and roughly understand what he is saying yes to. But he lacks the capacity to give informed consent and the judgement to make that decision.

So, again, no one is saying children lack any judgement or all capacity, or that they can't and won't make any number of decisions. What we recognize is that their judgment is biologically and experientially impaired and so we won't allow them to make serious, life altering decisions, like those regarding sex, the use of dangerous implements, or encumbering themselves with serious debt.

It's utterly amazing that you even need to explain this ...

 

[ok doser]

That's an empty statement.

no

it's a direct response to the crap you spewed in an attempt to divert

So, again, no one is saying children lack any judgement or all capacity, or that they can't and won't make any number of decisions.

sure looks like that was what you were getting at here:

... kids literally, biologically are incapable of informed consent....

i would say that that statement of yours is literally, biologically incapable of being defended

 

[ok doser]

btw - when i search black's for "informed consent", there's nothing there

are you making up pretend legal terms now to go with your pretend legal "background"?


the only usage of "informed consent" i'm familiar with has to do with agreeing to medical procedures

 

[Crucible]

So we're on to 'informed consent' now.

Well, I choose to be real about it- I don't believe a person must be 18 years old in order to be able to give informed consent. I don't know what happened to make this the general consensus, but it's nonsense in my opinion.

In fact, I see it as this- 14 for boys and 16 for girls.
As it happens, 16 is the legal age in Alabama.

For most of the time in history, these have been the rough estimates in which most cultures considered you a man or woman.

 

[ok doser]

i'd leave it up to the parents, as they are best able to judge their children's readiness for marriage

 

[Town Heretic]

It's utterly amazing that you even need to explain this ...

He's just trolling to justify another of his little (in every sense) venting bits.

At any rate, I've addressed the actual history of child protection laws and how, even in the midst of the so-called "sexual revolution" they were strengthening, not lessening. Consent can't be approached without capacity. Children lack the capacity to give that consent, as I've noted for a very long time in different threads where the alarmist nonsensical notion of inroads by pedophiles has been set out, usually as a cautionary note and posit relating to dominoes and homosexual liberties at law. The impaired nature of their capacity was considered experiential for much of the law's history, but we've come to buttress that reasonable belief with an understanding of how brains develop and where the reasoning of children is taking place, along with the impediments and associative problems that attend it.

As a side note, I wasn't using informed consent as a term of art but as another way of addressing capacity.

 

[ok doser]

town throws out a unsupportable claim:

Children lack the capacity to give that consent ...

and yet, as i've demonstrated, we recognize that they have the capacity to consent to any number of other things, like shoveling my sidewalk or mowing my lawn

 

[Town Heretic]

town throws out a unsupportable claim:

and yet, as i've demonstrated, we recognize that they have the capacity to consent to any number of other things, like shoveling my sidewalk or mowing my lawn

It wasn't unsupportable and you're cherry picking to give an impression at odds with what I've said on the point. I noted we have child labor laws that don't allow children to consent to any number of things, that consent is more, in the legal sense, than the ability to say yes.

But you shouldn't need to hire a kid if you're capable of this much shoveling. lain: