Welcome to Missouri!

[Gato_Solo]

Society, like everything else, evolves. Your (or my) not liking the direction of that evolution will in no way stop it.

*sarcasm
Yep...Seems like every millenium has it's great upheavals...come to think about it...every millenium also has a homosexual 'uprising' before that upheaval...*sarcasm

Evolution is not really a societal issue. It's a natural issue based on the continued existence and change of the species in question. Since gay people, by nature, or by choice, do not contribute their genes to the 'evolution of the species', then why should they be validated?

 

[chcr]

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Societal evolution, the process that has repeatedly rejected homosexuality over the long haul and that has brought us once again, the debate returns.

Do we see a pattern developing yet?

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Lets step back to 1950 shall we:

Blacks are not, repeat ARE NOT prohibited from marrying. They have exactly the same rights to this rite as you or I. What then is the problem?

Do you really think that statement makes any sense at all?

 

[chcr]

Societal evolution, the process that has repeatedly rejected homosexuality over the long haul and that has brought us once again, the debate returns.

Do we see a pattern developing yet?

Patterns change too, RM. You'll note that throughout history (and prehistory for that matter) homosexuality has never gone away either. It has always been there, it always will be. It seems kind of stupid to me to be so intolerant of it, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Do you really think that statement makes any sense at all?

Why did you conveniently clip off most of the post so as to remove its context completely?

 

[Gato_Solo]

Why did you conveniently clip off most of the post so as to remove its context completely?

I thought that's how everyone operates here...including you, and me.

 

[chcr]

I thought that's how everyone operates here...including you, and me.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

I thought that's how everyone operates here...including you, and me.

well of course but the way he did it it didnt help his cause any. he just kind of neutered it. i should have said why did you clip this apart and nuetralize it thus stripping it of any meaning whatsoever.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Lets step back to 1950 shall we:

Blacks are not, repeat ARE NOT prohibited from marrying. They have exactly the same rights to this rite as you or I. What then is the problem? Their choice of partner. Society, community standards, has rules & regulartions. I can't marry a cat & Blacks can't marry whites.

In its full context it makes no sense. While it has some of the words in common to the arguement, your structure makes no sense.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Patterns change too, RM. You'll note that throughout history (and prehistory for that matter) homosexuality has never gone away either. It has always been there, it always will be. It seems kind of stupid to me to be so intolerant of it, but that's just my opinion.

murder, rape, childmolstation, mental retardation, etc have been there all they way too.

Some patterns fluctuate, not all patterns do (thus the term pattern).

Someday it may change, but not by force, it has to be in the processes of natural societal evolution. Demanding a change that is ageist the wills of society is doomed in the long term. So far this pattern has held firm in the long haul.

 

[chcr]

murder, rape, childmolstation, mental retardation, etc have been there all they way too.

Some patterns fluctuate, not all patterns do (thus the term pattern).

Someday it may change, but not by force, it has to be in the processes of natural societal evolution. Demanding a change that is ageist the wills of society is doomed in the long term. So far this pattern has held firm in the long haul.

All societies are doomed in the long term, RM. What I find more disturbing is that you consider homosexuals and the mentally retarded to be criminals or perverts on the same order as murderers, child molestors and rapists.

In the case of mental retardation, at least, I am sure you understand that there is always a clear, understandable physical cause. Why then include mental retardation? In the case of homosexuality, well you can draw your own conclusion.

Oh, and all patterns fluctuate, although some will not fluctuate in a way that we might recognize.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Societal evolution cannot be doomed as long as there are humans that conjugate together, it is simply unavoidable. (even in the socialst view of the world)

Each example I gave have a morality issues attached to them that had to be judged by society at one or point or another during the societal evolutionary process.

You can say I am comparing the status of each, but I am not. I am making the point that specific situations are judge in the courts of society and scientific knowledge.



Patterns,

Some patterns fluctuate, some the pattern is in increase or decrease, some are very static and do not change. If there is a change in a pattern (the pattern is broken) it is call anomaly.

Atomic structures, mathematical constants, the cleavages of diamond, etc and so on.

Tit for tat, trying to find flaws in text rather then context is juvenile.

In my reference the “pattern” is that homosexuality has been refuted by society time and time again. It is a pattern.

Get with it man, say something with value.

 

[chcr]

Tit for tat, trying to find flaws in text rather then context is juvenile.

To what are you referring?

Societal evolution cannot be doomed as long as there are humans that conjugate together, it is simply unavoidable. (even in the socialst view of the world)

Correct as far as it goes, yet each individual society is therefore ultimately doomed to be replaced, isn't it?

You can say I am comparing the status of each, but I am not. I am making the point that specific situations are judge in the courts of society and scientific knowledge.

And some of this societies courts have found that the constitution does not forbid gay marriages, has it not?

Each example I gave have a morality issues attached to them that had to be judged by society at one or point or another during the societal evolutionary process.

Ahh, morality. How predictable. I'm done now. You can debate this issue until the cows come home, but I see you have nothing original to add. Thanks for playing along.

 

[Gonz]

Don't like morality issues? How about death row for the retarded? I'm all for it. Most aren't.

 

[freako104]

I think it would depend on the crime and if they have any kind of understanding for what they did

I thought that's how everyone operates here...including you, and me

 

[ResearchMonkey]

To what are you referring?

your dilution, and smearing of context, the attempt to re-direct the topic.

Correct as far as it goes, yet each individual society is therefore ultimately doomed to be replaced, isn't it?

That is not true either, some societies have evolved for several thousands of years and still survive.

And some of this societies courts have found that the constitution does not forbid gay marriages, has it not?

That has yet to fully play out, judiciary is a process. Legislation and maybe even an amedment is need to clairfy the will of the majority.

Ahh, morality. How predictable. I'm done now. You can debate this issue until the cows come home, but I see you have nothing original to add. Thanks for playing along.

Yeah its the same old rehash.
Facts and morality verses forced acceptance of deviant unsubstantiated behaviors.
The selfish need for validation vs. the long standing rite of marriage.
The conservitive values of responsibilty vs. consiquence free lifestyle.
The tradtional vs. the progressive.

Change is not always good, especially when it tears a country apart.

I say we put it to a national vote, and call it good.

 

[Gato_Solo]

well of course but the way he did it it didnt help his cause any. he just kind of neutered it. i should have said why did you clip this apart and nuetralize it thus stripping it of any meaning whatsoever.

I could go out and shoot 500 people and say it's because of my genetics...It's not a choice. By the same token, I could spend every waking moment drinking alcohol, and could claim it's genetic. By the same token, I could spend my free time raping the neighbor's cat, and claim it's genetic, but aren't those all choices?

ready for the easy answer? because killing people KILLS people! When you kill somoene see you enfringe on their personal liberties rather seriously. Where as marrying another WILLING LOVING ADULT does NOT effect anyone else. got it now?

Now do you unserstand what I mean when I say 'out of context'? You took one part of what I said, and based your whole response on that one part, which I also stated was an 'outrageous TD example'.

 

[chcr]

your dilution, and smearing of context, the attempt to re-direct the topic.

Sorry, RM, but maybe I'm being dense. It's a serious question though, I'm not trying to be facetious. What textual flaw did you think I was trying to point out. There was a typo, but hell, it was a typo. I fail to see where I took anything out of context or diluted (?) any of your statements.
Edit: oops, typo

I say we put it to a national vote, and call it good.

Exactly. Would you be willing to put up with it if it didn't go your way? I assure you I would. I wouldn't like it, but that would be the way to handle it.

Oh, and someone else changed the topic, I just went with it. Off Topic Central after all.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Now do you unserstand what I mean when I say 'out of context'? You took one part of what I said, and based your whole response on that one part, which I also stated was an 'outrageous TD example'.

But the point is you brought up examples that were in no way parallel to homosexuality. Im assuming thats what you were meaning to do with your hyperbole? correct me if im wrong of course. so the logical response was to point out that homosexuality doesnt hurt others or infringe on your personal freedoms like killing or raping does (you can go ahead and drink all you want since thats your own problem. although even this causes far more societal harm then homosexuality. and we allow drunks to get married anyway).

And anyway you didn’t say much more in that post. And is selective quoting not a perfectly normal tactic in message board debates? When you’ve got a guy like me who can prey on any part of what you say it keeps you sharp and on your toes. You should be thanking me.