Gay marriages would destroy geneology and lead to inbreeding

Haha, selfish for wanting our basic human rights? You've got some nerve, Flores. To tell you the truth most homosexuals are sick to hell of homosexual issues, I know that I am. But you know what, we can't drop it! How can we drop the issue when all we have to go back to are the same problems that people like you are causing us? It's people with ideas like yours that are the problem, not homosexuals. All homosexuals want are the same rights and liberties which are afforded to others, but you, mrs. selfish, seem to insist that our rights are yours to take from us. How could anyone sit idly by while this is the case?

So please, Flores, call up all the wackjob religious fundies that you know, and tell them that Homosexuals are sick to death of homosexual issues, so you people should just fucking cut it out already and stop making them points of contention!

No, of course it's not grounds to oppose it, because that opposition is the very cause of it all. If those people in power who have views similar to yours just abandoned them, and finally gave gays the rights which everyone else has then there wouldn't be much of a homosexual issue to deal with, and we could move on to fighting terror or working out Medicare or what the fuck ever homosexual issues are apparently taking time away from (if we are to pretend for an instant that this isn't a completely absurd idea).

This is hardly one of the worst times in history, but that's not the point I intend to set out to make. I'm so terribly sorry that having homosexual issues "Shoved down your throat" makes you upset, miss priss, but we are a little busy having bigotry and oppression shoved down our throats and we don't much like it either. All we are doing is taking the fight right back to those responsible. Not very fun is it? So STOP doing it already.

[sarcasm] Yes, human rights and equality are tearing this nation apart, something must be done! [/sarcasm]

Homosexual adoption is already quite legal in most places. Allowing homosexual marriages makes it an even more viable option. As for "Imposing their beliefs" what beliefs exactly would homosexuals be imparting? It's not an evangelical movement, fuck it's not even a philosophy, the only thing that they'd be passing on is tolerance, and I'm sure that that'll be the end of us all, won't it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

(Title me, baby! - Or, "Smokeadelica in Lieu of a Real Title")

No ... I just didn't feel like scorching the earth and salting the fields. A more reasonable response was attainable, so I chose to wait for it.

I actually spend most of my life in a simmer. It's a conundrum.

This is a bit of a sticky issue. Homosexuals, much like Muslims in America, grow weary of having many people despise them for reasons equating to myths. Gays are ____. Gays do ____. Take a listen. It sounds an awful lot like the demonization of Muslims in America.

And that's not just intended for the poignant, aim-for-the-heart potency of the point. I don't mean it as empty rhetoric. Two faults that people react to if they perceive in criticism of homosexuality are one-sided applications of fault in behavior and the exaggeration of human faults into a stereotype.

I would concur if morality was fixed and stable. Despite the best efforts and arguments of monotheists, however, this is not the case. There is no objective morality. A moral issue only exists where we choose to create one. Slavery wasn't really a problem in people's consciences until someone decided to have a conscience issue and assert "freedom". True, my modern values compel me to judge slavery as downright wrong, but I'm not sure that all the components of a logical structure to oppose the issue of slavery on behalf of individual self-determination could have existed without the human species enduring a number of grim chapters.

Well, it's sort of a part of being American. Free people are free to learn their lessons. "Avoid the future damage that may or may not happen" has, in America, always been appropriate when used to suppress smaller groups, but the American people in general will not accept a broad application.

Definitely a conservative sham.

Okay, look ... the ten bachelors living together downtown to save money cannot afford to live on their own. I live in Seattle, for instance, where unmarried cohabitation is fairly high not merely as an election of lovers, but also as a financial necessity. Furthermore, marriage is documented, which makes it easier to recognize in a legal sense. With the bachelors downtown, by the time the paperwork is processed, one of 'em might be gone.

It is, in fact, the difference in the cost of living. Look, married people want the fucking world, Flores. They want a tax break for being married. They want a tax break when they buy a house. They want tax breaks when they reproduce accidentally. They want tax breaks when they have a good year on the stock market (not restricted to married people, obviously).

The rights and privileges of a married household exceed those of multiple single persons living together. Remember when Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act? For a week, I thought he had a greater plan. And then I realized that he was out of cards. Because he turned around and signed a new tax break on home sales and purchases. For married people. They got a tax break that benefitted them as much as a quarter of a million dollars compared to anyone else in the same position. And it was after that that we heard the GOP yelling "marriage penalty!"

"Marriage Penalty" is such a tawdry term. I highly doubt anyone sought to "penalize" marriage. Given the way this country strokes marriage and family, it's either adulterous or incestuous. Alright, I'll be a little more serious: Who woke up one day and wrote a tax code with the specific intention of "penalizing" married couples?

And if you say Barney Frank, I'll laugh while I tell you to fuck off

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(Really, Rep. Frank would be the obvious fake answer.)

Why single out just the gays? What about heterosexual couples who cannot naturally reproduce by their own faculties?

Yet you're pointing to the genealogical, social, and familial difficulties that can result from adoption. Are we to apply these concerns only to gays?

I don't argue with the ideals you've expressed toward the responsibilities of adoptive parents, but why would the problematic aspects be limited in any way to gays?

"One is not born, but rather becomes a woman." (Simone de Beauvoir)

Aside from the practical art of childmaking, I'm unsure which differences you find healthy. Most of the social distinctions between a man and a woman's role in society are fallacious and even sinister.

The closet formed by walls of ignorance in people around them. The gun will shatter every facet of life. Gays, more often than heterosexuals, are rejected by their families for the simple crime of falling in love.

Equality before the law and a bit of human respect is all I ask. Doesn't seem too hard.

Sounds like America in the 21st century to me. In fact, I look at it in the sense of where are people's priorities if we're worrying about the gender of someone else's sexual partner?

When your civil rights are under constant assault, what would you have someone do? Oh, that's right ... society will get along better if we all just accept the bigots ideas as policy and live on in a hateful, discriminatory human nightmare and believe it's the right thing because our personal sensibilities are actually more offended by other people's happiness than by, say, the dumping of toxins into the third world.

Who's priorities? All gays are asking for is the rights they are entitled to by law and human equality.

Some can get by lying to their families.

And frankly, I guess I should thank you for pointing out that dishonesty is the epitome of love.

Some eventually crack. This could hurt them, their families, and people they don't even know.

Of course, that's their problem, isn't it? Bigots hating a person to the point of breaking that person is the problem of the person being hated? Let me guess, let me guess ... bigots murdering Matthew Shepherd are actually the late Mr. Shepherd's problem and nobody else's?

For context, Flores: In 1992, Oregonians defeated by less than two per cent a ballot measure that would have essentially legalized the murder of gays by preventing the prosecutor from trying those cases.

You know ... everybody lives with a little bit of unnecessary shit coming their way. But don't even try to pretend that gays are responsible for the stupid hatreds infecting the people around them. What anybody chooses to feel is their own responsibility, and if one chooses to feel such hate as to discriminate against a person on the basis of the gender of that person's sexual partner ... well, excuse me if I find that choice to hate just a little bit ridiculous.

I honestly would have thought you would sum it up with a relevant question at least.

I refuse to see it as relevant, Flores, because the aspect which I can extend to make it relevant paints such an ugly picture of what it is you seem to be trying to explain that I'm actually coming to question whether or not you're seeking genuine insight to your concerns with this topic or merely looking to alleviate some of that hateful pressure that builds up when people stay quiet about the people they don't like for too long.

I think it's a perfectly acceptable point in light of your concerns about "lack of sexual diversity".

Why would you not want to discuss the comparison between a stable and healthy same-sex relationship as a parental team as opposed to the gender-role precedents set by a constant parade of second-tier lovers to keep mom or dad entertained? You have concerns about gender roles - sexual diversity, as you put it. Well? Take two precedents and tell me about them:

- Two gay parents who love their child
- A parent who loves the child and a parent's lover who is in it for whatever reasons

When an army of women takes over my city and proceeds to rape all the men to the point that their recta need surgical repair, we'll talk. It is true, though, that women in the US can behave in ways that would get men arrested. Of course, this is the fault of men in the collective sense. Even the guys I know who don't rape women seem pretty down with many of the principles that lead to the devaluation of women as human beings.

Correct. The sense of tragedy was a fallacy. Just like girls and boys: the sense of proper roles is false.

One of the things which I feared most going into parenthood was the fact that so many people around me treat their children as status symbols. The children are praised for their success in school, criticized for their failures to have adult knowledge, persecuted when they seek adult knowledge, and generally regarded as an outward measure of the parents. Perhaps it's a middle-class white-Lutheran thing, but if I hear phrases like "earn your keep", "we sacrifice for you", "we raised you to be better than that", or "did you think about what the neighbors will say" much more I will ... well, I can't stand such talk.

I generally tend to think that a large number of biological and adoptive parents treat their kids as status symbols. When my partner was five, her adoptive mother got mad at her about something and actually threatened, "You know, we can take you back! I saved the receipt!"

You should have witnessed the naming debate before my daughter was born. All I wanted was a name that connected essentially with me when spoken. All my partner wanted was a name that was like every other kid's name. Despite my explicit wishes, she named my daughter after a TV baby. I didn't know it at the time, but then again I shouldn't have to watch hours of bad television in order to protect myself against anyone's machinations. I watch enough bad TV as it is for the hell of it. Talk about society- and image-ridden ....

Interesting choice of words, all things considered.

But you've overlooked the point that it was a social filtering over time that separated out the issues. Until that point, sensation was sensation. It is social conditioning that limits the manners of expression.

As a statement of faith, you're welcome to it. But such a declaration has no objective root.

Depends on what you think we've figured out. What I figured out was that there was an identifiable bisexual or homosexual streak running through the range of my physical comforts.

What that means ... that's become sort of a lifetime enterprise with me. It's at least as interesting to examine the dynamic within myself as it is to act on it. But I've never understood it in terms of an identity politic.

Myself, I don't pursue men for the reason I don't pursue other women: there's really no point. To keep the point short, where my partner used to complain that other women before her exhausted certain of my resources, one of the main reasons she stuck around so long was that it wasn't worth committing violence to make her go away just in order to go back out and play the field.

I dislike marriage in the first place, so it's a weird thing for me. But as long as society panders to marriage, it's only a child's spiteful game of keep-away that removes a portion of people from the benefits of society on the basis of someone else's gender.

But that doesn't mean that I'm going to refuse a prize if it happens to fall into my lap, so to speak.

I'm going to have to hit this from a couple of sides. I may still miss exactly what you're getting after.

Undue focus on the sexual aspect is indeed problematic, as is undue focus on industrious productivity.

Undue focus on sin is a little like that, too. Internalized, a mind can drive itself crazy, can sacrifice its own body for relief. Externalized, that focus makes your point in a way I'm not sure you were after.

One of the most wise and prophetic political tricks I ever saw was Clinton asking for definitions of is and sex. Sure, it was annoying to me as a Clinton supporter; I just wanted him to say, "Yeah, I did her. So freaking what?" But while attempting to keep this point short, I must revisit an older one:

- I occasionally have discussed the period in which I witnessed a friend obsessing over his daughter's sex life--before she was even born. It's a long story, but the punchline is that he devoted a good amount of energy to thinking about his daughter and sex.

- Now then ... to move to a more current point, add to that the idea that one of the reasons many people recoil from studies suggesting broad bisexuality among humanity is because most people draw different boundaries around "sex" than psychologists, sociologists, or cultural anthropologists. Most people don't think of playing doctor as "sex" until they catch their own kids at it and find themselves suddenly cornered by their own overreaction. But some of those innocent-seeming children's games are vital to psychosexual development.

- Consider, please, an assertion of mine which amuses me to no subversive end. It has occurred to me, after listening to many a man boast of his sexual adventures and escapades, that the infamous double-ender menage-a-trois is, in fact, a homosexual encounter. Typically speaking, the woman is incidental to the men. The primary sexual bond is between the two men who share the experience of having simultaneous pleasures from a common source.

Now ... please notice that of those three examples, the truly common aspect between them takes place in the brain.

It seems to me that people who base judgments of other people's worthiness based on the gender of a person's sexual partner are, in fact, "optimizing sex" according to your framework. I would just point out that they're devoting an awful lot of brain energy to sex. And, you know ... if you're going to devote that much attention to sex--and I say this without sarcasm--you ought to be having sex while you're about it. Well ... not necessarily "you, Flores" per se, but as a general assertion I'm very surprised at the amount of energy many (a surprising number of) people devote to sexual behaviors they allegedly don't like or disapprove of. To fight against it requires a certain proximity of thought. To leave it be requires no proximity of thought whatsoever. Out of mind ... well, out of mind.

I must admit that it is a rare day that I hear someone asserting that regarding the larger issue to begin with screws things up in ways people cannot perceive. Almost anything anybody does screws things up at that level. But when the point comes from a quarter known for attempting to reduce reality to something manageable and fixed around a central sacred principle. Yeah ... just about anything humanity does brings its problems as well as its benefits. But that's no reason to wallow in the problems of the here and now. If humanity wasn't determined to evolve, humanity would not fight. While this is a severe metaphysical difficulty for pacifists, it is not in humanity's nature to simply surrender to the problems of the moment. If we didn't screw things up while trying to fix them, we would not be diverse of God; we would be in complete harmony. But unless we're prepared to exscind from life everybody who we as humans think doesn't measure up to God's standards, there's not much we can do about the things people disagree on except try to get along.

(And, just to be fair, if atheists were to undertake a "logical" purge of society, they would eventually have to reconcile logic and propriety. And that cannot objectively be done beyond an immediate situational context, which is wholly subjective in its foundations and thus no proper test of that reconciliation.)

You know, I'm going to defer to Guthrie on this one, largely because I've burned up a lot of words so far and really should be wrapping it up.

I suppose, though, to be fair, that I should cuss you out some for what I perceive to be your incorrect presumptions, but I just don't have the energy. It's been a necessary slowburn on the home front; my mother actually called today and listened to me go blue all over the latest domestic round. So in a post-orgasmic sort of way, I'm just not up for the heavy blue streak right now. And besides, after wrecking a number of people's day with my private little war in Free Thoughts and that pompous "speech" in which I ripped most of my fellow posters, I figure that perhaps I ought to lay off for a while and be nicer. Wouldn't it be tragic to actually achieve an effect with my rhetorical fireworks and then actually nullify it by my own inability to stop? I can't make a Woody Allen joke here, and Neil Simon just isn't enough of a surrogate, so ....

I mean, take a look at this post ... it is governed by ... four other topics I'm involved in right now. I think four. Maybe five. And you can tell. These last two paragraphs are merely allusions to your comment about how seldom I get angry. Strangely, I'm seeking to spend less time with anger. Even stranger, as of last night it turns out I'm winning, but I'm not so neurotic at this point as to need to tell you that whole story in detail.

Er ...

Okay, okay, okay. I'll toddle off to twaddle my brain now. Couldn't even think of a title to twaddle the toddle of mottled mumbo-jumbo.

:m:,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PS on Edit: You know ... if I ever combine the ideas of "post-orgasmic" and my mother in such a direct manner again ... shoot me. I mean ... frak!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, i would say something, but it seems that everyone else has beaten me to it. So congratulations everyone whose arguing against the topic of this thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What seems a little weird to me is that when people see a hetero couple, we think of them as just that -- a couple (as in when you meet a couple you don't necissarily think about them specifically as sexual partners). Meanwhile, when the same people see a homosexual couple, they think about them specifically as sexual partners. Could that be part of the opposition to gay marriage -- that homosexual couples are more actively percieved as sexual relationships?

 

Bells and Tiassa

Bells,
Your words have the same effectivness to me as a mosque with loud speaker to call for prayer in Greece. Be happy I called you a mosque and I likened myself to Greece.

Tiassa,
Nice discussion and I'm sorry about your latest fire fighting life. It seems that you are spending too much time putting out fires than building new ideas, and I understand your frustration and won't take everything you say as a refection of how you really think.

It boils down to this:
The gay movement is an outright disrespectfull manipulation of the civil right movement. Civil rights deals with two issues. Implementation of rights and enforcement of these rights.

The first are a set of rights based on granting equality to things that are attributed to the human race that humans have no control over like race, sex, age, ect.. The equality rights covers all aspects of life from rights to earn and learn to possess and excel for males, females, blacks, yellows, arabs, ect equally. The equality right is sufficient by itself to ensure justice, but how could these rights be implemented and enforced. The second set of rights ensure implementation and enforcement of the rights to equality and are based on granting the valuable freedom of speech which is the tool given to people to protest againest discrimination.

Opposing gay sex doesn't affect equalities and no descrimination based on race, sex, age, or the right to freedom of speech to highlight and correct a case of descrimination. It's more the like the right to freedom of act, and acts are adminstered by laws that governs us all equally. The laws of marriage and sex are preset to the marriage of man and woman. These laws are fair and ensure that no separation between the sexes happen in a society and that prosperity of off spring and production is ensured. To allow gay sex is not to hand a freedom of speech or even apply an equality, it's granting a freedom of act which is equivalent to the freedom to kill, freedom to steal, freedom to have sex and marry a mother, a daughter or son of appropriate age, freedom to marry multiple wifes or husbands, ect. These things while could be mutually acceptable to couples are disruptive to societies and not applicable to the preset laws.

Gay rights are a leech to the civil right movement that is doing one and only one thing which is weaken and extract valuable blood out of such a noble cause.

 

Bells doesn't get it a bit.

My dear bells,

Your whole speech is based on two faulty basis which are:

1- A homosexual is born a homosexual and can't help it but hump a man or he might die of side effects. This was never proven. Science can never proof what exactly makes a homosexual one and also, what happens if the homosexual acts out in a hetro way, would their pippy fall off for instance?

2- Equality are granted for things that humans were given and have no part in changing it like color, sex, ect.....Gayness is an act, it's not a god given property.

3- You need to find another equality right that is currently in implementation that is similar to gay right that we can base our discussion on. You are throwing darts and acting emotional without any basis

 

science can not prove the theory of your Christian God either, does that make God elusive or non-existant to you? of course not, don't be so foolish, just because science didn't prove something doesn't mean shit... science is a human endeavor and therefore is subject to all human fallibility... also, just to rub in your "science hasn't yet proven" attitude, science stated the earth was flat and those who opposed this ludicrous theory were tortured and killed... wakey wakey flakey flakey...

first of all gayness is not a property... for the love of all that is sacred you should really edify yourself before you defend archaic ideologies you can not possibly support with your personal knowledge base... secondly... nothing is god given darlin... everything is a freakin free for all.. it's a little thing called human existence on planet earth... you are born and will die... everything is about survival... remove religion from your upbringing and what are you left with? TOLERANCE OF ALL PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF RACE, CLASS OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION... CONTINUING TO EXIST IS THE KEY TO LIFE... bottom line is we must learn to co-exist or die at eachothers hands...

what do YOU propose we do with the gay community Flores? build a little island and ship them all over there? give me a break, do not come into cyberspace with such a little mind, it's a big world out there and retarded individuals such as yourself are easy prey... obviously you embrace pretty much any philosophy that you have been programmed to receive... quite easily at that...

i feel sorry for you actually, you are society's biggest triumph, you integrate and adapt well yet you are the human races most significant disappointment... you are the enemy of all that is just and honourable... your ability to "live and let live" is the instrument by which you should be measuring your integrity... revering your humanity instead of disassociating from it, would probably relieve most of your engineered societal homophobic, discriminatory and illusory beliefs...

these "gays" are HUMAN BEINGS... they have EVERY right to be/do/live exactly how they choose so long as they do NOT infringe on anyone elses right to do precisely the same thing... if they are not in your immediate circle of friends/family etc... what the hell do you care if they are building a life of their own with their own families? they are integrating into your society anyways... what more do you want? for them to die just so you can sleep a little easier at night? you were probably one of those kids on the block that had all the best toys and dangled them in front of the poorer kids face in order to ensure they felt like complete and total shit...

what is the basis of life here Flores? TO LIVE IT TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY... it doesn't mean we will always be right nor will we always agree... that is the beauty of a rational mind, it can rationalize the fact that being different from one another is inevitable and essential in order for us to evolve emotionally as a species... you don't have to LOVE everyone but you must ACCEPT them... those who are diverse always work harder at being accepting...

ACCEPT the fact that you can NOT control other people, every single one of us has earned the right to live free on this planet, why? because... we are here... it is just that simple...

your principles and credos are manufactured by the society that produced you... you are a poor example of the human animal and its capacity to mentally evolve and emotionally develop... i truly believe what words you live by will define what reality you face... you are totally powerless to control your negative impact on your own life and the life of those around you...

some of the worst human beings i know are the most respected individuals within their religious circle or fabricated communities... you Flores and those like you, are prime examples of why religion and its misinterpretation stifle positive human relations... you are contributing to the fruitless premise that hatred of those different from "us" promotes a more productive society... perpetuating this horsehit is founded in homophobia, intolerance and extremely unintelligent antiquated theories...

D

 

(Insert Title Here)

Flores

Nice editorial headline. Where's the rest of the article?

A reasonable working assertion.

Yes, these aspects of what people are have long demanded acknowledgment, and the idea of human rights deals with these.

Civil rights are included under human rights, and the banners mix almost incestuously. But included under civil rights are certain things that people choose.

Religion, for instance, is one of these.

You'll note that the Founding Fathers of the United States, for instance, saw religion as artificial enough that they had to institute a specific right of people to choose according to their consciences (e.g First Amendment).

I am not going to let anybody's choice take precedent over what someone else is.

In that hideous post in which you point out gay bars, gay churches, gay schools, &c., you transgress a certain line of decency when you fail to consider that it is bigots only marginally less rational than yourself who brought about the violence and hatred which excluded gays from the mainstream markets and created the niche of gay-specific markets. Hell, this it the United States of America, Flores. If there was a market for Christians who liked to drink and smoke and dance in this country, it would have been filled long ago. Same with Muslims. As to the public institutions, one of the debates there is whether to force bigot children to be respectful and make gay students attend a public school where their respect is only a lie, or whether all people have a right to basic respect in the environs of their public instruments (e.g. schools). Myself, I abhor separate-but-equal as a public institution. I'm much more in favor of prosecuting the bigot children as adults on federal civil rights charges and sending them to prison for seven to ten and levying fines against their parents of a quarter-million dollars. When you set the example that the dividers will be the ones divided from society, things will take a much more rational tack in society.

There is a certain amount of moral determination which you have chosen to surrender to another authority. Whether you find the connection between your faith and your conscience overt or invisible is up to you. But please do not expect what you choose to take precedent over what other people are.

As I pointed out: it's much more than that, Flores. It is the protection of certain fundamental things that you choose.

And I'm sorry to inform you that your choices do not get precedent over the things that other people simply are.

(I had an interesting moment with Okinrus a few days back when he deigned to lecture me on my use of the word "prefer"; I was surprised to find a Christian both acknowledging the biology and formative psychology of homosexuality--factors which are beyond the individual's control--who also maintained their viciously discriminatory stance against homosexuality and homosexuals. Admittedly, it's almost irrelevant to our conversation, but its much less confusing now that I'm back on the familiar ground where if I just give up and accept that gays don't deserver rights because they're gays then we could end this discussion in blessed harmony and all of my doubts regarding your bigotry would evaporate.)

You know, Flores, given that homosexuality occurs elsewhere in nautre, you might want to stop equating homosexuality to a mere choice and start exploring the idea that people are what they are.

- Bidstrup, Scott. The Natural Crime Against Nature: A Brief Survey of Homosexual Behaviors in Animals
- Salon: The fabulous kingdom of gay animals.
- Anonymous (?!): Animals prefer Homosexuality to Evolutionism

Right. And the rules of basketball say you only get a step and a half before traveling.

Not two steps. A step and a half.

Um ...

What?

My morning needed another good laugh. I thank you. Even if it is a rather grim depiction of your psyche, the morbid can be hilarious.

Now then ... I'm going to the back room to smoke some more dope. And then I'm going to take another swing at trying to understand what it is you're trying to say.

(cough-cough)

Alright ... now ... where the hell was I?

Oh.

Frak.

Okay, so here's the deal. That might actually play in Peoria, or, maybe, the student union at Bob Jones University in ... South Carolina, is it? But I dare you to try that material at a club in Sausalito.

The only other answer I can come up with right now is, You're kidding me, right?

Yeah, well remember that women had to be included after the fact by the preset laws.

And it's true. Women's lib has led to a lot of headstrong, independent, and even sometimes destructive women. Some people find that disruptive to society.

And yet, the only noble justification for the failure of our Congress to pass the Equal Rights Amendment is the argument that it should never be necessary. _It only took a nation two-hundred years to realize they needed to at least pretend to have figured that out.

Well, actually, they're human and civil rights. They're only "gay rights" in the context that a specific portion of the debate is about the inequality people choose to enforce against another based on the gender of someone other than that other person.

Think about it ... In the US, you can't discriminate against Bob because he's black. You can't discriminate against Jane because she's a woman. You cannot even discriminate against a person because of choices they make, such as their religion. But looky-here ... society has found another reason to discriminate.

Do you realize that you are discriminating against Bob because you are unhappy with Pete? That you are discriminating against Jane because you are unhappy with Sophia?

And at that point, I'm declaring it official: Y'all are trying way too hard to find someone to discriminate against.

Seriously ... by the time you need another person as the basis of discrimination against somebody, you're just way too determined to find someone to wish ill.

Interestingly, as I review the topic and watch your points of argument scale back to the broad and sinister, I find your first response to my entry to this topic more and more ironic:

I'd also like to present you with a practical question. You also wrote, in that earlier post, In moral issues, I prefer the guilty until proven innocent approach, it's just much safer and more effective. This afternoon, Emma Grace and I are going over to see an old friend of mine who, by circumstances beyond her control, has yet to meet my daughter. It strikes me as I consider your words that hers is about the only family I can let my daughter be around. Certainly if I convict, say, redemptive monotheists until proven innocent, I won't let her play with the children of Jews, Muslims, or Christians. I love my own brother to death but if I convict until proven innocent, I shouldn't let his foully selfish rhetoric within miles of her. My parents are both insane, in their own ways. My mother's work ethic, though, is dangerously stressful. I'll have to ask her to not work so hard in my daughter's presence. (Seriously, though, it really is insane. It is where she buries whatever plagues her psyche. We've tried to make her sit still and relax for thirty minutes before; she's almost psychotic in her resistance.) My Dad, after all these years has actually proven himself innocent by proxy of renouncing in practice and then, later in word, the crimes from which I would have to shield my daughter.

What was it, Flores, that you said to Guthrie?

I'm not sure what else to say, so I'll let a tradition serve as chorus before the tumbling curtain:

:m:,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Exotic cums all over his screen and keyboard..Fortunately it doesn't touch Flores

I read Ecotic-D post quickly and I decided to count how many time was Exotic making factual points and how many time did he reside to personal attacks on my very person.

I'm not christian, I don't believe in a christian god. I believe in a maker for all humans that is not a gery haired Zues of a blue eyed Jesus or anything remotely close to a human form.
Count 1 - You made an ASS our of yourself, ASSuming things about me.

very nice dear, then don't try to use the argument in the future that there is a gay gene and that homosexuality exist in animals....or does science all of sudden comes handy when you get a prevented erection.
Count 2 - Inconsistent assumptions about my discussion of science....Again ASS of U and not ME....ASSUME...learn the meanings of the words before you use them.

Science is a study of a phenomena. Studies could be correct or wrong.....And those who opposed church or science assertion in the past where not orgasming at the thought of their new ideas and visions. These were respectable scientists who benefited humanity...Gays don't benefit humanity, they're selfish all about satisfying their animalistic urges.

Again you demonstrate more idiocity and assume. All of a sudden, you became intimite with my personal knowledge base, my archaic ideologies, what's next, do you know the color of my pubic hair??? Where do you get off judging others and making personal attacks? I criticized a subject and made comments on a moral issue of gay marriages, but you stepped ten stairs down and started attacking me personally.

I see, so you were not given a nose and mouth and two eyes and a pinus and a stupid head to think with? You might as well be a rat for your free for all planet earth theory....On the other hand I choose to stick to my understanding that humans and the universe is an organized creation with universal rules. I like your everything about survival.. Because Bin Laden survival dictates that he shoot you and your family, steal your land, fuck your children, enslave you for his pleasure...Do I need to go on to show you that you should be thankfull for a religion and moral code that makes people fear of doing bad and be accountable for their doings? If life is just about survival, then why are we so freakin civilized, let's just be animals and smoke as many marijuanas as we can?

Really, I thought the only thing religion said was, don't kill, don't steal, respect your parents, respect your neighbors, don't have sex with your neighbor's wife, ect....Where do you get off saying that without religion we will be better. First off, without religion, there is no moral code, I can kill you and fuck 100 kids for my beautifull survival and form a nice gang and gang up on all the gays and who is to stop me? I'm the strongest, I'm the fittest? What are you talking about freak?

No, I prefer if they sleep with each other more often so that nature takes it course and give them a plague like AIDS or something worse to take care of them. I don't have to ship the gays anyways, they're the freaks of society that will never make it even after billion years of human generations because they just don't fit....So you are right, my discussion here is not necessary, because whether we discuss or not, the gays will remain status quo from mother nature point of view...they have been for millions of years....

I lost count buddy....Another yet personal attack...You're allowed to count how many times did I personally attack you.

You obviosuly have nothing to say and would rather resolve to the personal attacks again.

Do you prefer me on a cross or burned alive on a stake? Come on man...when have I ever directed to you such personal criminal behavior and ad hominium comments.....Remember, talk to me not at me.

Now I'm really worried that you know about that cute little mole that I have between my breasts. Need I say anymore about you and your baseless personal attacks....I'll say a prayer instead of stepping to your level.

Could you perhaps buy a couple of pounds of that mind beauty and rationale that you are advertising for me to use on yourself first...I like my products tested on humans not cruel animal testing....Let me rephrase your sentence above. Flores, you must accept everything in life that I tell you...I'm your master and whatever I say is your command. If I choose to piss over you in the metro tomorrow, then I expect you to open your mouth wide and say, may I have some more Sir....

Another abuse of the word diversity....What do you personally know about the word diverse? Let's see if you walk the walk like you talk the talk....I'm a female of Egyptian origin. My mom is English and Turkish decent..My dad comes from south Egypt..pretty dark Sudanese....I was born in the US...I married a hispanic salvadorian. I'm a muslim.. I'm a female engineer in a male dominated field......I speak 5 languages not because I'm good, but becuase I have to. I travelled all over the world, still not because I want to, but because I was part of a national gymnastic team....You guys don't get off playing on big words like diversity. Murderers are not diverse....Child ponography is not diversity....Fucking anals and feaces is not diversity......Male marriages are not diversity....My life is diversity. I crossed oceans and bridged gaps in cultures. How many Egyptian Hispanic marriage to you see in the US? Who the hell are you anyways to lecture me about diversity...Mr. Diverse himself perhaps?

Look in the mirror and repeat those words to yourself.......Just say this time around.....I can't control Flores, she have the right to think that gay sex is abnormal and disgusting...She has the right not to engage in it...She has the right not to see it on TV...She has the right not to see it in the streets...She has the right not to be taught it in schools...But she have no right in stopping two perverts from fucking each other.

Was I perhaps produced in Mars while you were in mud alley? What they hell are you talking about man....Stop the generalization and rightous speeches...Were you a church pastor in a previous life...You sure remind me of the baptist pastors.

Just repeat your words again infront of a little kitty and this time point your dirty finger right into the kitty eyeballs..

This time imagine that you are a phsyco doctor hired by the nazis to torture prisoners of war. As you prepare the torture serum and start the injection...You start speaking the words you mentioned above.

Bravo Sir.....Did you cum all over your screen and keyboard on that one or are you going to actually respond to my post here for a second orgasm.....Wipe the screen with real good cleaner and don't forget the keyboard..It's really tricky to clean the keyboard

 

Tiassa,
I typed a whole page to you and I erased it....Why? Because it's over. Like they say the fat lady sung....nothing against fat ladies. My spirit of discussion is broken and I'm done with this subject and anything that remotely resembles it.

As far as you personally tiassa, I'm very sad, truly sad.....Like someone have just broken my glasses that I used to use to view my most beautifull beloved painting....I'll never recover and I don't know why??...the same way I could never tell why I fell in love with your writing in the first place.

My regrets
Flores

 

Oh dear, Flores is getting all scientific on us!

So, how to match statements like this:
"...Gays don't benefit humanity, they're selfish all about satisfying their animalistic urges."

With science?
Got any evidence for example?

"Because Bin Laden survival dictates that he shoot you and your family, steal your land, fuck your children, enslave you for his pleasure..."

So, your survival dictates that homosexuals be eliminated?

"No, I prefer if they sleep with each other more often so that nature takes it course and give them a plague like AIDS or something worse to take care of them. "

You know, we've had STD's for a wee while now and havnt taken the hint.....


"The first are a set of rights based on granting equality to things that are attributed to the human race that humans have no control over like race, sex, age, ect.. The equality rights covers all aspects of life from rights to earn and learn to possess and excel for males, females, blacks, yellows, arabs, ect equally. The equality right is sufficient by itself to ensure justice, but how could these rights be implemented and enforced. The second set of rights ensure implementation and enforcement of the rights to equality and are based on granting the valuable freedom of speech which is the tool given to people to protest againest discrimination.

Opposing gay sex doesn't affect equalities and no descrimination based on race, sex, age, or the right to freedom of speech to highlight and correct a case of descrimination. It's more the like the right to freedom of act, and acts are adminstered by laws that governs us all equally. The laws of marriage and sex are preset to the marriage of man and woman. These laws are fair and ensure that no separation between the sexes happen in a society and that prosperity of off spring and production is ensured. To allow gay sex is not to hand a freedom of speech or even apply an equality, it's granting a freedom of act which is equivalent to the freedom to kill, freedom to steal, freedom to have sex and marry a mother, a daughter or son of appropriate age, freedom to marry multiple wifes or husbands, ect. These things while could be mutually acceptable to couples are disruptive to societies and not applicable to the preset laws. "

But in case you havnt noticed a large proportion of homosexuals have no control over their sexual identity. And there is definite evidence coming out hte lab to back this up. Let alone the personal experiences.
An equality right by itself doesnt mean you end up with justice of any sort. YOu have to have enforcement, as you point out.
I'll side step your legalistic stuff, and look more at wondering why the laws of marriage are preset at man and wife. yes, that produces children in a fairly reasonable environment. But you have yet to prove that homosexual marriage iwll be destructive to society. All you have done is wave a bundle of suppositions and biases and shout the end of the world is nigh, without any particular evidence. Go look over here in Europe, i htink the dutch legalised homosexual marriage a few years ago, or look around, someone has. SO try and find information saying that is has led to a deterioration in the gene pool, or suddenly that theres lots more homosexuals, and then get back to us.

 

No, that's not what your left with. Remove religion and God and you are left with a free for all. Free to steal, lie and murder, just make sure you won't get caught. Nor have I seen tolerance of all peoples in secular society. I see a genetically endorsed extermination. So no, continuing to exist in death is not the point of life.

Now this is the kind of argument we need in the pro-life crowd. I will applaud if you are pro-life.

Yes, everyone, not just homosexuals, have biological, emotional and pschological weaknesses. Someone must fully consents to all of the teachings of the Church and that can be struggle at times. Jesus, himself, said to tear out your eyes and hands if they cause you to sin. So it's completely natural for our flesh to condemn us. But as was given to Paul three times, "my grace is sufficient". So Christians must edifify others, while at the same time teach what is correct. I'm not vicious, am I? We believe that marriage is between a man and woman so naturally we feel the same way in the political sphere.

 

So what exactly is your hypothesis, Flores? Because at the moment it looks very much, and is generally accepted that, and through personal experience quite evident that the experience is completely identical to not having a choice in the matter of sexual orientation.

If there is some specific thing which makes a person a homosexual, then what is it that makes them straight? Surely people can't be born that way, what causes it?

Also you seem to be completely ignoring lesbians with this comment, I find it very amusing to see what strange double treatment and inconsistencies exist in some people's views of male homosexuals and female homosexuals. Would you say that all of your comments apply to them, too? It's hard to tell as you seem, for some strange reason, to be quite occupied only with gay men.

Well no, in fact it's not unusually for a homosexual man or woman to have one or two heterosexual experiences in their life. This is usually due to overwhelming societal pressure to just "not be gay". They bring themselves to give it a go, end up finding that it's a completely unsatisfactory experience for them (as they were certainly able to intuit beforehand) and give up on the completely ridiculous notion that they are somehow going to change their sexual orientation. It simply doesn't work like that.

Think of it like this, Flores, it's a situation not unlike if you were to be driven to sleep with another woman. Quite likely you'd end up feeling very uncomfortable in the situation, maybe get a little bit of pleasure from certain parts being rubbed the right way so to speak, but afterward you'd still have that lingering feeling of how undesirable the circumstances were and you'd still be attracted to men. It's the same situation. If you felt compelled by some social force to continue having sex with women despite your own natural inclination it would likely result in nothing more than undue mental anguish.

"gayness" or Homosexuality as the rest of the civilized world calls it is not simply an act. It is a state of being. It's just the same as heterosexuality. A heterosexual is a heterosexual even while not engaging in a sexual act of any sort, in fact a heterosexual would still be a heterosexual even if forced to engage in sexual conduct with a member of the same sex. To imply otherwise would mean that I would be a homosexual while sucking my boyfriends dick, yet I would not be one while I was perhaps just holding his hand, or thinking of him when we are apart. By your logic, in such cases I would be asexual, which simply isn't the case.

In other words, I have sex with men because of a homosexual, as opposed to being a homosexual because I have sex with men.

The homosexual rights movement is just like any other civil rights movement, there's really no grounds to differentiate it from any other. We are a group of people being oppressed due to arbitrary differences from those who are in power, and we simply seek equal rights. It’s pretty simple and clear cut.

 

But you just can't stand the idea that there are much more practical, fair and just ways of going about things?

Seeing how as we've had the discussion before that you recognize the bible (or Gods will) doesn't need to adhere to reason, what if your book told you to hate blacks, or murder children? Would it then be righteous and good to use the government to slay the children of the this nation and re-enslave the blacks? Is any measure of hatred or depravity justified by the hollow and reasonless words of your God?

 

Mystech,
Good luck with your gay life style. I really wish you the best, and I mean it.:m:

 

It's not exactly a lifestyle, I don't know why people use such a narrow term. It would be quite asking to simply referring to heterosexuality as a lifestyle, and assuming that all heterosexuals live their lives in the same way. . . though there may be the common thread of relationships with members of the opposite sex everything else is up for grabs. This alone does not make for a "Life" there are many more factors involved than who you choose as a partner.

Also, why exactly did you include the little marijuana leaf at the end of that statement? I don't remember you using that in the past, you're not trying to imply anything are you? Being a Muslim I suppose that you take your religion's very strict view against substance abuse, so I doubt that you're a big fan of pot. I'm left believing that you're trying to imply something. . . perhaps about the "homosexual lifestyle"? I can't say I'm surprised, as constructing elaborate fantasies about homosexuals in order to justify your hate for them seems to be your standard way of doing things.

I'm sure you'd be proud to know that I don't so much as drink alcohol(even socially), and have been after my parents for years to try and get them to quit smoking tobacco.

 

i'm personally offended that there are people here on sciforums, a science message board who have no grasp whatsoever of science. science is my life and to have such disregard for it saddens me.

now, there is not much research on sexuality because it is not as popular a topic or life threatening as breast cancer. but it does exist. i don't mean psychology research either, as that field is too subjective and based upon the biases and personal experiences of the researchers. there exists a body of biological research on sexuality. origin of sexuality can be determined scientifically.

i can't copy and paste the links to articles because you have to pay for them but i'll paste a few lines from some abstracts:

"The feminine boys with two or more older brothers weighed 385 g less at birth than did the control boys with two or more older brothers (P = 0.005). In contrast, the feminine and control boys with fewer than two older brothers did not differ in birth weight. This finding suggests that the mechanism by which older brothers increase the odds of homosexuality in later-born males operates prior to the individual's birth. We hypothesize that this mechanism may be immunologic, that antimale antibodies produced by human mothers in response to immunization by male fetuses could decrease the birth weight of subsequent male fetuses as well as increase their odds of homosexuality."

"It has been hypothesized that this fraternal birth order effect reflects the progressive immunization of some mothers to Y-linked minor histocompatibility antigens (H-Y antigens) by each succeeding male fetus and the concomitantly increasing effects of such maternal immunization on the future sexual orientation of each succeeding male fetus. According to this hypothesis, anti-H-Y antibodies produced by the mother pass through the placental barrier to the fetus and affect aspects of sexual differentiation in the fetal brain."

"Sexual orientation may be influenced by prenatal levels of testosterone and oestrogen. There is evidence that the ratio of the length of 2nd and 4th digits (2D:4D) is negatively related to prenatal testosterone and positively to oestrogen. We report that (a) 2D:4D was lower in a sample of 88 homosexual men than in 88 sex- and age-matched controls recruited without regard to sexual orientation, (b) within the homosexual sample, there was a significant positive relationship between mean 2D:4D ratio and exclusive homosexuality, (c) overall, there was a decrease in 2D:4D from controls to homosexual men to bisexual men and (d) fraternal birth order, a positive predictor of male homosexuality, was not associated with 2D:4D in a sample of 240 Caucasian men recruited without regard to sexual orientation and 45 homosexual men."

"we found more than twice as many vasopressin (AVP) neurons in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) of homosexual men as compared to heterosexual men"

and a fish study: "Males were found to court other males that frequently responded to these attempts by adopting a female-like behaviour. "


(there were no studies done specifically on females in the database i subscribe to)

 

Damn Mystech, even when I try to be nice, you criticize...Damn.

I don't know that the leaf is marijuana?, I thought it was an olive branch.....An indication of peace. Tiassa use it all the time, and he seem peacefull. You see, I'm so innocent, I don't even know what BTW or LOL or all that crap you guys use mean, but I take them and I don't questions them.

I don't drink alcohol either and I have to say that my idea regarding gays have changed in the past week drastically. I didn't used to hate gays per say, but I was programmed all my life to think that their choice is abnormal and wrong, it went againest the core of all religions and I can't just deny the religious aspect and accept your views that eaily. Also, the stereotypes regarding gays is very negative and is all about sex crazed maniacs who would go to all expense to orgasm. I said before that I was wrong in my harsh judgement and my outright disrespectfull attitude, that said, I'm not saying that you are right and I'm wrong, just that my behavior toward you was wrong, and I have no clue how god will judge your behavior.