Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on August 04, 2004, 05:48:57 pm
-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/04/samesex.marriage.ap/index.html
****ing bigots!
-
I'm only suprised that Texas did not beat them to it.
-
i talked to a texan scouttroop leader yesterday who says Same Sex Marriage Ban Ammendment wouldn't pass in that state (And he's opposed to it)
-
I woneder how much research was actually put into what "gay" is before they made the approval :doubt:
-
none.. they're all a bunch of ****ing ignorant assholes who are attempting to impose their skewed view of reality on others
-
Thats exactly what you are doing right now. It passed and you may not agree with it, but more people (in that state) agree with it than those that don't.
-
that doesn't matter one little ****ing bit deepblue - people do not have the right to deprive others of their human rights!
i'm not forcing them to do anything, i am saying that by denying other peoples human rights they are being bigots
-
Another example of why America is "too" free...
and that people truly don't know what is right.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Thats exactly what you are doing right now. It passed and you may not agree with it, but more people (in that state) agree with it than those that don't.
The danger of democracy, is that a majority group can opress the rights of a minority through weight of numbers. This thing is an example - albiet a minor one in the grand scale of things (i.e. it's hardly on the level of Sudan/Darfur).
-
the constitution is suppose to protect the few from the tyrancy of the many - but with people like bush and the other ****ing troglodyte neocons it doesn't get upheld because they'd rather hate!
-
Such is the problem of allowing religion to affect government.
-
it's prohibited.. unless you choose not to read the constitution as the authors meant it
-
That is the wrong thing to do in today's society
-
what are you refering to
-
Religion in the government :p
-
Thats why their are things called civil unions. As far as other things, like visitation rights, you can draw up a contract with a lawyer that would allow those rights that may not be specified under civil unions.
This is not about hate, this is about upholding the "sanctity" of marriage. Marriage always has been and always will be a religious affair (this does not need anymore explaining).
The problem is you cannot have equal rights when things are not equal. There are differences in either situation, and if things are different they cannot be treated equally.
____
BTW:
mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
___
-
Originally posted by Kazan
it's prohibited.. unless you choose not to read the constitution as the authors meant it
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to matter to Bush....otherwise this would be a non-issue (the only objection could be on religious grounds).
-
Originally posted by Kazan
it's prohibited.. unless you choose not to read the constitution as the authors meant it
Seperation of church and state isn't in the constitution.
In fact there are a few references to God in the constitution.
The reason America was created was primarily FOR religious freedom.
The truth is their is RIGHT and there is WRONG, no one can deny that. And things that are WRONG should not become RIGHT.
-
One thing that annoys me a great deal is that we have people in here forming oppinions about something they no nothing about. (How many people in here have studied US History, Constitution, ect. in great depth?) You are free to provide oppinions, but they are just that, oppinions that have been formed with little thought and research.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Seperation of church and state isn't in the constitution.
In fact there are a few references to God in the constitution.
The reason America was created was primarily FOR religious freedom.
The truth is their is RIGHT and there is WRONG, no one can deny that. And things that are WRONG should not become RIGHT.
IIRC is there not a specific part of the constitution that requires seperation of church and state? , for the specific purpose of allowing religious freedom (as laws, etc, made on a religious basis can be determintal and discriminator to other religions)
-
If you don't believe me go and check (it will do you a ton of good).
-
From the UN Declaration of Human Rights
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
If that's your definition of the human right of marriage then it seems ambiguous whether or not it is being denied. At first glance to me, it's only an endorsement of heterosexual marriage. If this right were meant to be extended to gays then surely this would have been qualified?
I don't care much for gay marriage in the technical sense. The real argument should be focused on giving equal rights to gay partners rather than on what's becoming a solely ceremonial issue. The importance of the debate about gay relationships is whether at the end I can have the same legal rights in relation to my partner rather than what box I tick on the census. I'm sure things are different in the US but here in Britain the civil union thing is already in place (which confers essentially the same rights as marriage) and the whinging is all about the legal nomenclature.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
The truth is their is RIGHT and there is WRONG,
Sorry to nitpick, but you've used two words for the same purpose, and in the same context, in the space of one sentence, and I was wondering why.
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
If that's your definition of the human right of marriage then it seems ambiguous whether or not it is being denied. At first glance to me, it's only an endorsement of heterosexual marriage. If this right were meant to be extended to gays then surely this would have been qualified?
I don't care much for gay marriage in the technical sense. The real argument should be focused on giving equal rights to gay partners rather than on what's becoming a solely ceremonial issue. The importance of the debate about gay relationships is whether at the end I can have the same legal rights in relation to my partner rather than what box I tick on the census. I'm sure things are different in the US but here in Britain the civil union thing is already in place (which confers essentially the same rights as marriage) and the whinging is all about the legal nomenclature.
Well, if you want to pick on ambiguities, it doesn;t say that a marriage has to be between a man and a woman only that men and women may marry.
:)
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
If you don't believe me go and check (it will do you a ton of good).
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I would read that as being that the government cannot make a law on the basis of religion. As the only objection to same-sex marriage seems to be solely relgious, I don't see how a law could exist to prohibit it.
-
Its not right that gay couples should be married under a Christian ceremony, as in my interpritation 'god' didnt intend same sex couples to exist.
Note that I am not a religious person, but Christianity is the 'main' religion in my country, and its the religion I had to put up with through the education system.
I do however think that same sex couples in a long term relationship should be given the same legal rights as 'traditional' couples. It makes no sense not to.
Gay adoption I'm not opposed to in theory, but i know it won't work in this society and these times.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Seperation of church and state isn't in the constitution.
Yes it is - in legalese which is more more explicity - but less comprehensible to the simpleminded
Originally posted by Deepblue
In fact there are a few references to God in the constitution.
Oneword: BULL****
Originally posted by Deepblue
The reason America was created was primarily FOR religious freedom.
wrong again - the northern colonies were religiously-created -- not the rest -- and the ENTIRETY of them, of ALL religions from fundie christian to deist, to agnostic to atheist agreed RELIGION OUT OF GOVERNMENT
Originally posted by Deepblue
The truth is their is RIGHT and there is WRONG, no one can deny that. And things that are WRONG should not become RIGHT.
Incorrect - furthermore calling something which they are born "wrong" is the same as being a racist, just this time you're descriminating against sexual preferences instead of skin color (and yes the _VAST_ majority are _born_ that way.. a very small minority, tiny minority, are psychological cases, but trying to change those whould do more harm than good)
-
Originally posted by Kazan
it's prohibited.. unless you choose not to read the constitution as the authors meant it
not to stir it up or anything, but i was just wondering. if gay marriage is approved in every state (eventually)... what would be next? what about a guy that wants to get married to two twin girls. what about five people that want to all get married? It sounds stupid, but what's in the constitution to deny it?
What about a man who wants to marry his dog?
What about a woman who wants to marry her son?
-
calling something which they are born "wrong" is the same as being a racist
i'm completely on your side, by the way, but i thought i'd bring it out that it's been proven time and time again that gays are not born gay. it's mental, they may have gotten molested as a child, etc. one of my best friends was always cool, he had a fiance and was going to get married and everything. then suddenly he turned gay and moved to canada. i was like wtf. his parents did some research, and as a child his uncle had molested him. 99.99% of the time it's not a "birth" problem
-
Isn't there a religion somewhere that lets you have not one, but many wives? If a government is solely trying to put a law based on a single religion... isn't it just... wrong? Or am I way out of line?
-
*whew* They banned it. Good deal! :nod: :yes:
-
:lol:
Just wow!!!
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
*whew* They banned it. Good deal! :nod: :yes:
Let me know one thing...
Why? Why does what two people do in the privacy of their own home bother you so much?
Why do you feel that you have the right to infringe upon others rights?
And if you truly believe that God will punish gay people in the afterlife, why must you insist on punishing them during this one?
Honestly, I hope God punishes for hipocracy as well.
-
Really, if you believe in God...
Let him do these things for whatever reason he has, don't try and change and/or influence it :rolleyes:
Basically what Raa said
-
Right. I too believe that if/when God punishes gays, it's for no imperfect human to say what's right/wrong. Gays should have the same freedoms any other human has. they shouldn't live a persecuted, skewed life.
But does that mean you've got to redefine the definition of marriage for them? ;)
Why? Why does what two people do in the privacy of their own home bother you so much?
Why do you feel that you have the right to infringe upon others rights?
no one cares what they do in their homes. what's being discussed in this thread is not what they do in their homes, it's whether or not they should be able to legally marry. at this point, many people couldn't care less if a gay couple's living in their apartment or wherever.
-
Marriage is just some symbolic thing which shows two people are committed to each other in today's society. For some reason or other, people have some sort of value or comfort in being married to those who they love.
Is there any reason to deny gay people that? Any reason to care how marriage is defined? Don't pull out that slippery slope argument either, anything can be taken to extremes and be ridiculous, that doesn't justify anything.
-
Kamikaze, your are so right it isn't even funny :nod:
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Marriage is just some symbolic thing which shows two people are committed to each other in today's society. For some reason or other, people have some sort of value or comfort in being married to those who they love.
Is there any reason to deny gay people that? Any reason to care how marriage is defined? Don't pull out that slippery slope argument either, anything can be taken to extremes and be ridiculous, that doesn't justify anything.
anything can be taken to extremes and be ridiculous? if you went back 20 years and told people that twenty years from then gay people would have the same rights as heterosexual people, AND would even be allowed to marry in some states... 99.999999% would just laugh in your face. things have changed, believe it or not.
marriage isn't a "symbolic thing". it's been around since the beginning of mankind. a man, and a woman (Note: not a man, and a man, or a woman and a woman) express their love for each other by vowing to stay together etc. etc. etc.
Now as i said, i'm all for gay rights, but getting married isn't a "right" for gay people. it's a definition of an arrangement that's been around long before there was a single gay person on the face of the earth. live together, share assets, investments, and money, do anything a married couple would do, but don't go and make a mockery of the term "marriage" in an attempt to seem as normal as a heterosexual couple. because ultimately that's all it is... trying to be as close to a heterosexual couple as possible. sharing the same rights as them, and now, even sharing the ultimate commitment a couple can make: marriage.
-
Marriage is a peagan ritual.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
anything can be taken to extremes and be ridiculous? if you went back 20 years and told people that twenty years from then gay people would have the same rights as heterosexual people, AND would even be allowed to marry in some states... 99.999999% would just laugh in your face. things have changed, believe it or not.
I don't think you understood. Saying "This is unallowable because we later may allow that to happen because of this" is ridiculous reasoning. If we go on that path of reasoning, no decisions can be made, no laws can be made, no action can be taken because we can try to apply the slippery slope to anything else. The slippery slope alone isn't useful in deciding about matters like this.
Definition: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm
A whole paper on the matter: http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/slippery.htm
marriage isn't a "symbolic thing". it's been around since the beginning of mankind. a man, and a woman (Note: not a man, and a man, or a woman and a woman) express their love for each other by vowing to stay together etc. etc. etc.
You can't say that our current government-run, universal "marriage" thing is the same as it was when cavemen first started humping whatever gal they happened to see. Unless you want to claim the first cavemen were christian and did the whole christian marriage thing.
Now as i said, i'm all for gay rights, but getting married isn't a "right" for gay people. it's a definition of an arrangement that's been around long before there was a single gay person on the face of the earth.
Gays go back to the time of the ancient greeks, are you saying christian marriage was present in ancient Greece?
-
Originally posted by Stealth
not to stir it up or anything, but i was just wondering. if gay marriage is approved in every state (eventually)... what would be next? what about a guy that wants to get married to two twin girls. what about five people that want to all get married? It sounds stupid, but what's in the constitution to deny it?
What about a man who wants to marry his dog?
What about a woman who wants to marry her son?
And what if someone wants to marry his father, his mother, his brother, his nephew, his cousin, and his former roomate?:p:D
If you're comparing allowing someone to marry his dog to allowing gays to marry, then you lack the mentality to be for gay rights.
-
Stealth: A) those are all known as a slipper slope arguments -- it's a wide fallacy
B) I see no reason to prohibit polyamorous relationships if the people involved are of consenting age, and are sane
C) an animal cannot consent so it doesn't pass the "safe, sane, consenting" rule
D) if he's underage it doesn't pass SSC, otherwise it doesn't pass the cousins' rule
i'm completely on your side, by the way, but i thought i'd bring it out that it's been proven time and time again that gays are not born gay
Completely, totally, patently, scientifically FALSE
you have not kept up with the latest meedical science. -- the situation you described is called "repression", it happens a lot due to the repressive bigoted society we live in
Ghostavo: Isn't there a religion somewhere that lets you have not one, but many wives? If a government is solely trying to put a law based on a single religion... isn't it just... wrong? Or am I way out of line?
Many
Tin Can: BIGOT, what does two people doing something in the privacy of their own home have to do with you -- furthermore shuve the 'sancitity of marriage' crap up your ass, it has been PROVEN the more religious a couple is the the MORE likely they are to divorce (Source: The Fundamentals of Extremism, and it's sources)
PS: christianity didn't invent marriage, marriage _LONG_ predates religion
-
not too be inflammatory at all just wondering from the tenacity of your reply Kazan are you a homosexual? or just a concerned citizen?
-
Kaz is straight. But that's not the issue here.
-
Night Hammer: certain people don't think you have the right to ask - however FOR THE RECORD
I am straight and I live with my female fiancee (me being male)
I am pro-human-rights, anti-invasive-government, and I respect the founding fathers intent to keep government and religion seperate as they learned that lesson with their blood
-
i know i know i was just wondering, and whoever made the crack about texas knows jack**** until they come and actually stay a while down here, granted we have our lil inbred anti-anything not white/straight, but for the most part people down here (or at least our town) dont care, and believe its up to the person
-
Good.
-
Good what? you agree with this crap?
-
Hahaha.
Well I can't say I give a ****, given I'm not homosexual.
But I think only homosexual people should get to vote on the same-sex marriage issue.
-
Let's just try not to insult each other, ok? ;)
-
Absolutely.
You can **** and suck all you want, I don't care.
Marriage is a declaration of a union to create and raise children in a secure enviroment.
...Not a declaration of ****ing. The arguement among the homosexual community is that through marraige, they gain the rights denied them. Civil Unions accomplish this. Talk about killing bird with a bomb.
-
mmm, not good, but you know, thats life.
Whether gays are born that way or not should be moot. They are what they are. Also, I remember a speciufic quote by, I think Jefferson, that really trashed Christianity badly. I'll see if I can find it.
If only people would get this passionate about global issues, tommorow I would awaken to a better world. Don't to sound cold, but to me, this outrage just smacks of arrogance. **** the rest of the world, but the small group of people within my field of view better not be deprived of a single right, or there'll be hell to pay.\
and just so we're clear, I think its pretty obvious where I stand on this.
-
Originally posted by Beowulf
Marriage is a declaration of a union to create and raise children in a secure enviroment.
That's news to me.
Since when? :lol:
-
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
Hmm, I've found a large number of Jefferon quotes regarding Christianity, if you like,. Frankly, I don't see the point. First if all, he's dead. Second of all, his beliefs are not somehow infalliable.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
edit: The second quote is not really true, not at this time anyway. Its mostly true, but religious figures, and religion as a whole has been and is heavily involved in liberation and anti-imperialist/colonialst movement in South America, though much to the disapproval of the Catholic Church. And also, Poland.
-
Originally posted by Beowulf
Absolutely.
You can **** and suck all you want, I don't care.
Marriage is a declaration of a union to create and raise children in a secure enviroment.
...Not a declaration of ****ing. The arguement among the homosexual community is that through marraige, they gain the rights denied them. Civil Unions accomplish this. Talk about killing bird with a bomb.
Umm, wtf are you on dude? Since when did gay marraige equal a ****fest? Nice to see your fundie logic shine through. :rolleyes: By your logic, a marraige between a man and woman is nothing more than a declaration of ****ing.
By very definition, this is outright unconstitutional. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it state that marriage only applies to one man and one woman, only that a man and woman can marry.
-
BD that's an interesting take.. but you don't care about other peoples human rights?
-
Vertigo just owned Beowulf.. :D
Beowulf let your ignorance shine through some more please
(Styxx: if someone's a bigot, they NEED to be called on it, plain and simple -- something cannot be an insult if it's true)
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Vertigo just owned Beowulf.. :D
Sad thing is, I deal with bigots like him all the time. IRL and online.
And before he comes back saying I'm a 'fag', let me assure everyone here that I am 100% straight as an arrow. I just don't feel the need to hold a grudge against someone for no reason other than their sexual preference.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
And what if someone wants to marry his father, his mother, his brother, his nephew, his cousin, and his former roomate?:p:D
If you're comparing allowing someone to marry his dog to allowing gays to marry, then you lack the mentality to be for gay rights.
but once again, i'm all for gay rights!!!!!!!, just not official gay marriages.
-
Mr Vega's post is pointing out slippery-slope arguments
And what if someone wants to marry his father, his mother, his brother, his nephew, his cousin, and his former roomate?
"father" - fails relative-test
"mother" - fail relative-test
"Brother" - fails relative-test
"nephew" - fails relative-test
"cousin" - fails relative-test
"former roommate" - so if a couple [heterosexual for the sake of frying you ignorance ass] live togeather for a while, then live appart for a while (so they're 'former roommates') you think they should be prohibitted from being married
If you're comparing allowing someone to marry his dog to allowing gays to marry,
fails "safe-sane-consentual" test
i thought i'd clarifiy for Mr V on why these arguments are laughable
-
Originally posted by Kazan
"father" - fails relative-test
"mother" - fail relative-test
"Brother" - fails relative-test
"nephew" - fails relative-test
"cousin" - fails relative-test
i'm sorry but please tell me where in the definition of "marriage" or in the constitution of the United States it says i can't marry a relative!?
I demand to be able to marry my mother, since it's my constitutional right
:wtf: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Stealth
but once again, i'm all for gay rights!!!!!!!, just not official gay marriages.
And why the hell not? Why exactly should gays be singled out for not having the right to marry? Because some stupid ass book says so?
-
what about polygamy?
And why is there an exclusion of family members? Thats a bit bigoted, don't you think?
Once again, I'm all for gay marriage, but I also a ****-disturber, so..
-
Originally posted by Stealth
marriage isn't a "symbolic thing". it's been around since the beginning of mankind. a man, and a woman (Note: not a man, and a man, or a woman and a woman) express their love for each other by vowing to stay together etc. etc. etc.
That's simply not true. Polygamous and in rarer cases Polyandrous relationships were the norm in many cultures (and still are in some), not your view of traditional marriage. In fact, there's biological evidence that man has evolved mechanisms for both monogamous and polygamous relationships.
Originally posted by Stealth
i'm completely on your side, by the way, but i thought i'd bring it out that it's been proven time and time again that gays are not born gay. it's mental, they may have gotten molested as a child, etc. one of my best friends was always cool, he had a fiance and was going to get married and everything. then suddenly he turned gay and moved to canada. i was like wtf. his parents did some research, and as a child his uncle had molested him. 99.99% of the time it's not a "birth" problem
Again, not true. It happens among animals as well you know. It's got to do with the inflation of a certain part of the brain IIRC, which means it could probably be cured...in theory anyway.
-
i have nothing against polygamy if it's sane-sane-consentual
as for exclusion of family members - i think you need to look up the definition of "bigoted" -- closely genetically related members are prohibited from producting offspring due to the relatively high probability of health problems of their offspring -- thus protecting the quality of life
-------
[edit]Good point Black Wolf -- i forgot to mention that homosexuality is NOT a purely homo sapiens phenomenon -- and the other species dont attempt to ostracise their members who are homosexual... i guess in that reguard we are NOT the more advanced species
-
Originally posted by Kazan
i am saying that by denying other peoples human rights they are being bigots
First off, marriage is not a human right. It's a legal document that is tied between church and state.
I think that the only way to work this out is for gay marriage itself to be a religion. So like Baptist would be Gay Batptist, or Gay Prodistant, etc.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
as for exclusion of family members - i think you need to look up the definition of "bigoted" -- closely genetically related members are prohibited from producting offspring due to the relatively high probability of health problems of their offspring -- thus protecting the quality of life
i'm sorry, but regardless... it should be my right to marry my sister or wife, don't you agree? :rolleyes: i mean just because it's "prohibited", does that mean it's right? :rolleyes: i think that's wrong
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
let gay people live together and enjoy every right that a regular person has. but to let them get married: that's just wrong. it actually makes a mockery of marriage.
as i said, at this rate, whatever's coming next ...
-
You're still continuing your slippery slope argument Stealth. A slippery slope argument does not justify any viewpoint by itself.
How does homosexual marriage "mock" marriage? Who's marriage is it mocking anyway? Depending on culture and religion marriage takes on many forms. I see no problem in having yet another form of marriage. Anyhow I think homosexual couples can have as much affection for each other as heterosexual couples can, so it's not some kind of travestial mockery.
-
If homosexual marriage mocks marriage, then it deserves to be mocked.
-
It's got to be said that gay people are their own worst enemy in their continued use of the word marriage.
I'm all for gay marriage but if they'd dropped the term, called it a civil union and pressed for it to be recognised with all the legal rights that a hetrosexual marriage has they'd have already gotten it.
I'm all shouting for change and trying to get more human rights for everyone but sometimes it's better to stay under the radar on these things and achieve change by a gradual advancement rather than trying to rush at the enemy and putting him on the defensive.
-
here's something to read
Do You, Pole-Smoker, take this Pole-Smoker...
So the Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court upheld a ruling today that gays should have the right to marry in the state of Massachusetts. This will of course lead to many a heated moments as the beer swilling Catholics in downtown Boston get liquored up and decide to voice their opinions to those who may strike them as light in the loafers, I'm sure. I had actually intended on doing a blurb on this subject about a month ago and it slipped my mind, until I received this email last week...
[QUOTE [
I live in Indiana, and in the past week or so i have been hearing a lot of talk on the radio about same sex marragies becoming legal. Just hearing that makes my stomach drop. Could you lift my spirits for me by doing a little old fasion gay bashing? Well not really bash them, that could cause a lot of trouble, just tease them a little. It would put a smile on my face.
Thanks a lot!
long time viewer-
Mike
Now a few years ago I used to live with a girl who had not only a spectacular pair of breasts, but a gay sister as well. I dunno if the gay sister had great boobs too because, well, she was gay. But anyway, this sister lived in California with her -- of what's the politically correct term -- life partner? Yeah, so these two lesbians have been with each other for a like eleven years and they were as committed to each other as any heterosexual couple I know. But since they obviously can't have any children without some help, they decided one of them gets artificially inseminated. They took a look at their jobs, and decided the one who had the lesser paying job would be the one to carry the baby, since her taking time off from work wouldn't be as financially straining. Nine months later, poof they've got a kid.
The first thing that struck me as a little unfair is only my girlfriend's sister -- the one who actually carried the baby -- could be listed on the birth certificate as the parent. Granted even if they could they'd either have to play paper-scissors-rock to see who gets listed as the father, but still it struck me as a little unfair that only one of them was legally allowed to be recognized as a parent. I mean hey, ya wait around for that long putting up with world class *****iness beyond belief, you're gonna want some public recognition, right?
The next quirk they came across was health insurance. As it so happened, the birth mother's health insurance coverage was not as robust as the her partner's insurance. You know how that goes, better job and all that, right? Well the baby's medical coverage could not be claimed against this better policy for obvious reasons -- she wasn't legally the child's parent. So this ended up costing them a lot of money out of pocket for medical expenses, and there were even some areas where the child didn't get the same level of care as she could have if she had been covered under the better insurance policy. Again, it seemed unfair not only to the parents financially, but to the baby in regards to her health care.
And suppose for the sake of argument, that while the three of them were driving home from the hospital, there was a car accident and the birth mom was rendered brain dead. If it were a husband and wife deal, the surviving spouse would have legal control over medical treatment (or ceasing of it) for their injured partner, plus have no problem securing sole custody of the baby. But in this case, the surviving lezbo would have no legal recourse despite having just as much time and energy invested as a male partner would.
All these issues because same sex marriages are currently illegal. Okay. So let me think for a minute, that if they were legal, how would they effect my life. Would I have to pay more taxes? No. Would married gay people get a special check out line at the supermarket to get through line faster than me? No. Do they get their own special lane to avoid traffic jams? No. Do they get cheaper car insurance? No. Free car? No. Free socks? No.
So my question would be... what the **** do I care if gay people want to be married?
They're not fighting to have two guys dressed in wedding gowns, mascara and five o'clock shadows to prance down the aisle of your local church. They're not fighting for the right to **** on the crosstown bus. They're not fighting to have Hers-and-Hers bathrooms at the mall. All the benefits and rights they're fighting for, wouldn't impact my life one bit if they did get them, so why the hell would I oppose it? It's like going out and saying you oppose blue socks. You can't see em anyway, so who the **** cares?
The only people that could possibly have a valid argument against anti-same sex marriages are the religious groups. "Homosexuality is an abomination!" they say. Well, okay, that's your take on it that's cool. Fair enough. But then there's two things to consider when you enter that realm, too. One, where the hell were you when priests were treating eight year old children like **** toys? I didn't hear you say too much then, in fact you kind of looked at your shoes, mumbled something about out of court settlements, and then wandered off into the crowds. I don't hear you protest when atheists get married. I don't hear you protest when atheists get married in a church. I don't hear you protest when religious people get married on a cruise ship snot hanging drunk after grabbing the nearest vacationer to serve as their witness. So please, if you're going to get all high and ****ing mighty, at least have the courtesy to do it evenly across the board.
And secondly, this situation my friend, is a perfect example of the REAL reason behind the separation of Church and State. It's not just a springboard for some loudmouthed asshole to use and get his name in the paper when he wants to talk about the Pledge of Allegiance, but instead a genuine reason why Judge Judy needs to leave her Bible/Koran/Torah/Whatever at home.
What if I created a religion where marriage was illegal altogether, would the government have to rule all marriages null and void? What if all the 43,000 people in the United Kingdom who checked their religion as "Jedi" all decided they're never going to get laid and decided they could marry their dog? Would governments then have to recognize those marriages? The answer is no in both cases, because the whole purpose of the separation of Church and State is Uncle Sam can't pick and choose what religious movements they're going to acknowledge and which they aren't. Churchgoers have every right in the world to voice their opinions in a public forum, but when it comes time to making laws it's time to have a nice tall glass of Shut-The-****-Up. The only thing Uncle Sam can do is to make sure everyone, man, woman, black, white, tall, short, cute, ugly, straight or gay, gets a fair shake.[/quote]
from http://www.ehowa.com/mythoughts/gaymarriage.shtml
-
Originally posted by Beowulf
Marriage is a declaration of a union to create and raise children in a secure enviroment.
wrong.
marriage is, and has been, many things through the ages:
a way to secure power
a way to secure wealth
a way to secure rights
a way to secure peace
a way to express love
etc.
but it has NEVER EVER been about the children only. Never.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
let gay people live together and enjoy every right that a regular person has. but to let them get married: that's just wrong. it actually makes a mockery of marriage.
gays marrying because they LOVE each other, or because they want to secure the same rights heterosexuals have is no mockery of marriage.
Casino-owned marriage chapels in Vegas where two random drunks can get married for ****s and giggles, THAT's a mockery of marriage!
-
Nice article Ivan.
That's exactly what I mean by giving gay people the same rights that hetrosexual people have. I've heard of several cases where a gay couple have had a child, the legal guardian has died and then the family who had in fact ostracised their own child for being gay automatically got the child because they were related by blood and the partner who had actually raised the child for years wasn't.
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
kerpwnage
I agree. :yes: :yes: :yes:
-
Let me put this as simple as possible for everyone here.
Marriage was made for the matrimony between a man and a woman. They come together, live together until they die, hopefully fostering a child inbetween there while getting old, and having their kids have grandkids, etc. Marriage was something people you want to be parents and/or love each other for the rest of your days.
Gay marriage however is made so that for some reason you think you can legal **** or say "well we love each other and we're gay!"
Listen, I dont remember there being a law that said you couldnt **** outside of marriage. In fact you could live with each other until whenever. But in the end, think of the children.
"Gay" is just wrong. Its wrong, its immoral, it goes against what we as humans did in order to reproduce. Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks!
People ask me "well what if in another dimension, being gay was right, and being straight was considered wrong or immoral"
What the hell kind of question is that? Do you think we are going to be in another dimension any time soon? Do you think this particular thing WOULD change if I was in another dimension? Besides, if being gay WAS the standard, I would probably be gay too. But its not, being straight is the way we were created, it is the way things should stay, and its the way things should end.
It seems today people will always ***** about "freedom" and "feelings"!
-
not, it's wrong to you.
50-150 years ago (depending on country), interracial marriage was wrong, and black people were considered as if they were a 'subspecies' of humanity.... I think people tried to find an excuse for this in the bible, too.
It's not (homosexuality) a lifestyle i would choose, but no-one has the right to force their beliefs or lifestyle on others. The only excpetion is in the case where such beliefs are dangerous to society as a whole or cruel & degrading (read paedophilia, incest, bestiality). Being gay does not fall under that arguement and, as such, there is no moral arguement against it which is not dictated by a religious basis. And you can;t force that type of an argument on a supposed multi-faith society.
-
Marriage was made for the matrimony between a man and a woman.
Why?
Marriage was something people you want to be parents and/or love each other for the rest of your days.
Why?
But in the end, think of the children.
Why?
"Gay" is just wrong.
Why?
Its wrong, its immoral, it goes against what we as humans did in order to reproduce.
Why?
But its not, being straight is the way we were created, it is the way things should stay, and its the way things should end.
Why?
It seems today people will always ***** about "freedom" and "feelings"!
Why?
-
Originally posted by Blaise Russel
Why?
Well put.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Let me put this as simple as possible for everyone here.
welcome to Tin Can demostrates ignorance 101
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Marriage was made for the matrimony between a man and a woman.
wrong, furthermore you cannot use a deriviative of a word in the definition in the definition of it's baseword
additionally you are ignoring the history of marriage
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
They come together, live together until they die, hopefully fostering a child inbetween there while getting old, and having their kids have grandkids, etc. Marriage was something people you want to be parents
That reason was invented recently by your chronies
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
and/or love each other for the rest of your days.
This is also a recent change - but atleast it's a real change -- PEOPLE LOVE EACH OTHER
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Gay marriage however is made so that for some reason you think you can legal **** or say "well we love each other and we're gay!"
So is heterosexual marriage then -- BTW it's not illegal to have intercourse with someone you're not married to -- so there went your argument
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Listen, I dont remember there being a law that said you couldnt **** outside of marriage. In fact you could live with each other until whenever. But in the end, think of the children.
kidna goes in with the last thing
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
"Gay" is just wrong. Its wrong, its immoral,
That was a amazing feat of logic [/sarcasm]
First -- 99.999999999999% of them are born that way (even if they repress it for part of their life) -- so saying it's "wrong" is like saying being black is "wrong"
Furthermore only your RELIGION says it's wrong, and there are no non-authoritarian morality systems that agree with your statement (however plenty of authoritarian repressive moral systems)
to try and deprive them of their rights for these reasons (The only reasons you have) is to violate the seperation of church and state -- to actually attack your own rightst that protect you from people like me getting power and mandatting the destruction of religion (i have more respect for the constitution than that)
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
it goes against what we as humans did in order to reproduce.
marriage isn't about procreation - althought procreation is often involved
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks!.
that was blindingly immature
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
People ask me "well what if in another dimension, being gay was right, and being straight was considered wrong or immoral"
that's a moronic question, and nobody worth arguing with would have asked you that -- for starters they're making appeals to "right and wrong" which is authoritarian moral thinking -- THINK FOR YOUR BLOODY SELVES ON YOUR MORALITY - BE LOGICAL (yes morals _can_ be logical... of relatively few humans ever reach that stage of moral maturation -- {psychology thing})
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
What the hell kind of question is that?
On you constructed out of your own limited thinking to be able to rip it to shreds -- the limitation of your thinking shows through in it and you do not fool me
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Do you think we are going to be in another dimension any time soon? Do you think this particular thing WOULD change if I was in another dimension? Besides, if being gay WAS the standard, I would probably be gay too. But its not,
pointless: see above
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
being straight is the way we were created, it is the way things should stay, and its the way things should end.
except we were NOT created and there is DIRECT evidence to the contrary - so you are delusional: you cannot be trusted to make decisions for yourself, and therefore you ESPECIALLY cannot be trusted to make decisions for others
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
It seems today people will always ***** about "freedom" and "feelings"!
you're denying people their freedom
and 'feelings' should keep their ass out of government
You know what - GET MARRIAGE OUT OF GOVERNMENT -- it's a violation of the seperation of church and state -- make the government part "civil unions" and make no restriction on them
get your "marriage" back into your churches who have corrupted it.
SIMPLE STATISTICS:
Highest divorce rates: Souther Baptists, followed by Catholics (>50%)
Lowest Divorce rates: ATHEISTS, AGNOSTICS (<25%)
there is a DIRECT correlation between how religious someone is and how likely they are to divorce (hint: more religious, more divorce) --- so there went your "sanctity of marriage" ---- allowing gays to marry would _LOWER_ the divorce rate
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I'm all for gay marriage but if they'd dropped the term, called it a civil union and pressed for it to be recognised with all the legal rights that a hetrosexual marriage has they'd have already gotten it.
Thats about how I think about it, aside from that they can do whatever the hell they want, I just dont wanna see it everywhere
-
There have been at least 65 species of animals (according to discovery channel) that WE KNOW OF that have homosexual members. So guess what, homosexuality predates your religions by oh say almost 4 BILLION years. Now if you wantto say porn or abuse have turned these poor creatures down the wrong life path that's your opinion (Though I really would like the state to get a sign linguist to talk to Bubbles about what MJ did to him!) [Does the monkey sign for BAD TOUCH!] ;7
Now I think marraige evolved when Fred Flintstone clubbed Wilma and grunted at other males (the chick is my wife!)... No biggie there
I'm a Christian but I'd gladly convert to OLD SKOOL Mormonism to get a handful of hot hunnies as my wives... Just because that version of Mormonism is no longer Legal in Utah DOES NOT mean that you can't be a practicing polygamist/Mormon in other states IT'S YOUR RIGHT as your religion. Hell even those damn Satanists get religious freedom (I was in Basic training with one, he had Satanist on his dog tags, what a ******) :lol:
As for marriage needing "protecting", I ask protecting from what? From people who want the an UN-NEEDED ceremony (as I myself could claim a bride and we could say our vows in nature with GOD as our witness alone and we would be married in the EYES OF GOD The rest of you (if I disliked you) could take a flying F***, as you would not be needed to attend or even a priest or "official"!
The WHOLE issue is NOT about marraige itself it is all the other things legally that come with that piece of paper (like money it's just PAPER and worthless really). Now say I disapproved of two men OR two women getting "married" how dies it REALLY affect me? It doesn't, I can have my own opinion on the subject but to be raging about a law to discriminate against others is assinine and shows how primitive some humans still are for the need to repress another group and be bigoted A-holes.
Any such law would in reality be 1.) Unconstitutional, and 2 .) MORALLY wrong in the universal sense.
On that point alone as a christian I am sickened and disgusted with these defenders of marraige as well as our current political administration.
Some of you need to start worrying about yourselves and learn to stop browbeating people who don't believe in your values cause your golden rule is supposed to be TOLERANCE and UNDERSTANDING...
OF course you can throw that out the window if you can admit you are being a hyppocrit! In my opinion people who only hide behind half a religion are no better than the terrorsits hiding behind a few lines of Islamic text taken out of context. TRUE Islam is a valid and tolerant religion, but when nut jobs (of any nationality) get involved you can see how it turns out...
Sorry to get so personal but when I have a "dilemma" I like to think "what would Jesus do/say?", then I make up MY OWN MIND.
That is my right of free will as BOTH a Christian and an American.
BTW bible thumpers hold no water with me. I only care what Jesus was said to have spoken/acted (then again how accurate is that). So todays 700 club bigots are tomorrows sinners cause they continually fail the golden rule of their faith.
-
Originally posted by Getter Robo G
Dragon Kick
:yes:
-
Originally posted by Kazan
(Styxx: if someone's a bigot, they NEED to be called on it, plain and simple -- something cannot be an insult if it's true)
Er, I won't complain about "bigot", but "stupid bigot" would be a problem, get what I mean? ;)
With "bigot" you're attacking his opinion, with "stupid bigot" you're attacking him. So let's refrain from ad hominem attacks.
And by the way, I agree with that article: if you're not gay, why the hell do you care if they can ger married or not? As for the "civil union" matter, there's just a little problem - if it's "equal but separate", it ain't equal.
-
Now there is on religious person whom i can respect (Getter Robo G)
:welcome:
owning people on his third post... there is much potential in this one :D
-
Originally posted by Styxx
And by the way, I agree with that article: if you're not gay, why the hell do you care if they can ger married or not? As for the "civil union" matter, there's just a little problem - if it's "equal but separate", it ain't equal.
I agree. But lets take slavery as an analogy. How far do you think anti-slavery laws would have gotten if they hadn't gone via the stepping stone of segregation? The average white man may have been prepared to accept that they didn't have the right to own slaves but far fewer would have been prepared to accept blacks as their equals.
It's quite hard to get something like this in one single leap. You have to go in smaller steps. There would be a lot less opposition to gays having civil unions. Once there there would be a lot less opposition to gay marriage since everyone would say that it's just a change in the word used.
I'm not saying that they should stop at civil unions but what is more important. Getting the rights and protections that married people have or being able to use the same word as they do? Go for the important goal first. Then you can worry about the lesser ones.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
BD that's an interesting take.. but you don't care about other peoples human rights?
Way I see it, it's not my place to meddle in affairs I have no idea about. Fact is, I can scream "free-this free-that", but considering the fact I'm not homosexual, it means I have no idea how to view the issue from that angle.
However, all of that is of course, caused by the fact I am not of the opinion marriage itself is the best idea for people who are able to participate in it anyway. ;)
The question of "gays" and "marriage", isn't so much of an issue for me on the "gay" part, as much as it is on the "marriage" part of it.
However, I think I know enough to say this - whoever decided to make a religious habit such as marriage, connected with the law, needs their head examined. I mean that was just a poor move.
-
The monster grows larger by the minute...
Anyhoo I think the whole matter has gotten way too heated and out of hand. But I personally believe that marraige should remain as it has, but that SS couples should be able to get the rights that they want. However I am against SS adoption because studies show that kids grow up best with a mother and a father in the home.
My thoughts in a nutshell.
As far as the constitution is concerned, it all depends on perspective and interpretation, it could go both ways, but we will never know what the makers really meant.
BTW: Everyone... Chill...
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
However I am against SS adoption because studies show that kids grow up best with a mother and a father in the home.
Prove it. Find me a single acredited study that says that.
You may find plenty of studies that show that kids do better in a 2 parent home over a 1 parent home but find me a study that tested gay and straight couples.
-
Originally posted by BD
However, I think I know enough to say this - whoever decided to make a religious habit such as marriage, connected with the law, needs their head examined. I mean that was just a poor move.
hardly, as has been said before: marriage predates religion. Marriage is also a mainly secular thing. Marrying in a church will yield you nothing legal if the state does not acknowledge the marriage.
-
I can't wait until the day Tin Can's son comes out to him.
:lol:
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
hardly, as has been said before: marriage predates religion. Marriage is also a mainly secular thing. Marrying in a church will yield you nothing legal if the state does not acknowledge the marriage.
I should point out that marriage does not predate religion. Very few things in human nature predate religion. If you are reffering to the Big 3 (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) then you would probably be right, but religion, in one form or another, has been around for a very long time.
-
Originally posted by 01010
I can't wait until the day Tin Can's son comes out to him.
:lol:
Just like Big Dick (Cheyney).
methinks the future is bi, for better or worse.
-
Originally posted by 01010
I can't wait until the day Tin Can's son comes out to him.
:lol:
What's that supposed to mean?
Honestly, I'm telling you my thoughts and I get mauled by a half page post by Kazan. The usual "Im right, your [EDIT]very very[/EDIT]wrong" antics.
-
You know, the sad thing is about this is that in reality it's such a non issue for millions of people, it's just another example of the vocal minority getting their way.
I say kill all the Gays, Straights, Bi's, Blacks, Whites, Kids, Grandparents, Chinese, Asian, Indians, Bovines, Canines and whatever other group you can think of. I think it's time for a mass genocide so we can see if the next sentient race to evolve can do things better
Just leave me alive to make some funny and misleading time capsules for the next race.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
"Gay" is just wrong. Its wrong, its immoral, it goes against what we as humans did in order to reproduce. Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks!
It seems today people will always ***** about "freedom" and "feelings"!
First, proof that you really don't know what you're talking about, since lesbians are gay, and don't have dick :D
Plus, a favorite quote of mine : "life will always find a way", or for the narrow-minded, a species will always find way to reproduct.
Second, if people were to limit your freedom, and trample your feelings, I'm sure you'll be one of the first to ***** about it. As Getter Robo said, most of the 'christians' I see here don't practice their religion major tenet : tolerance.
And as for gay rights, well... I said let them marry, but put restriction when it comes to children, at least until it can be really proved that having same sex parent wouldn't trouble a child too much. Surely less than having heterosexual drunkards for parents, but heck, you gotta take what you can.
-
Tin Can: I think he means your kids will be gay...
Since, it usually turns out that way. You grow up hating gay people and then your kids are gay
-
Originally posted by Genryu
First, proof that you really don't know what you're talking about, since lesbians are gay, and don't have dick :D
Plus, a favorite quote of mine : "life will always find a way", or for the narrow-minded, a species will always find way to reproduct.
Second, if people were to limit your freedom, and trample your feelings, I'm sure you'll be one of the first to ***** about it. As Getter Robo said, most of the 'christians' I see here don't practice their religion major tenet : tolerance.
And as for gay rights, well... I said let them marry, but put restriction when it comes to children, at least until it can be really proved that having same sex parent wouldn't trouble a child too much. Surely less than having heterosexual drunkards for parents, but heck, you gotta take what you can.
When I mean freedom and feelings, I mean things like waving constituational rights around like a flag in a mannor of "Fifth!"
Its not wrong, its just that sometimes people will take their rights and twist them to their liking. They also seem to come up with right that dont even exist at times. In terms of Feelings, Im speaking "hippy" feelings, if you will.
And no, jdjtcagle, my son will not grow up gay.
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
I think he means your kids will be gay...
Since, it usually turns out that way. You grow up hating gay people and then your kids is gay
Karma baby!
I just think persecuting someone because of something so fundamental to their being as their sexuality is like persecuting someone for having arms y'know?
It's bizzare, do these people walk around with corks in their arses ever vigilant to the "backdoor menace"?
-
Ya know, I never, ever came into believing that you are "born gay"
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Ya know, I never, ever came into believing that you are "born gay"
Well tough **** cause theres a ****load of evidence pointing precisely 180 degrees from that opinion.
Would you maintain that the earth was flat if you believed it to be true? Despite evidence to the contrary?
Beliefs are ****ing stupid and the sooner people realise this the sooner we start going somewhere as a race rather than as groups of individuals.
-
Does it matter? If you don't believe that people are born gay, and since there are obviously a ton of gays, then it must be society. And honestly, do you think you can shelter someone enought to negate the effect society has on them? Not without seriously warping them. So, whether they're born gay or turn gay, their chances are the same.
Originally posted by 01010
Beliefs are ****ing stupid and the sooner people realise this the sooner we start going somewhere as a race rather than as groups of individuals.
Thats like saying breathing is stupid, and the sooner we all stop the - oh **** *faints from lack of oxygen*
Seriously, everything is a belief. There s not evidence for anything that does not require some assumptions, so everything to believe is ultimately unprovable.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Thats like saying breathing is stupid, and the sooner we all stop the - oh **** *faints from lack of oxygen*
Seriously, everything is a belief. There s not evidence for anything that does not require some assumptions, so everything to believe is ultimately unprovable.
I don't see how your analogy works.
I'm saying that beliefs are stupid as they are beliefs, the very nature of them is that you don't require logic, or evidence (sounding like Kazan here :) ) you just believe them. You cannot tell me that people believing that gays are immoral for no other reason than a book (not even a deity, a second hand, re-written, vaguely worded book) tells them they are, it is a stupid belief.
An assumption is not a belief and an assumption is not something that most people should be drawing either. Assumptions are as stupid as beliefs unless they have the correct context.
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
hardly, as has been said before: marriage predates religion. Marriage is also a mainly secular thing. Marrying in a church will yield you nothing legal if the state does not acknowledge the marriage.
And we both know that in practise, nobody gives a ****.
When you say "marriage" nobody associates it with the state. They associate it with a bunch of flowers, a veil, and in some cases, breaking of glasses.
Fact is that "marriage" ties directly into religions, and when certain "marriages" don't conform with the ideas of the general public practiscing those religions, the people freak.
That's what it means
-
Depending on culture and religion marriage takes on many forms. I see no problem in having yet another form of marriage
what he's saying is that regardless of the many "forms" it takes... it always has been a man and a woman. that's been the definition of marriage for as long as it's been around.
-
Times change, even if we hate change...
-
Originally posted by Stealth
what he's saying is that regardless of the many "forms" it takes... it always has been a man and a woman. that's been the definition of marriage for as long as it's been around.
Because that has been the natural selection so far.
Fact is, we're overcrowding the planet. If indeed being homosexual is a trait given at birth, then I'd assume the gene pool is telling us that enough's enough as far as procreating goes, and that we're exceeding the limit.
Can't say I disagree really. If you aren't going to shoot stupid people having kids because they like to have sex, I guess nature has to.
But to each his own. I have my stupid beliefs and you have yours.
-
Originally posted by BD
Fact is, we're overcrowding the planet. If indeed being homosexual is a trait given at birth, then I'd assume the gene pool is telling us that enough's enough as far as procreating goes, and that we're exceeding the limit.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner. Welcome to my point of view, Population: Most of the rational sane people on the planet.
But seriously, I think a lot of people should really ponder on this one, it's the theory that would appear to make most sense.
-
That's indeed a interesting theory
-
Originally posted by BD
But to each his own. I have my stupid beliefs and you have yours.
it's not a "stupid belief". it's a fact. marriage always has been between a man and a woman. don't even try to start arguing that. there's no room for "belief" there, and no room for "opinion" either. marriage = man + woman. bam.
although that theory about overpopulation is pretty interesting though. worth a thought :)
-
Originally posted by Stealth
it's not a "stupid belief". it's a fact. marriage always has been between a man and a woman. don't even try to start arguing that. there's no room for "belief" there, and no room for "opinion" either. marriage = man + woman. bam.
although that theory about overpopulation is pretty interesting though. worth a thought :)
What's the point of continuing this arguement if you just keep ignoring everything that has been said?
-
I guess in the next 10 or 30 years we will want polygamy to be legal, and after that we'll say that getting married to our own sisters and brothers, etc. It seems as our society gets older we become more lax at what becomes the standard. Today, its:
If it feels good, do it!
-
See that's one thing I don't get, what you see that the world is getting overpopulated so your gene pool starts popping out gay kids which causes a decrease in population?
What causes "natural selection" curious?
-
Originally posted by Stealth
...it's a fact. marriage always has been between a man and a woman. don't even try to start arguing that...
Er, tell that to traditional muslims... :p
-
Originally posted by 01010
I don't see how your analogy works.
I'm saying that beliefs are stupid as they are beliefs, the very nature of them is that you don't require logic, or evidence (sounding like Kazan here :) ) you just believe them. You cannot tell me that people believing that gays are immoral for no other reason than a book (not even a deity, a second hand, re-written, vaguely worded book) tells them they are, it is a stupid belief.
What I meant was, its all a closed system. For example:
I believe that gays are bad because God says so. How do I know God exists? I don't.
I believe the sky is blue becuase thats what my eyes tell me and what everyone else says. How do I know my eyes aren't decieving me, and that everyone else is not simply a figment of my imagination? I don't.
Even according to Decatres "I think therefore I am" theory, this only includes you, and its very non-specific.
but now we're getting into extisential matters and thats a discussion for another day.
-
I want to get in that argument Rictor :nod:
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Er, tell that to traditional muslims... :p
or Greeks
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
See that's one thing I don't get, what you see that the world is getting overpopulated so your gene pool starts popping out gay kids which causes a decrease in population?
What causes "natural selection" curious?
just in case you guys didn't see it...
I want an answer ;)
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I believe the sky is blue becuase thats what my eyes tell me and what everyone else says. How do I know my eyes aren't decieving me, and that everyone else is not simply a figment of my imagination? I don't.
Actually there is science to help prove its blue color... ;7
-
Doh...
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
What's the point of continuing this arguement if you just keep ignoring everything that has been said?
i stated that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and someone (I think BD) said that it's a "stupid belief"... it's not a belief it's a FACT... i wasn't stating whether it was politically or morally correct, i was just stating it as a fact.
now personally, i don't think gays should be allowed to marry. but that's my opinion. and I realize that my opinion can be flawed due to not seeing the issue from the perspective of the other party (i.e. gays). so while i do harbor my own opinion, i don't try to enforce it upon other people. and i'm sure since you're all arguing for constitutional rights, you'll also acknowledge my constitutional right to have my own opinion, and speak it.
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
just in case you guys didn't see it...
I want an answer ;)
You're quoting a Darwin theory... now you're changing subjects, from gay marriage, to creation vs. Darwin. we're not discussing that in this thread. so here's your answer:
-- Not everyone believes in evolution.
-
Well it just doesn't make sense to me, that's all...
Fine keep your thread :drevil:
-
Originally posted by Stealth
i stated that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and someone (I think BD) said that it's a "stupid belief"... it's not a belief it's a FACT... i wasn't stating whether it was politically or morally correct, i was just stating it as a fact.
now personally, i don't think gays should be allowed to marry. but that's my opinion. and I realize that my opinion can be flawed due to not seeing the issue from the perspective of the other party (i.e. gays). so while i do harbor my own opinion, i don't try to enforce it upon other people. and i'm sure since you're all arguing for constitutional rights, you'll also acknowledge my constitutional right to have my own opinion, and speak it.
It seems you and I are the only ones who agree.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
What I meant was, its all a closed system. For example:
I believe that gays are bad because God says so. How do I know God exists? I don't.
I believe the sky is blue becuase thats what my eyes tell me and what everyone else says. How do I know my eyes aren't decieving me, and that everyone else is not simply a figment of my imagination? I don't.
Even according to Decatres "I think therefore I am" theory, this only includes you, and its very non-specific.
but now we're getting into extisential matters and thats a discussion for another day.
Existentialism is I think, the closest to how I operate on a daily basis which works for me, care to brief me on the rough tenets of it? I live how I live, I don't care for belief structures or anything like that.
But the God existing statement verifies what I'm trying to say, I'm not saying that all thoughts and theories are stupid, just beliefs that are unsubstantiated and unfounded (which is most of them as that is there very nature, a belief requires no evidence) are not usually anything worth taking with more than a grain of salt. Maybe I'm still missing your point though.
I've had a few beers. :)
-
Originally posted by Stealth
i stated that marriage has always been between a man and a woman
Yes, but marriage has been between brother + sister too, which was one of the things you mentioned (because it's supposed to be wrong or somesuch) as support of your silly slippery slope argument. Marriage was not always in a form that's considered acceptable by your religion. Anyway, whatever it's been in the past, that's no reason not to change it.
TinCan: Please stop it with the slippery slope arguments. They are extremely annoying when you're trying to make for a sensible debate.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
i stated that marriage has always been between a man and a woman
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Yes, but marriage has been between brother + sister too
isn't that still between a man and a woman? i dunno. i always assumed brother = male; sister = female. ;)
-
Originally posted by Tin Can
Ya know, I never, ever came into believing that you are "born gay"
This raises a point... are people "born straight" and/or "born gay" or do they become those happy f****** everybody hears about? ( :lol: )
-
http://satireonline.com/articles/20040207_man_marries_dog.html
The options of marriage itself are endless.
Stating that "marriage has always been between a man and a woman" is like saying "blacks have always been inferior to whites".
Both of these were true at one point in time, and both of these are retarded and invalid as hell.
-
Fact is, we're overcrowding the planet. If indeed being homosexual is a trait given at birth, then I'd assume the gene pool is telling us that enough's enough as far as procreating goes, and that we're exceeding the limit.
I doubt that men's testes and women's ovaries are ordering themselves so the differently-orientated get priority over the straight little gametes.
"Hey! Gays first."
"Thanks darling, that's simply fabulous!"
...no.
Existentialism is I think, the closest to how I operate on a daily basis which works for me, care to brief me on the rough tenets of it? I live how I live, I don't care for belief structures or anything like that.
Existentialism is the concept that this world is it, and that there is no other 'supernatural' world containing (the orthodox perception of) God, ghosts, spirits, souls, demons, the ethereal planes, astral bodies and all that stuff. Therefore, according to the existentialist, those things do not exist.
Transcendentalism is the opposite belief - that there is or are other layers of existence which contain God, ghosts, demons, etc. Religions are generally transcendental in nature. Science is, I suppose, existential, due to the unverifiable nature of the transcendental, although I'm given to understand that there are scientists who do believe in the transcendental.
But the God existing statement verifies what I'm trying to say, I'm not saying that all thoughts and theories are stupid, just beliefs that are unsubstantiated and unfounded (which is most of them as that is there very nature, a belief requires no evidence) are not usually anything worth taking with more than a grain of salt. Maybe I'm still missing your point though.
A problem with the 'BELIEFS ARE WRONG' school is that of reality - namely, are we truly here and are we who we really are? Thing is, you can't be certain that this world is what it seems to us or if there really even is a world out there. This in turn throws many other concepts like 'truth' and 'knowledge' and 'I' into Limbo, leaving us up the ol' creek. Oh, and no, Descartes isn't an answer. "Cogito, ergo sum?" What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Regardless, chances are you believe in a reality as much as some people believe in a God. Unless, of course, you don't actually *believe* this world is real - rather you're just coasting along because it's not as if you could do anything about it if it was false, could you?
Sometimes you really do have to ask what the definition of 'is' is.
I'm also somewhat disappointed that nobody has bothered to actually explain why all these sacred cows are so very sacred. Disappointed, and very, very irritated, as it is always annoying to be confronted with the eternal blank wall of "Damnit, marriage is between a Man and a Woman!" Alas, nobody has actually bothered to explain matters - methinks they lack the answers themselves.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
This raises a point... are people "born straight" and/or "born gay" or do they become those happy f****** everybody hears about? ( :lol: )
There is a fair bit of evidence for a so called gay gene which predisposes someone towards homosexuality. Whether all gay people have it is up for debate.
-
.::Tin Can::.
Ya know, I never, ever came into believing that you are "born gay"
go learn
Stealth
what he's saying is that regardless of the many "forms" it takes... it always has been a man and a woman. that's been the definition of marriage for as long as it's been around.
You can say this, but that doesn't make it true
many societies have one-to-one, one-to-several, and several-to-several structures
It has been confirmed Catholic church sanctified [atleast one] homosexual marriage in the 3rd centry (the couple are SAINTS)
your assertion is _NOT_ fact
-
Originally posted by Kazan
go learn
You can say this, but that doesn't make it true
many societies have one-to-one, one-to-several, and several-to-several structures
It has been confirmed Catholic church sanctified [atleast one] homosexual marriage in the 3rd centry (the couple are SAINTS)
your assertion is _NOT_ fact
Then teach me.
Honestly Kazaan, we are not making idiotic exceptions here. Just because "well there are special societies" doesnt mean that its the way everyone deemed it.
If you went to any country in the world and wanted to marry a man and a woman, in most cases you probably wouldnt recieve much question cept "Well when do we do it? And how much will you pay us?"
Go to any other country and ask to marry a man and man or woman and woman, you will most likely have some raised eyebrows. Now, you keep bringing up the same crap about "Well this and THIS long ago did THIS, and THAT affects todays society as a whole!"
Shut up. For once admit that marriage considered today, yesterday, 200 years ago, 1000 years ago, biblical times, it was STILL a man and woman, so stop making lame-ass excuses about a point in time that was different.
"I know that at this point in time they did ONE homo marriage! Therefor, that means I am right about everything, and it is no longer the standard."
-
Tin Can, I must agree. Marriage has traditionally been, and is mostly still considered to be man-woman. Now, this is not denying that homosexual relations didn't exist, but I think that was more of a sex thing, at least in reference to Greece, perhaps the most prominent coluture that was openly gay (well, bi). You life-long partner type person was still a woman (if you were a man), but that didn't exclude fooling around on the side with guys or, if you were influential enough to pull it off, boys.
-
Well, regardless of what marriage has been, I don't think anybody has answered the question "Why does marriage have to keep being that way?" yet.
-
Ah yes, ancient Greece. Arguably the most intellectually rich culture ever to appear on the face of the Earth, and the origin of what we call "Western Civilization." I always thought that sort of threw a curve ball to those who preach the immorality of homosexuality.
I don't understand the notion that homosexuality is a choice. Considering all the bigotry that homosexuals have to put up with, why in all hell would anyone choose to go through that? Besides, sexual attraction is an extremely strong instinct; if we haven't curbed hatred, I find it hard to believe that we've arrived at the point where we can choose who we want to screw.
Besides, Cole Porter was gay. Enough said.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Honestly Kazaan, we are not making idiotic exceptions here. Just because "well there are special societies" doesnt mean that its the way everyone deemed it.
The same thing can apply to the other side saying it only applies to one man and one woman. :rolleyes:
If you went to any country in the world and wanted to marry a man and a woman, in most cases you probably wouldnt recieve much question cept "Well when do we do it? And how much will you pay us?"
Go to any other country and ask to marry a man and man or woman and woman, you will most likely have some raised eyebrows.
And somehow you would know this because....? I challenge you to fly around the world and actually do that, and report back with your findings. Otherwise, you have absolutely no chance of backing that claim up.
Now, you keep bringing up the same crap about "Well this and THIS long ago did THIS, and THAT affects todays society as a whole!"
So....using the past as evidence is wrong? Guess what, since you flat out worship the damn bible, you can throw that right out as well. Hell, might as well throw out every single history textbook while you're at it since you consider it non-applicable. :rolleyes:
Shut up. For once admit that marriage considered today, yesterday, 200 years ago, 1000 years ago, biblical times, it was STILL a man and woman, so stop making lame-ass excuses about a point in time that was different.
"I know that at this point in time they did ONE homo marriage! Therefor, that means I am right about everything, and it is no longer the standard."
PROVE IT! Whip out your little time machine and your video camera and back up that claim! Oh wait, we can't use the past as proof according to you so I guess you're just ****ed there. :rolleyes:
-
Tin Can:
For the love of all things holy, stop it!!!
Your not making one single point and making your self look bad
-
I have never gotten a satisfactory responce to the question; why do you give a damn what other people do with each other?
you know, I live virtualy within sight of St.Louis MO, all the local media is MO, I didn't hear one damned thing about this before it happened, I'm sort of wondering if it was sneaked in, but the southern 1/3rd of MO is some of the hardest cord of the Bible belt, so maybe that has something to do with it.
-
"Morals are like teeth. The more decayed they are, the more it hurts to touch them." -George Bernard Shaw
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I have never gotten a satisfactory responce to the question; why do you give a damn what other people do with each other?
you know, I live virtualy within sight of St.Louis MO, all the local media is MO, I didn't hear one damned thing about this before it happened, I'm sort of wondering if it was sneaked in, but the southern 1/3rd of MO is some of the hardest cord of the Bible belt, so maybe that has something to do with it.
Because they're uptight puritans that think that everyone should think as they do, and try to force their beliefs onto others?
Now lets think back for a second. What group during WW2 thought the same way? What group had beliefs so fanatical in their beliefs that they enslaved jews and made their lives a living hell?
-
Originally posted by Kazan
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/04/samesex.marriage.ap/index.html
****ing bigots!
Just because they don't agree with you makes them bigots? Whatever. The poeple of Missouri think that marriage is a privilage, not a right. They think that there should not be gay marriage. OH WELL. But again starting out a conversation with "****ing bigots" isn't the best way to start sensible mature, debate/conversation.
I could start threads with a link and say
****ing abortionists
or
****ing evolutionist
or
****ing socialists
or
****ing Europeans
I would not do this. This doesn't set a good tone.
Let gays have a civil union. and a piece of paper. let them change their last names. But the issue involved is the legal repurcussions of being declared married. the main one in my mind would be adoption. Also even the extreme liberal NEA has admitted that theiris not conclusive evidence as to a "gay gene." Phychologists have also hinted that infact it is far more expereience than anything. But that little bit has little bearing on this argument.
-
No conclusive evidence doesn't mean no evidence.
Consider the fact that studies have shown that indentical twins are more likely to both be gay than non-identical twins and you've got something rather strange going on if there isn't a gay gene.
-
redmenace: denying someone their rights based upon something the were born is the definition of bigotry
Tin Can: Excuse me for having every cultural anthropologist in the country backing my ass up
-
[q]Excuse me for having every cultural anthropologist in the country backing my ass up[/q]
I bet they are ;7
But seriously, how does homosexuality help our society evolve or progress? (I'm asking for a genuine justification for effectively encouraging it, as we would be by legalising gay marriage)
-
vyper: legalizing gay marriage is not "encouraging it", since people are born that way 99.99999999999% of the time, people being it has nothing to do with it being encouraged or not.. why do you htink it regularily has occured throughout the history of our species even in the most repressive cultures.
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q]Excuse me for having every cultural anthropologist in the country backing my ass up[/q]
I bet they are ;7
But seriously, how does homosexuality help our society evolve or progress? (I'm asking for a genuine justification for effectively encouraging it, as we would be by legalising gay marriage)
ask the converse - how does it hinder society?
And, of course, encouraging tolerance is always a good thing.....look at what happened to Alan turing (http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Turing.html), the bloke that helped both invent the computer and also helped win WW2 through his contribution to codebreaking (Colossus) at Bletchly park.
-
Still ain't heard an answer lads.
-
Well, Gays went and fought for liberation, the same as straight people, are we saying they are a 'lesser species' that does not deserve the same rights as us 'superior species'?
A massive amount of cultural, scientific and philosophical advancement has been bought about by the thinking of gays, for a long long time, homosexuality was the only voice that even accepted there was a feminine point of view.
What amazes me is that people expect gays to do their jobs, pay their taxes, fight in Iraq or Vietnam or WWII, and yet still America feel it can violate the rights that they worked, fought and died for along with everyone else.
-
I think what we really ought to do is abolish the legal concept of marriage, and make the civil union the only form of state-recognized union. If religious institutions really can't deal with homosexuality, then they have the right to deny marriage to gay people, but the secular government should be a seperate and final authority.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
I think what we really ought to do is abolish the legal concept of marriage, and make the civil union the only form of state-recognized union. If religious institutions really can't deal with homosexuality, then they have the right to deny marriage to gay people, but the secular government should be a seperate and final authority.
That's pretty much exactly what i think.
Of course, isn't there already a situation where any form of religious marriage has to be backed up with formal registration?
-
Originally posted by vyper
Still ain't heard an answer lads.
You need to ask a sensible question first.
How did allowing black and white people to marry each other help our society evolve or progress?
Answer that one. There's your answer.
-
burned by karajorma
-
Originally posted by Kazan
redmenace: denying someone their rights based upon something the were born is the definition of bigotry
First I do recognize the cultural contributions gays and bisexuals have made. The Gay Pride Alliance has drilled that in pretty well at GMU. But, the real cornerstone of the debate is the question of are they born with it or is it enviroment and experience. To defute the twins argument, I would like to say that if these twins are together their entire live they will have similiar experiences. The same with reguar siblings. I have a premise in my arguments that gays are not born that way. Kazan, with all do respect, and others is that is an inborn trait and there for bigotry and against all that the american constitution stands for. Also, Kazan you said something about understanding the constitution as it was written. I don't mean to be snide, but out of curiosity I though you were a believer in a living breathing document?
-
Well, I'm not sure that I can give an exemple about that, kara, but in the same way, can you prove that it didn't help society evolve and progress ?
And it helped the developement of at least one thing in our society : tolerance, which should be more practiced by the devot christian who are opposed to too much thing to count :p
-
still curious where your "social anthropologists" are on this one Kazan. i did a little research, and here's some of the links i came up with:
http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron4.html
Gay activists regularly claim that they were "born that way" and thus cannot change their desires or stop their activities. Yet there are numerous documented cases in which homosexuals have changed
http://www.ewm.org/archives/000008.html
With ever increasing frequency the media confronts us with reports of new scientific research that suggests some men and women may be born gay. The gay community is enthusiastic about the possibility, arguing that if a person is born with a homosexual psychological orientation, it must be natural. If it is natural, it must be good. If it is good, it should be accepted and celebrated in homosexual relationships. Radical revision of socially accepted sexual practices and relationships, as well as a redefinition of the family, is the inevitable result.
http://www.russpickett.com/basic/homborn.htm
Two prominent "homosexual" psychiatrists, examining the evidence of their own lives as well as those of others, came to different conclusions in this long-running debate. The first of these, Sigmund Freud, saw his homosexual urges as pathological. Through self-analysis, he overcame them and eventually rejoiced in the "greater independence that results from having overcome my homosexuality."
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200310\CUL20031029a.html
"There are two broad views about the origins of homosexuality - one being related to environmental factors and one being primarily related to genetic factors," said Throckmorton. "The truth is, the science on the subject is so unclear that we can't really say with certainty that we know what the role of any of those factors are."
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20Nature%20S%201999/are_some_people_born_gay.htm
biological explanation is good news for homosexuals and their advocates.
http://www.spirit-walkers.org/faqs.html
No one is “born gay” any
more than one is born with the natural tendency to like or dislike a certain food. It’s a learned behavior that’s
caused by many different circumstances with different people
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/faqgays.htm
Most people only discover their sexual orientation in their teens. There is no proof that it is genetic.
http://www.expage.com/whythink
[Gays] Are not born genetically but rather it's very complex and many many factors play a role in influcing the person's thinking.
it seems to lean either way, but i honestly don't see the striking evidence that your thousands of "social anthropologists" seem to present... to me it seems this whole "born gay" theory (that's all it is, a theory) is pretty recent, and seems to have been dug up so they can say that they're "naturally" gay, and they can't help it, and so because of that it's natural... doesn't seem to be all the evidence and studies that you claim.
-
And it helped the developement of at least one thing in our society : tolerance, which should be more practiced by the devot christian who are opposed to too much thing to count
but for a Christian that doesn't make sense. a Christian doesn't tolerate what the Bible says is wrong. a Christian wouldn't tolerate a rapist, a murderer, etc. ;)
-
Man's been bisexual for centuries though.
It's funny how the reaction is almost solely directed at men getting married though, if it had just been lesbians, I wonder how outraged American society would be? But then, lesbians are more fun to watch, aren't they?
Homosexuality is just an expression of preference, ancient Greek society saw women as something to carry babies, and that men had the bodies that were to be admired, that was why Olympic sports took place in the nude, it was a pron show.
It's been far from uncommon throughout the years, and if you want an example from the Animal kingdom, check out 'Bonobo' monkeys, I won't provide a link, feel free to google yourself ;)
So 'Born Gay' is not really relevant, when you are a teenager, you decide what you want, some men decide they prefer other men to women, it's society that forces them into a little 'gay' subgroup which means they have to have Gay Rights, else people would forget they had any. It's not a brain disease or a mental disorder it's something that has occured in this, and other species for millenium. It is society that points at them and says 'They are Gay, they are less than us', not because they are Gay, not really, it's because they are different they represent something alien to most males.
If this is how we cope with the alien in our own society, how the hell can we claim to be ready to reach for the stars?
-
It depends on what you mean by "change." Throughout history, homosexuals have always had to live heterosexual lifestyles to avoid persecution. Take the example I already mentioned: Cole Porter. He was quite gay, but he was married to a woman, and they genuinely loved each other. Only one little problem: Throughout the marriage, Cole had sexual affairs, and they were all with men.
Sexuality is a very complex thing-- more complex than most people realize. Someone who is gay can still have feelings for someone of the opposite sex, but it doesn't change the fact that the person is gay. It's almost meaningless to categorize sexual orientation the way we do.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
but for a Christian that doesn't make sense. a Christian doesn't tolerate what the Bible says is wrong. a Christian wouldn't tolerate a rapist, a murderer, etc. ;)
Oh, please stop it...
If you actually read the bible, it says not to judge people for yourself. But, let God do that later...
Now, no more discussion about christians here
-
redmenace
But, the real cornerstone of the debate is the question of are they born with it or is it enviroment and experience.
Modern medical science says: genetic factor
redmenace
To defute the twins argument, I would like to say that if these twins are together their entire live they will have similiar experiences.
except they check for this kind of bias -- identical twins _seperated_ _at_ _birth_ expirience the same increase probability of both being homosexual if one is
redmenace
The same with reguar siblings.
no, non-identical twins and simple siblings do not have an increase probability of both being homosexual if one of them is
redmenace
I have a premise in my arguments that gays are not born that way.
Your premise is false -- arguments from false premises are false
redmenace
Kazan, with all do respect, and others is that is an inborn trait and there for bigotry and against all that the american constitution stands for.
The american constitution stands for freedom, liberty, human rights -- banning gay marriage goes against all of that
redmenace
Also, Kazan you said something about understanding the constitution as it was written. I don't mean to be snide, but out of curiosity I though you were a believer in a living breathing document?
adding a ban on homosexual marriage to it would be defiling the document and destroying what the founding fathers intended it to be - writing such into the constitution would make the constitution violate human rights and would utterly destroy everything american stands for --- our country would become less than worthless, it would become deserving of destruction
------------------
Stealth:
http://www.biblebelievers.com/ - biased source, in the practice of falsification
furthermore your "numerous documents" are a profile of the MINORITY -- have you noticed that i point out 99.99999% are born that way -- not 100%, there is a _SLIM_ microscopic minority that _are_ psychological -- then there is the issue of repression.
You're really ignorant
http://www.ewm.org - biased source, in the practice of falsification
http://www.russpickett.com/ - biased source, in the practice of falsification
http://www.cnsnews.com/ - unreliable source
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/ - academic supporting me
http://www.spirit-walkers.org/ - biased source, in the practice of falsification
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/ - unreliable source
http://www.expage.com/whythink - unrelaible (almost certainly biased) source
Guess what -- ALL THESE SOURCES ARE IRREVELANT to the issue of what marriage has been through the ages -- you only proven one thing: you have no idea how to seperated a biased source from an unbiased source
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
Now, no more discussion about christians here
No - because they're the root of the problem
-
Homosexuality: Is it genetic?
By Jennifer Ciotta
'Homosexuality was not some sort of exotic sin or rare deviation from the norm, but a fairly common part of human sexual behavior in the 1940s and early 1950s,' says Susan and Daniel Cohen, the co-authors of When Someone You Know Is Gay.
Alfred C. Kinsey was a biologist in this time period who undertook the study of sexual practices in American society. The American public was shocked to find out that '13% of adult males and 7% of adult females are exclusively or predominately homosexual for significant periods of their lives.' According to Kinsey's study, these percentiles were '10% of the total adult population.'
In the 1940s and 1950s and even today, the American society denied and still continue to deny these facts according to the Cohens. However, Kinsey was a noted scientist who always 'applied the scientific method to all of his sexual behavior studies.' So where does this leave the American public of today? Do we believe a noted scientist of the past or look into the 1990s for an answer?
In 1991, another scientist named Simon LeVay announced his finding that his research comparing the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men showed a structural difference in the region thought to influence male sexuality. This neurobiologist discovered that a segment of the brain in homosexual men, the hypothalamus, is only a quarter to half the size of those in heterosexual men. LeVay conducted his study by examining the corpses of 19 gay men, 16 heterosexual men, and six heterosexual women. All of the homosexual men died from complications of AIDS. Because of AIDS, people in the medical field had to learn to identify the sexual orientation of men. LeVay's findings shocked the nation, just as in the 1940s and 1950s when Kinsey announced his conclusions.
Dr. Karen Harbeck, the editor of Coming Out of the Classroom Closet: Gay and Lesbian Students, Teachers and Curricula, discusses the most recent study of homosexuality linked to genetics. According to Harbeck, the National Institute of Mental Health has recent research done on Mormons because they know their geneologies. If a male has a genetic pattern at xq28 gene loci, then he has a 70% chance of being gay, and a 30% chance of not being gay. If this configuration (xq28) is not there, there is a 100% chance of being heterosexual. This is not a 'gay gene,' but a strong tendency towards the idea of homosexuality being a genetic attribute. However, Harbeck notes that since xq28 loci exists in males, it is passed on through the maternal genetic line. Therefore, he has not been able to replicate research on women yet.
So this leaves the question: Is being gay genetic? Cynthia Evangelou, advisor of the Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual Concerns office for the University, says: 'There have been numerous scientific studies done, but findings have been inconclusive. My feeling is what difference does it make? We are all people and in the atmosphere of humanity it shouldn't make a difference what sexual orientation we are. We should treat people with kindness and respect regardless of our differences.'
-
that evidence shows pretty conclusively that there is a genetic link -- 100% probability of being hetero without the gene -- that's rather conclusive
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
So this leaves the question: Is being gay genetic? Cynthia Evangelou, advisor of the Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual Concerns office for the University, says: 'There have been numerous scientific studies done, but findings have been inconclusive. My feeling is what difference does it make? We are all people and in the atmosphere of humanity it shouldn't make a difference what sexual orientation we are. We should treat people with kindness and respect regardless of our differences.'
best advise ever
-
Many homosexuals struggle with depression and suicide because even they themselves can't accept the way they are. How could they possibly have chosen that?
-
I heard that argument out of the mouth of a former gay-hater... her son was homosexual and after he came out she entered the modern world rapdily
-
Ford Prefect: That's really not a good question, mind over matter can have that effect
-
others feel depressed and lonly and ect. that are not gay.
except mental illness is more of a consequence enviroment. however, I will personally continue to argue the enviromental causes until:
both the enviromental theory has been diffuted and the genetic theory conclusivly proved.
I know this may seem ignorant and hard headed. Oh well.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Stealth:
http://www.biblebelievers.com/ - biased source, in the practice of falsification
furthermore your "numerous documents" are a profile of the MINORITY -- have you noticed that i point out 99.99999% are born that way -- not 100%, there is a _SLIM_ microscopic minority that _are_ psychological -- then there is the issue of repression.
You're really ignorant
http://www.ewm.org - biased source, in the practice of falsification
http://www.russpickett.com/ - biased source, in the practice of falsification
http://www.cnsnews.com/ - unreliable source
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/ - academic supporting me
http://www.spirit-walkers.org/ - biased source, in the practice of falsification
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/ - unreliable source
http://www.expage.com/whythink - unrelaible (almost certainly biased) source
Guess what -- ALL THESE SOURCES ARE IRREVELANT to the issue of what marriage has been through the ages -- you only proven one thing: you have no idea how to seperated a biased source from an unbiased source
SO FIND ME A ****ING SOURCE THAT PROVES GAYS ARE BORN GAY!!! so far you haven't found one either!!! WHERE ARE YOUR THOUSANDS OF ANTHROPOLOGISTS NOW!?!?!?!?!?!?
jdjctagle or whatever: what was the point of that article you posted? to prove gays are born gay? because at the very end it states:
'There have been numerous scientific studies done, but findings have been inconclusive.
soooooo
-
:wtf:
Point that it is "inconclusive
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Many homosexuals struggle with depression and suicide because even they themselves can't accept the way they are.
Social pressure.
-
[q]
How did allowing black and white people to marry each other help our society evolve or progress? [/q]
They can have children, offspring, and give those unique offspring a perspective on both cultures. There's a significant different between allowing mixed sex marriages between colours and between same sex couples. I'm asking you what value gay marriages are to society in the same terms.
.
[q]burned by karajorma[/q]
Kazan, grow up, please? You can be passionate without being retarded ok.
-
Btw, I'm liking this theory about nature's version of population control...
-
If it's true, then the percentage of homosexuals should be increasing.
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
:wtf:
Point that it is "inconclusive
then wtf are we arguing about? kazan's saying it's been proven that gays are born gay... and you're trying to back him up by saying its' inconclusive!?
-
Who the hell said I was trying to back Kazan up!?
I was trying to say that it is not as conclusive as Kazan says it is...
-
Originally posted by vyper
Btw, I'm liking this theory about nature's version of population control...
How?
Still looking for answers to my questions, people.
-
Originally posted by Genryu
Well, I'm not sure that I can give an exemple about that, kara, but in the same way, can you prove that it didn't help society evolve and progress ?
And it helped the developement of at least one thing in our society : tolerance, which should be more practiced by the devot christian who are opposed to too much thing to count :p
That was my point. There were benifits and no penalties. So why not do it. It's the same with gay marriage. There are benifits
* Increased tolerance
* Gays feel worried about having to come out
* Bible thumpers get higher blood pressure and die off quicker.
and there are no penalties. So why not do it?
Originally posted by vyper
How did allowing black and white people to marry each other help our society evolve or progress?
They can have children, offspring, and give those unique offspring a perspective on both cultures. There's a significant different between allowing mixed sex marriages between colours and between same sex couples. I'm asking you what value gay marriages are to society in the same terms.
And gay people don't have children? You mean that there has never been a gay couple that has had children?
Okay. Gay couples may have less children than hetrosexual ones but surely that too is an advantage for society. There are too damn many people on the planet anyway :)
-
Originally posted by Stealth
SO FIND ME A ****ING SOURCE THAT PROVES GAYS ARE BORN GAY!!! so far you haven't found one either!!! WHERE ARE YOUR THOUSANDS OF ANTHROPOLOGISTS NOW!?!?!?!?!?!?
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
If a male has a genetic pattern at xq28 gene loci, then he has a 70% chance of being gay, and a 30% chance of not being gay. If this configuration (xq28) is not there, there is a 100% chance of being heterosexual.
You're a moron "Cultural Anthropologists" tell you that SOCIETIES IN THE PAST HAVE HAD HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE
Psychologists, Psychiatrists and Genetistics tell you about the genetics
i say Xq28 70-30 Homo-Hetero is a _STRONG_ statistical correlation (infact it's a supermajority) (definition statistical correlation) which is further evidenced by the Xq28-lack 100% hetero strong statistical correlation
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
Who the hell said I was trying to back Kazan up!?
I was trying to say that it is not as conclusive as Kazan says it is...
i was under the impression. because Kazan's a tool, and you seem to be his little *****.
You're a moron "Cultural Anthropologists" tell you that SOCIETIES IN THE PAST HAVE HAD HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE
well you seem to throw the term "cultural anthropologists" at anyone that disagrees with you, you've done it several times during this thread, but you've never actually proved anything these "cultural anthropologists" have said. give us some evidence. an article, research results... something. because when the going gets tough, Kazan starts using big words in an attempt to confuse everyone...
-
Stealth: you're a total freaking retard - i've only tossed it at you, pointing out that the EXPERTs will tell you your claim about "marriage always being between a man and a woman" is false
11,000-member American Anthropological Association.
.... Bush has cast the union between male and female as the only proper form of marriage, ....
"Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies," the association's statement said, adding that the executive board "strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples."
The statement was proposed by Dan Segal, a professor of anthropology and history from Pitzer College in Claremont (Los Angeles County), who called Bush's conception of the history of marriage "patently false."
"If he were to take even the first semester of anthropology, he would know that's not true," said Segal, a member of the anthropological association's Executive Committee.
...
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/27/MNGSK59NGM1.DTL
-
I can recommend one book, having to do with the Greeks, by Thomas Cahill, a historian and author. Its part of his series regarding significant civilizations of the past and is called Sailing the Wine-dark Sea, and is actually not the dry, boring history you might expect but actually a lively recounting of the past. It has a good bit about homosexual relationships, but I doubt many of you will buy a book just to prove so-and-so on the Internet right or wrong ;) ;)
-
I feel the need to publicize this PM-engnage -- he just tried countering a study from a PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF PSYCHIATRY with a LAYMEN'S OPINION
Kazan wrote on 08-06-2004 08:51 PM:
Stealth wrote on 08-06-2004 06:41 PM:
if i'm clearly wrong, then why is gay marriage such a disputed topic? obviously not everyone shares your perspective
*rolleyse* the average huam freaking being is not intelligent enough to realize that reality is not whim to their emotions.
1) name some of the numerous civilizations that have had homosexual marriages.
Rome for a start, oh then the catholic church having sancitified homosexual marriages in the 3rd century (including a pair that were SAINTED -- only the 5th time i've told you about them
2) name some SCIENTIFIC PROOF that gays are born gay.
numerous studies in the last decade *finds the latest*
So, homosexuality is transmitted through mothers to sons and daughters, not by overprotective or seductive behavior, as was once believed, but what Dr. Turner calls the ‘Gene for Gender’, the Xq28 region of her chromosomes. - The study, by Dr. William J. Turner, a Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the State University of New York at Stony Brook
http://genderxy.org/FPress.htf
(hint: pwnd)
see, you can insult all you want, but without the above two, your argument is nothing, and it's just your arrogance trying to make a point
you love ignoring the facts when they slap you in the face
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Stealth: you're a total freaking retard -
No Kazan, you're the "total freaking retard", because in every. single. major. argument. in this forum and the VWBB, you've always taken a side, and anyone that disagrees with you is always the idiot, the ignorant person, the 'bigot', the stupid one, or, in this case, the "total freaking retard"... work on your arguing skills, it'll get you far in life. you attack the argument, not the person presenting it. i'd have thought that through all your bannings and getting verbally raped in your 'arguments' you'd have learned this by now.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b6fd5340719.htm
found that interesting.
-
your article: laymen
my article: professor emeritus of psychiatry
i win -- you know why my opposition is always the idiot? BECAUSE I DON'T ARGUE THINGS THAT I DON'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO _PROVE_ I AM RIGHT
-
Kazan messaged me yesterday saying:
You're assertion about marriage is patently false and I could line up thousands of cultural anthropologists in front of you to tell you such
hah. we had a little discussion through PMs, and when i challenged him to quote some formal research that gays are born gay, he mentioned that article...
then i mentioned:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b6fd5340719.htm
in which a study by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) says that gays are NOT BORN GAY!
i mean, what more evidence do you need Kazan? read that article it'll do you good. there's some pretty "high-up" names and organizations, that i'm sure even you will recognize. Many of them being gay themselves, and saying that they weren't born gay. i mean damn. are you trying to speak for gays when you're not gay yourself? or are you?
EDIT:
Your article: ONE PROFESSOR
My article:
National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)
ummmmm :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
GOD DAMMIT:
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
That's from NARTH themselves... from the mouth... if ANYONE would claim that gays are born gay, it would be them... but READ THAT ****ING ARTICLE and then give me some professor's opinion. damn you're hard.
-
Er...gonnae calm down a bit before you get the thread locked?
Both of you.
-
Stealth: dude, don't lnk to Free Republic, it makes me fell all dirty just having the link on the page :ick: :ick:
Kazan: seriously, go smoke a joint or something, you need to relax. The opposition is always the idiot? C'mon, don't make me laugh. You know who also thought he was always correct? That right, Genghis Khan! So the lesson is, stay in school, don't do drugs, and don't be like Genghis Khan, cause you'll just end up dead and get your image sold of to make a sci-fi B movie, and no one wants that.
-
Stealth: NARTH is a biased source, they are a SECTARIAN organization, not an academic one
Rictor: **** you, you know i don't abuse my body -- you know what Genghis Khan didn't have EVIDENCE to back his ass up.
-
I think Mr Bush sums it all up wonderfully :)
http://uk.mediaframe.news.yahoo.com/mediaframe/tripane/player.html?lid=wmv-56-s.6393347,wmv-100-s.6393348,wmv-300-s.6393349,rnv-56-s.6393350,rnv-100-s.6393351,rnv-300-s.6393352&.small=1&.intl=uk&c=dualpane&dw=http://uk.news.yahoo.com/reutersv/rightpane.html&f=96284754&a=0,30&sid=6393348&m=wmv&r=100&l=SAV&b=35h8rl10fkhd74113f005
-
thats why he waged a bloody war to conquer the world, lack of evidence.
The Romans were always like "Genghis, dude, you suck. You couldn't argue your way out a wet paper bag, you stupid Mongol.." and he'd get offended and go cry in his tent, but he knew the only way to make them respect him was to wreak murderous vengance across Europe, sack their cities, kill their men and enslave their women.
So seriously, take it easy, or Rome had better watch out, the Great Khan rides again.
-
rictor that's the dumbest thing you ever have stated
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Stealth: NARTH is a biased source, they are a SECTARIAN organization, not an academic one
You've got to be kidding me... you're accepting the study done by some professor, but the study done by a NATIONAL organization whose purpose is do RESEARCH homosexuals, their background and behavior, you're saying is incorrect and biased!?
You're one of those people who no matter how much fact is thrown in front of them, they're too hard-headed and thick to admit that they're wrong, because that might damage their boosted ego. Instead, when the going gets really tough, and they don't have any more evidence or proof, they start throwing out names and insults at the opposing arguer. that's not the definition of arguments or discussions Kazan. as i said, with all the experience you have, i'd have thought you'd act more mature.
:rolleyes: :yes:
-
Stealth, Kazan... instead of trying to find if gays are born that way, try to find if straight people are born that way. If that is the case, then the former must be true. If not, it's a matter of life choice. :p
If one is true, so is the other.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
then i mentioned:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b6fd5340719.htm
in which a study by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) says that gays are NOT BORN GAY!
This has to be the single most stupid thing I have seen in my entire life. Do you not realise that NARTH aren't a real scientific body any more than creation scientists are?
NARTH is a non-profit, educational organization dedicated to the research, therapy and prevention of homosexuality
You see. They all believe that God say homosexuality is a sin and therefore it should be stopped. Every word out of their mouths is suspect because unlike a lot of scientists who were simply interested in discovering if homosexuality had a genetic basis and didn't particularly care either way, NARTH have a VERY strong bias. They don't want homosexuality to be genetic.
Originally posted by Stealth
GOD DAMMIT:
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
That's from NARTH themselves... from the mouth... if ANYONE would claim that gays are born gay, it would be them... but READ THAT ****ING ARTICLE and then give me some professor's opinion. damn you're hard.
Nope. Narth will NEVER say that homosexuality is genetic. Christians like them don't believe in evolution. The genes present in mankind are present cause God wants them to be there. If people are born gay that means that God wanted them to be gay so therefore NARTH and thei band of morons can't continue to persecute gay people simply for being gay.
Stealth from the second you quoted NARTH I lost any respect I may have formerly had for you on this issue. It's obvious that you're willing to quote any source that agrees with you no matter how ridiculous and nonsensical it is. You've now joined the ranks of those who quote christian science as proof of their examples and therefore I really don't see any point in refuting your arguements any further. Like Flat Earthers once someone is that far down the path of being wrong there is no way back.
-
that's too confusing :d
;)
EDIT: at Ghostavo
-
Stealth from the second you quoted NARTH I lost any respect I may have formerly had for you on this issue. It's obvious that you're willing to quote any source that agrees with you no matter how ridiculous and nonsensical it is. You've now joined the ranks of those who quote christian science as proof of their examples and therefore I really don't see any point in refuting your arguements any further. Like Flat Earthers once someone is that far down the path of being wrong there is no way back.
and because you post what one professor stated, suddenly it's a proven fact that gays are born gay!?
:wtf:
try to "refute" my arguments by posting [size=10]P-R-O-O-F[/i][/size] that GAYS ARE BORN GAY!!!!!!
EDIT:
Karajorma: Of course, you're so predictable... the moment a source comes along that you don't like, you label it as "Christian", or "biased", and disregard it... :rolleyes:. typical.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
You've got to be kidding me... you're accepting the study done by some professor, but the study done by a NATIONAL organization whose purpose is do RESEARCH homosexuals, their background and behavior, you're saying is incorrect and biased!?
Just cause they call themselves the national something doesn't mean that they are worth anything.
They could call themselves the Grand High Poobah's or Knowledge and it wouldn't make their research any more scientific.
-
OK, now i thought we'd moved off attacking my source... and i thought you were going to present me with 100% clear proof that gays are born gay. which i don't see.
:rolleyes:
-
Inconclusive evidence means there is no evidence either against or in favor of... if they say there is proof either against or in favor of, unless they say what they did exactly in order to reach that opinion, it is likely to be flawed, biased, or worse....
-
i can accept that. but Kazan is absolutely SURE that gays are born gay, so i'm asking him to find me some evidence. so far he's quoted one professor's study :rolleyes:
-
Well, someone post evidence that straight are born that way... I'm sure it won't be that hard if it is true :rolleyes:
-
First of all, yay for Missouri!
Second of all, homosexuality is an aberrant psychological behavior shaped by the victim's environment. There is absolutely no clear-cut evidence of the so-called "gay gene".
But there is ample evidence of a psychological disorder. Mike Reagan, who is gay, was raped by his boyscout leader in the mountains during a hike. The perpetrator introduced homosexual pornography to him, and ultimately causing him to be photographed himself.
Instability in one's family can also cause one to become homosexual. You probably have all heard the evidence, so there's little left for me to say.
It's is you, liberal bigots, who are destroying America. You are WRONG! And two Lefts don't make a Right.
Criticize me all you want, for I know most of you are flaming liberal bigots anyway. Deus ex Jesu!
Rampage
-
Karajorma: It's CLEAR that the professor Kazan quoted is Atheist, so therefore I cannot accept the statement as proof, since it's obviously biased
:rolleyes:
Ghostavo: Yeah, while you're at that, prove that serial murderers and rapists are born that way. Also prove that child molestors are born that way. It's not their fault, they were born like that, i mean c'mon... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Stealth
Karajorma: Of course, you're so predictable... the moment a source comes along that you don't like, you label it as "Christian", or "biased", and disregard it... :rolleyes:. typical.
You're missing my point completely Stealth. I couldn't give a flying **** whether homosexuality is genetic or not. I've posted evidence that it is because I've heard more evidence that it is than I've heard that it isn't. If NARTH had managed to flat out prove that being gay is a nurture rather than nature thing and they had proper scientific proof of that I'd welcome it as new knowledge for humanity to place in the "Encylopedia of What We Know" and close the chapter on the book once and for all.
Get this straight. I have NO axe to grind on this subject. I seriously couldn't care either way.
NARTH are not scientific but the reason is not cause they are christians. Narth research is published in papers available from the NARTH website. Here's a link (http://www.narth.com/menus/reso.html)
Who publishes these papers - NARTH
Who's on the editorial board - NARTH
Who reviews the papers - NARTH
Who does the research - NARTH
This is not the way science works Stealth. The author of a real scientific paper submits it to a peer reviewed journal which is competely independant from the author. The journal then send the paper on to another person who does research in the same field who vets the paper and looks for flaws in the methodology. The paper is returned to the editorial board who then accept or reject the paper based on the validity of the research.
This didn't happen with NARTH and therefore there paper is absoultely not scientific. It carries as much weight as if I sat down and wrote a paper saying that with 100% certainty the National Karajorma Institute of Science had concluded that Newton was wrong and there isn't an equal and opposite reaction at all.
If they published in a peer reviewed journal and their work hadn't been discredited I wouldn't care if they were christians, muslims or jedi knights.
-
Rampage: please hang around. it's hard taking Karajorma, jdjdke398489eagle, and Kazan all on my own ;)
-
Rampage: How is america harmed by allowing same sex marriage?
-
Karajorma: do a search on yahoo for: "Gays are born gay". you'll come up with tons of articles written, small research done on it, etc. I'm too tired and really can't be bothered to post some of them.
I don't really think they can prove gays are born like that anyway, regardless of how much proof they do. There's no "gay gene"... that's been proven, so how can they find out that someone's born gay. To even start doing research like that would take billions of dollars, and years and years and years.
-
Raa: America isn't harmed in any way. Tradition is. I'm all for gay rights, as i've said again and again, but marriage isn't a right that any two people have. there's set limits in my opinion, the greatest most underlying fact being that it's between a man and a woman. not two women, or two men.
-
Am i the only one who's getting strong homo-sexual vibes from the whole Stealth/Kazan thing. A coincidence? I think not. Remeber that girl who used to make faces at you in the third grade and threw mud at you and it turns out she was really hot for you. Yeah.
get a room you two, the Great Khan likes to do his business with a little privacy. ;7 ;7
-
Yes, well, I was asking Rampage because he's taking the religious approach again...
But since his religion is just that, His, it should not be applied to others.
And for being born gay... I doubt that findings will be made public any time soon, should it even be found so.
What happens if it does occur that there are genetic sequences that determine sexuality? Pregnant women will test to see if their children are gay, and have an abortion if they find such is true? Sickening.
-
Stealth, would you be OK if they got all the same benefits and just called it Broonfonzar instead of marriage? Cause if thats your whole arguement, semantics, you're in serious trouble.
-
That seems to be a few people's argument. :doubt:
-
Xq28
Present: 70% homosexual, 30% straight
NoPresent: 100% heterosexual
that's a statistically strong correlation, well more than strong enough to be considered the "gay gene" -- hell intelligence is only 50% genetic and there are things considered "smart genes" --- You have your proof
85% probability that the Professor I quoted is not atheist - some christians are more honest than others -- NARTH and all your other primary sources are the dishonest ones
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Stealth, would you be OK if they got all the same benefits and just called it Broonfonzar instead of marriage? Cause if thats your whole arguement, semantics, you're in serious trouble.
yeah, i'm sure i'm in really serious trouble. save me!!!:shaking: :shaking:
:rolleyes:
yes, my argument is that marriage always has been between man and woman. that's been the definition of marriage since it's beginning, and now for some "gay rights" stretch, marriage is being considered between a man and a man and a woman and a woman. i think that's pathetic. you can enjoy all the same rights without being married, but for some remote reason, (i guess so they have the same respect as heterosexual couples) they want to be able to get "married" too.
And if they call it "Broonfonzar" (sticking with the example you gave) but have the same ceremony, vows, etc. i'd still be offended, since it's makinga mockery of marriage.
(now watch Kazan come and say that in the 3rd century there were five homosexual marriages...)
-
Originally posted by Rampage
Second of all, homosexuality is an aberrant psychological behavior shaped by the victim's environment. There is absolutely no clear-cut evidence of the so-called "gay gene".
Can you back this up at all?
But there is ample evidence of a psychological disorder. Mike Reagan, who is gay, was raped by his boyscout leader in the mountains during a hike. The perpetrator introduced homosexual pornography to him, and ultimately causing him to be photographed himself.
Anecdotal evidence is a dime a dozen. Bringing up one occurance doesn't prove or disprove anything.
It's is you, liberal bigots, who are destroying America. You are WRONG! And two Lefts don't make a Right.
Take that sort of idiocy to a different thread.
Criticize me all you want, for I know most of you are flaming liberal bigots anyway. Deus ex Jesu!
Not accepting criticism is a bad idea, in debate or anywhere else. Even ideas from us "flaming liberal bigots" may be of some use to you.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
Karajorma: do a search on yahoo for: "Gays are born gay". you'll come up with tons of articles written, small research done on it, etc. I'm too tired and really can't be bothered to post some of them.
Nope. I've already spent far too long dicrediting you crappy sources to go looking for new ones myself. It was your choice to quote NARTH instead of looking for a credible source. I've already said I don't care either way on the matter. If you are so desperate to prove that there isn't a gay gene go ahead. Feel free, but don't expect me to do your work for you cause I'm not going to.
Originally posted by Stealth
I don't really think they can prove gays are born like that anyway, regardless of how much proof they do. There's no "gay gene"... that's been proven, so how can they find out that someone's born gay. To even start doing research like that would take billions of dollars, and years and years and years.
Like it did to find the breast cancer gene? I mention the breast cancer thing because that was found by exactly the same sort of research you'd need to find a gay gene.
Sure it took years to find the breast cancer genes but guess what? Research into the gay gene has been going on for years too. I remember hearing the story over 6-7 years ago. And PCR and other DNA techniciques have vastly improved since those days.
-
Stealth once again demonstrates that he has no idea how to seperate good sources from bad sources
-
Originally posted by Stealth
you can enjoy all the same rights without being married, but for some remote reason, (i guess so they have the same respect as heterosexual couples) they want to be able to get "married" too.
No you can't stealth. That's the whole sad point. You can't adopt. You can't put both parents names on a birth certificate. You need a power of attorney document to have the right to decide on medical treatments for your partner should they be unable to. You can't enjoy the tax breaks that someone who has been married 5 times gets even if you've been together for 30 years.
The list goes on. This isn't about gays wanting to mock marriage or annoy christians. This is about them wanting the same legal protections that a married couple automatically gains.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
This isn't about gays wanting to mock marriage or annoy christians. This is about them wanting the same legal protections that a married couple automatically gains.
-
Well Washington state is now allowing for them.
Yay for us!
I do find it funny that the pro-state's rights people are the ones who will want to repeal the pro-gay marriage laws in some states. :p
So when is Abraham Lincoln going to come back from the grave to liberate the gays? :)
...anyway when Civil War 2 happens, guess which state has nuclear weapons? Washington ;) The Bible Belt is gonna glow for a while...
Note: If you're too stupid to understand satire and sarcasm... I pitty you.
-
Because Tin Can wouldn't.
Originally posted by Stealth
yes, my argument is that marriage always has been between man and woman.
Why?
Oh, and:
America isn't harmed in any way. Tradition is.
If things get to the point where traditions actually have to be defended, doesn't that suggest that their time has come?
-
Why does it matter if gays are or aren't born gay?
They ARE gay. Who cares why?
Deal with it.
-
Originally posted by Blaise Russel
Why?
because he thinks quoting non-academic sectarian organizations are valid sources, and he ignores the actually valid sources
-
Originally posted by Bri_Dog
Why does it matter if gays are or aren't born gay?
They ARE gay. Who cares why?
Deal with it.
I agree, however the regressive members of our species are incapable of comprehending why it's not their business
-
This is way outta hand guys. Its ok to Discuss hot topics, but this constant attacking back and forth between people cannot be tolerated, it only breeds more hatred.