another post about gay marriages... but this one might make you go "hmmmm"...

[Gonz]

millions and millions and MILLIONS of “right thinking” Americans

“straight right wing fundamental people”

Now you're being stupid. Do you think that over 70% of Missouri residents fit that description?

If, in 5000, 2000, 1000, 500, 100, 50 years of societal evolution mankind has decided, across the board, that homosexuals aren't the marrying kind & they have been ostracized in virtually every religion & in every age & every eon then there must be something you are missing? Unlike most previous civilied cultures, we not only accept them as part of our society we welcome them. About 70% od the world still kills them. We are not all willing to give everything away to satisfy a whim.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

The only hard-wired proof there is "I was born gay" THATS IT! That is the only proof of they have to offer of homosexuality being hard-wired.

what about animals that exhibit homosexual behavior? Are they simply choosing to be defiant because they are rebels too? Or because they think its fashionable or funny? Theres dozens of examples of homosexuality in nature. How does your theory explain these if they aren’t “hard wired proof”.

You are coming from this from the point of view of well if its not the norm (and more importantly if its not what IM doing) then its AGAINST NATURE! And its disgusting and immoral! Well get off your high horse and open your eyes and realize that nature is a complex place and that it doesn’t operate in two simple dimensions. What seems useless to you can be perfectly useful to another organism.

Finally, care to show me the hard wired proof that you are truly heterosexual? Since apparently there is reams of proof regarding your heterosexuality but none regarding the nature of any homosexuals homosexuality.

We can however find many sources of trauma and improper 'nurturing' that has lead to homosexuality.

care to site data on that? And then when yer done care to explain why sexual trauma usually tends to lead to OTHER behaviors other then homosexuality? Homosexuality is way down the list and can almost never be traced directly to a single event. That’s a fallacy.

So what you are saying is: I don't have the right to place a moral judgment on someone for their behaviors. I have to accept their behaviors even if it goes against my personal judgment (personal is not religious)

you can place a moral judgment on them all you like. But don’t use your moral judgment to IMPOSE something ON someone else. Cant do that. Your morality applies to yourself. If you believe it so firmly then don’t have gay sex. Easy as that. Don’t go rushing out to make legislation that will stop others from being able to do the same thing you can do.

Oh and again… which “behaviors” are these we are talking about exactly?

 

[Gato_Solo]

So let me get this straight… the “vast majority” of gays are just gay for the heck of it. Because apparently its cool to be looked down on and criticized as less then a man or more then a woman and thought of as disgusting by millions and millions and MILLIONS of “right thinking” Americans and by the Christian bible itself? Why would they all choose to do that? And how, pray tell, are you so in touch with all these millions of homosexuals that you have the inside scoop on how they consciously chose to be gay? Please enlighten us on that one. You really need to get yourself a grant somewhere with that kind of inside information.

And interesting that in the same breath you acknowledge that SOME are WIRED that way. So you freely admit that homosexuality occurs NATURALLY among humans. Yet you still turn around and say oh but most of them aren’t really gay and are just choosing to be that way despite what an awfully ridiculous choice that is in this society? Baffling.

So ok lets look at this choice thing then. Ever had a desire to have sex with another man? If the answer is yes then do you consider yourself a homosexual who made the right choices? If the answer is no then why is it you insist that others make choices that you yourself are automatically immune from because of your nature?

Once again, you fail to understand what I typed, and attempt to 'spin' the truth.
I said some because some are. The vast majority choose. If they are hated for their choice, too bad. People choose to become alcoholics, drug addicts, rapists, murderers, thieves, pedophiles, bestiality, necrophilia,etc. All of those choices are looked down upon as well. As for your example of 'wanting to have sex with another man', no. I have never felt that way. The only reason I mentioned the very few 'natural' homosexuals to begin with is because if I didn't, you would've. You see...your lack of understanding what I typed is evident if you think before you answer. BTW...how come you always seem to act as though you don't understand when it's obvious that you do?

 

[Gonz]

But don’t use your moral judgment to IMPOSE something ON someone else.

Correct oh highly charged politically correct one. Too bad they are the ones IMPOSING THEIR BELIEFS ON US. They are demanding what they have never had. We haven't taken away a single thing.

 

[freako104]

I will admit that Gonz is right on this one as there is gay pride parades and the like. that is not to say they arent discriminated against just that they sort of put themselves in the spot. and apparently its homophobia to be proud to be straight

 

[Thulsa Doom]

If, in 5000, 2000, 1000, 500, 100, 50 years of societal evolution mankind has decided, across the board, that homosexuals aren't the marrying kind & they have been ostracized in virtually every religion & in every age & every eon then there must be something you are missing? Unlike most previous civilied cultures, we not only accept them as part of our society we welcome them. About 70% od the world still kills them. We are not all willing to give everything away to satisfy a whim.

Mankind decided? When was this done exactly? I must have missed the memo. Is the is the same mankind that decided that enslavement of other human beings is a legitimate option on a global scale? Seems like that’s been going on for some time too. Is this the same mankind that decided that races may not mix? This has been a standard rule in this country for the vast majority of its existence. So now you are declaring that our laws should be based directly on how we have lived for the past 5,000 years no matter how cruel or unfair it may have been? Great approach. And how nice of you to declare that hey be thankful we aren’t killing you. You shouldn’t complain about us just discriminating against you. that one will hold up well in court I think. And when are you going to explain to me what all your “giving away” exactly? I never seem to get that point.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Mankind decided? When was this done exactly? I must have missed the memo. Is the is the same mankind that decided that enslavement of other human beings is a legitimate option on a global scale? Seems like that’s been going on for some time too. Is this the same mankind that decided that races may not mix? This has been a standard rule in this country for the vast majority of its existence. So now you are declaring that our laws should be based directly on how we have lived for the past 5,000 years no matter how cruel or unfair it may have been? Great approach. And how nice of you to declare that hey be thankful we aren’t killing you. You shouldn’t complain about us just discriminating against you. that one will hold up well in court I think. And when are you going to explain to me what all your “giving away” exactly? I never seem to get that point.

I'll agree with that. Every time somebody makes a point, you tend to make an outrageous example in order to refute it. You've been saying the same thing every time, though...(my definition of your statements)"Because it's not accepted, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed"... How come you never really answer the question of why? By the same token (outrageous TD example), 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?

 

[ResearchMonkey]

the “gay people” simply want to get married. the “straight right wing fundamental people” are going out of their way to say NO YOU CANT. THAT’S the issue. The government should have no place at all in this issue whatsoever. But they want to stick their nose in it because homosexuality is so reviled by so many Americans that they think they can dictate what gays can and cant do. It doesn’t effect you or your marriage whatsoever. If it does prove it. And EVEN if it does how does that give you the right to discriminate against homosexuals for that reason?

People want a lot of things they can’t have. If you want to carry the title you must meet the social criteria of the title.

It is the definition they want changed they want the title and the validation is carries. Most people do not endorse it.

(Must you drivel your hatred of christiions into all your post?)

wait wait… which “homosexual behaviors” are we talking about now? The working for a living behaviors? The brush of the teeth behaviors? The living in society and buying a house and driving a car and getting along with the neighbors behaviors? You know.. the same ones you already do? Oh wait that’s right… I forgot… gays are defined ONLY by the kind of sex they have. Ok so what kind of sexual behaviors are we talking about here then. anal sex? Oh wait men and women do that. That wont work. Sodomy? Oh wait men and women do that too. That wont work either. Hmmm… im stuck. Could you help me by telling me what behaviors homosexuals engage in that heterosexuals DON’T? thanks so much for your help.

Homosexuality is a behavior as is hetero sexuality, are you that dense.

I can tell what behaviors heterosexuals do that homosexuals cannot.

They can consummate a marriage engaging in sexual intercourse with their matched sexual organs.

Can two men do that?

Thanx for playing.

was this your twisted way of actually hinting at an evolutionary purpose for homosexuality?

Do you have better example? . . . No you don’t? . . . thanx again.

law of nature? Are you asking how it could be evolutionarily beneficial in a human population

Why yes Watson, yes that is exactly what I am asking.

 

[Gonz]

Enslavement happens today. Are you protesting in the streets of Bali to stop it? Why not? How about the Sudan? Brazil? Iran? China? Come, let's get our ducks in a row. First we end slavery, then we end racism, then we end sexism THEN we can worry about homosexuals.

I am thankful I'm not a high priority target. I am also thankful I live in a country where I can arm myself for protection from those who do wish to harm me or mine. I am also thankful I live in a country where we are not forced allow a vocal minority to overthrow a time honored tradition. Where tradition has some meaning. A place that does not force a lifestyle down the throat of everyone because a few have decided they wish to dispel traditional values for a disruptive pretense.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Once again, you fail to understand what I typed, and attempt to 'spin' the truth.
I said some because some are. The vast majority choose. If they are hated for their choice, too bad. People choose to become alcoholics, drug addicts, rapists, murderers, thieves, pedophiles, bestiality, necrophilia,etc. All of those choices are looked down upon as well. As for your example of 'wanting to have sex with another man', no. I have never felt that way. The only reason I mentioned the very few 'natural' homosexuals to begin with is because if I didn't, you would've. You see...your lack of understanding what I typed is evident if you think before you answer. BTW...how come you always seem to act as though you don't understand when it's obvious that you do?

Please spare me your standard retort about my lack of understanding of what you type. The egregiousness of your errors in this area makes that old song sound rather hollow you realize. If you refuse to entertain other possibilities no matter what the data presented is then you have ZERO room to accuse ME of lack of understanding. Get real.

And the simple reply to this is just you are wrong. You have convinced yourself that homosexuality is a conscious choice in the “vast majority” of cases and you wont open your eyes to any other possibility otherwise. suit yourself. personally i like determining reality from what we see in front of us not what you assume because it makes moral sense to you. You freely admit that you only mention hard wiring as a possibility to counter the point any point I may make in that regard and yet you STILL turn around and say oh its basically choice though? Cant have it both ways slick. If you can entertain the concept that homosexuality may be hard wired then your “vast majority choice” scenario suddenly takes a huge hit. You give no evidence whatsoever showing us how homosexuality is a choice yet you insist it is. That’s the tactic of the ignorant and the close minded. Do you want to be that?

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Mankind decided? When was this done exactly? I must have missed the memo. Is the is the same mankind that decided that enslavement of other human beings is a legitimate option on a global scale? Seems like that’s been going on for some time too. Is this the same mankind that decided that races may not mix? This has been a standard rule in this country for the vast majority of its existence. So now you are declaring that our laws should be based directly on how we have lived for the past 5,000 years no matter how cruel or unfair it may have been? Great approach. And how nice of you to declare that hey be thankful we aren’t killing you. You shouldn’t complain about us just discriminating against you. that one will hold up well in court I think. And when are you going to explain to me what all your “giving away” exactly? I never seem to get that point.

Enslavement is not equality, the rights are different, and again I ask: are you that dense to not see the difference.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

I'll agree with that. Every time somebody makes a point, you tend to make an outrageous example in order to refute it. You've been saying the same thing every time, though...(my definition of your statements)"Because it's not accepted, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed"... How come you never really answer the question of why? By the same token (outrageous TD example), 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?

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Do you have better example? . . . No you don’t? . . . thanx again.

Yes I sure do. Ill go find that thread where i listed a bunch but I gotta go out now. See you back here tomorrow.

 

[Gonz]

And the simple reply to this is just you are wrong

We can & have shown in various degree's the downfall of homosexuality & argued as to it's source, condition & aspect. It has no known advancement to evolutionary tactics. Therefore, it has no future.

Can you show the positive of homosexuality?

 

[Gato_Solo]

Please spare me your standard retort about my lack of understanding of what you type. The egregiousness of your errors in this area makes that old song sound rather hollow you realize. If you refuse to entertain other possibilities no matter what the data presented is then you have ZERO room to accuse ME of lack of understanding. Get real.

What data have you offered besides outrageous examples and a lot of conjecture?

And the simple reply to this is just you are wrong. You have convinced yourself that homosexuality is a conscious choice in the “vast majority” of cases and you wont open your eyes to any other possibility otherwise. suit yourself. personally i like determining reality from what we see in front of us not what you assume because it makes moral sense to you. You freely admit that you only mention hard wiring as a possibility to counter the point any point I may make in that regard and yet you STILL turn around and say oh its basically choice though? Cant have it both ways slick. If you can entertain the concept that homosexuality may be hard wired then your “vast majority choice” scenario suddenly takes a huge hit. You give no evidence whatsoever showing us how homosexuality is a choice yet you insist it is. That’s the tactic of the ignorant and the close minded. Do you want to be that?

And here we go again. You care to explain how your theory has more weight than mine? It's not me who won't see. It's you. You've let yourself be blinded by those who insist that the majority is always wrong...Sorry, sir, but the vast majority is not always wrong, and your view is skewed enough to not see anything except your own narrow viewpoint. It's you who refuse to see that the few who are hard-wired and the majority who are not is true. If all you've got to say is that 'I'm wrong', I answer thusly...prove it.

One more thing...Read this...maybe something will filter through your bias.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Thulsa you have little to no understanding of human development or the behavioral sciences. You keep basing your scientific opinion on emotions.

A herd of caribou, a pod of whales, a group of monkeys all with a social order; there is your hard-wired proof of heterosexuality.

• When a dog humps your leg does it mean he into bestiality? No, the dog is looking for a natural fit and is quite happy once he does.

• 
  [*]Does it mean I can turn ol’ rover over and violate him and consider it natual?
  [*]Why do animals sniff each other? Because they are looking for something specific.
  [*]When was last time you saw a herd homosexual moose’s’s’?
  

Yeah they have pictures of male critters humping other males; they also have rare occasions of animal homosexuality over time. They show theses as proof, but there is no behavioral proof. There is no data that has proven it is a naturally occuring phenomin among higher life forms in a. (and they have tried to make the case for this too, just like the genetic thing, for the cause and validation).

You keep demanding for data from us, yet you offer nothing more then misrepresented and skewed situations. Homo-lobby has been for years trying to justify their cause, pouring hundreds of millions of dollars trying to prove it is other than a choice. They have not produced anything that hs not been sucessfully shown to be biased, skewed or just plain wrong.

The DSM-2/3 had homosexuality as a mental illness. It was removed in the early seventies due to pressures to be PC (the begginings of being PC era). There are many that still believe it is a mental D.O.

So Far you have only offered loose and tangential emotional references. State your data to show the value of homosexuality in the larger scheme of things.

 

[PT]

Here is a pretty good argument about the civil union thing. Stolen from another board.

Practially speaking, opening up marriage is just so much easier. All of the laws that apply to heterosexual couples will automatically be applied to homosexual couples, and all the centuries of precedent that protect those laws. All this requires is writing a law that says, in effect, "Marriage can be between people of the same gender," and you're pretty much done.

Civil unions, on the other hand, would require creating a duplicate law for every right, priviledge, and protection currently conveyed by marriage. And you can bet that passing each and every one of those individual laws is going to be a titanic struggle, and there's no way we're going to win all of them. Plus, there's no precedent to the new laws. They're open to all sorts of lawsuits challenging them, suits that have long since been settled in regards to marriage. The whole process is insanely complicated, massively expensive, ridiculously drawn out, and the end result still won't be total equity.

And then there's the principle of the thing, which is that changing the laws to recognize gay marriage as identical, in rights and in terminology, to straight marriage is a powerful message of acceptance and tolerance. Civil unions would single gays out as a group that for some reason requires seperate legislation. Even if its for something as trivial as what you call the governmental recognition of an intimate relationship, gays are set aside as legally different from everyone else, and I think that's kinda scary. Calling it marriage erases any legal differences between gays and straights. We're all just citizens, with exactly the same rights and responsibilities, free to hate each other for whatever fucked up reason we care to come up with, but equal in the eyes of our government.

Gato, I have something I need to say to you here though. I am having a very hard time here understanding the way you feel about this. Are you not the same person that would not tolerate seperate but equal for blacks, but a civil union for gays is just fine? Do you not see the hypocrisy in that statement? Yes, you can say that blacks can not change the color of their skin, yet you can also say that "some" gays are wired that way. So should we figure out where the wiring is and only allow those gays to marry, since they are the only natural ones?

source


Just FYI. They fought for the right to marry. And then wanted a divorce within 5 days. Explain to me again why we're supposed to change a 5000 year old definition of marriage.

Prof, you can't be fucking serious. Would you really like me to find some examples of hetero couples that get married and want a divorce in five days? I'm quite sure I can come up with more than one, can you?

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Here is a pretty good argument about the civil union thing. Stolen from another board.

Those points are simply ludicrous and simpleton, they have zero merit. Why not just make one law, it’s so difficult to make so many. “Every one be nice”

Strip the world of terminology, it is much better to blur the differences of everything. There is no longer a fruit called a pear, hence forth they will all be called apples.

Easier does not justify something as being right. May men and women be called “uni’s” hence forth. Also hence forth; Black, Brown, Blue, Red, Pink, Yellow, and White people will be referred to as 'Grey'. Since it the current system labels people differently and is therefore unequivocal .

Again, it is not a civil rights issue as there are no rights being denied. The question is does homosexuality qualify in definition of marriage? The social answer is a resounding NO.

There was a time not too long ago when it was difficult to get divorced, the “consequence free living” folks fought long and hard to change that. Since that time they have discovered that; what was intended to benefit society has actually had the opposite effect on society.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Gato, I have something I need to say to you here though. I am having a very hard time here understanding the way you feel about this. Are you not the same person that would not tolerate seperate but equal for blacks, but a civil union for gays is just fine? Do you not see the hypocrisy in that statement? Yes, you can say that blacks can not change the color of their skin, yet you can also say that "some" gays are wired that way. So should we figure out where the wiring is and only allow those gays to marry, since they are the only natural ones?

Because this is different. By trying to equate it with the civil rights act of 1964, you dilute the meaning of the act, which is nothing more than an affirmation of the 14th amendment. It had nothing to do with a 'lifestyle choice', and everything to do with a direct violation of civil rights. How is marriage a civil right? It's not. When are gay people discriminated against? When they become, how can I say this, 'in your face' about their lifestyle choice. If they wouldn't try to shove their choice of lifestyle down everybody's throat looking for praise for their choice, then this wouldn't even be an issue. Now...instead of accepting a civil union, like everybody else who doesn't have a church wedding, they demand equality for those who do have a church wedding. Read your own definition again, and make not of exactly how it's phrased. You can make the statement that definitions change over time, but look up the word fag, and tell me what it means. If you notice, the definition hasn't changed even though the word is misused.

 

[chcr]

Because this is different. By trying to equate it with the civil rights act of 1964, you dilute the meaning of the act, which is nothing more than an affirmation of the 14th amendment.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." These are things you cannot see, that are completely subjective, and yet I believe they are "civil rights." I think that somehow you have gotten the term "civil rights" confused with the struggle against racial oppression. Racial oppression is in fact a civl rights issue, but it's hardly the only one. You don't think then that a "lifestyle choice" (and even the experts can't seem to agree whether or not that's the case) falls under the pursuit of happiness?

Now...instead of accepting a civil union, like everybody else who doesn't have a church wedding, they demand equality for those who do have a church wedding.

Heterosexuals who don't have a "church wedding" are still considered married by the overwhelming majority of people, Gato. You can disagree on religious grounds if you want (that's another "civil right") but the fact is that this is the case. As I've said before, it's a moot point. Ten or twenty years from now gay marriage will be commonplace, although there will still be any number of people who don't approve.