View Thread : Homosexual Penguins


A Black Falcon
Makes arguements that it's anything other than natural sound even more absurd than they already do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/arts/07GAY.html

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/02/07/arts/gay.1842.jpg

Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name
By DINITIA SMITH

Published: February 7, 2022

oy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called "ecstatic behavior": that is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex. Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins. When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't interested in them, either.

Advertisement

At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly. Roy and Silo sat on it for the typical 34 days until a chick, Tango, was born. For the next two and a half months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own. Mr. Gramzay is full of praise for them.

"They did a great job," he said. He was standing inside the glassed-in penguin exhibit, where Roy and Silo had just finished lunch. Penguins usually like a swim after they eat, and Silo was in the water. Roy had finished his dip and was up on the beach.

Roy and Silo are hardly unusual. Milou and Squawk, two young males, are also beginning to exhibit courtship behavior, hanging out with each other, billing and bowing. Before them, the Central Park Zoo had Georgey and Mickey, two female Gentoo penguins who tried to incubate eggs together. And Wendell and Cass, a devoted male African penguin pair, live at the New York Aquarium in Coney Island. Indeed, scientists have found homosexual behavior throughout the animal world.

This growing body of science has been increasingly drawn into charged debates about homosexuality in American society, on subjects from gay marriage to sodomy laws, despite reluctance from experts in the field to extrapolate from animals to humans. Gay groups argue that if homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the rights of homosexuals should be protected. On the other hand, some conservative religious groups have condemned the same practices in the past, calling them "animalistic."

But if homosexuality occurs among animals, does that necessarily mean that it is natural for humans, too? And that raises a familiar question: if homosexuality is not a choice, but a result of natural forces that cannot be controlled, can it be immoral?

The open discussion of homosexual behavior in animals is relatively new. "There has been a certain cultural shyness about admitting it," said Frans de Waal, whose 1997 book, "Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape" (University of California Press), unleashed a torrent of discussion about animal sexuality. Bonobos, apes closely related to humans, are wildly energetic sexually. Studies show that whether observed in the wild or in captivity, nearly all are bisexual, and nearly half their sexual interactions are with the same sex. Female bonobos have been observed to engage in homosexual activity almost hourly.

Before his own book, "American scientists who investigated bonobos never discussed sex at all," said Mr. de Waal, director of the Living Links Center of the Yerkes Primate Center at Emory University in Atlanta. "Or they sometimes would show two females having sex together, and would say, `The females are very affectionate.' "

Then in 1999, Bruce Bagemihl published "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" (St. Martin's Press), one of the first books of its kind to provide an overview of scholarly studies of same-sex behavior in animals. Mr. Bagemihl said homosexual behavior had been documented in some 450 species. (Homosexuality, he says, refers to any of these behaviors between members of the same sex: long-term bonding, sexual contact, courtship displays or the rearing of young.) Last summer the book was cited by the American Psychiatric Association and other groups in a "friend of the court" brief submitted to the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, a case challenging a Texas anti-sodomy law. The court struck down the law.


(Page 2 of 2)

"Sexual Exuberance" was also cited in 2000 by gay rights groups opposed to Ballot Measure 9, a proposed Oregon statute prohibiting teaching about homosexuality or bisexuality in public schools. The measure lost.

In his book Mr. Bagemihl describes homosexual activity in a broad spectrum of animals. He asserts that while same-sex behavior is sometimes found in captivity, it is actually seen more frequently in studies of animals in the wild.

Advertisement

Among birds, for instance, studies show that 10 to 15 percent of female western gulls in some populations in the wild are homosexual. Females perform courtship rituals, like tossing their heads at each other or offering small gifts of food to each other, and they establish nests together. Occasionally they mate with males and produce fertile eggs but then return to their original same-sex partners. Their bonds, too, may persist for years.

Among mammals, male and female bottlenose dolphins frequently engage in homosexual activity, both in captivity and in the wild. Homosexuality is particularly common among young male dolphin calves. One male may protect another that is resting or healing from wounds inflicted by a predator. When one partner dies, the other may search for a new male mate. Researchers have noted that in some cases same-sex behavior is more common for dolphins in captivity.

Male and female rhesus macaques, a type of monkey, also exhibit homosexuality in captivity and in the wild. Males are affectionate to each other, touching, holding and embracing. Females smack their lips at each other and play games like hide-and-seek, peek-a-boo and follow the leader. And both sexes mount members of their own sex.

Paul L. Vasey, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Lethbridge in Canada, who studies homosexual behavior in Japanese macaques, is editing a new book on homosexual behavior in animals, to be published by Cambridge University Press. This kind of behavior among animals has been observed by scientists as far back as the 1700's, but Mr. Vasey said one reason there had been few books on the topic was that "people don't want to do the research because they don't want to have suspicions raised about their sexuality."

Some scientists say homosexual behavior in animals is not necessarily about sex. Marlene Zuk, a professor of biology at the University of California at Riverside and author of "Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn About Sex From Animals" (University of California Press, 2002), notes that scientists have speculated that homosexuality may have an evolutionary purpose, ensuring the survival of the species. By not producing their own offspring, homosexuals may help support or nurture their relatives' young. "That is a contribution to the gene pool," she said.

For Janet Mann, a professor of biology and psychology at Georgetown University, who has studied same-sex behavior in dolphin calves, their homosexuality "is about bond formation," she said, "not about being sexual for life."

She said that studies showed that adult male dolphins formed long-term alliances, sometimes in large groups. As adults, they cooperate to entice a single female and keep other males from her. Sometimes they share the female, or they may cooperate to help one male. "Male-male cooperation is extremely important," Ms. Mann said. The homosexual behavior of the young calves "could be practicing" for that later, crucial adult period, she added.

But, scientists say, just because homosexuality is observed in animals doesn't mean that it is only genetically based. "Homosexuality is extraordinarily complex and variable," Mr. Bagemihl said. "We look at animals as pure biology and pure genetics, and they are not." He noted that "the occurrence of same-sex behavior in animals provides support for the nurture side as well." He cited as an example the ruff, a type of Arctic sandpiper. There are four different classes of male ruffs, each differing from the others genetically. The two that differ most from each other are most similar in their homosexual behaviors.

Ms. Zuk said, "You have inclinations that are more or less supported by our genes and in some environmental circumstances get expressed." She used the analogy of right- or left-handedness, thought to be genetically based. "But you can teach naturally left-handed children to use their right hand," she pointed out.

Still, scientists warn about drawing conclusions about humans. "For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural," Mr. Vasey said. "They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable."

But he added: "Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes."

Mr. Bagemihl is also wary of extrapolating. "In Nazi Germany, one very common interpretation of homosexuality was that it was animalistic behavior, subhuman," he said.

What the animal studies do show, Ms. Zuk observed, is that "sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think."

"You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic," she said, "that they have sex just to procreate."

In bonobos, she noted, "you see expressions of sex outside the period when females are fertile. Suddenly you are beginning to see that sex is not necessarily about reproduction."

"Sexual expression means more than making babies," Ms. Zuk said. "Why are we surprised? People are animals."

Yes, I understand that it's a sensitive religious issue and that we can't just force everyone to accept things they will not, but evidence like this just increases our need to at least have rights equality and protection, with things like adding homosexuals to the list of groups you cannot persecute or punish for people being in (like not being able to fire or evict someone because of skin color), and at a bare minimum something like civil unions that give equality in benifits. Oh, and make adoption easy.

Ryan
But, scientists say, just because homosexuality is observed in animals doesn't mean that it is only genetically based. "Homosexuality is extraordinarily complex and variable," Mr. Bagemihl said. "We look at animals as pure biology and pure genetics, and they are not." He noted that "the occurrence of same-sex behavior in animals provides support for the nurture side as well." He cited as an example the ruff, a type of Arctic sandpiper. There are four different classes of male ruffs, each differing from the others genetically. The two that differ most from each other are most similar in their homosexual behaviors.

Ms. Zuk said, "You have inclinations that are more or less supported by our genes and in some environmental circumstances get expressed." She used the analogy of right- or left-handedness, thought to be genetically based. "But you can teach naturally left-handed children to use their right hand," she pointed out.

Still, scientists warn about drawing conclusions about humans. "For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural," Mr. Vasey said. "They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable."


Yeah.

You know what this will end up turning into, of course. There's little ground we haven't already covered.

alien space marine
The reason the Bonobos are bisexual is because they are sexualy peverted and so sexed up that they dont care about natural breeding and sex is just a activity.Animals put no value on sex like humans and they run entirely on impulse. The penguins have gender identity issues.

But, scientists say, just because homosexuality is observed in animals doesn't mean that it is only genetically based. "Homosexuality is extraordinarily complex and variable

If their not so certain themselves why should this be conciderd the burning proof?

geoboy
I hope this bit of news doesn't damage Linux's image. :hump:

Ryan
If their not so certain themselves why should this be conciderd the burning proof?
Seriously. I think he just read the first paragraph and drew his conclusions. He obviously didn't read it all. If anything, this article serves more to depress the genetic angle, as much of this seems to me to promote the environment and learned-behavior angle.

The only other thing I could think he might be doing is implying I believe homosexuality is some unnatural, man-made behavior, which I never said nor implied. I say it's deviant and abnormal, which it is.

A Black Falcon
I didn't say we know all the facts, we don't... obviously more recearch has to be done, especially on humans. But animals just are not intelligent in the same way as humans...

Some influence from nurture? I never said that that was impossible... it probably does have an impact. And as I've said there are different levels of homosexuality -- it's not an on/off switch, its a continuum...

You just cannot explain it all away with nurture. It's just impossible. Sure in some cases animals have social-based and not biological-based homosexuality, but the same is true in humans -- look at ancient Greece. The existence of some nurture-based homosexuality just proves that nature-based homosexuality exists on a different level of the continuum -- one farther on the line, the ones from who it truly is genetic...

Transsexuals are along a similar line, I think.

The only other thing I could think he might be doing is implying I believe homosexuality is some unnatural, man-made behavior, which I never said nor implied. I say it's deviant and abnormal, which it is.

This kind of does prove that wrong, I would say... Sure natural isn't always right, but there's a little bit of a difference between killing someone and sexuality...

Ryan
I didn't say we know all the facts, we don't... obviously more recearch has to be done, especially on humans. But animals just are not intelligent in the same way as humans...
Some influence from nurture? I never said that that was impossible... it probably does have an impact. And as I've said there are different levels of homosexuality -- it's not an on/off switch, its a continuum...

You just cannot explain it all away with nurture. It's just impossible. Sure in some cases animals have social-based and not biological-based homosexuality, but the same is true in humans -- look at ancient Greece. The existence of some nurture-based homosexuality just proves that nature-based homosexuality exists on a different level of the continuum -- one farther on the line, the ones from who it truly is genetic...

Transsexuals are along a similar line, I think. I don't get how you divine proof of a genetic cause from this article. It actually specifically questions that more than once in your article. Much of it can be explained by environment, and so little can be explained genetically. As I and others explained several times before, homosexuality is such a practice that genetics tend NOT to be passed down, therefore there's little chance something as widespread as homosexuality could possibly be genetic. If it were genetic, there would be a significantly smaller number of gay people, by the very virtue of how few father offspring. Then there's the fact that sexuality is a behavior, and no particular behavior is ever genetic. Not one. We are born sexually androgynous. Some animals have traits that are used for sexuality, such as pheromones, but humans do not have these.

There's also such little scientific evidence to support it. Has there ever even been a generational study on a genetic possibility, preferably more than two generations? You mention, often, how ancient Greco-Romans were overtly homosexual. Why, then, are their descendents NOT? If it were a genetic trait, this would be an obvious result, as as modern-day Greco-Romans still exhibit many physical traits that their ancient forebears did.

And even if it were a genetic thing, and I'm hardly conceding that it could be, that does not mean one is unchangably tied to it. Take obesity for example. Obesity is a proven genetic trait, yet all it means is that a person is more likely to become fat. There are people who can sit around and eat potato chips all day and be razor-thin, there are others who gain that weight more easily. Yet, even someone with the short end of the genetic stick can avoid obesity by maintaining an active lifestyle with exercise and nutrition. Genetic defects can be overcome. Therefore, I can never accept the notion that even if one day it is determined beyond doubt that homosexuality is a genetic defect, that it forces anyone to adopt the entire homosexual lifestyle.

This kind of does prove that wrong, I would say... Sure natural isn't always right, but there's a little bit of a difference between killing someone and sexuality... There is a difference in degrees, and in specific outcome, but not in the base sense of behavior: Neither is normal human behavior.

Again, we're not covering any new ground. You're going to ignore the basic rules of biology and genetics that I reference, and respond by saying that I hate gays and that I'm an all-around bigot, and that I'm wrong just because you can't understand how it all works. I'd prefer we skip all that.

A Black Falcon
Again, we're not covering any new ground. You're going to ignore the basic rules of biology and genetics that I reference, and respond by saying that I hate gays and that I'm an all-around bigot, and that I'm wrong just because you can't understand how it all works. I'd prefer we skip all that.

Irregardless of what you think of them personally, your positions mean that you do and you are.

I don't get how you divine proof of a genetic cause from this article. It actually specifically questions that more than once in your article. Much of it can be explained by environment, and so little can be explained genetically. As I and others explained several times before, homosexuality is such a practice that genetics tend NOT to be passed down, therefore there's little chance something as widespread as homosexuality could possibly be genetic. If it were genetic, there would be a significantly smaller number of gay people, by the very virtue of how few father offspring. Then there's the fact that sexuality is a behavior, and no particular behavior is ever genetic. Not one. We are born sexually androgynous. Some animals have traits that are used for sexuality, such as pheromones, but humans do not have these.

So sad... but is there any point in repeating what I have said ten times before?

There's also such little scientific evidence to support it. Has there ever even been a generational study on a genetic possibility, preferably more than two generations? You mention, often, how ancient Greco-Romans were overtly homosexual. Why, then, are their descendents NOT? If it were a genetic trait, this would be an obvious result, as as modern-day Greco-Romans still exhibit many physical traits that their ancient forebears did.

For one thing you miss the point of my example. Greco-Roman tradition had a thing with older men and young boys. Then later the boys would marry... so clearly they were not homosexual (in the vast majority I mean). This is an example of just cultural homosexuality... you would get used to it and (given how the brain can do all kinds of funny things) get used to it, but was it genetically what they were predisposed to? No. That is a different kind of homosexuality -- homosexual acts, but not actual homosexuality. That requires genetics.

When their decendants stopped teaching people the practice it naturally died out, like all ideas do when people stop doing them.

It just proves that homosexuality is hardly some new or unnatural thing. It is very natural and throughout history people have had it. As for passing it on, that is a good question. Clearly in the past most people who were homosexuals had to live as heterosexuals so the question is mostly answered like that. And also, it clearly is not a trait that requires a homosexual parent -- many, many people who are homosexual do not have homosexual parents. So I don't know what it is, but it's not something that requires your parents to have it for you to have it as well... so your "point" about it dying out is wrong. You don't have to be homosexual to have homosexual children and the entire animal kingdom proves that absolutely.

And even if it were a genetic thing, and I'm hardly conceding that it could be, that does not mean one is unchangably tied to it. Take obesity for example. Obesity is a proven genetic trait, yet all it means is that a person is more likely to become fat. There are people who can sit around and eat potato chips all day and be razor-thin, there are others who gain that weight more easily. Yet, even someone with the short end of the genetic stick can avoid obesity by maintaining an active lifestyle with exercise and nutrition. Genetic defects can be overcome. Therefore, I can never accept the notion that even if one day it is determined beyond doubt that homosexuality is a genetic defect, that it forces anyone to adopt the entire homosexual lifestyle.

Yes, you could live unhappily in a heterosexual relationship, but make no mistake -- you would not be happy. You just don't understand this concept... they do not choose anything. They just know who they are attracted to, and it isn't the same gender. Same deal for transsexuals... strange group that is true, but they aren't happy as the gender they were born in... some biological thing is not the same as most people, in each of these cases. What? I don't know. But there is something. We'll have to wait for more genetic evidence before we can begin to really nail it down though...

Ryan
Irregardless of what you think of them personally, your positions mean that you do and you are.
Wrong. Not believing they are at the mercy of forces beyond their control is not hating gays. Nor does your believing that they are and they deserve special rights and priveleges mean you love or like them.

My problem is not with gay people, but with gay people forcing me to accept what they do as acceptable and right. If you haven't realized yet, I believe acceptance should happen in natural course, and not be forced upon people who disagree with it, no matter what the subject is. I do not like the idea of being forced to accept gays anymore than I would like the idea of having a religious belief forced upon me, even if it were one I believed already.

So sad... but is there any point in repeating what I have said ten times before?
Don't. You obviously do not have even a basic grasp on genetics and biology, so doing so would waste my time and tarnish your dignity. Don't bother.

For one thing you miss the point of my example. Greco-Roman tradition had a thing with older men and young boys. Then later the boys would marry... so clearly they were not homosexual (in the vast majority I mean). This is an example of just cultural homosexuality... you would get used to it and (given how the brain can do all kinds of funny things) get used to it, but was it genetically what they were predisposed to? No. That is a different kind of homosexuality -- homosexual acts, but not actual homosexuality. That requires genetics.

When their decendants stopped teaching people the practice it naturally died out, like all ideas do when people stop doing them.

It just proves that homosexuality is hardly some new or unnatural thing. It is very natural and throughout history people have had it. As for passing it on, that is a good question. Clearly in the past most people who were homosexuals had to live as heterosexuals so the question is mostly answered like that. And also, it clearly is not a trait that requires a homosexual parent -- many, many people who are homosexual do not have homosexual parents. So I don't know what it is, but it's not something that requires your parents to have it for you to have it as well... so your "point" about it dying out is wrong. You don't have to be homosexual to have homosexual children and the entire animal kingdom proves that absolutely.
You so deftly demonstrate your complete ignorance of genetics with this statement:

So I don't know what it is, but it's not something that requires your parents to have it for you to have it as well... so your "point" about it dying out is wrong. You don't have to be homosexual to have homosexual children and the entire animal kingdom proves that absolutely.
If you did know anything about genetics, you would know that almost all of your genetic makeup is determined by your ancestry. Therefore, it doesn't have to merely be a parent, but some ancestor MUST have this trait, unless it's a mutation, and there's no possible way homosexuality is a genetic mutation, as mutations are responses. They don't happen without a reason. And such mutations would be very rare, and impossible among such a wide number of people. Homosexuality is fairly widespread, and there's no way something so widespread could be genetic unless it were an inherited trait, which obviously homosexuality is not. And yet again, genetics has absolutely no explanation for bisexuality.

You don't have to be homosexual to have homosexual children because homosexuality is not a genetic trait. It is environmental. There are no conclusive (few anywhere even claiming such) scientific studies linking homosexuality to genetics.Again, the damn article you posted said as much. So I don't get what you're trying to prove here.

Your argument is so flawed. It's probably the worst of any you've ever submitted in anything we debate. It lacks any scientific proof. Again, as I predicted, you think you're right because you don't understand even the basics of genetics. The mapping of the human genome is more than 90% complete, and no so-called 'gay gene' has been found yet. The clock is ticking, and before long I'll be vindicated.

Sadly enough, when that day comes, people like you will still refuse to accept it.

Yes, you could live unhappily in a heterosexual relationship, but make no mistake -- you would not be happy. You just don't understand this concept... they do not choose anything. They just know who they are attracted to, and it isn't the same gender. Same deal for transsexuals... strange group that is true, but they aren't happy as the gender they were born in... some biological thing is not the same as most people, in each of these cases. What? I don't know. But there is something. We'll have to wait for more genetic evidence before we can begin to really nail it down though...
How can you say you can't be happy? Do you have personal experience? Or do you listen to the gay people who say this? Are there any gay people who are in heterosexual relationships who remain in them and claim to be happy? No, no one ever says this, because few 'gay' people in a heterosexual relationship would consider themselves truly gay if their heterosexual relationship were healthy and happy. So who knows how many who think they are gay don't live the lifestyle? How would you know this? You're making a stupid assumption.

Again, if you won't take the time to at least learn how genetic traits are passed and recieved, don't bother anymore. And don't demonize me because I believe they have a say in their lifestyle. I know I do. People do a lot of things that don't make them happy, that doesn't mean they're genetically predisposed against doing them. That's your entire argument in a nutshell and it makes no sense whatsoever. Alcoholics, or addicts of any sort, are generally unhappy people, who can change their lifestyle but often don't. That doesn't mean their addictions are genetic.

A Black Falcon
As for acceptance, your reasons are the same as everyone else's -- fear and hatred.


We don't KNOW what genetic trait causes homosexuality so of course I'm vague! It's your assuming that you know what it is when we have zero proof that's ignoring biology, not my saying that no one knows! It could be a trait that frequently skips people and generations and appears randomly, or a mutation that happens often (doubtful, but it could be caused by some specific womb conditions that are common or something like that, who knows?), or some recessive trait that requires some combonation from your parents... we don't know. All we do know is that it does NOT require you to have homosexual parents. That is a fact. You seem to be saying that it should require your parents to be gays or lesbians, but fact says tha that is not the case so your position is badly flawed.


Your argument is so flawed. It's probably the worst of any you've ever submitted in anything we debate. It lacks any scientific proof. Again, as I predicted, you think you're right because you don't understand even the basics of genetics. The mapping of the human genome is more than 90% complete, and no so-called 'gay gene' has been found yet. The clock is ticking, and before long I'll be vindicated.

Just plain wrong. Mapping the genome doesn't mean we know what everything on all of those genes, or combonations of them, does.

How can you say you can't be happy? Do you have personal experience? Or do you listen to the gay people who say this? Are there any gay people who are in heterosexual relationships who remain in them and claim to be happy? No, no one ever says this, because few 'gay' people in a heterosexual relationship would consider themselves truly gay if their heterosexual relationship were healthy and happy. So who knows how many who think they are gay don't live the lifestyle? How would you know this? You're making a stupid assumption.

Again, if you won't take the time to at least learn how genetic traits are passed and recieved, don't bother anymore. And don't demonize me because I believe they have a say in their lifestyle. I know I do. People do a lot of things that don't make them happy, that doesn't mean they're genetically predisposed against doing them. That's your entire argument in a nutshell and it makes no sense whatsoever. Alcoholics, or addicts of any sort, are generally unhappy people, who can change their lifestyle but often don't. That doesn't mean their addictions are genetic

Some people are alchoholics because of genetics, actually... you should know that...
they can stop drinking, but if they do they'll get hooked again. Sexuality is a more extreme case -- drinking isn't hardwired into us as a basic instinct after all and sexuality is. As I said you can delude yourself into thinking you are okay, given the fact that the brain can do all kinds of funny things, but when you really think about it... no. Homosexuals even in a normal relationship would not be okay. And I've read plenty to know that that's true. And of course gays wouldn't be happy in heterosexual relationships! How could they possibly be when they think about it, if they don't see the other gender as sexually attractive?

Ryan
As for acceptance, your reasons are the same as everyone else's -- fear and hatred.
Morals and decency. I can accept them for what they are, but I do not believe they deserve special treatment for it. That is not hatred. You obviously don't know what hatred is.

We don't KNOW what genetic trait causes homosexuality so of course I'm vague!
It's not a question of which genetic trait, but whether it is a genetic trait at all. And since we are nowhere near proving the cause to be even vaguely genetic, assuming it to be is stupid.

It's your assuming that you know what it is when we have zero proof that's ignoring biology, not my saying that no one knows! It could be a trait that frequently skips people and generations and appears randomly, or a mutation that happens often (doubtful, but it could be caused by some specific womb conditions that are common or something like that, who knows?), or some recessive trait that requires some combonation from your parents... we don't know. All we do know is that it does NOT require you to have homosexual parents. That is a fact. You seem to be saying that it should require your parents to be gays or lesbians, but fact says tha that is not the case so your position is badly flawed.
I'm saying if it were genetic it would require some family history of it (note that I specifically noted that it didn't have to be directly parental and you missed it), but since I'm fairly convinced it's not genetic, no, it would not require any ancestry or heritage.

Just plain wrong. Mapping the genome doesn't mean we know what everything on all of those genes, or combonations of them, does.
We have a fairly good idea so far.

Some people are alchoholics because of genetics, actually... you should know that... they can stop drinking, but if they do they'll get hooked again.
Incorrect. It is not a given. You can never become an alcholic if you never take a first drink, even if you're wired up to the ying-yang in the genetic makeup for it. And even if you do start, it is not impossible to stop. There is nothing in the genes that forces you to hit the bar. It is your psychology rather than the physical dependence. Many addictions are like that.

Sexuality is a more extreme case -- drinking isn't hardwired into us as a basic instinct after all and sexuality is. As I said you can delude yourself into thinking you are okay, given the fact that the brain can do all kinds of funny things, but when you really think about it... no. Homosexuals even in a normal relationship would not be okay. And I've read plenty to know that that's true. And of course gays wouldn't be happy in heterosexual relationships! How could they possibly be when they think about it, if they don't see the other gender as sexually attractive?
Again, that's going only based on what some people say. Again, how many so-called 'genetic homosexuals' are living happily in heterosexual relationships? How many 'genetic homosexuals' don't even REALIZE it? Who is to say? Obviously such a thing is very possible, assuming genetics plays any role at all. And obviously the only ones who will say anything are those who are NOT happy.

Then of course, I raise the point that there is no specific behavior that people are born with, and while sexuality is a base behavior, specific, exclusionary sexuality is not. You should know this. I've pointed it out many times, and your denials lack any basis in fact.

As I predicted, what this argument boils down to is me giving known facts and you countering with what little you think you know.

A Black Falcon
You don't have facts. You have deluded yourself into thinking your lack of facts are facts, and say that all the facts that exist are lies (see: how actual homosexuals say they are)... facts? Don't be absurd...

Morals and decency. I can accept them for what they are, but I do not believe they deserve special treatment for it. That is not hatred. You obviously don't know what hatred is.

Because of religion. I'd call that hate and fear, not "morals and decency". Fear that your interpretation of what you believe might be wrong, but absolute denial of the idea so it turns to hate.

I'm saying if it were genetic it would require some family history of it (note that I specifically noted that it didn't have to be directly parental and you missed it), but since I'm fairly convinced it's not genetic, no, it would not require any ancestry or heritage.

Umm, and how does this say that it's not genetic? Oh wait, it doesn't! If it's 10% like it said it was in those animal populations (though it's probably smaller) you wouldn't have lots of family history... just one person every so often... so it's hardly like you could easily tell that way.

Incorrect. It is not a given. You can never become an alcholic if you never take a first drink, even if you're wired up to the ying-yang in the genetic makeup for it. And even if you do start, it is not impossible to stop. There is nothing in the genes that forces you to hit the bar. It is your psychology rather than the physical dependence. Many addictions are like that.

As I said, alchohol isn't hardwired into us and sex is.

Again, that's going only based on what some people say. Again, how many so-called 'genetic homosexuals' are living happily in heterosexual relationships? How many 'genetic homosexuals' don't even REALIZE it? Who is to say? Obviously such a thing is very possible, assuming genetics plays any role at all. And obviously the only ones who will say anything are those who are NOT happy.

Then of course, I raise the point that there is no specific behavior that people are born with, and while sexuality is a base behavior, specific, exclusionary sexuality is not. You should know this. I've pointed it out many times, and your denials lack any basis in fact.

As I predicted, what this argument boils down to is me giving known facts and you countering with what little you think you know.

Yes, because homosexuals are all lying when they say it was not a choice, and lying when they say that they couldn't be happy in a heterosexual relationship, and lying when they say they are unhappy in them, and lying when they say that when they figured out what they were suddenly everything made sense, etc, etc, etc? I DON'T THINK SO!

As for what we are born with.. it is not a blank slate. Genetics are there and play a role just as key as environment and upbringing. This is the accepted idea by biology -- it is a mix of genetics and environment. Both are vital parts. Given how deep it goes sexuality is certainly genetic in part (the size of the part is debatable but it's a significant one).

You just look for the few shreds of "evidence" that support your side and ignore everything else, as usual. That is a very flawed way to present a position.

alien space marine
So many things have been atributed to genes that it is rediculous, Slobism ,prostitution,theivery,arogance.

Animals eat their own crap and even canibalise each other does that mean that eating out of your toilet and devouring your children is ok?Humans cannot base themselves off of animals as they dont think or have any sense of right and wrong.

There is people who claim to be attracted too very young children (child molesters) Is that genetic as well? They all say it started when they looked at pornagraphy.

Today a man screwing a animal is conciderd disgusting and unatural(atleast for now) we see the same thing when we have two men doing it.

A Black Falcon
More than probably are but some are accurate, like obesity and alchoholism...

Ryan
You don't have facts. You have deluded yourself into thinking your lack of facts are facts, and say that all the facts that exist are lies (see: how actual homosexuals say they are)... facts? Don't be absurd...
Has every homosexual in the world chimed in their opinion? Or even most? Many? Half? A quarter?

Or perhaps a very, very small number who claim to speak for them all?

Because of religion. I'd call that hate and fear, not "morals and decency". Fear that your interpretation of what you believe might be wrong, but absolute denial of the idea so it turns to hate.
Well, by that reasoning, everyone hates everything they're opposed to. All I hate is the ideas you're putting forth. I don't hate people. Nor, do I suspect, you hate all Christians, even though you seem diametrically opposed to their beliefs.

Umm, and how does this say that it's not genetic? Oh wait, it doesn't! If it's 10% like it said it was in those animal populations (though it's probably smaller) you wouldn't have lots of family history... just one person every so often... so it's hardly like you could easily tell that way.
Either way. How this could possibly be a vindication for the argument of genetics is beyond me.

As I said, alchohol isn't hardwired into us and sex is.
Sex is hardwired into us. Who or what to have sex with is not. Drinking is hardwired into us. What to drink is not.

Yes, because homosexuals are all lying when they say it was not a choice, and lying when they say that they couldn't be happy in a heterosexual relationship, and lying when they say they are unhappy in them, and lying when they say that when they figured out what they were suddenly everything made sense, etc, etc, etc? I DON'T THINK SO!
Okay, let me ask you this: Since when is HAPPINESS genetic now? You're telling me these people can't be happy in a heterosexual relationship because their genes will not let them.

Yet, happiness is a frivolous thing. What makes a person happy and content changes with any number of infinite circumstances. There is no single thing in the world that every human being finds pleasurable. You know this is true, and therefore you should know better than to try telling me that their unhappiness is genetic. They're unhappy being in a heterosexual relationship because they're gay, but genetics isn't a good explaination for that at all. Thought and happiness have nothing to do with genetics either.

And honesty, what did they suddenly discover? Their genes are gay? No. Some attribute it to that, but it bears repeating that there is no proof of it.

As for what we are born with.. it is not a blank slate. Genetics are there and play a role just as key as environment and upbringing. This is the accepted idea by biology -- it is a mix of genetics and environment. Both are vital parts. Given how deep it goes sexuality is certainly genetic in part (the size of the part is debatable but it's a significant one).
Doubtless. Sexuality is very genetic. The physical side is completely genetic. But the mental side of it is not. Not in the least. Humans use no organs or scents or patterns that are coded to relate to sexuality, like many animals do, so the idea of sexual attraction is mental, which is why everyone in the world has their own idea of who their ideal mate is, instead of simply whoever has the right color hair or shape of eyes. For if we assume that something as complex as homosexuality is genetic, we also have to assume that even more particular attraction is genetic as well, such as a person is genetically attracted to blondes. We also have to assume that the more deviant sexual behaviors are genetic, such as bestiality, child-molestation, and God knows what else. We know that none of that is true.

You just look for the few shreds of "evidence" that support your side and ignore everything else, as usual. That is a very flawed way to present a position.
There's not much to ignore. Everything you say just does not apply to genetics, and you don't seem to know enough to realize it. I can't make you learn basic genetics, though you ought to take a little time and try.

N_A
Damn it, I hate it when arm chair scientists, or liberal journalists think they can take a couple of examples and work up a storm for reasons why homosexuality is somehow normal and natural. I guess its one of the hallmarks of being a liberal, you have to believe that homosexuality is somehow natural but heterosexuality is not.

Being a scientist with an actual degree and pursuing post graduate higher education in the sciences, I'd like to bring out the fact that homosexuality is time and time again shown to be strongly correlated and in bolder statements from psychiatrists and DSM IV criteria... to be a cause of behavioral gender identity problems. Homosexuality its strongly correlated to children being raised in conditions where their gender role is not clearly defined, or they are raised in such a way that they associate themselves with members of the opposite sex. Hence when they grow up, seeing themselves as a member of the opposite sex in childhood, they become aggrevated to fit into their gender role, at which point they will take a number of paths to conceal, accept, or overcome and reform themselves or any combination of the above.

It should be carefully noted that in many of these gender identity problems seen in animals reflects a VERY SMALL numbers. I can't recall the actual numbers, but the stats themselves will tell you that it reflects an insignificant portion of the population. In fact, technically, homosexual animals aren't even part of the population because by definition, you have to be heterosexual and reproducing to be a member of a population. You should do yourself a favor and say screw the press, read the actual articles written by the researchers themselves. Maybe get some education in actual biostatistics and see if the researchers had valid experiments to start with. Media is liberal, and all people are biased, they'll take anything and turn it into their own propaganda.

In otherwords, theres ANECTODAL EVIDENCE that homosexuality occurs in animals, which I'm sure is true, but then those animals would be as outstanding and abnormal as gay men and women, who also represent a small portion of the human population overall. Yeah, admittedly it happens in the natural world, but realistically, its called statistical outliers, and in biostatistics, these are the samples we say are outstanding and not normally representative of the entire population sample. People within + or - 2 standard deviations of the mean are considered to be people in the norm.

However, the sociological impact is still significant. It is like saying that just because there are only a few people of the population who get Down's Syndrome that we can ignore them and let them do whatever they want and fend for themselves. No... the implications are great. I am no believer of any god or gods and my moral rules are derived from the profound rationale of cause and effect. Allowing homosexualism to take place is to grant sexual freedoms that threaten the traditional family. In any society, it is unarguably true that good families breed good people, good people make a nation strong, peaceful and life is enjoyable. When you go down the first step of allowing something that is biologically "outstanding" and "abnormal" is to open up the pathway for something more threatening and more prevalent to the traditional family, and that is opening sexual freedom to heterosexuals. It would be unfair to grant it to gays and not to "normal" people. Promiscuity, casual pre marital and extra marital sex and all its forms cheapens the meaning of exclusive dedication, loyalty, companionship, and intimacy that are key to a marraige, and hence is a direct threat to the traditional familial monogamy and premarital chastity that humanity has embraced that made ancient humans raise their children with the same high yeild success that birds do (unlike mammals), hence making us the dominant species in combination with our tool making ability. Had birds known how to make tools, Chozo like people would have risen up to dominate earth far before humans. Now don't take this extraordinary rise to be an argument for statistical favors to the other extraordinary end of homosexuality. Homosexuality is an evoluationary dead end, it doesn't raise children or make them in the first place. Likewise, broken families, single parent families (like that of all OTHER mammal species), people indulged in promisuous behavior... they are selected against because they take on all the extra risks of destroying their young. (NOTE: Biologically, birds are the most successful at raising offspring, using a family system, and life time mating in 93% of bird species, much more successful than the mammal species which are promiscuous and have single parenting... not to mention males kill offsprings so they can mate with a female)

And a nation that is fraught with this kind of behavior is a nation that is also selected against. If you have not noticed, America's medical costs, taxations, social systems are heavily monetarily burdened because there are all the problems that did not exist before the sexual revolution and various excesses of the 60s that is now built into popular American mindset. The idea is, if the people don't have problems, then government doesn't have to address them. When the people create problems for themselves, and governments let it happen, eventually it causes problems that a "dutiful" government has to address. The government is only burdened because it failed to put a hamper on the 60's, is still ambiguous about its position on sexual freedom, and continues to undermine its traditional family by not protecting, promoting, and making itself clear on the matter, not to mention other things.... imagine that, a nation that allows parents to kill their own unborn children. If thats not evolutionarily being selected against, I don't know what is.

So why is it all morally wrong again ? Because its a behavior, and an extraordinary one, and one that opens up the path for the sexual freedom that threatens humanity, not only evolutionarily, but NOT A SINGLE PERSON HERE CAN ARGUE WITH ME THAT CHEAPENING THE MEANING OF MARRAIGE, BREAKING FAMILES APART, etc is desirable. It brings social suffering and burdens to all of society. No creature enjoys suffering, but ironically deviant behavior that are selfishly satisfying in the short term brings long term suffering to everyone else and must be corrected for the good of society, just like we strive to correct alcoholism, drug abuse, etc.

Other notes I should make from human genetics. There is no such thing as the gay gene. And the bullshit about it not being found yet, is bullshit, because if its not found, it doesn't mean anything. Genetics are an outlet for everything in the media these days. Its ridiculous, if humans are all about genetics, then America should ditch all its equality rules because people are definitely born unequal. There will be people who are genetically superior and their genes will have superior behaviors that make them successful, while genetically inferior people will have crappy behaviors like alcoholism, criminalism, etc. and should be pre-emptively put in jail because their crime has "already" been comitted. Besides, the mathematics of genetics, like that of many fatal and evolutionary deselected genetic diseases (ie ones that don't let you reproduce) are doomed to die out. Homosexuality would have been wiped out in the promordial soup ancestors in protista and such, long before life even went ashore damn it. Hell, even bacteria have male and female genders in ones that have sexual reproduction. Think about it, diescious (2 gender species) species arose first in bacteria for reason.

A Black Falcon
If not for religion people would see no difference between a family with a heterosexual couple and one with a homosexual couple (who adopts). That is a fact. So saying that it will destroy the family is an absolute lie with zero truth to it. What it'll do is hurt the right-wing religious extremist idea of the family, but IMO that is a good thing...

And also you use "behavior" like you mean "choice" which has essentially been proven to be false.

Ryan
If not for religion people would see no difference between a family with a heterosexual couple and one with a homosexual couple (who adopts). That is a fact. So saying that it will destroy the family is an absolute lie with zero truth to it. What it'll do is hurt the right-wing religious extremist idea of the family, but IMO that is a good thing...

And also you use "behavior" like you mean "choice" which has essentially been proven to be false. For starters, you obviously didn't read his post, for he says he is irreligious. Secondly, what is this bullshit about the 'right-wing religious extremist' idea of a family? Oh wait, it's the type of family that's BEEN AROUND SINCE THE DAWN OF MANKIND. What could POSSIBLY be good about hurting or destroying this? Even in the period of my life when I was irreligious, when I was purposefully antipathetic towards religion as you are, I had the same views on the subject. I won't continue though, N_A said it better.

It's wrong to generalize all liberals, but you in particular seem to want to take every single institution people follow and erase them for... whatever reason you could possibly have. You come across like a suicidal maniac who wants to destroy everything he can before he dies. You said it yourself, the only reason you want to destroy the traditional family is because, you mistakenly assume, that only conservatives view it as right and moral.

Hate to tell you this, but you're a maniac. It's not even a matter of liberal and conservative, it's sane and insane. You are a lunatic, and it's about time you realize that most people do not think like you and resent being forced to think like you.

This is further evidenced by your last post, where you tell someone with a medical degree that you know more than he does about genetics. Heh.

A Black Falcon
For starters, you obviously didn't read his post, for he says he is irreligious.

No, I didn't read all of it (too much to be worth the effort), but I did see that line. He's just wrong. There is no other reason.

Oh, and its because of people like you that is why the rest of the world thinks we are the most dangerous country on earth... and why we probably are...

It's wrong to generalize all liberals, but you in particular seem to want to take every single institution people follow and erase them for... whatever reason you could possibly have. You come across like a suicidal maniac who wants to destroy everything he can before he dies. You said it yourself, the only reason you want to destroy the traditional family is because, you mistakenly assume, that only conservatives view it as right and moral.

Its because of all the incredibly idiotic things you people say that is why I dropped this debate. It is depressing to see how the bounds of stupidity in the human race have absolutely no limits...

Hating people because they are different is wrong. Persecuting people because they are different is wrong. Allowing persecution of people because they are different is wrong. Equality is a good thing. Morality? That is of course important, but it should be based on what is objectively (and legally) right, not on what is religiously right... I simply do not understand this right-wing idea that gay marriage will destroy the family. It just makes no sense at all to me... I don't see why anyone should care if it's two men or a man and a woman. If it's a loving, monogamous relationship, who's to say who is in it? Your position is exactly the same as the Southerners who fought racial integration... religiously based and very, very morally corrupt.

You seem to have some insane idea that if gay marriage (or civil unions even) are allowed then next will be ... oh, I don't know... allowing polygamy and polyamory? A complete breakdown of civil society? I cannot think of a stupider idea... and when it eventually happens (probably in other countries far before it gets to conservative America) you'll see how foolish your position is. Well you should already... maybe the next generation will? :(

I just fundamentally do not understand how so many people can hate so much (over this and other things), and don't really want to know... it is very disturbing to see people who have so much hate over these things... it'd be sad if it wasn't so dangerous and bad for society.

alien space marine
No, I didn't read all of it (too much to be worth the effort), but I did see that line. He's just wrong. There is no other reason.

Oh, and its because of people like you that is why the rest of the world thinks we are the most dangerous country on earth... and why we probably are...



Its because of all the incredibly idiotic things you people say that is why I dropped this debate. It is depressing to see how the bounds of stupidity in the human race have absolutely no limits...

Hating people because they are different is wrong. Persecuting people because they are different is wrong. Allowing persecution of people because they are different is wrong. Equality is a good thing. Morality? That is of course important, but it should be based on what is objectively (and legally) right, not on what is religiously right... I simply do not understand this right-wing idea that gay marriage will destroy the family. It just makes no sense at all to me... I don't see why anyone should care if it's two men or a man and a woman. If it's a loving, monogamous relationship, who's to say who is in it? Your position is exactly the same as the Southerners who fought racial integration... religiously based and very, very morally corrupt.

You seem to have some insane idea that if gay marriage (or civil unions even) are allowed then next will be ... oh, I don't know... allowing polygamy and polyamory? A complete breakdown of civil society? I cannot think of a stupider idea... and when it eventually happens (probably in other countries far before it gets to conservative America) you'll see how foolish your position is. Well you should already... maybe the next generation will? :(

I just fundamentally do not understand how so many people can hate so much (over this and other things), and don't really want to know... it is very disturbing to see people who have so much hate over these things... it'd be sad if it wasn't so dangerous and bad for society.

If I remeber my little knowledge on U.S History the push for ending slavery and bringing equality too the blacks, Was by a very couragous highly religious president named Abraham Lincholn who believed god has sent him to bring freedom to the opressed black people,It was not some Atheist liberal.The founding Fathers probaily would be disgusted by todays obcenities and moraly dead society. As George Washingston hated foul language and sexual premiscuity.

The reason to oppose same sex couples raising children, Is because every child needs a mother and a father in their lives. Otherwise why have big brothers and big sisters special needs service for mother and fatherless boys and girls. It wouldnt be right to have children grow up in a very unatural union of parents missing a male or female role model and mentor.

Sure single parents are forced to raise kids alone but that isnt the best enviroment and everyone will agree having a good father makes a major impact on the developement and out come of a child as they grow up. May I even add that some homosexuals have stated themselves that they wont have kids because they feel children need a mother and father. Honnestly I wouldnt want to have two parents of the same sex not just because I would be teased over it but because it is just not balanced.

I think same sex marriage cannot be decided by only a few politicians and judges it is such a shift in basic structure of society that too me it should be decided through a referendom vote. Unfortunately for us canadians nobody was given the chance to vote and it was shoved into are faces.

A Black Falcon
You're just proving my point mostly...

As for 'two parents of the same gender is worse for the child's upbringing', I don't buy it. Oh, sure, there are differences for sure, but two parents is better than one. Two parents of the same gender would certainly be better than one parent! There's no real way you can argue that without going to religion... Is two parents best? Probably. But we can't always have the best possible thing and in this case the next best thing for this group isn't far behind at all, if any.

alien space marine
You're just proving my point mostly...

As for 'two parents of the same gender is worse for the child's upbringing', I don't buy it. Oh, sure, there are differences for sure, but two parents is better than one. Two parents of the same gender would certainly be better than one parent! There's no real way you can argue that without going to religion... Is two parents best? Probably. But we can't always have the best possible thing and in this case the next best thing for this group isn't far behind at all, if any.

Why purposely put a child in a less preferable setting? .
Sorry man another issue for same sex couples is the fact children need a single authority as has always been the tradition that the man is head of the household and that is a real strong benifit of hetrosexual marriage were the children know who is boss and respect and love their father , Which is why children who have fathers are less likely to due drugs or commit a crime it is proven statiscally.In a Same sex marriage the authority is broken and less apparent and the two men will likely feud over deciding how to raise their kids which will confuse and disrupt the family unit, In the lesbian case its the same problem but worse no father authority and all you got is two angry women.This isnt a matter of 1 + 1 ABF it is alot more complicated then you give it credit for. Single parent families are worse but atleast their isnt any feuding and they can get other family relatives like grand parents to help, But alot of homosexuals are disowned by their families sadly so their is no other family ties.

Children raised by homosexuals will have to go through being teased by their peers at school and in the neighborhoods, As I have said some homosexuals agree that a hetrosexual couples are better place for children and atleast have the decency to put the children ahead of their own feelings unlike alot of others

Marital break up and errosion of families all started to become rampant when this hole sexual revolution started, were today having two parents that still live together since their first marriage is rare.

A Black Falcon
Because for homosexuals that is the best setting... and before you say 'then don't have them adopt' there are far, far more children waiting to be adopted than there are parents who want them so that is wrong. For them any family would be far better. :)

And two parents is better than one. In any case where they aren't abusive or something that is.

And you say 'tradition'... yeah, there are a lot of traditions. Slavery was a tradition for a long time too. Traditions aren't always right. Especially when like this they enforce unfair inequality. Oh, and I am sure that there really isn't a significant difference if there is one at all between how well homosexual couples and heterosexual ones raise children... you are saying one parent is the same as two (ie the main thing is that they are the same gender, not that there's one or two which is vastly more relevant) and that is just absurd.

Children raised by homosexuals will have to go through being teased by their peers at school and in the neighborhoods, As I have said some homosexuals agree that a hetrosexual couples are better place for children and atleast have the decency to put the children ahead of their own feelings unlike alot of others

Blacks had to go through that to get their rights too.

Marital break up and errosion of families all started to become rampant when this hole sexual revolution started, were today having two parents that still live together since their first marriage is rare.

Allowing homosexual marriage would help that, not hurt it.

Ryan
No, I didn't read all of it (too much to be worth the effort), but I did see that line. He's just wrong. There is no other reason.

Oh, and its because of people like you that is why the rest of the world thinks we are the most dangerous country on earth... and why we probably are...
Obivously you didn't. You missed out on a lot of it. Again, if you had, you would have realized you're trying to stare down someone much more knowledgable than yourself. Not that something like that ever stops you.

Its because of all the incredibly idiotic things you people say that is why I dropped this debate. It is depressing to see how the bounds of stupidity in the human race have absolutely no limits...
I'm sorry that facts continually get in the way of your little fairy world fantasy vision for humanity.

Hating people because they are different is wrong. Persecuting people because they are different is wrong. Allowing persecution of people because they are different is wrong. Equality is a good thing. Morality? That is of course important, but it should be based on what is objectively (and legally) right, not on what is religiously right... I simply do not understand this right-wing idea that gay marriage will destroy the family. It just makes no sense at all to me... I don't see why anyone should care if it's two men or a man and a woman. If it's a loving, monogamous relationship, who's to say who is in it? Your position is exactly the same as the Southerners who fought racial integration... religiously based and very, very morally corrupt.
Point 1: Gay people have equal marriage rights. They are not barred from marriage, just from marrying another in the same gender. We are also unable to marry family, or others who are already married, or animals. So I suppose it's 'discrimination' that we 'persecute' people who wish to participate in these activities. Hell, maybe they're genetically predisposed to them.

There is a good reason homosexual marriage is often lumped in with incest, bestiality and polygamy: They are deviant sexual behaviors. Often they don't cause physical pain to anyone, but they're still immoral and wrong. It's a societal unwillingness to accept this. Religion plays a part in it, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. After all, if there is no difference between gays marrying, there's no difference between brothers and sisters marrying. Whatever kids they have will still be fucked for life.

Point 2: Southerners fought in favor of slavery for primarily economic and political reasons, you ignorant little man. Religion was hardly a man factor.

As for integration, my position is different in one way: Blacks can't help being born black.

You seem to have some insane idea that if gay marriage (or civil unions even) are allowed then next will be ... oh, I don't know... allowing polygamy and polyamory? A complete breakdown of civil society? I cannot think of a stupider idea... and when it eventually happens (probably in other countries far before it gets to conservative America) you'll see how foolish your position is. Well you should already... maybe the next generation will? :(
Complete breakdown? No. It'll just add a few cracks that will slowly cause its damage. Just like how our society today is in much worse shape now than it was fifty years ago, even with the good changes. Many changes have been for the considerable worse. This will be one of them.

I just fundamentally do not understand how so many people can hate so much (over this and other things), and don't really want to know... it is very disturbing to see people who have so much hate over these things... it'd be sad if it wasn't so dangerous and bad for society.
You're right near Canada. They have gay marriage. Get lost and quit whining already. They've got everything you want, practically.

Because for homosexuals that is the best setting... and before you say 'then don't have them adopt' there are far, far more children waiting to be adopted than there are parents who want them so that is wrong. For them any family would be far better. :)

And two parents is better than one. In any case where they aren't abusive or something that is.

[QUOTE] And you say 'tradition'... yeah, there are a lot of traditions. Slavery was a tradition for a long time too. Traditions aren't always right. Especially when like this they enforce unfair inequality. Oh, and I am sure that there really isn't a significant difference if there is one at all between how well homosexual couples and heterosexual ones raise children... you are saying one parent is the same as two (ie the main thing is that they are the same gender, not that there's one or two which is vastly more relevant) and that is just absurd.
Financially better for the kids, maybe. Psychologically, that's likely a very different story.

Blacks had to go through that to get their rights too.
But blacks are born black. Gays are not born gay, and children of gays, while likelier to end up gay one day, are not gay from the start. it's still not a good reason to put them in that situation.

Allowing homosexual marriage would help that, not hurt it.
No. It would change marriage into something very different. I love how liberals today point to high divorce rates as justification for homosexuality not being a threat to the sanctity of marriage when it's the drug-addicted liberal hippies of the 60s who are eminently to blame for that with their utter lack of morals and their ability to project and indoctrinate everyone else with them. Their method of thinking is "We've trashed it and it's in bad shape, so why not just finish it off?"

No.

A Black Falcon
But blacks are born black. Gays are not born gay, and children of gays, while likelier to end up gay one day, are not gay from the start. it's still not a good reason to put them in that situation.

Actually, as far as I know they are not any more likely to become gay than anyone else... and as for gays being born gay, you'll see eventually.

You're right near Canada. They have gay marriage. Get lost and quit whining already. They've got everything you want, practically.

Except I like Maine.

No. It would change marriage into something very different. I love how liberals today point to high divorce rates as justification for homosexuality not being a threat to the sanctity of marriage when it's the drug-addicted liberal hippies of the 60s who are eminently to blame for that with their utter lack of morals and their ability to project and indoctrinate everyone else with them. Their method of thinking is "We've trashed it and it's in bad shape, so why not just finish it off?"

So doing something that would strengthen the monagamous bonds of marriage would hurt it? That's insane...

Obivously you didn't. You missed out on a lot of it. Again, if you had, you would have realized you're trying to stare down someone much more knowledgable than yourself. Not that something like that ever stops you.

More knowledgable? I don't know, and if so he sure doesn't use it wisely... given how many stupid things he defends... I mean, I've seen many of his arguements before. And I've seen things that show how they are wrong (the clinical stuff, for instance, I've seen articles before that show how that is incorrect)... but I won't bother trying to find anything, it'd be utterly pointless.

Point 1: Gay people have equal marriage rights. They are not barred from marriage, just from marrying another in the same gender. We are also unable to marry family, or others who are already married, or animals. So I suppose it's 'discrimination' that we 'persecute' people who wish to participate in these activities. Hell, maybe they're genetically predisposed to them.

Oh come on, you are so stupid... IT IS NOT INEQUALITY TO BAN THINGS FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN HATRED! And that is EXACTLY what this is. They have the equal right to do whatever they want within a pointless restriction! Oh yeah, banning the one thing that makes them happy is REALLY equality... :rolleyes:

And equating beastiality and being homosexual is one of the most ignorant and idiotic things I've heard (and I've heard it from conservatives before). I cannot understand how you take this and extend it to things that are far, far more extreme... polygamy? That includes inherent unfairness! One man, multiple women (or polyamory, one woman multiple men). That is unfairness in a word. So that should be banned. Beastiality? Animals don't have free will, that is obviously wrong... incest? That is a thing that has obvious drawbacks... so no, this is in no way in the same category as those things. Not even close.

Point 2: Southerners fought in favor of slavery for primarily economic and political reasons, you ignorant little man. Religion was hardly a man factor.

Southerners fighting change, Southerners fighting change, the details aren't as important...

alien space marine
Because for homosexuals that is the best setting... and before you say 'then don't have them adopt' there are far, far more children waiting to be adopted than there are parents who want them so that is wrong. For them any family would be far better.

And two parents is better than one. In any case where they aren't abusive or something that is.

And you say 'tradition'... yeah, there are a lot of traditions. Slavery was a tradition for a long time too. Traditions aren't always right. Especially when like this they enforce unfair inequality. Oh, and I am sure that there really isn't a significant difference if there is one at all between how well homosexual couples and heterosexual ones raise children... you are saying one parent is the same as two (ie the main thing is that they are the same gender, not that there's one or two which is vastly more relevant) and that is just absurd.

Quote:




Were does slavery come into gay rights? Your clearly not capable of coming up with a answer to that the point I brought up so you just babbled on off topic with somthing about traditions that is irelevant. The husband being head of a family is more then a "tradition" it is proven structure since the dawn of mankind.

If society had kept some grounds of morality maybe their wouldnt be so many children born that couldnt be cared for,30 years ago it was a taboo to have sex before marriage but today that kind of morality is almost completely shuned, That simple pact was a good stable building block of society but now we got teens tossing unwanted babbies into trash cans. All this sudden rise in teen pregnancies all began when the hippies said" lets do whatever we want" and the liberals say "ok lets support you" now that their talking about legalizing prostituion and hard drugs.

Ryan
Actually, as far as I know they are not any more likely to become gay than anyone else... and as for gays being born gay, you'll see eventually.
I seriously doubt it. Conventional wisdom, common sense, and scientific evidence so far says otherwise.

Except I like Maine.
Not enough, apparently, that you would transform it, and the other 49 states, into a similarly-socialist, anything-goes empire of political correctness.

So doing something that would strengthen the monagamous bonds of marriage would hurt it? That's insane...
How on earth would it strengthen the bonds of marriage? Marriage is between a man and a woman. Again, we have the liberals of the sixties to blame for damaging marriage to the point it's at, and now the next generation of quasi-commies wants to finish the job, replacing it with something quite different.

More knowledgable? I don't know, and if so he sure doesn't use it wisely... given how many stupid things he defends... I mean, I've seen many of his arguements before. And I've seen things that show how they are wrong (the clinical stuff, for instance, I've seen articles before that show how that is incorrect)... but I won't bother trying to find anything, it'd be utterly pointless.
You never do. I would greatly prefer you never make any points that you aren't willing to back up. Then, I wouldn't care if you didn't feel like it.

Oh come on, you are so stupid... IT IS NOT INEQUALITY TO BAN THINGS FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN HATRED! And that is EXACTLY what this is. They have the equal right to do whatever they want within a pointless restriction! Oh yeah, banning the one thing that makes them happy is REALLY equality... :rolleyes:
There are a myriad of things that make some people happy, yet are legally banned from doing. Why should we make an exception for one particular group of people based on that criteria?

And equating beastiality and being homosexual is one of the most ignorant and idiotic things I've heard (and I've heard it from conservatives before). I cannot understand how you take this and extend it to things that are far, far more extreme... polygamy? That includes inherent unfairness! One man, multiple women (or polyamory, one woman multiple men). That is unfairness in a word. So that should be banned. Beastiality? Animals don't have free will, that is obviously wrong... incest? That is a thing that has obvious drawbacks... so no, this is in no way in the same category as those things. Not even close.
I love how you support banning polygamy and incest for reasons that you want gay marriage, and for reasons that apply to homosexuality, respectively.

By the way, polyamory isn't illegal, it does not involve marriage, and has nothing to do with women and multiple husbands. It's essentially another term for group sex, though polyamorists consider it more of an emotional thing than sexual.

Southerners fighting change, Southerners fighting change, the details aren't as important...
They mean everything. Very few Southerners were wealthy enough to own slaves, the idea that they would all fight for the preservation of a system that did not benefit them is a stupid and ignorant one. The main reason for the southern secession was economic, as the South's economy relied heavily on slave labor, and the issue of states' rights.

One other thing, I'm annoyed on how you assume the moral high ground because, as you think, I hate gays. Yet, you share a similar, and much deeper hatred of Christians. You also have definite problems with white people and heterosexuals. Being a White, Heterosexual, Christian, Conservative Male, I think I embody what you believe to be the ultimate combination of the groups who have a right to be hated, discriminated against, and demeaned. Of those traits, you definitely hate conservatism and Christianity the most. You're as hateful as you claim me to be.

A Black Falcon
I seriously doubt it. Conventional wisdom, common sense, and scientific evidence so far says otherwise.

You're right, except for the common sense and evidence parts.

How on earth would it strengthen the bonds of marriage? Marriage is between a man and a woman. Again, we have the liberals of the sixties to blame for damaging marriage to the point it's at, and now the next generation of quasi-commies wants to finish the job, replacing it with something quite different.

Ah, good old "the good old days were better"... always said, by conservatives, throughout history... and generally not correct...

Not enough, apparently, that you would transform it, and the other 49 states, into a similarly-socialist, anything-goes empire of political correctness.

Huh? Maine's doing fine... Democratic governor, Democratic state house (both branches), two Democrats in the House, and two moderate Republicans in the Senate... :)

And we came very close several times to adding homosexuality to the list of things that you can't discriminate about. Too bad it failed... by a couple of percent...

How on earth would it strengthen the bonds of marriage? Marriage is between a man and a woman. Again, we have the liberals of the sixties to blame for damaging marriage to the point it's at, and now the next generation of quasi-commies wants to finish the job, replacing it with something quite different.

Marriage is about monogamy and it would strengthen that if these people were formally joined. Civil Unions are a okay alternative that isn't good enough but will have to do for now, I think.

You never do. I would greatly prefer you never make any points that you aren't willing to back up. Then, I wouldn't care if you didn't feel like it.

You don't either. Not that it would matter, given that I know (either of) you would never listen for a millisecond...


There are a myriad of things that make some people happy, yet are legally banned from doing. Why should we make an exception for one particular group of people based on that criteria?

Laws are based on harm... if we (as a society) looked at this objectively we'd see that no one is hurt by allowing homosexual unions.

I love how you support banning polygamy and incest for reasons that you want gay marriage, and for reasons that apply to homosexuality, respectively.

By the way, polyamory isn't illegal, it does not involve marriage, and has nothing to do with women and multiple husbands. It's essentially another term for group sex, though polyamorists consider it more of an emotional thing than sexual.

Polygamists only don't marry because it wouldn't be allowed... it's illegal in Utah of course but elsewhere it'd be banned if there was a problem with it. And you don't give any convincing reasons there why my reasons for those things are wrong while yours for homosexuality are right...

Incest... that is a extremely ancient ban, going back well before human civilization and probably before modern humans existed. Why? Okay, so a one-off incestious relationship won't do much harm, that is probably true... but it becomes a serious problem if it's common. Just ask the European royalty... they aren't called 'blue bloods' for nothing. :)

They mean everything. Very few Southerners were wealthy enough to own slaves, the idea that they would all fight for the preservation of a system that did not benefit them is a stupid and ignorant one. The main reason for the southern secession was economic, as the South's economy relied heavily on slave labor, and the issue of states' rights.

One other thing, I'm annoyed on how you assume the moral high ground because, as you think, I hate gays. Yet, you share a similar, and much deeper hatred of Christians. You also have definite problems with white people and heterosexuals. Being a White, Heterosexual, Christian, Conservative Male, I think I embody what you believe to be the ultimate combination of the groups who have a right to be hated, discriminated against, and demeaned. Of those traits, you definitely hate conservatism and Christianity the most. You're as hateful as you claim me to be.

You're right, in the Civil War most soldiers of the South were poor whites who fought either because they were spept up in the anti-North sentiment, or because they wanted to keep the blacks down -- I mean, look. These people have nothing. They are on the bottom... or would be if not for blacks. That gives them a class below them, and they want to keep them there... that was true in some of the North as well -- see the draft riots in New York City, where the Irish hated the blacks because the blacks were taking Irish jobs on the bottom rung of the ladder for less money...

Oh, and I don't hate christians or religion. I don't have a problem with people going to church (I went to one for most of my life after all), or believing what they think is right... the problem is when you take your morals and apply them to everyone without stopping to think if your morality SHOULD apply to everyone (ie, all morality is not objectively right)... just keep your beliefs to yourself and believe whatever you want. Like most people do in New England... we just don't discuss religion much. One reason I dislike Bush is because he's so religious... prayers, constant Biblical references... that I do not like at all. His faith I may disagree with but can't say "you are wrong and your belief system is totally wrong" because there is obviously no way to prove God doesn't exist... it's shoving it in our faces I dislike. Leiberman has a similar problem, IMO. Too religious, too openly.

alien space marine
Ah, good old "the good old days were better"... always said, by conservatives, throughout history... and generally not correct...

People werent as obese and overweight in general in the past,The high amount of devources we have now werent as conciderably high as we see today,The Enviroment waisnt as polluted.

A Black Falcon
True. People weren't allowed to divorce so they lived in unhappy marriages. And people didn't have enough food to be fat and died of starvation sometimes, and died a lot younger becuase they didn't have our medical care.

Ryan
You're right, except for the common sense and evidence parts.
If you were wondering why, in the other thread, I asked you if you slept through your tenth-grade biology class...

Ah, good old "the good old days were better"... always said, by conservatives, throughout history... and generally not correct...
I think it's unarguable that times were better when marriages were stable, children had two parents, girls weren't getting pregnant at fourteen, and weren't killing babies to make up for their indiscretions. When drug use wasn't rampant and murder much less common.

There are definite benefits to the 'good old days'.

Huh? Maine's doing fine... Democratic governor, Democratic state house (both branches), two Democrats in the House, and two moderate Republicans in the Senate... :)
Well, it's fine for you that your state is on the level of a banana republic. Leave the rest of us alone.

Marriage is about monogamy and it would strengthen that if these people were formally joined. Civil Unions are a okay alternative that isn't good enough but will have to do for now, I think.
As if they wouldn't be divorcing all the time, or something, right? As if being gay somehow makes for a better marriage?

Ha.

You don't either. Not that it would matter, given that I know (either of) you would never listen for a millisecond...
If that were true, this thread would have never gotten a response. You may remember that it began with you posting what you thought was proof and me responding to that.

Laws are based on harm... if we (as a society) looked at this objectively we'd see that no one is hurt by allowing homosexual unions.
No one is 'hurt' if I sit in the middle of the sidewalk and masturbate, either. Yet, there are laws against that. I guess it's right-wing fear and hatred that keeps public masturbation illegal too.

Polygamists only don't marry because it wouldn't be allowed... it's illegal in Utah of course but elsewhere it'd be banned if there was a problem with it. And you don't give any convincing reasons there why my reasons for those things are wrong while yours for homosexuality are right...
Why should polygamy be banned if homosexual marriage isn't? What good reason to keep polygamists from being unhappy? It's discrimination! Maybe they're born that way!

Incest... that is a extremely ancient ban, going back well before human civilization and probably before modern humans existed. Why? Okay, so a one-off incestious relationship won't do much harm, that is probably true... but it becomes a serious problem if it's common. Just ask the European royalty... they aren't called 'blue bloods' for nothing. :)
Well, I don't support it for a minute, but if you allow homosexual marriage on the virtue that conventional marriage discriminates against them, you have to allow for these, because conventional marriage also discriminates against these types of people too, and the reasoning is no better or worse than it is against homosexual marriage.

I believe they should all be illegal. You believe that one group of people deserves special consideration and the others can go to hell, though, I'm sure that if there were someone out there even more liberal than you, they'd push for incest and polygamy legalization.

You're right, in the Civil War most soldiers of the South were poor whites who fought either because they were spept up in the anti-North sentiment, or because they wanted to keep the blacks down -- I mean, look. These people have nothing. They are on the bottom... or would be if not for blacks. That gives them a class below them, and they want to keep them there... that was true in some of the North as well -- see the draft riots in New York City, where the Irish hated the blacks because the blacks were taking Irish jobs on the bottom rung of the ladder for less money...
Actually, a vast majority of Confederate soldiers fought because they were conscripted. They were drafting, at one point, all the way to age 45, an old man in those days.

Oh, and I don't hate christians or religion. I don't have a problem with people going to church (I went to one for most of my life after all), or believing what they think is right... the problem is when you take your morals and apply them to everyone without stopping to think if your morality SHOULD apply to everyone (ie, all morality is not objectively right)... just keep your beliefs to yourself and believe whatever you want. Like most people do in New England... we just don't discuss religion much. One reason I dislike Bush is because he's so religious... prayers, constant Biblical references... that I do not like at all. His faith I may disagree with but can't say "you are wrong and your belief system is totally wrong" because there is obviously no way to prove God doesn't exist... it's shoving it in our faces I dislike. Leiberman has a similar problem, IMO. Too religious, too openly.
Hmm.

Oh, and I don't hate gays. I don't have a problem with people doing whatever they want in the privacy of their own beds, or believing what they think is right... the problem is when you take your morals and apply them to everyone without stopping to think if your morality SHOULD apply to everyone (ie, all morality is not objectively right)... just keep your beliefs to yourself and believe whatever you want.

Thank you and good night.

A Black Falcon
If you were wondering why, in the other thread, I asked you if you slept through your tenth-grade biology class...

You are incredibly deluded if you think biology will actually DISPROVE homosexuality as a thing that has zero choice involved.

Well, it's fine for you that your state is on the level of a banana republic. Leave the rest of us alone.

One of the few places I can think of that's better (politically) would be Massachusetts... though Vermont is pretty good too. :)

I think it's unarguable that times were better when marriages were stable, children had two parents, girls weren't getting pregnant at fourteen, and weren't killing babies to make up for their indiscretions. When drug use wasn't rampant and murder much less common.

There are definite benefits to the 'good old days'.

Yeah, have fun dying decades younger of now-curable diseases... but I'd rather stay here thank you very much. As I said 'the past was better' is an eternal complaint, and eternally incorrect.

And teenage pregnancy is down... I bet it's WAY below where it was at just about any point in our history. As for drugs, how about the late 1800s and early 1900s when anything was legal and snake oil "medicines" filled with toxic things or drugs were the norm?


If that were true, this thread would have never gotten a response. You may remember that it began with you posting what you thought was proof and me responding to that.

Didn't say it was proof and never told you to take it that way. Just said it makes your position less tenable in some ways.

No one is 'hurt' if I sit in the middle of the sidewalk and masturbate, either. Yet, there are laws against that. I guess it's right-wing fear and hatred that keeps public masturbation illegal too.

Oh come on, that is absurd...


As if they wouldn't be divorcing all the time, or something, right? As if being gay somehow makes for a better marriage?

No, divorce is here to stay, obviously. But getting these people into committed relationships would obviously help...


If that were true, this thread would have never gotten a response. You may remember that it began with you posting what you thought was proof and me responding to that.

Listen. As in actually consider what you read. You people don't, and at this point I never expect you to.

Why should polygamy be banned if homosexual marriage isn't? What good reason to keep polygamists from being unhappy? It's discrimination! Maybe they're born that way!

I already said why! Polygamy by definition is discrimination!

Well, I don't support it for a minute, but if you allow homosexual marriage on the virtue that conventional marriage discriminates against them, you have to allow for these, because conventional marriage also discriminates against these types of people too, and the reasoning is no better or worse than it is against homosexual marriage.

I believe they should all be illegal. You believe that one group of people deserves special consideration and the others can go to hell, though, I'm sure that if there were someone out there even more liberal than you, they'd push for incest and polygamy legalization.

Other than the unfairness, the biggest problem is that homosexual couples don't get the legal benefits of being married. That is a major problem and a huge wrong we must right... call them Civil Unions for now, as I said at this point it's all I can really hope for, but give them the benefits they deserve. Fairness should be the basis for what we do... but of course you don't believe in fair so that doesn't matter to you.

And you're ignoring me because I already said how homosexuality is fundamentally different from those things.

Actually, a vast majority of Confederate soldiers fought because they were conscripted. They were drafting, at one point, all the way to age 45, an old man in those days.

They eventually drafted, but not at the beginning, and a lot of people volonteered... and my point about wanting a class below them is hardly my idea. It is a fact. You feel better when you know you aren't the worst... they knew that if blacks got free they'd at least be an equal class with the poorest whites and those people did not want blacks of all people to raise themselves up... it's simple logic, and as I said I've read it in plenty of places. And as I said same with the Irish in the North.

Hmm.

Oh, and I don't hate gays. I don't have a problem with people doing whatever they want in the privacy of their own beds, or believing what they think is right... the problem is when you take your morals and apply them to everyone without stopping to think if your morality SHOULD apply to everyone (ie, all morality is not objectively right)... just keep your beliefs to yourself and believe whatever you want.

Thank you and good night.

Heh... using my words against me... but there is a difference here. We legally say that what your religion is is protected by law. We do not for sexuality. And you can't just bottle up homosexuals and say 'live together but you can never marry (or whatever you call it)' becuase as I said that is a massive, massive act of discrimination, as they don't get any of the marriage benefits that mean so much!

Ryan
You are incredibly deluded if you think biology will actually DISPROVE homosexuality as a thing that has zero choice involved.
You're deluded if you think homosexuality is a zero-choice behavior. There is no such thing.

One of the few places I can think of that's better (politically) would be Massachusetts... though Vermont is pretty good too. :)
With China and France falling somewhere in between.

Yeah, have fun dying decades younger of now-curable diseases... but I'd rather stay here thank you very much. As I said 'the past was better' is an eternal complaint, and eternally incorrect.
Medically, things are better now. Socially, things are far, far worse.

And teenage pregnancy is down... I bet it's WAY below where it was at just about any point in our history. As for drugs, how about the late 1800s and early 1900s when anything was legal and snake oil "medicines" filled with toxic things or drugs were the norm?
Well, obviously at one point in our history teenage pregnancy was normal because people didn't live nearly as long. But by those standards, adjusting for longetivity, today's problem would be as if 8 year olds were having babies then... and usually, back then people were MARRIED that young, out of necessity.

Didn't say it was proof and never told you to take it that way. Just said it makes your position less tenable in some ways.
No, I beleive your exact words were: "Makes arguements that it's anything other than natural sound even more absurd than they already do."

That sounds like you thought you found a bit of proof.

Oh come on, that is absurd...
How? Explain yourself.

No, divorce is here to stay, obviously. But getting these people into committed relationships would obviously help...
I disagree. At best, it would just make the problem numerically larger. At worst, it would excaberate it.

Listen. As in actually consider what you read. You people don't, and at this point I never expect you to.
Eh? You quoted the same piece of text from before...

I already said why! Polygamy by definition is discrimination!
If it makes them happy, it's discrimination to disallow it! Your logic at work!

Other than the unfairness, the biggest problem is that homosexual couples don't get the legal benefits of being married. That is a major problem and a huge wrong we must right... call them Civil Unions for now, as I said at this point it's all I can really hope for, but give them the benefits they deserve. Fairness should be the basis for what we do... but of course you don't believe in fair so that doesn't matter to you.
No. Life isn't fair. What's right is more important than what's fair.

And you're ignoring me because I already said how homosexuality is fundamentally different from those things.
Our argument that homosexuality is fundamentally different from heterosexuality doesn't seem to matter. Why should yours?

They eventually drafted, but not at the beginning, and a lot of people volonteered... and my point about wanting a class below them is hardly my idea. It is a fact. You feel better when you know you aren't the worst... they knew that if blacks got free they'd at least be an equal class with the poorest whites and those people did not want blacks of all people to raise themselves up... it's simple logic, and as I said I've read it in plenty of places. And as I said same with the Irish in the North.
The early volunteering was much more a matter of state (or they would consider, national) pride. There were very few confederate soldiers who gave a damn outside of society what happened with the slaves.

Heh... using my words against me... but there is a difference here. We legally say that what your religion is is protected by law. We do not for sexuality. And you can't just bottle up homosexuals and say 'live together but you can never marry (or whatever you call it)' becuase as I said that is a massive, massive act of discrimination, as they don't get any of the marriage benefits that mean so much!
Because they don't fit the rules. Tough shit. There are a lot of people who can claim the same thing. It doesn't mean we should change the rules to suit them.

Besides, with the liberal assault on Christianity in America, I beg to differ considerably. How liberals feel that any sight of God or Christ in any public place is violating some questionable church-and-state statute, and is inherently offensive to anyone who doesn't follow Christ's teachings.

We're told that if we don't like legal gay marriage to ignore it. Why can't people do the same for Christ? No, instead you mobilize the ACLU and whitewash every trace dry. For the sake of not offending someone. Yet, you are perfectly okay with offending a lot of people by further trashing what was once the most sacred bond human beings could share... before you first got your hands on it.

alien space marine
Give me a good reason why ABF I cant get married to my imaginary girl freind?
She is real too me and we sleep together like any other couple,We can have long conversations and even have Imaginary kids.We should get the same rights as everybody else because it is discrimination.

Another possibility

Some day we will have designer wives which we can buy out of a cattalogue and have custom built for are needs with even modifiable personalities, She may be made of plastic silicon but she is still is my partner , We sleep together and have a loving relationship.

Give me a reason why this would be wrong ? After all are only crime is being different.

A Black Falcon
Our argument that homosexuality is fundamentally different from heterosexuality doesn't seem to matter. Why should yours?

You don't have any good reasons why homosexuality is fundamentally different.

Because they don't fit the rules. Tough shit. There are a lot of people who can claim the same thing. It doesn't mean we should change the rules to suit them.

Besides, with the liberal assault on Christianity in America, I beg to differ considerably. How liberals feel that any sight of God or Christ in any public place is violating some questionable church-and-state statute, and is inherently offensive to anyone who doesn't follow Christ's teachings.

We're told that if we don't like legal gay marriage to ignore it. Why can't people do the same for Christ? No, instead you mobilize the ACLU and whitewash every trace dry. For the sake of not offending someone. Yet, you are perfectly okay with offending a lot of people by further trashing what was once the most sacred bond human beings could share... before you first got your hands on it.

The ACLU is nonpartisan. And I don't tell you to stop believing what you believe... or to not go to church... that's what you are doing with homosexuals...

The early volunteering was much more a matter of state (or they would consider, national) pride. There were very few confederate soldiers who gave a damn outside of society what happened with the slaves.

You don't seem to know your history very well... I guess you missed the movie "Gangs of New York"?

No. Life isn't fair. What's right is more important than what's fair.

What's right usually is what's fair. Fair is the goal. It's probably impossible to reach, but we should try as hard as we can to get there.

If it makes them happy, it's discrimination to disallow it! Your logic at work!

You are ignoring what I am saying. It is unfair for the wives in a polygamous relationship. Marriage is an equal partnership and two or more women is inequality. There is nothing like that for homosexuality.

I disagree. At best, it would just make the problem numerically larger. At worst, it would excaberate it.

It would make it smaller or stay the same. Sure, divorces would rise, but that's just because now it doesn't take a divorce for a homosexual couple to seperate... the fact that it would would probably keep more of them together. So the overall rate would fall even if the numbers rise some.


No, I beleive your exact words were: "Makes arguements that it's anything other than natural sound even more absurd than they already do."

That sounds like you thought you found a bit of proof.

And those words are still absolutely correct.

Medically, things are better now. Socially, things are far, far worse.

Forced submission to societal expectations when that is not your best course in a better world is not good. That is what you advocate and it is wrong.

You're deluded if you think homosexuality is a zero-choice behavior. There is no such thing.

Oh, you can choose to ignore it, as I said, but the feeling, if you look, is unchangable. If you're homosexual there isn't anything you can do about it.

How? Explain yourself.

Too stupid for words... public exposure versus homosexuality? They have almost nothing in common.

Give me a reason why this would be wrong ? After all are only crime is being different.

One, nonexistant things aren't people. Two, we'll have to deal with that in the future.

Ryan
You don't have any good reasons why homosexuality is fundamentally different.
Seven thousand years of society disagrees. Not to mention, the whole reproductive aspect which is the only reason the concept of sexuality even exists.

The ACLU is nonpartisan. And I don't tell you to stop believing what you believe... or to not go to church... that's what you are doing with homosexuals...
I'm not telling gays to stop being gay. I'm just saying they shouldn't bitch about not having the same rights since they choose to live the lifestyle they live.

You don't seem to know your history very well... I guess you missed the movie "Gangs of New York"?
I did not see "Gangs", however, I do know it is based on the New York Draft riots, and what that has to do with Confederate soldiers, I don't know.

What's right usually is what's fair. Fair is the goal. It's probably impossible to reach, but we should try as hard as we can to get there.
Not necessarily. Communism is fair, for instance. It's also quite wrong.

You are ignoring what I am saying. It is unfair for the wives in a polygamous relationship. Marriage is an equal partnership and two or more women is inequality. There is nothing like that for homosexuality.
Polygamous marriage is consensual, therefore numerical inequality is meaningless, and, because of that, by your logic those who are willing to go through with that ought to have that right. After all, it makes them happy, and according to you, that's reason enough to let gays marry.

It's amazing how you don't see where that goes. Gays get the right to marry, suddenly every other deviant sex groupie wants the same rights, and would have the same legal basis to try and obtain it. Thus, before we know it, people are marrying their cousins, "because it makes them happy and hurts no one."

It would make it smaller or stay the same. Sure, divorces would rise, but that's just because now it doesn't take a divorce for a homosexual couple to seperate... the fact that it would would probably keep more of them together. So the overall rate would fall even if the numbers rise some.
I doubt it. If gay marriage were legalized, there would undoubtedly be a large number of them at once, many of them likely unplanned, and doomed to failure.

If gay marriage happened fifty years ago, I would agree with you. But everyone divorces now. It's the 'in' thing.

And those words are still absolutely correct.
So you're telling me that it wasn't posted to further the cause of gay rights, but just to show that penguins can be gay?

If I'd known that, I would have just said "So what?" and saved us both a lot of time.

Forced submission to societal expectations when that is not your best course in a better world is not good. That is what you advocate and it is wrong.
But it's whether the course is best that is always in debate. And there is no debating that American society, save for a few details, was undoubtedly better and stronger several decades ago than today.

Oh, you can choose to ignore it, as I said, but the feeling, if you look, is unchangable. If you're homosexual there isn't anything you can do about it.
Are you gay?

Too stupid for words... public exposure versus homosexuality? They have almost nothing in common.

No, except for one major thing: They supposedly don't hurt anyone. So tell me how public masturbation hurts anyone. Your argument is that homosexual marriages don't hurt anyone and on that basis should be legal. Therefore, if we do that, we have to let anyone do anything they want, so long as they don't harm someone in the process. Otherwise, you are being discriminatory. This has nothing to do with the act of public exposure, it's about the inevitable consequences of what you people are trying to do, and just like the destructive fools trying to force their immorality on America, you are ignoring these consequences because you either lack the intelligence or the foresight to see the damage it can cause to society. Then again, you yourself said you welcome and applaud damaging society and tradition, so perhaps you do know and see the damage you're causing, and that is even more frightening.

A Black Falcon
I did not see "Gangs", however, I do know it is based on the New York Draft riots, and what that has to do with Confederate soldiers, I don't know.

As I said, poor Southern whites felt like that, except probably stronger so...

Not necessarily. Communism is fair, for instance. It's also quite wrong.

Communism as implemented isn't communism, it's more like dictatorship or facism. Communism as Marx says is (as I have said many times) the perfect government if people were perfect. We are very imperfect so it is a failure in actual practice, and always will be. It'd only work if people would all work hard no matter if they got rewarded for working harder or not...

Are you gay?

Right, because all liberals are gay... :rolleyes:

And all the white people helping in the Civil Rights movement were actually black people in disguise too.

I'm not telling gays to stop being gay. I'm just saying they shouldn't bitch about not having the same rights since they choose to live the lifestyle they live.

You might have a point if there were not significant legal and monetary benefits for having their union recognized.

Polygamous marriage is consensual, therefore numerical inequality is meaningless, and, because of that, by your logic those who are willing to go through with that ought to have that right. After all, it makes them happy, and according to you, that's reason enough to let gays marry.

It's amazing how you don't see where that goes. Gays get the right to marry, suddenly every other deviant sex groupie wants the same rights, and would have the same legal basis to try and obtain it. Thus, before we know it, people are marrying their cousins, "because it makes them happy and hurts no one."

Meaningless? As I said, you don't care about fairness so my arguement will go right over your head...

The only way it could be fair is if they were all bisexual. :)

I doubt it. If gay marriage were legalized, there would undoubtedly be a large number of them at once, many of them likely unplanned, and doomed to failure.

If gay marriage happened fifty years ago, I would agree with you. But everyone divorces now. It's the 'in' thing.

I just think you're wrong... why would homosexuals seperate any more than heterosexuals? That doesn't make sense...

So you're telling me that it wasn't posted to further the cause of gay rights, but just to show that penguins can be gay?

If I'd known that, I would have just said "So what?" and saved us both a lot of time.

That it's not unnatural or uncommon. And that penguins don't choose to be gay so people don't either.

But it's whether the course is best that is always in debate. And there is no debating that American society, save for a few details, was undoubtedly better and stronger several decades ago than today.

Individual rights and freedoms are more important than keeping everyone the same... within bounds of course, plenty of things should obviously be illegal (and some legal things should be illegal), but forced compliance to things that are not good for the individuals and don't hurt society are things we should (and have been, steadily, throughout our history -- see how we slowly expanded voter rolls...) change.

No, except for one major thing: They supposedly don't hurt anyone. So tell me how public masturbation hurts anyone. Your argument is that homosexual marriages don't hurt anyone and on that basis should be legal. Therefore, if we do that, we have to let anyone do anything they want, so long as they don't harm someone in the process. Otherwise, you are being discriminatory. This has nothing to do with the act of public exposure, it's about the inevitable consequences of what you people are trying to do, and just like the destructive fools trying to force their immorality on America, you are ignoring these consequences because you either lack the intelligence or the foresight to see the damage it can cause to society. Then again, you yourself said you welcome and applaud damaging society and tradition, so perhaps you do know and see the damage you're causing, and that is even more frightening.

First, in some parts of the world nudity is taken a whole lot seriously than we take it... see Europe... so yes, that is a societal thing. If that Janet Jackson thing had been in Europe it probably would have been unnoticed. They seem amused (or surprised) that we take it so seriously... but that is beyond public nudity... it is not something you do in public, anywhere. Decency/decorum means something...

As I said, it's not like I want to get rid of all of these limitations you like so much, just the ones that don't make sense...

alien space marine
First, in some parts of the world nudity is taken a whole lot seriously than we take it... see Europe... so yes, that is a societal thing. If that Janet Jackson thing had been in Europe it probably would have been unnoticed. They seem amused (or surprised) that we take it so seriously... but that is beyond public nudity... it is not something you do in public, anywhere. Decency/decorum means something...

As I said, it's not like I want to get rid of all of these limitations you like so much, just the ones that don't make sense...


I think alot of people dont like the idea of seeing people they dont want to see naked at a beach.How great is it to have naked children surrounded by Nude adult men who are strangers?

The reason people were upset about Janet jackson Boob flop waisnt because of the bare breast but because that boobie was riped out by Justin timberlake on stage just after he shouted "I am gonna get you naked"! It was on national live tv at the super bowl were millions of kids were watching this happen and there was no warning at all when it happened.

My a finally add that Timberlake and Janet are both wankers.

A Black Falcon
Heh... good move... :)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/02/13/samesex.marriage/index.html

alien space marine
Sombody call the Terminator.

Ryan
As I said, poor Southern whites felt like that, except probably stronger so...
I don't know what they felt like. I didn't see the movie!

Communism as implemented isn't communism, it's more like dictatorship or facism. Communism as Marx says is (as I have said many times) the perfect government if people were perfect. We are very imperfect so it is a failure in actual practice, and always will be. It'd only work if people would all work hard no matter if they got rewarded for working harder or not...
Even as Marx said it, even if it was practiced as it were preached, it is not perfect, right or fair... unless everyone did the exact same job.

Right, because all liberals are gay... :rolleyes:

And all the white people helping in the Civil Rights movement were actually black people in disguise too.
It was a yes/no question.

You might have a point if there were not significant legal and monetary benefits for having their union recognized.

That's exactly my point. Gay people are not exempt from marriage benefits. The catch is they have to go through the same process everyone else does in order to obtain them. It's not as though they have to do something extra, or that they are unavailable to them.

Meaningless? As I said, you don't care about fairness so my arguement will go right over your head...

The only way it could be fair is if they were all bisexual. :)
I don't get what's 'unfair' about a mutually-agreed, consensual relationship. If two women are willing to share one man, it's only unfair numerically.

I just think you're wrong... why would homosexuals seperate any more than heterosexuals? That doesn't make sense...

That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that there would be just as many, though more at first, because you and I both know that if every state magically decided to start allowing gay marriages, there would be many such marriages done on complete whim, and, as the saying goes, "the young marry in haste and repent in leisure.", only now they don't repent, they divorce.


That it's not unnatural or uncommon. And that penguins don't choose to be gay so people don't either.

How on earth does one know if penguins are making conscious decisions?

Individual rights and freedoms are more important than keeping everyone the same... within bounds of course, plenty of things should obviously be illegal (and some legal things should be illegal), but forced compliance to things that are not good for the individuals and don't hurt society are things we should (and have been, steadily, throughout our history -- see how we slowly expanded voter rolls...) change.
Except, over time, they do harm society. The drug-addled liberal philosophies of the 1960's are quite responsible for a lot of the mess we are in today.

First, in some parts of the world nudity is taken a whole lot seriously than we take it... see Europe... so yes, that is a societal thing. If that Janet Jackson thing had been in Europe it probably would have been unnoticed. They seem amused (or surprised) that we take it so seriously... but that is beyond public nudity... it is not something you do in public, anywhere. Decency/decorum means something...

As I said, it's not like I want to get rid of all of these limitations you like so much, just the ones that don't make sense...
Then that's where the difference lies. Both make sense to me.

A Black Falcon
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/17/virginia.civil.rights.ap/index.html :)

Ryan
There probably won't be another Democrat governor in this state for the next fifty years. But at least they did re-affirm the ban on marriages.

Frankly, I hope San Francisco and Massachusetts do allow them. It seems like many other states are responding by strengthening their bans. Then we'll have homosexual meccas on each coast, they can all go and live happy lives in.

Though, San Francisco's mayor deserves to be removed from office, if not worse, for his illegal stunt. What a waste.

A Black Falcon
Equal benefits is a good first step.