Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[TVoffBrainOn]

Interesting, but not evidence of same sex marriage. They certainly describe acceptance of same sex relationships, but wrongly call them marriages. Some of the references point to other web sites and some point to books that I can't find referenced anywhere. (self published for this explicit purpose perhaps)

I never made the claim that same sex relationships were not accepted, but marriage? Provide some credible history.

impossible, your definition of credible history is history that supports your opinion.

[Coyote]

Interesting, but not evidence of same sex marriage. They certainly describe acceptance of same sex relationships, but wrongly call them marriages. Some of the references point to other web sites and some point to books that I can't find referenced anywhere. (self published for this explicit purpose perhaps)

I never made the claim that same sex relationships were not accepted, but marriage? Provide some credible history.

Why do you say "wrongly called" marriages?

[Mare Tranquillity]

You can use the word 'honest' in a sentence!

How ironic!

Maybe you should look up the meaning of the word before you think it's ironic that I use it.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I didn't know that - interesting!

In Elizabethan England there were 4 genders recognized, men, women, Mollies, and Tommies. We have retained the term "Tomboy" derived from Tommies because it's acceptable for a female to be somewhat masculine, especially early in life. The Mollies were feminine men, which is anathema these days--just read Pale's posts--so that term was dropped. Nowadays the people paying attention know that there is a difference between homosexuality and transsexuality, something not realized in days gone by. The gay bashers have been writing history for so long that they have come to believe their own propaganda, but the truth is that in many, many cultures gay and trans people were completely accepted. It was the partriarchal cultures and desert religions that changed the landscape and edited history to make us disappear. Most indigenous cultures never did have a problem with gay or trans people. Neither did any of the Goddess religions about which I have read. This editing of history is also prominent in the "acceptable" scientific literature, any reference to homosexual behaviors in animals is verboten in schools, so kids grow up believing that homosexual activity is an evil lifestyle choice when in fact it's just another natural variation in the behavior patterns found in animals on this planet.

[Mare Tranquillity]

LMAO.

There is a RIGHT to satisfy a particular sexual preference!?

How does that work - you can sue your partner for not giving good head?!

LMAO some more.

What is truly ironic is that you can give me grief for using the word "honest" and then post this kind of nonsense.

Do you find women sexually attractive? Can you marry a member of the gender you find attractive--if they're willing? Then you have a "special right" that is denied to homosexual people. They are not allowed, by law, to marry the people they find attractive. You are enjoying a right that you wish to deny to others, that's a "special right".

[Mare Tranquillity]

impossible, your definition of credible history is history that supports your opinion.

That IS part of the problem, the Pales of the world have been rewriting history for so long to make it reflect their version of reality that it's difficult to find the truth. Why have invaders so commonly destroyed the writings of the places they have conquered, so that the victors can write history to support their positions.

Read A PEOPLE'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES by Howard Zinn and he will rub your nose in this country's historical revisionism.

[palerider]

That IS part of the problem, the Pales of the world have been rewriting history for so long to make it reflect their version of reality that it's difficult to find the truth.

You are rediculous. You say whatever you feel like you need to say to make your point. If it needs misunderstood biology, you make it up. If it needs twisted philosophy, you make it up. If it is a blatant lie, you make it up. You have no room to suggest that anyone and I mean ANYONE is guilty of rewriting anything. You have been rewriting everything from history to my own posts since you got here.

[palerider]

Why do you say "wrongly called" marriages?

For the simple reason, coyote, that marriage is what it is. If you have access to an Oxford English Dictionary, look up the word and follow it back to its earliest days in cultures that span the earth.

It is what it is.

[Mare Tranquillity]

You are rediculous. You say whatever you feel like you need to say to make your point. If it needs misunderstood biology, you make it up. If it needs twisted philosophy, you make it up. If it is a blatant lie, you make it up. You have no room to suggest that anyone and I mean ANYONE is guilty of rewriting anything. You have been rewriting everything from history to my own posts since you got here.

At least I can spell "ridiculous". The "liar, liar" defense is getting pretty old, Pale, it's beginning to pale, I guess you could say. I gather you disagree with what I wrote, but since you didn't give any examples or refutation, but just bleated like one of the sheeple, I suppose I'll just have to ignore you with dignity.:p

[Mare Tranquillity]

For the simple reason, coyote, that marriage is what it is. If you have access to an Oxford English Dictionary, look up the word and follow it back to its earliest days in cultures that span the earth.
It is what it is.

I assume that the truly important thing is that nothing ever change so that small minded people will feel safe. You must have hated it when women were finally allowed to own property in the US. And vote, oh my God! Democracies in the past NEVER let women vote, so we can't either.

If you look back over human history you'll find that democracies are pretty rare too, while kingdoms, fiefdoms, and feudalism have been very common, is that a reason to disband our form of government? Babies have very commonly been throw-away people, especially female babies, in human culture, but you don't seem to be advocating that.

Why the hate and hypocrisy, Pale? You claim you're not Catholic, so what the Hell IS wrong with you? Maybe the ol' neck is getting a trifle erubescent? Brow a little low? What possible difference does it make to a famous scientist like yourself if gay people get married? You act like God will reduce YOUR personal share of Heaven.

[numinus]

Maybe you should look up the meaning of the word before you think it's ironic that I use it.

LOL

And what 'honesty' have you supplied, except the ridiculous assertion that gay men possess the right to motherhood, hmmm?

And you say this is an argument of intellectual substance, eh?

[numinus]

What is truly ironic is that you can give me grief for using the word "honest" and then post this kind of nonsense.

The only nonsense that is apparent is your more than liberal use of the word 'right' well beyond its academic meaning.

Do you find women sexually attractive? Can you marry a member of the gender you find attractive--if they're willing? Then you have a "special right" that is denied to homosexual people. They are not allowed, by law, to marry the people they find attractive. You are enjoying a right that you wish to deny to others, that's a "special right".

Marital institution is based on THE NATURE OF HUMAN FECUNDITY AND THE HUMAN RELATIONS THAT ACCRUE FROM IT. That nature is in all of us, although we are free to indulge our distinct sexual preferences.

Take note that the pursuit of sexual attraction has nothing to do with it. Otherwise, I'd be married to 10 different women right now.

[jb_1430]

This editing of history is also prominent in the "acceptable" scientific literature, any reference to homosexual behaviors in animals is verboten in schools, so kids grow up believing that homosexual activity is an evil lifestyle choice when in fact it's just another natural variation in the behavior patterns found in animals on this planet.

Infanticide and cannibalism occur in nature. Thats not an arguement that it should be promoted, licensed and regulated. MARK

[9sublime]

Wait wait wait... why don't we stop legislating straight marriage? Its not like the government really needs to get involved in that is it?

[Mare Tranquillity]

LOL

And what 'honesty' have you supplied, except the ridiculous assertion that gay men possess the right to motherhood, hmmm?

And you say this is an argument of intellectual substance, eh?

If you tell a lie about someone, is that the same as telling the truth to you?

[Mare Tranquillity]

The only nonsense that is apparent is your more than liberal use of the word 'right' well beyond its academic meaning.



Marital institution is based on THE NATURE OF HUMAN FECUNDITY AND THE HUMAN RELATIONS THAT ACCRUE FROM IT. That nature is in all of us, although we are free to indulge our distinct sexual preferences.

Take note that the pursuit of sexual attraction has nothing to do with it. Otherwise, I'd be married to 10 different women right now.

You make my point for me, thank you. If you were in the right Mormon group you COULD be married to 10 women. The law allows you to marry (in varying numbers) the people you find attractive. That is a special right that you enjoy and yet you deny it to others. Human fecundity is not an issue in US marriage law and never has been or we would not allow sterile people to marry. Tee hee, hoist on your own petard!:)

[Mare Tranquillity]

Infanticide and cannibalism occur in nature. Thats not an arguement that it should be promoted, licensed and regulated. MARK

That's true, but homosexuality between consenting adults (which is all we are discussing) harms no one. That's the issue, people keep trying to make homosexuality bad through guilt by association with all kinds of other things. We are talking about sexual activity between consenting adults and there is no harm involved and thus no reason to abrogate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to ban it.

It would be good to note here that ritual cannibalism takes place every Sunday in Christian churches across this land. Are you up in arms about that? What kind of message does that send to our innocent children?
[/QUOTE]

[numinus]

Wait wait wait... why don't we stop legislating straight marriage? Its not like the government really needs to get involved in that is it?

There is a RIGHT TO MOTHERHOOD that the state, being a signatory to the universal declaration of human rights, is obliged to protect.

How many more times do I need to say this before you give yourself leave to understand, eh?

[Mare Tranquillity]

There is a RIGHT TO MOTHERHOOD that the state, being a signatory to the universal declaration of human rights, is obliged to protect.

How many more times do I need to say this before you give yourself leave to understand, eh?

Obfuscation. You should change your name to the Numerous Obfuscator.

Excrement! The Right to Motherhood is not impacted in any way by allowing homosexual people to marry. You seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel for mud to sling, Num.

[numinus]

You make my point for me, thank you. If you were in the right Mormon group you COULD be married to 10 women. The law allows you to marry (in varying numbers) the people you find attractive. That is a special right that you enjoy and yet you deny it to others. Human fecundity is not an issue in US marriage law and never has been or we would not allow sterile people to marry. Tee hee, hoist on your own petard!:)

Polygamy IS NOT covered by the free exercise clause of the 1st ammendment.

I have yet to hear of a marriage vow that includes sexual attraction.

You are living in a cheap x-rated movie if you wish to equate marriage with sex.

[numinus]

Obfuscation. You should change your name to the Numerous Obfuscator.

Excrement! The Right to Motherhood is not impacted in any way by allowing homosexual people to marry. You seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel for mud to sling, Num.

The right to motherhood is an integral basis of the marital institution. Homosexual unions will never result in motherhood hence can not be called marriages.

What could be simpler and more logical than that?

[numinus]

If you tell a lie about someone, is that the same as telling the truth to you?

I don't see how this statement can validate motherhood for gay men, nor give substance to your argument.

I suppose you were talking to yourself and there is no reason not to indulge you on this.

[vyo476]

The right to motherhood is an integral basis of the marital institution. Homosexual unions will never result in motherhood hence can not be called marriages.

What could be simpler and more logical than that?

So women who adopt are not mothers?

[vyo476]

Marital institution is based on THE NATURE OF HUMAN FECUNDITY AND THE HUMAN RELATIONS THAT ACCRUE FROM IT.

I have a question for you. Why does this matter?

[vyo476]

The right to motherhood is an integral basis of the marital institution. Homosexual unions will never result in motherhood hence can not be called marriages.

What could be simpler and more logical than that?

It is simple - in fact, it's an oversimplification. Marriage means a bit more today than that. It means something for the people who are getting married. The manifest function of marriage has changed. It is no longer the production of children - it is now the joining together of two people. The production of children is now considered by many to be a latent function of marriage.

Basically - people get married primarily because they love each other and wish to spend the rest of their lives together, not primarily because they plan to have children together. It's about them - not their hypothetical children.

That's how it is today, and that's why gays want to and should be allowed to get married - because marriage is largely seen as an expression of love and affection and they want to have equal rights to express themselves in that manner.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Polygamy IS NOT covered by the free exercise clause of the 1st ammendment.

I have yet to hear of a marriage vow that includes sexual attraction.

You are living in a cheap x-rated movie if you wish to equate marriage with sex.

Are you telling us that you married someone to whom you are not sexually attracted? You're GAY? WOW! So all the crap you've been posting is just a cover so no one will suspect? Or is it hate that you have internalized and the only way to safely express it is to attack people like yourself? Isn't it sad how that works, I'm sorry for you. A friend once told me that it's better for others to hate you than it is to hate yourself. I think that's true, Num.

[Mare Tranquillity]

The right to motherhood is an integral basis of the marital institution. Homosexual unions will never result in motherhood hence can not be called marriages.

What could be simpler and more logical than that?

All kinds of lesbians have kids, you will deny them the right of motherhood?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Considering Numinus' position on homosexuality I think it is very courageous of him to admit that he does not find women attractive. I am curious though, Num, is this just a new evil lifestyle choice that you've made or did you make it a long time ago?

Either way, I'm proud of you for being so forthright (finally) and I hope that other people will be more compassionate towards you than you have been towards others.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I don't see how this statement can validate motherhood for gay men, nor give substance to your argument.

I suppose you were talking to yourself and there is no reason not to indulge you on this.

As far as I know, you are the only one who has ever written the words "validate motherhood for gay men" on this site (or any other site). Your attempt to attribute it to me is another example that the Numerous Obfuscator rides again!

[palerider]

I assume that the truly important thing is that nothing ever change so that small minded people will feel safe. You must have hated it when women were finally allowed to own property in the US. And vote, oh my God! Democracies in the past NEVER let women vote, so we can't either.

Mare, yours is one of the smallest minds that I have ever encountered. You are completely unable to fashion a rational argument. Here is a fine example. Rather than justify your need to redefine what the word marriage means, you attack me personally on the subject of women's sufferage as if that had anything to do with this topic or that you could prove your meaningless attack in the first place.

And by definition, democracy does not exclude women from voting, Allowing women to vote did not require that the very definition of democracy be changed. Do you ever think anything through?

And for your information, the US is not a democracy.

Why the hate and hypocrisy, Pale? You claim you're not Catholic, so what the Hell IS wrong with you? .

First, you can't provide a single example of hate on my part so that is a fabrication on your part. Second, there is nothing hypocrical in my position so that is another fabrication. Third, I am not catholic, but even if I were, simply pointing out that an argument is based in religion (which mine is not) doesn't constitute an argument on your part.

As I have already ponted out to you; your hate for catholics is irrational. You hate them so much that you believe that if you can somehow attatch any argument to anything that a catholic might believe, that you have successfully defeated the argument. Sorry mare, it doesn't work like that. If you can't defeat the argument with a rational rebuttal, the point stands and simply wailing catholic dogma, catholic dogma (spoken as gomer pyle saying "citizens arrest, citizens arrest) doesn't cut it.

"Maybe the ol' neck is getting a trifle erubescent? Brow a little low? What possible difference does it make to a famous scientist like yourself if gay people get married? You act like God will reduce YOUR personal share of Heaven"

And again, personal attacks in lieu of argument only highlights the weakness of your position and your inability to refute a single point that I have made.

[Mare Tranquillity]

So far Pale, you haven't done anything rational to prove your point about not letting homosexual people marry except try to extend a tradition based in the patriarchal religions. A tradition that was not embraced universally by any means in the other religious traditions in human history. "We've always done it this way," is not a rational argument, it's an argument for the status quo.

As long as you are supporting the status quo why don't you admit that women have never been allowed to vote in any of the previous democratic states? I never said there was anything inherent in democracy that would bar women from voting but it IS traditional, just like your position on marriage.

I'm glad that your personal attacks on me aren't personal attacks, Pale, I'd hate to think that you would stoop so low--Hell, torturing people is a very high-minded enterprise and could never be considered a "personal attack" by a rational, non-Catholic scientist.

Yeah, yeah, bleat like a sheep. We used to live in a representative republic but nowadays we have more of a mobocracy than even a democracy, but we bill ourselves somewhat disingenuously as "bringing democracy to the world".

Denial is not a rational defense, Pale, and when you support laws, customs, and traditions that are based in religion that condemns people for innate qualities that feels like hate to the people on the receiving end. I know you don't want to look at it that way, you want to see yourself as a saviour torturing for the safety of the millions, but the poor bastard you are cutting into tiny pieces because you THINK he might have information is going to feel your HATE. When you denigrate people, deny them Constitutional rights, and promolgate a religious-based agenda it comes across as hateful.

Poor Pale, you just can't figure it out. It isn't Catholics, it's anybody ethically retarded enough to support a religion that has been killing themselves and others for nearly 2000 years over "interpretations" of scribbles in books and tribal god images. You're claiming to be a scientist, but yet you've only used religious tradition to support your position. Don't blame me because YOU look like a Catholic, I don't write your silly posts.

You write stuff that is taken directly out of the red-neck playbook, you are a bigot or at least you manage to write like one, what am I supposed to think? In the future try to make a point instead of letting religious doma speak for you. So far no one has brought forward a compelling reason to prevent homosexual people from enjoying all the legal benefits associated with marriage in this country and enshrined in US law. Personally I wish all you religious people would take "marriage" back to your church where you can protect it from queers and that there would be a civil union law like they have in the European Union that confers all the legal rights to all consenting adults. Then, once you have the legal part done you can repair to whatever house of worship you choose and have some ol' time religion troweled onto your union, but it will have no more legal standing than a baptism currently does. This would allow small-minded people like the pale bigots to save the word "marriage" and thus still feel special.

How about all the other rights denied to homosexual people, Pale? Do you think we should continue to deny them all the other things too, or is it just marriage that gets your undies all inflamed? :) And why don't you work on your tan so that you don't have to be the pale Rider?

[jb_1430]

Denial is not a rational defense, Pale, and when you support laws, customs, and traditions that are based in religion that condemns people for innate qualities that feels like hate to the people on the receiving end.

Do you feel condemned because you cant get a license to marry your boyfriend? I think your simply seeking validation for a relationship you dont feel is valid.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Do you feel condemned because you cant get a license to marry your boyfriend? I think your simply seeking validation for a relationship you dont feel is valid.

Actually, I'm happily married (legally too) because I'm a transsexual and I was married before I transitioned.

The condemnation comes from the abuse, you know, the beatings, rapes, killings, denial of jobs, housing, services, and the denial of Constitutionally guaranteed right to equal protection under the law. The genesis of all this condemnation is religious, mostly the Bible and the Christian interpretation and implementation of it.

I don't need your validation, jb, I don't really give a flying flock about it, my brothers are the same kind of insane religious a------s that you appear to be, bigoted, ignorant, hateful, and self-righteous, but I would like to be treated equally under the law. I would love it if you and all the other self-identified followers of Jesus would take your religion out of the law and return it to your safe little churches where you can protect it from being sullied by commies, queers, and all the rest of us riff raff--I mean that's what Jesus taught wasn't it? Protect the purity of the religion at all costs, kill people who don't agree, kill queers, set up Inqusitions, carry out Crusades, and slaughter indigenous peoples if they won't covert? I've read the Bible, I know the sick stuff in there that all of you try to cover up or deny. Why would I care about validation from someone who worships a god who allows women to be taken as spoils of war and raped? Actually READING the stuff in the Bible will point up very quickly the hypocrisy of hating gay people.

[palerider]

So far Pale, you haven't done anything rational to prove your point about not letting homosexual people marry except try to extend a tradition based in the patriarchal religions. A tradition that was not embraced universally by any means in the other religious traditions in human history. "We've always done it this way," is not a rational argument, it's an argument for the status quo.

I understand that you want to change the law and call walking flying and swimming running to satisfy the sexual preference of a very small minority. Granting special rights to satisfy sexual preference is not rational .

As long as you are supporting the status quo why don't you admit that women have never been allowed to vote in any of the previous democratic states? I never said there was anything inherent in democracy that would bar women from voting but it IS traditional, just like your position on marriage.

You keep making the same old logical mistakes over and over even when you have had the errors explained to you in detail.

Allowing women to vote doesn't require that the very definition of democracy be changed. How difficult is that to understand. Your analogy is flawed, therefore it doesn't work.

Denial is not a rational defense, Pale, and when you support laws, customs, and traditions that are based in religion that condemns people for innate qualities that feels like hate to the people on the receiving end. I know you don't want to look at it that way, you want to see yourself as a saviour torturing for the safety of the millions, but the poor bastard you are cutting into tiny pieces because you THINK he might have information is going to feel your HATE. When you denigrate people, deny them Constitutional rights, and promolgate a religious-based agenda it comes across as hateful.

Marriage didn't come out of religion mare. Religion came to support the institution, but religion isn't where it came from. You haven't come up with a single point that is valid or based in any present or historical fact.

How about all the other rights denied to homosexual people, Pale? Do you think we should continue to deny them all the other things too, or is it just marriage that gets your undies all inflamed? :) And why don't you work on your tan so that you don't have to be the pale Rider?

Name a "right" that is denied to homosexuals mare. Refer to the constitution (if you can read it) and look at the rights that are enumerated there and tell me some that are denied explicitly to homosexuals. This, as with every point you make is not based in any fact, it is nothing more than a hand wringing appeal to emotion.

The fact is mare, that no rights are denied to homosexuals and any suggestion to the contrary is a bald faced lie. Par for you of course.

[palerider]

I don't need your validation, jb, I don't really give a flying flock about it, my brothers are the same kind of insane religious a------s that you appear to be, bigoted, ignorant, hateful, and self-righteous, but I would like to be treated equally under the law. I would love it if you and all the other self-identified followers of Jesus would take your religion out of the law and return it to your safe little churches where you can protect it from being sullied by commies, queers, and all the rest of us riff raff--I mean that's what Jesus taught wasn't it? Protect the purity of the religion at all costs, kill people who don't agree, kill queers, set up Inqusitions, carry out Crusades, and slaughter indigenous peoples if they won't covert? I've read the Bible, I know the sick stuff in there that all of you try to cover up or deny. Why would I care about validation from someone who worships a god who allows women to be taken as spoils of war and raped? Actually READING the stuff in the Bible will point up very quickly the hypocrisy of hating gay people.

Hysterical hand wringing mare. Nothing more. Not a valid point in the whole statement. You are treated equally under the law. You are not, however, entitled to special treatment under the law which is what you want and have absolutely no basis upon which to make a claim.

And your attacks on religion, religious people, and God don't constitute any sort of argument at all mare, they only expose the sad and tragic emotionalism upon which you base your argument.

[jb_1430]

The condemnation comes from the abuse, you know, the beatings, rapes, killings, denial of jobs, housing, services, and the denial of Constitutionally guaranteed right to equal protection under the law. The genesis of all this condemnation is religious, mostly the Bible and the Christian interpretation and implementation of it.

.

You should have left out "laws", and limited your rant to "customs, and traditions".

[Mare Tranquillity]

You should have left out "laws", and limited your rant to "customs, and traditions".

The law is the biggest problem. Without the laws to force your religious beliefs on us you are just the same as any other bigot.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I understand that you want to change the law and call walking flying and swimming running to satisfy the sexual preference of a very small minority. Granting special rights to satisfy sexual preference is not rational .
You keep making the same old logical mistakes over and over even when you have had the errors explained to you in detail.
Allowing women to vote doesn't require that the very definition of democracy be changed. How difficult is that to understand. Your analogy is flawed, therefore it doesn't work.
Marriage didn't come out of religion mare. Religion came to support the institution, but religion isn't where it came from. You haven't come up with a single point that is valid or based in any present or historical fact.
Your historical facts are wrong yet you keep repeating them over and over in the hope that a lie told often enough will soon gain the substance of truth. Marriage has meant all kinds of things to all kinds of peoples all down through history and YOUR narrow, bigoted, religious definition is a product of patriarchal religions. I don't blame you for not liking to hear the truth, I'm sure your fantasies are much more satisfying.

Name a "right" that is denied to homosexuals mare. Refer to the constitution (if you can read it) and look at the rights that are enumerated there and tell me some that are denied explicitly to homosexuals. This, as with every point you make is not based in any fact, it is nothing more than a hand wringing appeal to emotion.
The fact is mare, that no rights are denied to homosexuals and any suggestion to the contrary is a bald faced lie. Par for you of course.
You keep making the same old logical mistakes over and over even when you have had the errors explained to you in detail. Gay people are denied the right that religious bigots like you have enshrined in law granting you the sole right to marry the object of your desire. (Or are you like Numinous and you actually don't like women?).

You always accuse me of lying, but the ugly fact is that you do this because you don't like the truth. According to the GAO legal marriage--denied to gay couples--guarantees more than 1000 rights and privileges. The only group of consenting adults denied these rights are gay people (death row inmates can marry, drug dealers, religious scientists masquerading as ration human beings, everybody but gay people) and the only reason for this is religious dogma. This violates the US Constitution's equal protection under the law in the 14th Amendment. There is no compelling reason to deny gay people marriage rights, the world will not end, your dick will NOT fall off, and the evidence is in the countries that allow gay marriage where it has made no difference to anyone except the gay people who are now happily married.

I'm not sure why you are such a mean person, you'd torture people, but you wouldn't let them marry. You're a weird combination of things, Pale.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Hysterical hand wringing mare. Nothing more. Not a valid point in the whole statement. You are treated equally under the law. You are not, however, entitled to special treatment under the law which is what you want and have absolutely no basis upon which to make a claim.

And your attacks on religion, religious people, and God don't constitute any sort of argument at all mare, they only expose the sad and tragic emotionalism upon which you base your argument.

Boiler plate, Pale. Religious bigotry is the cause of the problem and people who lie about their religious beliefs so that they can pretend to do things for rational reasons fail miserably when they can't come up with even a single rationale for denying gay people the right to marry like all the rest of the consenting adults in this country. You religious bigots will go to any end won't you, anything is fair in your battle to keep your special right to marry the objects of YOUR desire while denying it to others.

You know and I know that you are a Bible-beater and you just lie about it to try to maintain a facade of "scientific rationality" when in fact you have internalized the Christian Holy Book's hate for gay people. I suspect that like most Bible-beaters you don't know diddly-squat about the history of your own religion and Holy Book so you don't know that the gay-hate philosophy had nothing to do with God or Jesus because it was plaigarized from earlier works. King David in the Bible had a gay lover named Jonathon and God didn't have a word to say about that, did He? Liars and hypocrites, have you no shame? No, I guess if you are willing to torture people you probably don't have any shame. But you should.

How can a world famous rational scientist as you claim to be know so little about biological research? What kind of scientist are you, a phrenologist?

[jb_1430]

The law is the biggest problem. Without the laws to force your religious beliefs on us you are just the same as any other bigot.

Feel free to point to ANY law that "condemns people for innate qualities". And I'm an atheist ya freak.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Feel free to point to ANY law that "condemns people for innate qualities". And I'm an atheist ya freak.

All the science done in THIS century indicates that sexual orientation is an innate quality, in US law gay people are denied the equal protection guaranteed under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution by being the only consenting adults denied the right to enter into the legal contract of marriage as it is set forth in US law. Therefore, gay people are condemned to second classs citizenship for an innate quality. They are denied marriage based on religious dogma since there is no compelling reason to deny them legal marriage otherwise.

All the same arguments from the first paragraph can be applied to transsexual people as well. Being trans has nothing to do with sexual orientation, it's a birth defect and in many places transsexuals are denied marriage, medical care, jobs, and homes because they are not mentioned as a protected class in US anti-discrimination laws, therefore we don't exist in the eyes of the law. The legislature in Oregon just passed a comprehensive anti-discrimination law that does cover us, but the Christian community is rallying to collect signatures to put a referendum on the ballot to repeal the law. They really, really want to preserve their right to discriminate against us. Jesus should be proud!

You may be an atheist but you are singing the Christian song, wearing the uniform, and marching in lockstep with them. Too bad for you, most of the atheists I know are smarter than that--and more egalitarian too. If you aren't on the religious bus, then where does your antipathy towards gay people come from... ya freak?

[jb_1430]

All the science done in THIS century indicates that sexual orientation is an innate quality, in US law gay people are denied the equal protection guaranteed under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution by being the only consenting adults denied the right to enter into the legal contract of marriage as it is set forth in US law. Therefore, gay people are condemned to second classs citizenship for an innate quality. They are denied marriage based on religious dogma since there is no compelling reason to deny them legal marriage otherwise.



Hyperbole dont you think. "Condemned"??? because they dont get a license.
And the glaringly obvious reason is Hetero sexual couples can produce children, gay couples cannot. And court precedent shows that the 14th amendment isnt offended by limiting marriage to heterosexuals.

[palerider]

Hyperbole dont you think. "Condemned"??? because they dont get a license.
And the glaringly obvious reason is Hetero sexual couples can produce children, gay couples cannot. And court precedent shows that the 14th amendment isnt offended by limiting marriage to heterosexuals.

Mare has no interest at all in the truth, mare is a hysterical handwringer who bloviates incessantly about the "injustice" and "denied rights" of homosexuals while being completely unable to provide a credible example of either.

[jb_1430]

Too bad for you, most of the atheists I know are smarter than that--and more egalitarian too. If you aren't on the religious bus, then where does your antipathy towards gay people come from... ya freak?

"Antipathy"??? Because I think its silly to license and regulate a human relationship without any rational purpose for doing so? Because I think government needs to have some rational basis for doing so in the first place?

[Coyote]

The meaning of "marriage" has changed many times over the course of human history. The ideal of "one man/one woman" as the only acceptable form of marriage is relatively modern.

Raising children was not by any means the only reason for marriage or for government sanctioning of marriage - much of it had to do with property and title.

I fail to see why - all of a sudden - it is decreed that it shal not change again and this current model is the only acceptable model.

[jb_1430]

The meaning of "marriage" has changed many times over the course of human history. The ideal of "one man/one woman" as the only acceptable form of marriage is relatively modern.



?????? In some kind of weird, alternate universe that you dwell in. Throughout the course of Human history, it has almost universally been men and women as the only acceptable form of marriage. The fact that in some cultures men had many women, or vice versa, doesnt really do anything for your gay marriage arguement. The institution likely would have never even evolved BUT FOR the fact that when men and women are in an intimate relationship, they frequently produce children. Some kind of pathetic self loathing of the gays that have them clamoring for a chance to pretend they are just like heterosexual couples. Elevating the fact that they help get each other off to that of procreation and the continuation of mankind. Weve declared unconstitutional the laws that criminalized the diddleing of Billy in the but by Bob, there just isnt really any purpose in the government even being involved in such things. What you do in your bedroom is of really no importance to society as a whole, and certainly isnt something I think the government has any business promoting.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Hyperbole dont you think. "Condemned"??? because they dont get a license.
And the glaringly obvious reason is Hetero sexual couples can produce children, gay couples cannot. And court precedent shows that the 14th amendment isnt offended by limiting marriage to heterosexuals.

At one time court precedent showed that slavery was acceptable too. Courts are made up of people.

There are tens of thousands of gay people who have children and yet are denied the more than 1000 legal rights and privileges granted to couples who can legally marry. If children are the issue and you aren't just another hypocrite, then I challenge you to come out against allowing heterosexual people to marry if they aren't going to have children, or to have their marriages taken away from them if they don't have children within a specified time limit. Sterile couples should be denied marriage catagorically. Old people should have their marriages annulled after menopause. Similarly, any gay person who has children should be allowed to marry--if children are the issue. But children aren't the issue are they? You are simply using that as an excuse to promote discrimination because... well, I don't know why and when I have asked you have refused to answer. The only reasons for denying gay marriage are religious, if you're not religious then... you aren't a religious bigot you are just an ordinary bigot. How nice for you.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare has no interest at all in the truth, mare is a hysterical handwringer who bloviates incessantly about the "injustice" and "denied rights" of homosexuals while being completely unable to provide a credible example of either.

My position then, vis a vis gay rights is analogous to yours on abortion. You never provided an example that was more credible than mine are. What does that make you? By your own terms I guess that makes you a bloviating liar, doesn't it? Anybody who thinks torturing people on the suspicion of them being guilty is hardly in a position to do anything but bleat like one of the sheeple at me.

Bloviating, what a great word, applied to you it conjures up a picture in my mind of a small, pale, bad-tempered fish swollen up with self-righteousness lurking under a rocky outcrop glowering at life as it passes him by.

[Mare Tranquillity]

"Antipathy"??? Because I think its silly to license and regulate a human relationship without any rational purpose for doing so? Because I think government needs to have some rational basis for doing so in the first place?

No, antipathy because you would deny to others legal rights that you can enjoy, and you would do so for no compelling reason that you have yet presented.

[Mare Tranquillity]

?????? In some kind of weird, alternate universe that you dwell in. Throughout the course of Human history, it has almost universally been men and women as the only acceptable form of marriage. The fact that in some cultures men had many women, or vice versa, doesnt really do anything for your gay marriage arguement. The institution likely would have never even evolved BUT FOR the fact that when men and women are in an intimate relationship, they frequently produce children. Some kind of pathetic self loathing of the gays that have them clamoring for a chance to pretend they are just like heterosexual couples. Elevating the fact that they help get each other off to that of procreation and the continuation of mankind. Weve declared unconstitutional the laws that criminalized the diddleing of Billy in the but by Bob, there just isnt really any purpose in the government even being involved in such things. What you do in your bedroom is of really no importance to society as a whole, and certainly isnt something I think the government has any business promoting.

What weird alternative Universe do you live in? Marriage has not been restricted to just hetero people in all kinds of cultures. Mostly the restrictions have come from the desert religions, patriarchal religions. You need to study more history.

[jb_1430]

There are tens of thousands of gay people who have children and yet are denied the more than 1000 legal rights and privileges granted to couples who can legally marry. If children are the issue and you aren't just another hypocrite, then I challenge you to come out against allowing heterosexual people to marry if they aren't going to have children


There are tens of thousands of people who have children and yet are denied the more than 1000 legal rights and privileges granted to couples who are married. If children are the issue and you aren't just another hypocrite, then I challenge you to come out against this pathetic attempt by the gay community to secure special rights just because they are gay, and secure them for all people acting as parents.

[Mare Tranquillity]

There are tens of thousands of people who have children and yet are denied the more than 1000 legal rights and privileges granted to couples who are married. If children are the issue and you aren't just another hypocrite, then I challenge you to come out against this pathetic attempt by the gay community to secure special rights just because they are gay, and secure them for all people acting as parents.

All people acting as parents are able to access all the rights guaranteed under the law simply by getting married--EXCEPT gay people--and they are not allowed to get married. I think all consenting adults should be allowed to marry, I'm not asking for any right for myself that I wish to deny to anyone else. I'm inclusive, you're the one who is defending exclusivity.

[jb_1430]

Raising children was not by any means the only reason for marriage or for government sanctioning of marriage - much of it had to do with property and title.


Yes, women and their property both became the property of the man. Much of marriage law was enacted for the protection of both women and children.

[jb_1430]

All people acting as parents are able to access all the rights guaranteed under the law simply by getting married--EXCEPT gay people--

I know a father and daughter who live together raising her child. A brother and sister raising her children since her husband died. Both cant get married. Long time room mates sharing the parenting duties who dont want to get married. What in the world makes you think a gay couples should be given special recognition above ANY other possible group of unmarried adults that might raise children?
And like Ive always said. Government encourages intimate heterosexual couples to get married because they frequently produce children. Its just NEVER going to happen in the case of a gay couple.

[jb_1430]

What weird alternative Universe do you live in? Marriage has not been restricted to just hetero people in all kinds of cultures. Mostly the restrictions have come from the desert religions, patriarchal religions. You need to study more history.

I didnt say in ALL kinds of cultures. I said Throughout the course of Human history, it has almost universally been men and women as the only acceptable form of marriage. Almost precludes "all" from being the case.

[Coyote]

Yes, women and their property both became the property of the man. Much of marriage law was enacted for the protection of both women and children.

Not necessarily. It depends on the culture you are talking about. Marriage was also about political alliances.

The point is: the definition of marriage has changed many times over. It is primarily a legal contract that endows certain benefits on a particular group of people. Why should any two consenting adults who wish to form a permanent union be denied these legal benifits and protections? Why is it considered "special rights" for one and not for the other?

[Coyote]

?????? In some kind of weird, alternate universe that you dwell in. Throughout the course of Human history, it has almost universally been men and women as the only acceptable form of marriage. The fact that in some cultures men had many women, or vice versa, doesnt really do anything for your gay marriage arguement. The institution likely would have never even evolved BUT FOR the fact that when men and women are in an intimate relationship, they frequently produce children. Some kind of pathetic self loathing of the gays that have them clamoring for a chance to pretend they are just like heterosexual couples. Elevating the fact that they help get each other off to that of procreation and the continuation of mankind. Weve declared unconstitutional the laws that criminalized the diddleing of Billy in the but by Bob, there just isnt really any purpose in the government even being involved in such things. What you do in your bedroom is of really no importance to society as a whole, and certainly isnt something I think the government has any business promoting.


Stripping off the hysterical hyperbole, lets look at facts:

FACT: The government is ALREADY involved in the business of the bedroom by the simple fact that it legalizes and recongizes marriages and convers special benefits on married couples. Your obsession with Billy Bob's diddling is silly.


FACT: The definition of "marriage" has changed. In some cultures "marriages" appear to have occured and been recognized, between individuals of the same sex. This has been referenced previously. Whether it is the "same" as "marriage" as we recognize it, or not is a matter of semantics not reality since what ever it was - it was a recognized union of two individuals.

FACT: The following has defined "marriage" through out history....

One man/one woman
One woman/several men
One man/several women
One white man/one white woman
One black man/one black woman
One Catholic man/one Catholic woman
One woman/one diety

Marriage is defined by culture. It changes. But for some reason that seems to no longer be applicable and the default misconception is that it was always and must be always one man/one woman. Why?

[Mare Tranquillity]

I know a father and daughter who live together raising her child. A brother and sister raising her children since her husband died. Both cant get married. Long time room mates sharing the parenting duties who dont want to get married. What in the world makes you think a gay couples should be given special recognition above ANY other possible group of unmarried adults that might raise children?
And like Ive always said. Government encourages intimate heterosexual couples to get married because they frequently produce children. Its just NEVER going to happen in the case of a gay couple.

I don't. I think all consenting adults should have the right to legal marriage. How many times do I have to write this? Are you too dim to read accurately? All consenting adults should have the right to marry and share in the benefits of legal marriage. Hello? All consenting adults should have the right to legal marriage and all the benefits that accrue therefrom. Are you getting any of this? Earth to JB, INCLUSIVE NOT EXCLUSIVE. Marriage is a good and useful thing, a contract that legally binds people together for the betterment of themselves and the society in which they live. Every consenting adult should be allowed to marry. Can I explain this any more plainly? What? Do you need bigger print? Yes, I can do that:
I think all consenting adults should have the right to marry and share in all the legal rights and privileges that are guaranteed in US law. Yes, ALL OF THE CONSENTING ADULTS SHOULD HAVE THIS RIGHT!

[Mare Tranquillity]

I didnt say in ALL kinds of cultures. I said Throughout the course of Human history, it has almost universally been men and women as the only acceptable form of marriage. Almost precludes "all" from being the case.

So what? So some cultures did and some didn't, how does that help your case? The fact is that "almost universal" is a guess on your part, and not a very accurate one either. Parthenogenesis is almost unheard of too, but it has happened and that means that it's possible. As far as I know there is no compelling reason to disallow gay people from getting married. And you haven't yet provided one, nor have you explained why in the world you are on this site bashing at gay people if you aren't religious. What are you doing it for? Are you a recreational bigot and this is how you have fun?

[jb_1430]

I don't. I think all consenting adults should have the right to legal marriage. How many times do I have to write this? Are you too dim to read accurately? All consenting adults should have the right to marry and share in the benefits of legal marriage. Hello? All consenting adults should have the right to legal marriage and all the benefits that accrue therefrom. Are you getting any of this? Earth to JB, INCLUSIVE NOT EXCLUSIVE.


Uuuuuh????? I think everybody here is clear about what you think ya freakin loon! Marriage is for men and women. They are the only ones who make babies. Ya gettin any of this?

[jb_1430]

As far as I know there is no compelling reason to disallow gay people from getting married.

There is no compelling reason to disallow me from getting married to my left hand, but thats not a reason for government to issue me a license. And my relationship with my left hand has as much an impact on society as two gays in an intimate relationship. None.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Uuuuuh????? I think everybody here is clear about what you think ya freakin loon! Marriage is for men and women. They are the only ones who make babies. Ya gettin any of this?

You ARE dim. Oh well, I hate to break this to you my friend, but homosexuals and lesbians ARE men and women, and they manage to have children through a variety of ways--some of them the same way that heterosexuals do, some use surrogate mothers just like some heterosexuals do, some adopt just like heterosexuals do, and some use in vitro fertilization just like heterosexuals do.

You are trying to use an arbitrary standard to exclude a small portion of the consenting adult population from full citizenship and there is NO REASON that supports your standard, it doesn't exist.

[jb_1430]

You ARE dim. Oh well, I hate to break this to you my friend, but homosexuals and lesbians ARE men and women, and they manage to have children through a variety of ways--some of them the same way that heterosexuals do, some use surrogate mothers just like some heterosexuals do, some adopt just like heterosexuals do, and some use in vitro fertilization just like heterosexuals do.

You are trying to use an arbitrary standard to exclude a small portion of the consenting adult population from full citizenship and there is NO REASON that supports your standard, it doesn't exist.

Only a man and a woman can "make" a child. Their biological child. Any other method to "have" children involves a third person with rights and responsibilities as a biological parent.
Everything in your arguements regarding children apply equally to any two unmarried people raising a child. None of your arguements support the view that gays should be treated any differently than any other combination of unmarried adults.
And everything in your arguements regarding children, is an arguement to change the adoption laws, not the marriage laws.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Only a man and a woman can "make" a child. Their biological child. Any other method to "have" children involves a third person with rights and responsibilities as a biological parent.
Everything in your arguements regarding children apply equally to any two unmarried people raising a child. None of your arguements support the view that gays should be treated any differently than any other combination of unmarried adults.
And everything in your arguements regarding children, is an arguement to change the adoption laws, not the marriage laws.

So an infertile hetero couple has in vitro fertilization and you think that should fall under adoption laws? What are you talking about? Do you have any idea?

All consenting adults should have the right to marry, children are irrelevant. Marriage is a legal contract in US Law and has nothing to do with adoption.

[numinus]

So women who adopt are not mothers?

Correct.

You came up with this on your own?

[numinus]

I have a question for you. Why does this matter?

Because human society must be governed by the principles of human nature.

Duh?

Why did you think it was important?

[palerider]

My position then, vis a vis gay rights is analogous to yours on abortion. You never provided an example that was more credible than mine are.

More lies mare. My position is that unborns are human beings and I provided ample credible, peer reviewed science that supports that position. My position is that human beings have a right to live. I have provided the very founding documents of this nation to support that position. My position is that all rights are secondary to the right to live. Again, that position is corroborated by the founding documents of this nation.

As to your examples, you have yet to provide any or any credible corroboration to back them up.

Bloviating, what a great word, applied to you it conjures up a picture in my mind of a small, pale, bad-tempered fish swollen up with self-righteousness lurking under a rocky outcrop glowering at life as it passes him by.

Nice to see that you still must resort to personal attack in lieu of any actual argument or support of that argument. You talk talk talk, but fail to back up any of it.

You claim 1000 rights that married couples have that gay couples don't. Name a few for me if you don't mind and provide some corroboration to back up your claim. And as you are naming them, be sure to check to see if the "right" that you claim heterosexual couples have can't be had by homosexual couples via a decent lawyer or legal contract.

[palerider]

What weird alternative Universe do you live in? Marriage has not been restricted to just hetero people in all kinds of cultures. Mostly the restrictions have come from the desert religions, patriarchal religions. You need to study more history.


Mare there are no cultures that called any sort of homosexual relationship a marriage. There have beencultures that accepted homosexual relationships few cases certain relationships have even encouraged, but none of them have been called a marriage.

[palerider]

I think all consenting adults should have the right to legal marriage.

You believe that brothers and sisters should have the right to marry? You believe that fathers and daughters shoud have the right to marry? You believe that mothers and sons should have the right to marry? Do I have you right? You believe that grandfathers and grandaughters shoud have the right to marry?

I just want to be sure that I am understanding what you are saying.

[numinus]

It is simple - in fact, it's an oversimplification. Marriage means a bit more today than that. It means something for the people who are getting married. The manifest function of marriage has changed. It is no longer the production of children - it is now the joining together of two people. The production of children is now considered by many to be a latent function of marriage.

Basically - people get married primarily because they love each other and wish to spend the rest of their lives together, not primarily because they plan to have children together. It's about them - not their hypothetical children.

That's how it is today, and that's why gays want to and should be allowed to get married - because marriage is largely seen as an expression of love and affection and they want to have equal rights to express themselves in that manner.

Pay attention so that no one need repeat the obvious.

The state doesn't give a rat's ass who you want to spend the rest of your life with, nor how you like your sex.

The states obligation is to motherhood and the family relations consequent to it.

There is no motherhood for gay men - only for women. Lesbians do not become mothers through a homosexual union. It is dictated by the biology of her gender.

There is no equality in pretending that men could be mothers or women could be fathers for the simple reason that their genders are NOT the same. Motherhood and family relations proceed EXACTLY because their genders are NOT the same.

Understand?

[numinus]

Are you telling us that you married someone to whom you are not sexually attracted? You're GAY? WOW! So all the crap you've been posting is just a cover so no one will suspect? Or is it hate that you have internalized and the only way to safely express it is to attack people like yourself? Isn't it sad how that works, I'm sorry for you. A friend once told me that it's better for others to hate you than it is to hate yourself. I think that's true, Num.

LOL

You're free to put people in neat little labels - straight, gay, catholics, atheists, etc. etc. - if it gives you comfort intellectually.

Save your sympathy for yourself is my advice.

[numinus]

All kinds of lesbians have kids,

And they do through the exercise of their natural fecundity, not from any homosexual act.

you will deny them the right of motherhood?

They have an inalienable right to motherhood through the exercise of their natural fecundity.

How many times do you need me to repeat this?

[numinus]

Considering Numinus' position on homosexuality I think it is very courageous of him to admit that he does not find women attractive. I am curious though, Num, is this just a new evil lifestyle choice that you've made or did you make it a long time ago?

Either way, I'm proud of you for being so forthright (finally) and I hope that other people will be more compassionate towards you than you have been towards others.

LOL

My wife thinks you're funny to the point of absurdity. She has ample evidence of my sexual attraction for her. She finds you impertinent for suggesting that sexual attraction, in whatever form, can be the sole basis of a marriage.

[numinus]

As far as I know, you are the only one who has ever written the words "validate motherhood for gay men" on this site (or any other site). Your attempt to attribute it to me is another example that the Numerous Obfuscator rides again!

So you admit that there is no motherhood for gay men in a homosexual union?

Why the frack do you wish to call a homosexual union a marriage, then?

Hmmm?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Because human society must be governed by the principles of human nature.

How could human society be controlled by anything BUT human nature, we have access to no other kind of nature since we are human?

[Mare Tranquillity]

More lies mare. My position is that unborns are human beings and I provided ample credible, peer reviewed science that supports that position. My position is that human beings have a right to live. I have provided the very founding documents of this nation to support that position. My position is that all rights are secondary to the right to live. Again, that position is corroborated by the founding documents of this nation. As to your examples, you have yet to provide any or any credible corroboration to back them up. Nice to see that you still must resort to personal attack in lieu of any actual argument or support of that argument. You talk talk talk, but fail to back up any of it.
Is that the best you can do? Liar, liar? Good thing you don't do personal attacks. No, you've got it wrong, the follow up to your "bloviating" comment wasn't a personal attack, it was an appreciation of your onomatopoetic elegance.

You claim 1000 rights that married couples have that gay couples don't. Name a few for me if you don't mind and provide some corroboration to back up your claim. And as you are naming them, be sure to check to see if the "right" that you claim heterosexual couples have can't be had by homosexual couples via a decent lawyer or legal contract.

You don't read very well for a world-famous scientist and torture supporter, Pale. I said "MORE THAN 1000" on several occasions.

Here you go, Pale, straight from the horse's as... mouth, the Government Accounting Office:
From the GOA: (http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf)
Tables of Laws in the United States Code
Involving Marital Status

The silly people at the GAO did a search of the US laws and delineated the ones that were written in such a way as to restrict the rights and benefits to LEGALLY MARRIED people ONLY.

There you go, I just pulled up the site to make sure that the link was still active and as of 11:29 Pacific Time it was operational. I'm anxious to see if you will resort to another non-personal attack and blame me for lying on the GAO site. :D Fun, fun!

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare there are no cultures that called any sort of homosexual relationship a marriage. There have beencultures that accepted homosexual relationships few cases certain relationships have even encouraged, but none of them have been called a marriage.

If you can't prove your statement, then by the "Pale laws of discussion" you, sir, are a liar, or at least that's how you apply the rules to others. Pony up, Pale, let's see you proof. You are using a semantic dodge that you can't prove and you, dear boy, know it.:D

[Mare Tranquillity]

You believe that brothers and sisters should have the right to marry? You believe that fathers and daughters shoud have the right to marry? You believe that mothers and sons should have the right to marry? Do I have you right? You believe that grandfathers and grandaughters shoud have the right to marry?

I just want to be sure that I am understanding what you are saying.

You have been very aggressively MIS-understanding the things I write since I crossed you on the subject of your hobby of torture. You've been pissed at me for that and have been flipping me sh8t about it. This is just more of the same.

You are deliberately missing the point I was making by focusing ONLY on the incest taboo since you didn't mention mothers and daughters getting married like you usually do. How can anyone so dim be so transparent as you, Pale? Maybe it's because you are soooo pale.:)

I think that people having babies through incestual relationships are at far higher risk of negative consequences--for instance their children could turn out to be very pale--but that's not what's being discussed on this thread is it, Pale? This is the "Is Homosexuality a Choice or Is It Genetic" thread, are you on the wrong thread? In any case you are arguing for the sake of it--and not very well either.

Marriage rights should open to all consenting adults--even gay consenting adults. Torture on the other hand is a barbaric anachroism and should be outlawed in all cases. Try to focus on the issues at hand, Pale, we are getting tired of carrying you in this discussion.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Pay attention so that no one need repeat the obvious.The state doesn't give a rat's ass who you want to spend the rest of your life with, nor how you like your sex.The states obligation is to otherhood and the family relations consequent to it.There is no motherhood for gay men - only for women. Lesbians do not become mothers through a homosexual union. It is dictated by the biology of her gender.There is no equality in pretending that men could be mothers or women could be fathers for the simple reason that their genders are NOT the same. Motherhood and family relations proceed EXACTLY because their genders are NOT the same.Understand?

That's pretty good obfuscation there, Num, but your points are irrelevant to the discussion (is Pale helping you with your posts?)

I saw an interesting article the other day in which the author--a biologist--was suggesting that we now have the technology to allow a man to carry an ectopic pregnancy to tern and deliver the baby via C-section. More complicated but not really any different than in vitro fertilization.

[Mare Tranquillity]

LOL

My wife thinks you're funny to the point of absurdity. She has ample evidence of my sexual attraction for her. She finds you impertinent for suggesting that sexual attraction, in whatever form, can be the sole basis of a marriage.

So you lied about not finding women attractive? Why? Was this your natural fecundity sneaking out. Natural fecundity can be satisfied through different processes to produce offspring, all of these offspring should be able to be raised by the people who wish to raise them. All of them deserve the opportunity to be raised with the legal protections written into law for that purpose no matter what gender or combination of genders their "raisers" (also known commonly in this culture as parents).

You are aiming to exclude, I am aiming to include. The difference is that you hate and I accept. Even you, I wouldn't take away any of your rights just because you are a bigot, but I would like to see laws that protect others from you. You must have some redeeming qualities or you wife wouldn't have married you, women can be so perceptive that they can find value in even the most degenerate men--lucky for you, isn't it?

[Mare Tranquillity]

So you admit that there is no motherhood for gay men in a homosexual union?

Why the frack do you wish to call a homosexual union a marriage, then?

Hmmm?

"...that sexual attraction, in whatever form, can be the sole basis of a marriage."

Do you recall this quote from your post where you made up that story about your wife thinking that I'm impertinent? If you recognize that sex is not the be all and end all of marriage, then why the frack are you TOTALLY focused on gay men's motherhood?

Marriage is about relationships, committment, love, legal rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES. Denying it to homosexuals on the basis of sex is ridiculous since the well-known debater Numinous has proven that marriage isn't JUST about sex.

[jb_1430]

Revealing that you equate his use of the word "motherhood" with "sex" and simultaneously remain oblivious to the differences.

[r0beph]

Marriage has nothing to do with motherhood, or any of your lousy definitions, I myself prefer to quote shaw in the matter...

"When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition until death do them part." G.B. Shaw

Motherhood even being related to marriage is a farce of the greatest degree. Marriage is the elevation of the relationship between two people as vowed eternal and usually monogamous (of course this is disputable in some cultures). Intent to bear or ever possess children is not a prerequisite for marriage, and I needn't provide any proof of marriage being prerequisite for children, fatherhood, or motherhood. To deny marriage to gays is in violation of most constitutions of most states of the union. From georgia as example:

1-16 Neither the State of Georgia, its agents, nor any of its
1-17 political subdivisions shall use race, color, creed,
1-18 gender, or national origin as a criterion for either
1-19 discriminating against or granting preferential treatment
1-20 to any individual or group."

Allowing a marriage to heterosexuals, less the sexual preference and insert gender, a male and a female, gives preference to a group (two individuals) over two males or two females who wish to marry. You cannot deny that it is preferential treatment since they are being allowed without contest the option to proceed with marriage while denying clearly the same right to two individuals who do not meet the bigots definition of 'marriage' which has roots less in the reality of current times and more in that of the historical religious lawmongering. Most states and the fed have similar portions to their constitutions and laws. Is it okay to deny these rights to someone?

[jb_1430]

YES!... except in Mass.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Revealing that you equate his use of the word "motherhood" with "sex" and simultaneously remain oblivious to the differences.

Your posts are becoming increasingly incomprehensible, get more sleep please and then write what you mean more fully--or just quit and accept that you are in favor of persecuting people on the basis of simple-minded bigotry.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Marriage has nothing to do with motherhood, or any of your lousy definitions, I myself prefer to quote shaw in the matter...

"When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition until death do them part." G.B. Shaw

Motherhood even being related to marriage is a farce of the greatest degree. Marriage is the elevation of the relationship between two people as vowed eternal and usually monogamous (of course this is disputable in some cultures). Intent to bear or ever possess children is not a prerequisite for marriage, and I needn't provide any proof of marriage being prerequisite for children, fatherhood, or motherhood. To deny marriage to gays is in violation of most constitutions of most states of the union. From georgia as example:

1-16 Neither the State of Georgia, its agents, nor any of its
1-17 political subdivisions shall use race, color, creed,
1-18 gender, or national origin as a criterion for either
1-19 discriminating against or granting preferential treatment
1-20 to any individual or group."

Allowing a marriage to heterosexuals, less the sexual preference and insert gender, a male and a female, gives preference to a group (two individuals) over two males or two females who wish to marry. You cannot deny that it is preferential treatment since they are being allowed without contest the option to proceed with marriage while denying clearly the same right to two individuals who do not meet the bigots definition of 'marriage' which has roots less in the reality of current times and more in that of the historical religious lawmongering. Most states and the fed have similar portions to their constitutions and laws. Is it okay to deny these rights to someone?

Nice post! Hear, hear.

[Mare Tranquillity]

YES!... except in Mass.

Bigotry thy name is jb_1430

[jb_1430]

Bigotry thy name is jb_1430

Faggotry thy name is Mare Tranquillity.

[palerider]

Bigotry thy name is jb_1430


Mare, you shouldn't call anyone else a bigot. You are so bigoted against religion that you believe that just attatching a religious connotation to your opponent's argument is all you need to do in order to win said argument without ever actually having to discredit either their ideas or arguments. That is bigotry in all its vile glory.

[jb_1430]

Mare, you shouldn't call anyone else a bigot. You are so bigoted against religion that you believe that just attatching a religious connotation to your opponent's argument is all you need to do in order to win said argument without ever actually having to discredit either their ideas or arguments. That is bigotry in all its vile glory.


Made even more absurd by the fact that I am an atheist.

[Coyote]

Made even more absurd by the fact that I am an atheist.

So you say...

[jb_1430]

So you say...

You questioning my assesment of absurdity or my atheism?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Faggotry thy name is Mare Tranquillity.

Well, maybe if I was a guy--but I'm not. And maybe if I was a homosexual--but I'm not. Hmmm... try again, Num, and aim for more accuracy.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare, you shouldn't call anyone else a bigot. You are so bigoted against religion that you believe that just attatching a religious connotation to your opponent's argument is all you need to do in order to win said argument without ever actually having to discredit either their ideas or arguments. That is bigotry in all its vile glory.

Yeah, yeah, bleat like a sheep. Calling me a liar while lying yourself seems a trifle hypocritical. Keep YOUR religion out of our government and out of my life and I won't have any trouble with you.

When religion is used for violence and to express hatred, then, yes, I have problem with it--you can call me names if you like, but it won't change your religious arguments and the fact that you are advocating the abrogation of the US Constitution and you are doing it on the basis of religious dogma. It probably makes you unhappy when people see you for what you are, but... again, it doesn't change anything. Only you can do that.

So, did you go to the GAO website and read up on the rights and privileges reserved for the people who get to be "legally" married?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Made even more absurd by the fact that I am an atheist.

That's why I didn't call you a religious bigot like Pale is. I have asked on at least two occasions why you are so bigoted towards gay people since you are not religious, but of course you declined to answer. Bigotry is based on fear and ignorance--not necessarily religion.

[palerider]

Yeah, yeah, bleat like a sheep. Calling me a liar while lying yourself seems a trifle hypocritical. Keep YOUR religion out of our government and out of my life and I won't have any trouble with you.

I have challenged you repeatedly to bring forward a single lie that I have told and to date, you have produced exactly zero.

And you have yet to demonstrate that my arguments are religious in any way. You keep saying religion as if that constitutes any sort of argument, but have completely failed to show that my arguments have any connection to religion.

So, did you go to the GAO website and read up on the rights and privileges reserved for the people who get to be "legally" married?

Yeah. I didn't see anyting there, with the exception of the marriage tax, that homosexual couples can't have for themselves via a decent lawyer.

[palerider]

That's why I didn't call you a religious bigot like Pale is. I have asked on at least two occasions why you are so bigoted towards gay people since you are not religious, but of course you declined to answer. Bigotry is based on fear and ignorance--not necessarily religion.


You have yet to prove any religious connection in any of my arguments. Simply saying it doesn't make it so. Maybe not knowing that is the root of your "honesty" problem.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have challenged you repeatedly to bring forward a single lie that I have told and to date, you have produced exactly zero.
I have brought forward some of your lies but you call me a liar and pretend I didn't bring forward your lies. You latest lie:"I have challenged you repeatedly to bring forward a single lie that I have told and to date, you have produced exactly zero."

And you have yet to demonstrate that my arguments are religious in any way. You keep saying religion as if that constitutes any sort of argument, but have completely failed to show that my arguments have any connection to religion.
Here's your second lie just in this post! Your arguments are word for word Catholic dogma--if it walks like sheep and it bleats like a sheep, it must be a SHEEPLE! You deny it, that's another lie.

Yeah. I didn't see anyting there, with the exception of the marriage tax, that homosexual couples can't have for themselves via a decent lawyer.
This may not be a lie, it may be that you are just as stupid as you purport to be. Either way the outcome is the same. You are a lying, religious bigot who thinks torture is a good idea. I suppose the only really good thing about that is that YOU have to live with you, a more fitting punishment I cannot begin to imagine. That's one of the good things about reincarnation: you can't escape from what you are, all you can do is change it. For people like you the real tragedy of life is that you are here today and here tomorrow.

[Coyote]

Mare, I don't think PaleRider is citing Catholic dogma and unless you know him from other boards where he argues religion, how can you tell?

I was a bit surprised that he supported the view that homosexuality likely has a biological basis - something quite at odds with many people who condemn homosexuality from a religious viewpoint.

He is arguing it from a standpoint of the granting of rights alone - not religion. I don't agree of course, but he is not arguing Catholic dogma.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare, I don't think PaleRider is citing Catholic dogma and unless you know him from other boards where he argues religion, how can you tell?

I was a bit surprised that he supported the view that homosexuality likely has a biological basis - something quite at odds with many people who condemn homosexuality from a religious viewpoint.

He is arguing it from a standpoint of the granting of rights alone - not religion. I don't agree of course, but he is not arguing Catholic dogma.

Actually much of this is dragged over from his posts on the Abortion thread and the Torture thread, where his posts have hewed to the religious line with amazing clarity for a person who denies religious influence. A point to remember here is that Pale has never come our and stated his religious underpinnings, he hasn't claimed agnosticism or atheism either. My position on him stands.

As the voume of scientific data continues to increase more and more religious people are beginning to accept it, but still doing exactly what Pale is by denying homosexual people rights on other pretenses.

[Coyote]

Actually much of this is dragged over from his posts on the Abortion thread and the Torture thread, where his posts have hewed to the religious line with amazing clarity for a person who denies religious influence. A point to remember here is that Pale has never come our and stated his religious underpinnings, he hasn't claimed agnosticism or atheism either. My position on him stands.

As the voume of scientific data continues to increase more and more religious people are beginning to accept it, but still doing exactly what Pale is by denying homosexual people rights on other pretenses.

Well...just in terms of PaleRider's arguments - and I'm thinking of the Abortion ones - I would disagree. I have to admit - when someone uses religion as a basis for argument, it totally negates the argument for me. I have no respect for it because usually it entails only a respect for some life.

Two other people who I debated with actually influenced my thinking:

One, an athiest, argued against abortion in much the same way PR did and one of his points, looked at from an ethical and athiest viewpoint was - we only have one life ever, and that's it. No after life, no second chances, etc.

The other, a Christian who was strong in his beliefs, believed that life was sacred and we did not have the right to take it. He was against abortion and he was also against the death penalty. So many people who argue against abortion for religious "life is sacred" reasons have no problem turning around and frying a condemned man. Interestingly this same person was also for civil unions for gays. He believed that God created this country for freedom for his people, the beauty of equality and free will (his words). He supported the government sponsored "civil union " but opposed to "gay marrage" because "marriage" is a religious function and religious freedom is a core American belief. The church should not be forced by the government to change their doctrine but the government is obligated to create equality in America for all.
I respected the points he made.

I actually respect PR's arguments much more not knowing his religious beliefs. Why? Because if I knew them, then I everything he said would be viewed through the lens of religion. His beliefs are actually irrelevent to the debate when you come right down to it because he is not using religion to make his point. (if that makes any sense :p )

[Coyote]

You questioning my assesment of absurdity or my atheism?

I'm saying a person can claim to be anything or anyone on the internet. Certainly in arguments over one religion vs. another, being labeled an athiest would subliminally confer greater credibility and impartiality. However, the way you argue and your wording just doesn't seem very much like an athiest to me.

[palerider]

Actually much of this is dragged over from his posts on the Abortion thread and the Torture thread, where his posts have hewed to the religious line with amazing clarity for a person who denies religious influence. A point to remember here is that Pale has never come our and stated his religious underpinnings, he hasn't claimed agnosticism or atheism either. My position on him stands.

As the voume of scientific data continues to increase more and more religious people are beginning to accept it, but still doing exactly what Pale is by denying homosexual people rights on other pretenses.

Prove it mare. You keep talking but fail to corroborate anything. The fact is that when you are unable to effectively argue against anyone on practically any topic, your standard tactic is to claim that they are arguing from a religious point of view and claim victory as if you could win by simply pointing out such a thing.

If I were arguing from a religious point of view (which I am not) you would still need to defeat the ideas; not just point out where they come from. The fact that you believe that just pointing out a position is religious constitutes a win for you is clear and ugly evidence of your bigotry.

And you are a blatant, bald faced liar if you are claiming that you have caught me in any lies and have brought them forward. There have been lies brought forward, but they were your lies brought forward by me. As I pointed out early on mare, life is simple if you are honest. I don't need to twist and torture reason in order to defend my positions because I am not conflicted, therefore, unlike you, I don't need to lie.

[jb_1430]

I'm saying a person can claim to be anything or anyone on the internet. Certainly in arguments over one religion vs. another, being labeled an athiest would subliminally confer greater credibility and impartiality. However, the way you argue and your wording just doesn't seem very much like an athiest to me.


Based purely upon your silly belief that only religious people oppose gay marriage.

[jb_1430]

And you are obviously a confused bi-sexual as no self respecting gay man would pick that hat.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Pale, old sod, the reason that I quit posting on the Abortion thread was that I wasn't convincing you and you weren't convincing me. I know that you have an extremely low opinion of me and I have to admit that my opinion of you is even lower. So is there any point in us continuing to call each other names and excoriate one another? I mean it's fun and all, but not particularly profitable.

I know what you think of me and you know what I think of you, shall we leave it at that?

[Coyote]

Based purely upon your silly belief that only religious people oppose gay marriage.


Umh..no not at all. I was looking at sorts of arguments and the wording you use in other threads. You don't sound much like an athiest.

[Coyote]

And you are obviously a confused bi-sexual as no self respecting gay man would pick that hat.

That sir is my pimp hat! How dare you insult it! :eek:


I paid good money for that!

[jb_1430]

Umh..no not at all. I was looking at sorts of arguments and the wording you use in other threads. You don't sound much like an athiest.

What nonsense! As if atheist sound a certain way.

[Coyote]

What nonsense! As if atheist sound a certain way.

Fact: Anyone can say anything or claim to be anything on a messageboard. You simply don't debate much like an athiest. That is an observation.

[jb_1430]

Fact: Anyone can say anything or claim to be anything on a messageboard. You simply don't debate much like an athiest. That is an observation.

I take as a compliment that I dont debate like Atheist

[palerider]

Pale, old sod, the reason that I quit posting on the Abortion thread was that I wasn't convincing you and you weren't convincing me. I know that you have an extremely low opinion of me and I have to admit that my opinion of you is even lower. So is there any point in us continuing to call each other names and excoriate one another? I mean it's fun and all, but not particularly profitable.

I know what you think of me and you know what I think of you, shall we leave it at that?


I see that you haven't brought forward any evidence at all that proves that you are not a liar.

My opinions of you are corroborated by evidence. Your opinions of me are the result of your bias as you never substantiated any of them.

But by all means, run away as fast as you can if that is what it will take for you to save face (as if it weren't too late for that already).

[Mare Tranquillity]

I see that you haven't brought forward any evidence at all that proves that you are not a liar.
You haven't brought forward any evidence to prove I am a liar OR that you are not. Touche.

My opinions of you are corroborated by evidence. Your opinions of me are the result of your bias as you never substantiated any of them.
Your opinions of me are based on your religious dogma, you haven't brought forward any proof of the stuff you claim. My opinions of you are based on your lies, your misogyny, your desire for torture, and your closet Christianity. Other than those things I guess you're okay, though a bit of a cold fish except for your hysteria around the killing of babies.

But by all means, run away as fast as you can if that is what it will take for you to save face (as if it weren't too late for that already).
Okay, if want to keep this up, I'll hang in there. But at least TRY to present something that wasn't dredged up from the bowels of the church.:D

[vyo476]

So, are all the circular insulting sessions over now?

[Mare Tranquillity]

So, are all the circular insulting sessions over now?

I think so, unless we get into the triangular (more pointed) insult sessions.:)

[r0beph]

I see that you haven't brought forward any evidence at all that proves that you are not a liar.

My opinions of you are corroborated by evidence. Your opinions of me are the result of your bias as you never substantiated any of them.

But by all means, run away as fast as you can if that is what it will take for you to save face (as if it weren't too late for that already).

You cannot request PROOF of not lying, the burden lies, no pun intended, with you.

stop being silly.

[numinus]

How could human society be controlled by anything BUT human nature, we have access to no other kind of nature since we are human?

You're capable of comprehension after all!

Now ask yourself this - what is the sense of promulgating a law that has absolutely NO basis from human nature?

Hmmm?

[numinus]

That's pretty good obfuscation there, Num, but your points are irrelevant to the discussion (is Pale helping you with your posts?)

I saw an interesting article the other day in which the author--a biologist--was suggesting that we now have the technology to allow a man to carry an ectopic pregnancy to tern and deliver the baby via C-section. More complicated but not really any different than in vitro fertilization.

Talk about irrelevant!

You can carry an embryo up your crack or sew a vagina on where your penis used to be and that STILL WOULDN'T MAKE YOU A MOTHER NOR ALTER YOUR NATURAL FECUNDITY.

Capice?

[numinus]

So you lied about not finding women attractive? Why?

I could tell you're getting desperate.

I find lots of women sexually attractive. That doesn't give me a right to marry all of them, now, does it?

[QUOTE=Mare Tranquillity;20841][QUOTE=Mare Tranquillity;20841]Was this your natural fecundity sneaking out. Natural fecundity can be satisfied through different processes to produce offspring, all of these offspring should be able to be raised by the people who wish to raise them.

Sigh

The natural mother's right to raise her own child and vice versa is INDEFEASIBLE.

If a woman wish to exercise this right, then she must NECESSARILY exercise her natural fecundity.

This right is not acquired by merely 'wishing' to raise children.

All of them deserve the opportunity to be raised with the legal protections written into law for that purpose no matter what gender or combination of genders their "raisers" (also known commonly in this culture as parents).

Correct.

That is why the state, in the absence of the competent natural mother, exercises it's DISCRETION in choosing foster parent(s).

You are aiming to exclude, I am aiming to include. The difference is that you hate and I accept.

I don't care what sexual orientation a prospective parent may have, nor do I wish to exclude homosexuals from adopting. That decision, however, is within the exclusive province of the state to determine. And in making such a determination, the state MUST DISCRIMINATE FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD.

Making gays feel good about their sexuality is simply irrelevant to it so you can spare us the rhetorical nonsense.

Even you, I wouldn't take away any of your rights just because you are a bigot, but I would like to see laws that protect others from you. You must have some redeeming qualities or you wife wouldn't have married you, women can be so perceptive that they can find value in even the most degenerate men--lucky for you, isn't it?

LOL

I am a bigot for saying that only women have a right to motherhood???

I've been accused of a lot of things but this is, by far, the most absurd!

[palerider]

You haven't brought forward any evidence to prove I am a liar OR that you are not. Touche.

Actually, mare. I did. And will be happy to bring it forward again. Of course it won't change a thing because you have no compunction against lying if it suits your purpose.

Your opinions of me are based on your religious dogma, you haven't brought forward any proof of the stuff you claim. My opinions of you are based on your lies, your misogyny, your desire for torture, and your closet Christianity. Other than those things I guess you're okay, though a bit of a cold fish except for your hysteria around the killing of babies.

I have no religious dogma. And of course I have. This is just another example of you lying in an effort to prove a point. Once again, you attempt to attatch a religious origin to a position and believe that simply a suggestion of religion is enough to invalidate any argument. You better check your hem, your bigotry is showing.


Okay, if want to keep this up, I'll hang in there. But at least TRY to present something that wasn't dredged up from the bowels of the church.:D

Mare, you miserable liar, I defy you to bring forward a single statement that I have made that has its basis in religion.

[palerider]

You cannot request PROOF of not lying, the burden lies, no pun intended, with you.

stop being silly.

Still sniping in lieu of direct confrontation I see. In case you aren't aware, I have caught mare in lies and brought the evidence forward.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Still sniping in lieu of direct confrontation I see. In case you aren't aware, I have caught mare in lies and brought the evidence forward.

More lies. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? Oh well, you're probably used to it by now.

[palerider]

More lies. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? Oh well, you're probably used to it by now.

Interesting, mare, that you seem to need to be constantly exposed as the liar you are. But I am happy to accomodate you if you like.

In this post I said that I bet you support abortion.

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=15817&postcount=111

You replied in the next post that you hope that I didn't bet money, clearly indicating that if I had bet money that you support abortion that I would have lost said money.

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=15998&postcount=112

Of course we all know that you support abortion so clearly you lied.

Then there was this exchange:

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16134&postcount=194

I said:

Face it mare, your hypocrital position has been exposed. You rail against torture but support a fabricated right of women to murder a million unborns per year precicely by tearing them limb from limb, without the benefit of anesthesia I might add, for reasons that amount to no more than convenience.

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16260&postcount=199

Then you said:

Nice try, Pale, but it won't work, I think abortion is murder. Just like I think that torture is murder. Keep trying though, we all appreciate your poorly-spelled but ghastly descriptions.

No doubt, this was a lie as you support abortion.

Further, each of the dozens of times that that you have made a reference to catholic dogma on my part, it has been a lie as you have failed to prove even one instance. Simply saying a thing doesn't make it true. Perhaps if you are a pathological liar and actually believe the lies you are telling are true, but in the real world, simply saying a thing doesn't make it true.

It is clear mare, that you will say whatever you feel that you need to say if you believe it will help you make your point and honesty is not an issue with you.

[Segep]

You're capable of comprehension after all!

Now ask yourself this - what is the sense of promulgating a law that has absolutely NO basis from human nature?

Hmmm?

I am human, and it's in my nature to be gay. That makes homosexuality a part of human nature.

[numinus]

I am human, and it's in my nature to be gay. That makes homosexuality a part of human nature.
Circular argument.

Try harder.

[palerider]

Circular argument.

Try harder.

True. One could use such an argument to suggest that pedophilia, or sociopathy, or a tendency towards arson or theft are also human nature and should be respected.

[Segep]

True. One could use such an argument to suggest that pedophilia, or sociopathy, or a tendency towards arson or theft are also human nature and should be respected.

That's stupid. All those things are harmful, whereas my homosexuality harms no one, which has already been proven here on this forum. It's good to see you have your priorities in order.:rolleyes:

[jb_1430]

That's stupid. All those things are harmful, whereas my homosexuality harms no one, which has already been proven here on this forum. It's good to see you have your priorities in order.:rolleyes:


Masturbation harms no one. Thats not an arguement as to why the government should license and regulate masturbation.
What was that figure from Fort Lauderdale. 76% of the new aids cases are gay men.

[palerider]

That's stupid. All those things are harmful, whereas my homosexuality harms no one, which has already been proven here on this forum. It's good to see you have your priorities in order.:rolleyes:

Harmful is a relative term isn't it? What you or I consider harmful may be entirely different things. The point is, if you are going to allow circular reasoning to suggest one form of aberrant behavior should be smiled upon and endorsed by the federal government, then you are going to have a very hard time arguing against the next group that wants their particular behavior endorsed as well.

Where do you draw the line and upon what grounds do you draw it?

[Coyote]

All this accusation of LIES.


Mare: exactly what lies has Pale told?

[9sublime]

So you are suggesting masturbation is harmful?

[Coyote]

So you are suggesting masturbation is harmful?

Don't you know it makes you blind?

[vyo476]

Harmful is a relative term isn't it? What you or I consider harmful may be entirely different things. The point is, if you are going to allow circular reasoning to suggest one form of aberrant behavior should be smiled upon and endorsed by the federal government, then you are going to have a very hard time arguing against the next group that wants their particular behavior endorsed as well.

Where do you draw the line and upon what grounds do you draw it?

There is no absolute when it comes to "aberrant" behavior. Without societal connotations, there is simply behavior; the "aberrant" part comes in with respect to societal norms. In one society, it may considered perfectly natural to have wild orgies even after becoming married; in another, any form of sexuality except the singular, mainstream variety is completely intolerable, and even that form is not discussed in any public way. In the first society, not getting in on the orgy is aberrant behavior; in the second, talking about a sexual experience is considered aberrant behavior.

So when we discuss whether or not this "aberrant behavior" is harmful, we might as well throw our societal norms out the window and talk straight - harmful would have a straight, literal definition. Here we go:

Harm: Physical injury or mental damage; hurt: to do him bodily harm.

So, does homosexuality cause mental damage? Does the existence and public tolerance of homosexual couples cause anyone to really be psychologically injured? The answer is no.

The same rings true of polygamy, which calls into question why we don't allow that, either.

Then we move into other forms of aberrant behavior - like pedophilia. Pedophilia does cause well-documented harm to the child who is the victim of the pedophile. Therefore, pedophilia should not be allowed.

On this basis there's no reason to deny homosexuals anything. Homosexuality is natural and it harms no one.

[9sublime]

Great post.

[jb_1430]

So you are suggesting masturbation is harmful?

What part of

Masturbation harms no one.

did you not understand?

[Reliant]

I say it is a choice but what sayest thou?

I simply cannot believe that anyone would make a conscious choice to be gay. That's just my feeling. When I look at the opposite sex I see opportunities, when I look at the same sex I see competition... just basic human instincts. So I believe something