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

[Gonz]

Ten or twenty years from now gay marriage will be commonplace, although there will still be any number of people who don't approve.

Are you suggesting rolling over & allowing every special interest gropup with a beef & a want to get it because it'll happen eventually? The ERA never happened.

 

[chcr]

Are you suggesting rolling over & allowing every special interest gropup with a beef & a want to get it because it'll happen eventually? The ERA never happened.

Hardly. Some things are inevitable, though. If you disagree with it, you should speak out. That will probably not change the outcome. Not enough people really care one way or the other for this issue not to end up happening. You're even outnumbered here on the board.

 

[Gonz]

Not enough people care to publically debate it I'll grant you. A 70/30 split in the electorate is rather decisive. The people don't want it. As in "We the People..."

I believe the Gay Advocacy groups have overstepped their boundries & made the first truly bad move to advance their agenda. They would have gotten what they want by taking baby steps. They decided they were so powerful they could just take what they want. Bad move.

 

[chcr]

70/30 split

Source?

 

[Gonz]

PT's link

 

[Thulsa Doom]

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?

youve shown nothing but bias and ignorance. And a refusal to consider any other possibility other than the way you want things to be. Heres the post I made back in june on possible evolutionary reasons why homosexuality can occur in nature and among humans specifically. It was completely ignored of course and people pretended it wasnt there and went on declaring that homosexuality was a choice and had no basis in evolutionary usefulness.

The first thing we need to remember is that homosexual behavior occurs in nature among many many animals. Its not simply a human phenomenon. And there seem to be a bunch of different reasons for its occurrence in nature ranging from male-male bonding to pecking order establishment to gene inhibiting mimicry behavior (pretending to be a female so as to limit other males of their mating success) to a bunch of other things.

In humans we need to keep in mind that for a huge amount of our existence we lived in nomadic tribes in which males spent a LOT of the season together in cooperation apart from the females and the females spent a lot of time together in cooperation apart from the males. There was no job at the mill back then so the concept of living in a “traditional” nuclear family where you all lived happily under one roof and called your kid “beaver” didn’t exist. So it would certainly make sense that extremely close knit kin connections were very important to the survival of the whole group. Those males who had more of a natural propensity to bond closely with other males might do better in the long run in a world where relying on each other and working closely and comfortably with each other could mean the difference between life and death. Same deal with the womens. Close bonding with other females could mean better pooling of resources in child rearing and food gathering. We know that a male-female sexual bonding is to the benefit of the group since emotional attachment can foster care taking and protection instincts so in the absence of year round male-female sexual bonding its certainly conceivable that female-female sexual bonding could be of a benefit in the same way. So those tribes who had individuals with these genes would be at a benefit and you would see homosexuals again and again in the population. Which you do.

Furthermore, there are those individuals in a population who because they aren’t dominant don’t get to pass on their genes because they never get in a position to breed successfully so it would be to their benefit to help with the offspring of their tribe at least by playing the role of a “non traditional nurterer” if you will. In that way it would be better to be gay then to be a heterosexual with no chance of passing on your genes. Thus another possibility for a reoccurring percentage of homosexuals in human populations.

There is a more controversial notion that perhaps being gay is physiologically intrinsic with other positive survival aspects that humans in a tribe need to better survive (in other words, we really need a lot of home decorators and hair stylests to compliment the macho guys out catching mammoths and mastadons. this combination makes for a highly succesful tribe). Don’t know so much about this last one but its interesting to think about.

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15134&page=2


These ideas are fairly common places ideas and well known in the scientific community. All this nonsense you guys are spouting about there being NO evidence of any benefits to homosexuality seems a pathetic attempt to keep your head in the sand on an issue that quite clearly disturbs you. All you REALLY have to do is ask yourself WHY would homosexualilty regularly occur in a population? Why doesnt it die out? Its been occuring as long as we have been human so there must be a REASON. and then you need to look into those possible reasons. thats what science is about. science ISNT about saying well its just weak people making a bad CHOICE. oh with a little hard wiring thrown in BUT THAT DOESNT MATTER ITS STILL CHOICE ENOUGH AND ITS DISGUSTING! AND THEY SHOULDNT BE ALLOWED TO DO WHAT I DO!

Welcome to the 21st century. we gave up on witch burning a while ago.

And of course the bottom line to all this (and the thing I keep asking and never get a response on) is WHY does it even matter if its natural or a choice. what has that go to do with you being able to dictate who can and cant get married? and how does that effect you?

 

[Thulsa Doom]

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



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.

ha ha! thats rich. YOU calling ME blind? YOU saying IM the one with the narrow view point? I love it. Im the one thats been presenting data and pointing out the many inconsistencies with your point of view on the subject. You are the one insisting its (mostly) a choice because well thats just the way it is. Oh and theres a little hard wiring but it doesnt matter cause its still a choice! Come on...

Proof is needed by those that wish to impinge on the liberties of others by proactively creating legislation to keep certain groups from being able to do what other groups are allowed to do. YOU NEED TO PROVE THAT. You cant just say this is the way it is so we get to discriminate against you now. If you want to effect other peoples lives and limit their freedoms YOU will need to show reasonable cause WHY you should be allowed to do that. Dont give me this crap about I have to prove something when Im not attempting to restrict any ones rights. Its in your court. Not mine. So give me legal reasons why you should be allowed to restrict others freedoms please.

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

Who is Jay Johansen and are you sure you want to use some guy who also advocates that woman need to submit to men as the bible states as the source for your scientific understating of homosexuality in nature? I think yer making my point here thanks.

 

[Rose]

This is very upsetting. I got married on a beach outside of the US. And you can bet your ass I'm legally married. Yet some of you think otherwise?

Anyway, I'm still not sure if I get the fuss completely or not. So if you gentlemen will kindly help me ...

I've read through this thread and that other one and have come to the following conclusion, misguided or accurate as it might be.

Any marriage outside a church is not a 'real' marriage. It's just a civil union, though accepted by most to be a 'real' marriage, as long as you're heterosexual.

So, what we want to do is create a law prohibiting churches to marry specific people based on their sexual preference - be it choice or genetic. We are wanting to create a law controlling what the church can do (marry heterosexual couples) and cannot do (marry homosexual couples).

Regardless if you think it's a civil rights issue, an immorality issue, for or against using the term marriage in homosexual situations .. advancement of society, degradation of society, good, bad, fun, gross ... whatever

It all boils down to creating a law banning homosexual unions in a church lest they have the title 'married'.

Some of you might say if we let gays marry, what's next? We're all going to hell in a handbasket now. But I think that if we are creating laws such as this, it will be an even scarier future.

 

[chcr]

PT's link

A primary election in Missouri does not define the electorate, IMO. If we were just speaking of this particular instance (I wasn't, I don't know about you) then I stand corrected. 70% of the people who bothered to vote in that particular primary are in fact against gay marriage.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

You keep basing your scientific opinion on emotions.

which emotions did I site as data exactly?

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.

oh so you want to play it both ways then. so gays cant simply show they are naturally gay by acting gay but heterosexuals can? What was that big speech about how it doesn’t matter if you THINK you are born a certain way it doesn’t mean you are? You wanted hard wired proof of homosexuality. I asked for hard wired proof of heterosexuality. You give me a list of animals? Come on I can defend hard wiring in heterosexuals better then that even.

When was last time you saw a herd homosexual moose’s’s’

wait did you need examples of homosexuality in nature now? Cause theres tons of them.

There is no data that has proven it is a naturally occuring phenomin among higher life forms

it occurs in nature. It doesn’t extinguish itself. So why does it occur? Simple mutation? Highly unlikely. It wouldn’t manifest itself as it does generation after generation with the corresponding social patterns it displays. You have to explain why it IS there. Why its always been there. The only thing you have to bring to the table is choice. Oh and being abused as a child or something. But choice can not explain the numbers we see. And child abuse becomes irrelevant when we see homosexuals come from perfectly healthy families. So what else could be going on here exactly? There HAS to be an explanation for it. And that’s where you refuse to go any further because the only other alternative is a NATURAL source. And that’s outside your social and political scope of acceptance quite clearly.

You keep demanding for data from us, yet you offer nothing more then misrepresented and skewed situations.

have a look at what I posted above and tell me I don’t offer data. And once again YOU are the one attempting to effect a group of people because of your personal and or religious beliefs. You BETTER have data to back that up scientifically if you want to do such a thing. If you feel there is cause to discriminate then PROVE IT. Don’t put it on me not to prove why some people shouldn’t be discriminated against. Nice try.

And finally (and ONCE again…) it DOESN’T MATTER if homosexuality is natural or not. This CAN NOT be the basis for creating legislation to restrict the liberties of others. So really this whole argument is moot.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

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

what in the world do gay pride parades have to do with the allowing two people to live together in a commited marriage?

 

[Gato_Solo]

This is very upsetting. I got married on a beach outside of the US. And you can bet your ass I'm legally married. Yet some of you think otherwise?

Were you married by a Rabbi/Priest/Minister?

I've read through this thread and that other one and have come to the following conclusion, misguided or accurate as it might be.

Any marriage outside a church is not a 'real' marriage. It's just a civil union, though accepted by most to be a 'real' marriage, as long as you're heterosexual.

In a nutshell, yes.

So, what we want to do is create a law prohibiting churches to marry specific people based on their sexual preference - be it choice or genetic. We are wanting to create a law controlling what the church can do (marry heterosexual couples) and cannot do (marry homosexual couples).

Never said that. Some have, I haven't.

Regardless if you think it's a civil rights issue, an immorality issue, for or against using the term marriage in homosexual situations .. advancement of society, degradation of society, good, bad, fun, gross ... whatever

It all boils down to creating a law banning homosexual unions in a church lest they have the title 'married'.

Some of you might say if we let gays marry, what's next? We're all going to hell in a handbasket now. But I think that if we are creating laws such as this, it will be an even scarier future.

If a church wants to have a marriage ceremony for homosexuals, and it isn't against their church, so be it, but otherwise, too bad.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Who is Jay Johansen and are you sure you want to use some guy who also advocates that woman need to submit to men as the bible states as the source for your scientific understating of homosexuality in nature? I think yer making my point here thanks.

And you just made mine. The second you see what he writes about homosexuality, you look elsewhere in the site in order to prop up that he is a religious fanatic. You have yet to refute his views on homosexuality, so you attack him someplace else. Smooth, but worthless in this discussion. You want to debate his stance on women, start another thread. By trying to manuever this into another topic, spin it, if you will, you have taken away from your own argument more than mine. Don't hate the player...

 

[Rose]

If a church wants to have a marriage ceremony for homosexuals, and it isn't against their church, so be it, but otherwise, too bad.

Then you do not support laws to prohibit gay marriage, right?

 

[Thulsa Doom]

And you just made mine. The second you see what he writes about homosexuality, you look elsewhere in the site in order to prop up that he is a religious fanatic. You have yet to refute his views on homosexuality, so you attack him someplace else. Smooth, but worthless in this discussion. You want to debate his stance on women, start another thread. By trying to manuever this into another topic, spin it, if you will, you have taken away from your own argument more than mine. Don't hate the player...

You presented him as your scientific source as to your theory that gays choose to be gay. I simply asked who is this guy and what are his credentials. Is it a crime to look elsewhere on the site to find the answers? Is it a crime to point out that a he says hes a missionary and a follower of the bible and that theres nothing on there about his scientific qualifications to speak on the topic? If I site some yahoo's web page as a source should I act all indignant when you call me on it and ask me why he qualifies as an expert?

 

[Gonz]

WHY does it even matter if its natural or a choice.

If it's natural maybe it can be cured. If they wouldn't wish to be cured it's choice. If it's choice then all this in moot. They can chosse a more traditional way.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

If it's natural maybe it can be cured. If they wouldn't wish to be cured it's choice. If it's choice then all this in moot. They can chosse a more traditional way.

cured? Why dont we just labotomize anyone who we even suspect of being in any way gay and get it over with.

 

[Gonz]

Then you are suggesting that people stop looking for cures to alzheimers or TB or MS or cancer or...

they are all natural & therefore in need of no cure.

 

[chcr]

If it's natural maybe it can be cured. If they wouldn't wish to be cured it's choice. If it's choice then all this in moot. They can chosse a more traditional way.

And that, regardless of whether or not you consider marriage a right, rite or privledge, is a civil rights issue. "You can't do that because I don't approve." Any freedom or right is completely meaningless if it only applies to that of which you approve.

 

[Gonz]

Allow murder, rape, robbery. Just because the masses have deemed such actions inappropriate.