PDA

View Full Version : Are gays "born gay"?



Pages : [1] 2

DamnYankee
01-24-2008, 06:46 AM
I'd say its unlikely.

1. Two gays can't reproduce.
2. No "gay gene" has been found, despite millions in research to find it.

Damocles
01-24-2008, 08:26 AM
Who cares? Why would it matter to me if gays were born that way or if they somehow "learned" it or it was a virus? Why should I care what other people like so much?

BRUTALITOPS
01-24-2008, 08:27 AM
3. There are cases of identical (same dna) twins where one is gay and one is not. Definately a case for nurture not nature.

My guess is it's a combination of maybe some genetic disposition along with upbringing

DamnYankee
01-24-2008, 08:35 AM
Who cares? Why would it matter to me if gays were born that way or if they somehow "learned" it or it was a virus? Why should I care what other people like so much?
This issue is directly related to gay's assertion of normal, healthy, etc., and their subsequent demand for equal rights. If homosexuality is a choice, or a sickness, the claim for equal status, for something like marriage, for example, flies out the window faster than a bee in summer.

evince
01-24-2008, 08:42 AM
Most babies are not born with beards.
Some babies do turn into adults who then do posses the ability to grow facial hair.

This is very likely tied in some way to the sexual maturation process.

What exactly is it one would do to a child to "turn" them gay?

If it were possible you would think sexual abuse would do this huh?

There are many cases where a boy child is sexually abused by say their priest or whatever and remained hertosexual.

This turned them gay idea is shear stupidity.

DamnYankee
01-24-2008, 08:45 AM
All normal human beings are born with hair, and the vast majority of mature males are able to grow beards. Piss-poor analogy by truthmatters/desh.

evince
01-24-2008, 08:47 AM
This issue is directly related to gay's assertion of normal, healthy, etc., and their subsequent demand for equal rights. If homosexuality is a choice, or a sickness, the claim for equal status, for something like marriage, for example, flies out the window faster than a bee in summer.\

Do we keep two handicapped people from being married ?

What if they are at fault for their own injury that made them handicapped?

The equal status claim is that they are Americans and should not have the right to marry WHOEVER they want limmited.

Who the hell are you to tell some people in the next town who they can tie their lives too?

It does not effect you in the least and its NONE of your business.

evince
01-24-2008, 08:49 AM
All normal human beings are born with hair, and the vast majority of mature males are able to grow beards. Piss-poor analogy by truthmatters/desh.


Jackass, it is part of the hormal changes the body goes through to sexually mature.

So it is tied to sexual desire.

Did you really not get that?

Hermes Thoth
01-24-2008, 08:52 AM
Sexual preference has to do with the brain being feminine or masculine in structure, which is dependant on intrauterine hormone levels at certain time in the gestation process. So it's biological, and it's genetic to the extent that genes influence hormone levels.

DamnYankee
01-24-2008, 08:52 AM
\

Do we keep two handicapped people from being married ?

What if they are at fault for their own injury that made them handicapped?

The equal status claim is that they are Americans and should not have the right to marry WHOEVER they want limmited.

Who the hell are you to tell some people in the next town who they can tie their lives too?

It does not effect you in the least and its NONE of your business.

Another piss-poor analogy

We keep handicapped people from doing what would harm society. For example, we don't let the blind drive cars.

Marriage is a priveledge, not a right, and if you are not qualified for it then a civilized society should not allow it.

Most Americans say that gay marriage will have a negative impact on traditional marriage; a smaller minority disagree. I am in the former, and you are in the latter.

gonzojournals
01-24-2008, 08:53 AM
This is an interesting thread...argue some more!

gonzojournals
01-24-2008, 08:54 AM
What is wrong with gay marriage? It promotes family values and (the best argument) the government shouldn't be involved in marriage, anyway.

DamnYankee
01-24-2008, 08:54 AM
Sexual preference has to do with the brain being feminine or masculine in structure, which is dependant on intrauterine hormone levels at certain time in the gestation process. So it's biological, and it's genetic to the extent that genes influence hormone levels. Have you found that gay gene yet?

So by your theory, this would make comparable to a disease?

gonzojournals
01-24-2008, 08:54 AM
Have you found that gay gene yet?

So by your theory, this would make comparable to a disease?

Is blonde hair a disease?

DamnYankee
01-24-2008, 08:55 AM
This is an interesting thread...argue some more!
That's why we're here, for argument, not insults. Lets see which side resorts to insults first. They would then be the losers.

DamnYankee
01-24-2008, 08:56 AM
Is blonde hair a disease? No. There's severl genes for that.

gonzojournals
01-24-2008, 08:58 AM
No. There's severl genes for that.

Maybe there are several genes for homosexuality....but, as Damo said, who cares?

DamnYankee
01-24-2008, 08:58 AM
What is wrong with gay marriage? It promotes family values and (the best argument) the government shouldn't be involved in marriage, anyway. The government has been for centuries, so that's a moot point.

Gay marriage may promote many beneficial things, but society has determined that these do not outweigh the negatives.

gonzojournals
01-24-2008, 08:59 AM
Gay marriage may promote many beneficial things, but society has determined that these do not outweigh the negatives.

What negatives?

DamnYankee
01-24-2008, 08:59 AM
Maybe there are several genes for homosexuality....but, as Damo said, who cares? If there are they have not been found despite millions in research.

I already answered Damo's question.

gonzojournals
01-24-2008, 09:00 AM
What negatives?

DamnYankee
01-24-2008, 09:04 AM
What negatives?
For me, it weakens the meaning of traditional marriage. I also beleive the non-traditional orientation is detrimental to the family. Since the traditional family is the backbone of society, it is a threat to society.

gonzojournals
01-24-2008, 09:07 AM
For me, it weakens the meaning of traditional marriage. I also beleive the non-traditional orientation is detrimental to the family. Since the traditional family is the backbone of society, it is a threat to society.

But how?

Hermes Thoth
01-24-2008, 09:08 AM
Have you found that gay gene yet?

So by your theory, this would make comparable to a disease?

Retard. There are genes that have an effect on hormone levels. Do you understand how something can be biological but not have a "gene" for it? The hormone system is the most complex in the human body.

DamnYankee
01-24-2008, 09:11 AM
Retard. .....

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=199563&postcount=15

:clink:

gonzojournals
01-24-2008, 09:13 AM
You still haven't answered how, Southern Man.

DamnYankee
01-24-2008, 09:13 AM
But how?
Traditional marraige has alwys been defined as between one man and one woman, for the purpose of procreation and lifetime nuturing.

DamnYankee
01-24-2008, 09:14 AM
You still haven't answered how, Southern Man. I do have a life.

gonzojournals
01-24-2008, 09:14 AM
Traditional marraige has alwys been defined as between one man and one woman, for the purpose of procreation and lifetime nuturing.

Whose tradition?

Besides, how does a definition change undermine marriage? You have yet to explain how anything is actually bad.

DamnYankee
01-24-2008, 09:19 AM
Whose tradition?

Besides, how does a definition change undermine marriage? You have yet to explain how anything is actually bad.


Biblical. It goes back over 500 years.

I did explain it; you just don't want to understand it.

gonzojournals
01-24-2008, 09:21 AM
Biblical. It goes back over 500 years.

I did explain it; you just don't want to understand it.

Well, considering that Western culture has its tradition rooted in Greek culture for thousands of years before Christianity and Biblical tradition, I was just confused. Because, as you may know, the Greeks considered homosexual love to be the purest of love, because it was not influenced by procreation but by actual genuine feeling.

Damocles
01-24-2008, 09:26 AM
This issue is directly related to gay's assertion of normal, healthy, etc., and their subsequent demand for equal rights. If homosexuality is a choice, or a sickness, the claim for equal status, for something like marriage, for example, flies out the window faster than a bee in summer.
It is normal for people to like different things than I like. Again, why should I care if gays are "born that way"?

DamnYankee
01-24-2008, 09:28 AM
Well, considering that Western culture has its tradition rooted in Greek culture for thousands of years before Christianity and Biblical tradition, I was just confused. Because, as you may know, the Greeks considered homosexual love to be the purest of love, because it was not influenced by procreation but by actual genuine feeling. We are not discussing love, but marriage.

But to answer your straw man: When the Greeks discovered Christianity they came to the realization that homosexuality was wrong, along with theri entire belief in gods. Ask any Greek about that.

evince
01-24-2008, 09:28 AM
Another piss-poor analogy

We keep handicapped people from doing what would harm society. For example, we don't let the blind drive cars.

Marriage is a priveledge, not a right, and if you are not qualified for it then a civilized society should not allow it.

Most Americans say that gay marriage will have a negative impact on traditional marriage; a smaller minority disagree. I am in the former, and you are in the latter.


How is same sex marriage like the blind driving cars?

You see people can die or have their property damaged if blind people were driving.

If we allow same sex marriage NO ONE IS HARMED!

Its none of your damned business and does no other people harm.

Do you really think marriage is a privledge and not a right?

Its not enough to just say it will cause damage to limmit others rights. YOU have to prove the damage that would be caused to limmit peoples rights.

At a time in our history interacial marriages were viewed the same way. No one could prove any damage so it was changed.

PROVE THE DAMAGE!

DamnYankee
01-24-2008, 09:29 AM
How is same sex marriage like the blind driving cars?

You see people can die or have their property damged if blind people were driving.

If we allow same sex marriage NO ONE IS HARMED!

Its none of your damned business and does not other people harm.

Do you really think marriage is a privledge and not a right?

Its not enough to just say it will cause damage to limmit others rights. YOU have to prove the damage that would be caused to limmit peoples rights.

At a time in our history interacial marriages were viewed the same way. No one could prove any damage so it was changed.

PROVE THE DAMAGE!

Your side wants to change 5000 years of tradition. The burden of proof is on you. :)

Hermes Thoth
01-24-2008, 09:31 AM
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=199563&postcount=15

:clink:


You didn't win. You still seem to be unwilling to learn about the hormone system and the brain and keep ignorantly insisting on a "gay gene" as the only proof. You're retarded. It's not a insult, but an accuracy.

evince
01-24-2008, 09:34 AM
No you fool this is a democracy we dont honor things like slavery because they ahve been arround a long time.

This law is going to change. It is increasingly a no harm and limmited rights issue to people.Your old prejudice ways are going to die just like the ones who hated interacial marraige and loved slavery your numbers are dwindling and when enough of you pass on we will right this wrong.

gonzojournals
01-24-2008, 09:43 AM
I find myself agreeing with Desh...and I'm afraid.

In seriousness, though, Southern Man--- even if I were to concede that homosexuality is "wrong", that still doesn't mean that their rights should be stripped away.

DamnYankee
01-24-2008, 10:10 AM
You didn't win. You still seem to be unwilling to learn about the hormone system and the brain and keep ignorantly insisting on a "gay gene" as the only proof. You're retarded. It's not a insult, but an accuracy.

... You're retarded. .....


.... you fool ....Your old prejudice ways....hated interacial marraige ....loved slavery .....

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...3&postcount=15

AHZ = 0
D/TM = 0
The Southern Man = 3

:clink:

DamnYankee
01-24-2008, 10:11 AM
I find myself agreeing with Desh...and I'm afraid.

In seriousness, though, Southern Man--- even if I were to concede that homosexuality is "wrong", that still doesn't mean that their rights should be stripped away.


Marriage is not a right, but a privledge.

gonzojournals
01-24-2008, 10:11 AM
Marriage is not a right, but a privledge.

According to whom?

DamnYankee
01-24-2008, 10:20 AM
According to whom?http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/secularmarriage.shtml

gonzojournals
01-24-2008, 10:23 AM
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/secularmarriage.shtml

Seems like marriage is a right to me...furthermore, it removes God from the equation, completely destroying your argument.

BRUTALITOPS
01-24-2008, 10:23 AM
Most babies are not born with beards.
Some babies do turn into adults who then do posses the ability to grow facial hair.

This is very likely tied in some way to the sexual maturation process.

What exactly is it one would do to a child to "turn" them gay?

If it were possible you would think sexual abuse would do this huh?

There are many cases where a boy child is sexually abused by say their priest or whatever and remained hertosexual.

This turned them gay idea is shear stupidity.

I really don't think it is desh...

Upbringing and societal conditions can have a lot to do with shaping a human.

For the record though that doesn't mean that government should disallow two individuals to enter into a contract/be married, whether or not it was nurture or nature.

DamnYankee
01-24-2008, 10:48 AM
Seems like marriage is a right to me...furthermore, it removes God from the equation, completely destroying your argument.
Read much:
...every contract must have consideration. The State offers consideration in the form of the actual license itself -- the piece of paper, the Certificate of Marriage. The other part of consideration by the State is "the privilege to be regulated by statute."

This secular definition in no way negates the religious definition.

Beefy
01-24-2008, 08:01 PM
Read much:

This secular definition in no way negates the religious definition.

I still don't see how a straight man could choose to want nuts in his face? Please explain to me how you could make that choice. It seems foreign to me.

And I remember calling the dopey kid in "Whos The Boss" gay before he was 10, and guess what, homeslice likes dingus.

FUCK THE POLICE
01-24-2008, 08:01 PM
I'd say its unlikely.

1. Two gays can't reproduce.
2. No "gay gene" has been found, despite millions in research to find it.

It never really mattered to me.

But, for instance, psychopaths aren't born as psychopaths. That doesn't mean they're just psychopaths cus they feel like it though.

DamnYankee
01-24-2008, 08:05 PM
I still don't see how a straight man could choose to want nuts in his face? Please explain to me how you could make that choice. It seems foreign to me.

And I remember calling the dopey kid in "Whos The Boss" gay before he was 10, and guess what, homeslice likes dingus.

Don't ask me to explain it to you. I can't see smoking crack, getting a tat, or voting Democrat would be attractive to anybody, but people still do all three.

Never saw the show so can't comment.

Beefy
01-24-2008, 08:11 PM
Don't ask me to explain it to you. I can't see smoking crack, getting a tat, or voting Democrat would be attractive to anybody, but people still do all three.

Never saw the show so can't comment.

But you could want nuts on your chin, if you chose to want it.

Please explain.

And I haven't gotten my moonshine yet.

Socrtease
01-24-2008, 08:39 PM
I'd say its unlikely.

1. Two gays can't reproduce.
2. No "gay gene" has been found, despite millions in research to find it.
Had to read through 4 pages just to make sure I was arguing something someone alreay hit upon. Number 2 begs the question. Where is the heterosexual gene? They haven't found that, the gay gene or the gene that seems to make lots of females bi-sexual. So arguing they haven't found the gene, does NOT make it non genetic. Now for your "Marriage is a privledge and not a right argument. Read Loving v. Virginia. No better yet let me read it to you.


Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Now granted, the court did not speak to the issue of same sex marriages but they did talk about Marriage being a fundamental liberty interest. So your argument, at least on the US legal front is incorrect, marriage is not a privilege, it is a right. See up until Loving, tradition defined marriage as between two people, a man and a woman, of the SAME RACE. The same arguments were made then. It would tear apart the fabric of society. It is not what god intended. He created different languages to keep the races separate. All that good bible based bullshit that was pretty much wrong anyway.

Further, your argument that sexuality is a choice, means that we ALL chose, not just the queers. So tell me about your choice? Did you weigh the pros and cons of sex with a woman or a man. Did you think, well women are soft and pretty, but if I can get my mind around a blowjob I can have a mate that watches football with me, and doesn't mind if the toilet seat is up. Was that your line of thought? Cause I know that when I was 4, I flew to Disneyland with my grandparents, and there was this 5 or 6 year old girl on the plane sitting in front of me that kept looking back and me and to this day, 38 years later, I can describe her face to you as if I saw it yesterday. She moved me. I don't mean I thought she was pretty, I mean that for decades after all women were judged by her. Not my choice. She hit me like a brick. I was straight the day I was born.

gonzojournals
01-24-2008, 10:02 PM
I'm going to start calling Socrtease "Lewis Carroll"....j/k.

uscitizen
01-24-2008, 10:27 PM
Do we keep two handicapped people from being married ?
//

nope people can marry even if they are a republican.

gonzojournals
01-24-2008, 10:34 PM
Do we keep two handicapped people from being married ?
//

nope people can marry even if they are a republican.

WHOOP WHOOP-- Partisan hack alert.

uscitizen
01-24-2008, 11:20 PM
No. There's severl genes for that.

But red hair is.

uscitizen
01-24-2008, 11:21 PM
WHOOP WHOOP-- Partisan hack alert.

Naah I am not partisan, I just think that most republicans suck ;)
I also think most demoncrats do too. But republicans are eaiser to bite the bait.

BRUTALITOPS
01-24-2008, 11:48 PM
Do we keep two handicapped people from being married ?
//

nope people can marry even if they are a republican.


GET OFF THE STAGE!

uscitizen
01-24-2008, 11:58 PM
Marriage is not a right, but a privledge.

HUH ?

Marriage is neither one.

It is a contract between two people.

check the law on this.

uscitizen
01-24-2008, 11:59 PM
GET OFF THE STAGE!

Not till my final act.

DamnYankee
01-25-2008, 05:48 AM
But you could want nuts on your chin, if you chose to want it.

Please explain.

And I haven't gotten my moonshine yet.

1. I just explained it to you best that I could. People express all types of detrimental behavior that cannot be explained logically.

2. We never consumated the deal. You send me a quart (or a fifth, or 750 ml) of Maui Wowie and I'll send you a quart of Georgia Moon.

PS I was just there and they sell pint hip flasks as well- your choice.

DamnYankee
01-25-2008, 05:57 AM
Had to read through 4 pages just to make sure I was arguing something someone alreay hit upon. Number 2 begs the question. Where is the heterosexual gene? They haven't found that, the gay gene or the gene that seems to make lots of females bi-sexual. So arguing they haven't found the gene, does NOT make it non genetic. Now for your "Marriage is a privledge and not a right argument. Read Loving v. Virginia. No better yet let me read it to you.


Now granted, the court did not speak to the issue of same sex marriages but they did talk about Marriage being a fundamental liberty interest. So your argument, at least on the US legal front is incorrect, marriage is not a privilege, it is a right. See up until Loving, tradition defined marriage as between two people, a man and a woman, of the SAME RACE. The same arguments were made then. It would tear apart the fabric of society. It is not what god intended. He created different languages to keep the races separate. All that good bible based bullshit that was pretty much wrong anyway.

Further, your argument that sexuality is a choice, means that we ALL chose, not just the queers. So tell me about your choice? Did you weigh the pros and cons of sex with a woman or a man. Did you think, well women are soft and pretty, but if I can get my mind around a blowjob I can have a mate that watches football with me, and doesn't mind if the toilet seat is up. Was that your line of thought? Cause I know that when I was 4, I flew to Disneyland with my grandparents, and there was this 5 or 6 year old girl on the plane sitting in front of me that kept looking back and me and to this day, 38 years later, I can describe her face to you as if I saw it yesterday. She moved me. I don't mean I thought she was pretty, I mean that for decades after all women were judged by her. Not my choice. She hit me like a brick. I was straight the day I was born.

1. Ever hear of X and Y chromosomes?
2. That's the danger of having the courts legislate society. All is takes is one short-sighted judge in one state and we all go down some slippery slope. However we are 50 States, three branches of government in each as well as a federal umbrella.

DamnYankee
01-25-2008, 05:59 AM
HUH ?

Marriage is neither one.

It is a contract between two people.

check the law on this. I just did in an earlier post. Secular marriage is treated like a business partnership, a contract between two people given a priveledge by the State.

Damocles
01-25-2008, 08:06 AM
I've never comprehended the whole negative argument about nature/nurture. I just can't understand why people care so much about what other people like that they have to interfere with it and try to prove it is one or the other of these things.

So long as there is no victim of their activity then it is their own danged business and not yours. And no, their marriage cannot effect yours. The only one that can effect the "sanctity" of your marriage is you and/or your spouse. That argument is wasted here.

And as far as I understand it everybody has sinned, according to that religion. What makes this sin so special? Another thing I remember about that religion is the "Judge Not" portion. It isn't your job to ever tell another that their activity/action is a sin, that's the job of something larger than you.

DamnYankee
01-25-2008, 10:11 AM
I've never comprehended the whole negative argument about nature/nurture. I just can't understand why people care so much about what other people like that they have to interfere with it and try to prove it is one or the other of these things.

So long as there is no victim of their activity then it is their own danged business and not yours. And no, their marriage cannot effect yours. The only one that can effect the "sanctity" of your marriage is you and/or your spouse. That argument is wasted here.

And as far as I understand it everybody has sinned, according to that religion. What makes this sin so special? Another thing I remember about that religion is the "Judge Not" portion. It isn't your job to ever tell another that their activity/action is a sin, that's the job of something larger than you.
1. I’ve never suggested that what two willing adults do to each other should be interfered with.
2. As I said earlier: “most Americans agree that gay marriage will have a negative impact on traditional marriage; a smaller minority disagree. I am in the former, and you are in the latter.” I also gave my reasoning earlier and see no need to repeat it unless there is a specific question to it.
3. Good question, again broadening the issue. Homosexuality is discussed as a sin here (http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=193656&postcount=1.). This example presents it as perhaps the most egregious act in history, since it was responsible for Ham’s founding of the enemies of Israel. Some believe that the conflict has never ceased, and exists today as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that seems to have no possible end.

Damocles
01-25-2008, 10:14 AM
1. I’ve never suggested that what two willing adults do to each other should be interfered with.
2. As I said earlier: “most Americans agree that gay marriage will have a negative impact on traditional marriage; a smaller minority disagree. I am in the former, and you are in the latter.” I also gave my reasoning earlier and see no need to repeat it unless there is a specific question to it.
3. Good question, again broadening the issue. Homosexuality is discussed as a sin here (http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=193656&postcount=1.). This example presents it as perhaps the most egregious act in history, since it was responsible for Ham’s founding of the enemies of Israel. Some believe that the conflict has never ceased, and exists today as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that seems to have no possible end.
No, you just suggested that because of some "sin" that they may or may not commit they can't have a contract between them solidifying that activity. Your religion is getting in the way of their right to the Pursuit of Happiness and stinking up their right to Liberty and all because you think what other people do in marriage somehow can "desanctify" your marriage. Only you and your wife can desanctify your marriage.

And I want a link to a current poll with your "majority think".

evince
01-25-2008, 10:20 AM
1. I’ve never suggested that what two willing adults do to each other should be interfered with.
2. As I said earlier: http://www.newsweek.com/id/101079?GT1=10755“most Americans agree that gay marriage will have a negative impact on traditional marriage ; a smaller minority disagree. I am in the former, and you are in the latter.” I also gave my reasoning earlier and see no need to repeat it unless there is a specific question to it.
3. Good question, again broadening the issue. Homosexuality is discussed as a sin here (http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=193656&postcount=1.). This example presents it as perhaps the most egregious act in history, since it was responsible for Ham’s founding of the enemies of Israel. Some believe that the conflict has never ceased, and exists today as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that seems to have no possible end.



Heres the problem , it doenst matter what they think. They have to prove damage and not just think it.

We allow people who have murdered their wives and children to remarry. Dont you think someone who has done that is worse than two women who want to marry and have never done anything but work and pay taxes?

This is an injustice and will change.

Take a poll of people under 30.

DamnYankee
01-25-2008, 10:26 AM
No, you just suggested that because of some "sin" that they may or may not commit they can't have a contract between them solidifying that activity. Your religion is getting in the way of their right to the Pursuit of Happiness and stinking up their right to Liberty and all because you think what other people do in marriage somehow can "desanctify" your marriage. Only you and your wife can desanctify your marriage.

And I want a link to a current poll with your "majority think".

1. It's not just religion, but 5000 years of recorded history and tradition. Throughout that time many variations have been attempted, but one man- one woman has survived and presented itself as the best model for civilization.

If two gays want to live togeher, they can go to a lawyer and draw up a relationship contract. Why make 99% of society change just to satisfy 1%? It doesn't make sense.

2.
Gay-marriage bans bulldozed to victory in all 11 states that voted on the measure: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/initiative.htm

DamnYankee
01-25-2008, 10:30 AM
....

Take a poll of people under 30. Take your own poll TruthMatters. You have failed in every debate with me that you have attempted. Assume your role as mindless cheerleader for the Liberal view and stop using up board space. http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/yay2.gif

FUCK THE POLICE
01-25-2008, 11:53 AM
I personally just don't think that the government should be involved in the business of marriage.

DamnYankee
01-25-2008, 12:06 PM
I personally just don't think that the government should be involved in the business of marriage. What about the atheists who want to get married?

evince
01-25-2008, 12:08 PM
Take your own poll TruthMatters. You have failed in every debate with me that you have attempted. Assume your role as mindless cheerleader for the Liberal view and stop using up board space. http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/yay2.gif

Wow you cant refute the logic so you resort to just "claiming" you won?

To chicken shit to even tell me who you are on the other site too.

Your thoughts dont count as evidence of harm do they?

Damocles
01-25-2008, 12:15 PM
1. It's not just religion, but 5000 years of recorded history and tradition. Throughout that time many variations have been attempted, but one man- one woman has survived and presented itself as the best model for civilization.

If two gays want to live togeher, they can go to a lawyer and draw up a relationship contract. Why make 99% of society change just to satisfy 1%? It doesn't make sense.

2. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/initiative.htm
Your link does not prove that they voted it down because they thought it would harm their marriage. It does not, in fact, have any motive behind the votes listed.

evince
01-25-2008, 12:15 PM
I personally just don't think that the government should be involved in the business of marriage.

Agreed.

I would be happy as hell to have my "marriage" called a civil union and leave the "marriages" to the religious people who want them called that.

Then they could get "married " in the church and then go get their civil union under the law.

I think any two consenting adults should be allowed to enter into a civil union for any damn reason they want to.

Two elderly sisters should be allowed to do a civil union to tie their finances together in their late years.

Any two people can inexpensively enter a civil union as they wish.

The elderly nieghbor man and get a civil union with the nieghbor who has become his psuedo family member for the last ten years so he can leave his money to her kids.

Any two people should be allowed access to this inexpensive leagal agreement.

DamnYankee
01-25-2008, 12:18 PM
Wow you cant refute the logic so you resort to just "claiming" you won?

To chicken shit to even tell me who you are on the other site too.

Your thoughts dont count as evidence of harm do they? Show us your bouncing tube top, babay!

DamnYankee
01-25-2008, 12:24 PM
Your link does not prove that they voted it down because they thought it would harm their marriage. It does not, in fact, have any motive behind the votes listed. Straw Man. The issue here is the harm that it would do to the institution of marriage as the foundation for a civilized society. That has been a consistent message from proponents of gay marriage bans. When put to a vote, Americans overwhelmingly vote for these bans. What other likely conclusion could be drawn from that?

DamnYankee
01-25-2008, 12:27 PM
Agreed..... http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/yay2.gif

:party:

evince
01-25-2008, 12:30 PM
Show us your bouncing tube top, babay!

What an intelligent and measured response.

How can anyone refute such logic?

Damocles
01-25-2008, 12:30 PM
Straw Man. The issue here is the harm that it would do to the institution of marriage as the foundation for a civilized society. That has been a consistent message from proponents of gay marriage bans. When put to a vote, Americans overwhelmingly vote for these bans. What other likely conclusion could be drawn from that?
It does not follow that all who voted, or even the majority share the reason that you did had you voted. That is an actual logical fallacy, unlike the one that you don't understand and misapply to my post.

For instance I would have voted against it as I don't think the government should be involved in "marriage" not because I think the sanctity of my marriage would inexplicably be damaged by somebody else's marriage.

uscitizen
01-25-2008, 01:11 PM
But you could want nuts on your chin, if you chose to want it.

Please explain.

And I haven't gotten my moonshine yet.

want me to fax you some shine Beefy ?

uscitizen
01-25-2008, 01:37 PM
I just did in an earlier post. Secular marriage is treated like a business partnership, a contract between two people given a priveledge by the State.

I think secular marriage is all the only form of marriage recognized by our govt. after all the multiple wives religious marriages are illegal.

DamnYankee
01-25-2008, 02:08 PM
What an intelligent and measured response.

How can anyone refute such logic? You learn good, sweetie! :clink:

DamnYankee
01-25-2008, 02:09 PM
It does not follow that all who voted, or even the majority share the reason that you did had you voted. That is an actual logical fallacy, unlike the one that you don't understand and misapply to my post.

For instance I would have voted against it as I don't think the government should be involved in "marriage" not because I think the sanctity of my marriage would inexplicably be damaged by somebody else's marriage. Again you repeat the Straw Man.:cool:

uscitizen
01-25-2008, 02:14 PM
:corn:

Beefy
01-25-2008, 02:36 PM
Again you repeat the Straw Man.:cool:

You should look up straw man. You're completely misunderstanding its meaning.

uscitizen
01-25-2008, 02:40 PM
straw warz!
V2.00032

FUCK THE POLICE
01-25-2008, 03:14 PM
What about the atheists who want to get married?

What about the Christians who want to get married?

Marriage is just a ceremony. It is, at it's core, just a title. If an atheist wants to call themselves married, then so be it.

Beefy
01-25-2008, 03:16 PM
We'll have to agree to disagree.

SouthernMan could choose to enjoy Ron Jeremy thrusting on him, I could not.

Damocles
01-25-2008, 03:17 PM
Again you repeat the Straw Man.:cool:
Again you either don't understand what a strawman fallacy is, or believe that repeating this error makes people believe you. I have pointed out the logical fallacy of "if they voted this way they must think like me" and even informed you of ways that people may vote that way without thinking like you. To insist that they do and pretend that a flaw in your logic duly pointed out is a "strawman" is weak. Either provide a poll that shows that people feel like you do, or relegate yourself to the considerably disingenuous position that if they vote the same they must think the same.

uscitizen
01-25-2008, 03:42 PM
We'll have to agree to disagree.

SouthernMan could choose to enjoy Ron Jeremy thrusting on him, I could not.

Ron who ? was he in Brokeback Mtn or something ?

Beefy
01-25-2008, 03:52 PM
http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Events/5495/RonJeremy_Grani_11666885_400.jpg

Thorn
01-25-2008, 04:20 PM
This isn't my specific area, but as with other reports of biological research some findings do make their way into the pile. Off the top of my head, here are two findings of note:

Some years ago it was learned that the medial preoptic area in the brains of gay men (an area well established as being involved in sexual behavior) was more similar to that in the brains of heterosexual adult females than the same nucleus in straight males.

More recently, a link was found between the number of boys born consecutively to a mother and the incidence of homosexuality among the youngest. Nothing specific can be derived from a correlational study but it can point the way for future research. In this case, the hypothesis derived was that the consecutive births of males (uninterrupted by female births) somehow changed the mother's ability to provide an appropriate hormonal environment for subsequent male offspring. To broaden this study, it would be necessary to conduct an extensive longitudinal study among gay males and their parents. Ultimately it might be possible to identify a marker, not only among large families, but during gestation to see if a hormonal balance exists and what effect, if any, it might have on gender identification/sexual preference among the offspring.

uscitizen
01-25-2008, 04:22 PM
Thorn you have overloaded poor southern dudes brain with that :D
Good stuff though for the less prejudiced ones of us.

Thorn
01-25-2008, 04:24 PM
Thorn you have overloaded poor southern dudes brain with that :D
Good stuff though for the less prejudiced ones of us.

LOL. I just read it over -- sort of slipped into "science" mode there, didn't I? :p

DamnYankee
01-25-2008, 04:27 PM
You should look up straw man. You're completely misunderstanding its meaning.


Again you either don't understand what a strawman fallacy is, or believe that repeating this error makes people believe you. ....



Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man

DamnYankee
01-25-2008, 04:29 PM
We'll have to agree to disagree.

SouthernMan could choose to enjoy Ron Jeremy thrusting on him, I could not. Who is she? :)

Beefy
01-25-2008, 04:29 PM
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man

Good job. That's what a straw man is, and Damo did none of that.

No excuse me while I choose to get excited by naked women.

DamnYankee
01-25-2008, 04:30 PM
What about the Christians who want to get married?

Marriage is just a ceremony. It is, at it's core, just a title. If an atheist wants to call themselves married, then so be it.

1. Don't answer a question with a question.

2. Same with gays then, right?

DamnYankee
01-25-2008, 04:36 PM
Good job. That's what a straw man is, and Damo did none of that.

No excuse me while I choose to get excited by naked women.

1. Sure it is. I'm arguing that gay marriage would harm the institution of marriage as the foundation for a civilized society. Damo is attempting to say that I am arguing that gar marriage would harm my marriage.
2. Say "hey" to Mrs. Palmer and her four daughters for me.

Beefy
01-25-2008, 04:38 PM
1. Sure it is. I'm arguing that gay marriage would harm the institution of marriage as the foundation for a civilized society. Damo is attempting to say that I am arguing that gar marriage would harm my marriage.
2. Say "hey" to Mrs. Palmer and her four daughters for me.

1.)You did say it would ruin the sanctity of your marriage,

2.)Okay.

DamnYankee
01-25-2008, 04:42 PM
1.)You did say it would ruin the sanctity of your marriage,

2.)Okay.


1. Where?
2. Ask them if they miss Wally the one-eyed wonder worm.

Beefy
01-25-2008, 04:49 PM
1. I’ve never suggested that what two willing adults do to each other should be interfered with.
2. As I said earlier: “most Americans agree that gay marriage will have a negative impact on traditional marriage; a smaller minority disagree. I am in the former, and you are in the latter.” I also gave my reasoning earlier and see no need to repeat it unless there is a specific question to it.
3. Good question, again broadening the issue. Homosexuality is discussed as a sin here (http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=193656&postcount=1.). This example presents it as perhaps the most egregious act in history, since it was responsible for Ham’s founding of the enemies of Israel. Some believe that the conflict has never ceased, and exists today as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that seems to have no possible end.


Gay marriage would have a negative impact on marriage. You're married. Thus it would impact your marriage.

DamnYankee
01-25-2008, 04:57 PM
Gay marriage would have a negative impact on marriage. You're married. Thus it would impact your marriage. It wouldn't impact my marriage. It has the potential to adversely impact the institution of marriage as the foundation for a civilized society. In other words: future marriages and families.

DamnYankee
01-25-2008, 04:58 PM
BTW that was pretty fast. Old Mrs. Palmer is not what she used to be, I guess.

Beefy
01-25-2008, 05:02 PM
It wouldn't impact my marriage. It has the potential to adversely impact the institution of marriage as the foundation for a civilized society. In other words: future marriages and families.

Thats fearmongering and has absolutely no basis.

evince
01-25-2008, 05:03 PM
How would allowing them this legal union effect anything in society when they already live in these family units but withtout the legal potections other Americans(including people who have murdered their kids) have?

Beefy
01-25-2008, 05:21 PM
And SouthernMan runs away.....

evince
01-25-2008, 05:25 PM
Its pretty sad to think they see two people of same sex as to scary to allow to marry yet there are people in prison for murdering their entire families who are allowed to marry again and they see no harm in that.

People just dont think things through sometimes.Note my first signature.

FUCK THE POLICE
01-25-2008, 05:31 PM
This isn't my specific area, but as with other reports of biological research some findings do make their way into the pile. Off the top of my head, here are two findings of note:

Some years ago it was learned that the medial preoptic area in the brains of gay men (an area well established as being involved in sexual behavior) was more similar to that in the brains of heterosexual adult females than the same nucleus in straight males.

More recently, a link was found between the number of boys born consecutively to a mother and the incidence of homosexuality among the youngest. Nothing specific can be derived from a correlational study but it can point the way for future research. In this case, the hypothesis derived was that the consecutive births of males (uninterrupted by female births) somehow changed the mother's ability to provide an appropriate hormonal environment for subsequent male offspring. To broaden this study, it would be necessary to conduct an extensive longitudinal study among gay males and their parents. Ultimately it might be possible to identify a marker, not only among large families, but during gestation to see if a hormonal balance exists and what effect, if any, it might have on gender identification/sexual preference among the offspring.

My dad mailed that to my brother as soon as he found it. My brother is the youngest of nine children and five men.

FUCK THE POLICE
01-25-2008, 05:32 PM
1. Don't answer a question with a question.

2. Same with gays then, right?

Yep. If we're going to have government marriage, though, gays should be able to do it too.

FUCK THE POLICE
01-25-2008, 05:33 PM
I find it disgusting to try and tell me that allowing gays to marry "corrupts" something, as if gayness were a disease.

Damocles
01-25-2008, 10:10 PM
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man
Again, I simply asked for evidence that you have failed to provide three times now and attempted to pass an Appeal to Popularity Fallacy as an argument. It is not a Strawman Fallacy to ask for evidence, that is why it is so clear you have no understanding of what a Strawman Fallacy is.

I have asked three times now. (Four counting this post). You again have shown no evidence. So far your argument has been to repeat "strawman" without producing any evidence to buttress the claim that "most of America agrees with me" that "Marriage would be harmed by gay marriage". Directly after I stated that only you could desanctify your marriage. I have not used a Caricature, I have followed logical progression to get where I am.

You attempt to buttress your argument with a fallacy, one that is quite literally a caricature of an extreme of an argument (doom will befall your marriage if gays are allowed to be married). However you attempt to use it to buttress your argument rather than to argue against another (this does not take away from the fact that it is still a logical fallacy).

Then you use the Appeal to Popularity:




http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.



You use it in this context.

State "A" voted against Homosexual Marriage, therefore they feel that it would "desanctify" marriage. See? Most people agree with me!

I pointed out that it was a fallacy, that it is impossible to determine simply by vote count the merit of your argument, as well as 11 states or so is certainly not a majority. That it was an Appeal to Popularity and therefore a fallacy is very clear. That it does not provide evidence to back up your assertion of "most people"'s agreement is also clear.

You again repeated "Strawman" as if you were making a point. You were not, you use it to distract from your complete lack of evidence to prop up your own Strawman.

I will ask again, please provide real evidence that more than half the nation believes as you do, that it will destroy your marriage if gays get married. A poll, something of the kind from a verifiable source will do that asked the question "Do you think your marriage would be harmed by gays being allowed to marry?"

I haven't said you were wrong, I have simply wanted evidence of your assertion.

This time, please, instead of trying to distract from the actual question by attempting to argue another fallacy, please provide actual evidence to back up your assertion. It may be that you are correct in that assertion, though I think that others (as myself) would vote against those laws for different reasons than you assign.

gonzojournals
01-26-2008, 08:24 AM
I find it disgusting to try and tell me that allowing gays to marry "corrupts" something, as if gayness were a disease.

I agree.

DamnYankee
01-28-2008, 08:51 AM
And SouthernMan runs away..... No just skiing my ass off like every other weekend November through March.

DamnYankee
01-28-2008, 08:52 AM
I find it disgusting to try and tell me that allowing gays to marry "corrupts" something, as if gayness were a disease.
So get back to the OP.

DamnYankee
01-28-2008, 09:00 AM
.....I will ask again, please provide real evidence that more than half the nation believes as you do, that it will destroy your marriage if gays get married. ..... 1. I gave you the results of actual ballot initiatives in 11 states, along with my opinion on why people voted the way that they did. That opinion is based on the popular arguments used in the debates on those initiatives. An example of those arguments is referenced here. http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

2. I never said gay marriage would harm my marriage, but would harm the institution of marriage. For you to assert otherwise is a straw man.

Damocles
01-28-2008, 09:01 AM
1. I gave you the results of actual ballot initiatives in 11 states, along with my opinion on why people voted the way that they did. That opinion is based on the popular arguments used in the debates on those initiatives. An example of those arguments is referenced here. http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

2. I never said gay marriage would harm my marriage, but would harm the institution of marriage. For you to assert otherwise is a straw man.
And again, I showed how the results of ballot initiatives are not evidence of your assertion.

I will, fourth time now, ask for evidence of your assertion or we can assume you are talking out your behind now based on your own prejudice not on evidence.

The "institution of marriage" includes the subset of "your marriage" unless you somehow think that your marriage falls outside that "institution". Your answer was specifically towards that question as well.

DamnYankee
01-28-2008, 09:21 AM
And again, I showed how the results of ballot initiatives are not evidence of your assertion.

I will, fourth time now, ask for evidence of your assertion or we can assume you are talking out your behind now based on your own prejudice not on evidence.

The "institution of marriage" includes the subset of "your marriage" unless you somehow think that your marriage falls outside that "institution". Your answer was specifically towards that question as well.

My assertion is again based on the arguements given. You can claim that a huge majority of voters made their decisions based on some other reason but that would be less logical than my assertion.

2. Your logic escapes me. I have never asserted that a present or future policy would affect a past event. That would be illogical.

Damocles
01-28-2008, 09:26 AM
My assertion is again based on the arguements given. You can claim that a huge majority of voters made their decisions based on some other reason but that would be less logical than my assertion.

2. Your logic escapes me. I have never asserted that a present or future policy would affect a past event. That would be illogical.
1. No, it would be based on the fact that votes do not show motives, polls do. Where are the polls about specifics that were taken? That is what you want to take from it. Exit polls did exist, therefore post them. I, again, am not saying you are wrong, only that you didn't present evidence to support that position.

2. Any marriage is part of the "institution of marriage" you not only suggest that gays getting married would effect your marriage, but suggest that it would also effect mine. It's total rubbish.

FUCK THE POLICE
01-28-2008, 11:34 AM
Gay marriage will not harm "the institution of marriage". Gay's are not some corrupt leper. Whenever they touch marriage, it does not shrivel and die because two men love each other.

FUCK THE POLICE
01-28-2008, 11:35 AM
So get back to the OP.

Great response fuckwad.

DamnYankee
01-28-2008, 04:24 PM
1. No, it would be based on the fact that votes do not show motives, polls do. Where are the polls about specifics that were taken? That is what you want to take from it. Exit polls did exist, therefore post them. I, again, am not saying you are wrong, only that you didn't present evidence to support that position.

2. Any marriage is part of the "institution of marriage" you not only suggest that gays getting married would effect your marriage, but suggest that it would also effect mine. It's total rubbish.

1.
One of the most common reasons given against permitting same-sex marriage is that it will erode the status of traditional marriage. Yet few Americans think that is the real reason that people oppose it.

Asked to describe what they see as the main motivation behind those who oppose same-sex marriage, nearly three quarters of Americans – on both sides of the issue -- say that opponents’ motivations are mainly the belief that homosexuality is wrong, not concern over its impact on marriage.

REASON MOST PEOPLE WHO OPPOSE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DO SO?
Concern about effect on traditional marriage
16%
Believe homosexuality is wrong
72% http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/15/opinion/polls/main606453.shtml

2. You are misinterpreting my earlier statements.

DamnYankee
01-28-2008, 04:25 PM
Great response fuckwad. Southern Man scores!

Damocles
01-28-2008, 05:52 PM
1. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/15/opinion/polls/main606453.shtml

2. You are misinterpreting my earlier statements.
This poll again does not say what you said. You said the majority believe that it would erode the "institution of marriage". This poll says that the majority did not believe that, they voted for a different reason.

Play again later.

Damocles
01-28-2008, 05:53 PM
Southern Man scores!
Please, responding to one of your insults with another isn't a "win" even by your standards. Don't cheat yourself, apply it correctly.

uscitizen
01-28-2008, 06:13 PM
I really do not get this attitude of: If someone insults me I have won.

Care to enlighten me anyone ?

FUCK THE POLICE
01-28-2008, 08:23 PM
Southern Man scores!

Watermark scores!

FUCK THE POLICE
01-28-2008, 08:24 PM
Please, responding to one of your insults with another isn't a "win" even by your standards. Don't cheat yourself, apply it correctly.

Damo,

The cunt does not deserve any advice from you. Let him be an idiot.

uscitizen
01-28-2008, 08:25 PM
I don't think we can do anything to stop him anyway.

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 06:21 AM
This poll again does not say what you said. You said the majority believe that it would erode the "institution of marriage". This poll says that the majority did not believe that, they voted for a different reason.

Play again later. Many people in the poll agree with me; however most just say the homosexuality is wrong. we don't know why they think it is.

You've managed to derail th thread for about 9 pages now. Good job. So back to the OP. Are gays born gay or not?

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 06:22 AM
Please, responding to one of your insults with another isn't a "win" even by your standards. Don't cheat yourself, apply it correctly. I've never insulted anyone here.

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 06:23 AM
I really do not get this attitude of: If someone insults me I have won.

Care to enlighten me anyone ? It is a well known fact that when someone is losing a debate they resort to insults, threats or violence.

Damocles
01-29-2008, 08:16 AM
Many people in the poll agree with me; however most just say the homosexuality is wrong. we don't know why they think it is.

You've managed to derail th thread for about 9 pages now. Good job. So back to the OP. Are gays born gay or not?
Which was my POINT. One more time I ask for evidence of your assertion that the majority of the US believes that gays getting married will somehow negatively effect the "institution of marriage". So far you provided me with links to stuff that is not evidence.

It is "wrong" to let young kids get married, that doesn't mean that I think it would "destroy the institution", just that I think it is wrong and would vote against it.

I don't think that the government should be in the business of marriage at all. I think they muck it up.

gonzojournals
01-29-2008, 09:13 AM
Many people in the poll agree with me; however most just say the homosexuality is wrong.
Says who?


You've managed to derail th thread for about 9 pages now. Good job. So back to the OP. Are gays born gay or not?
And many people have answered with either yes, no, or (most commonly) who cares?

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 09:25 AM
Which was my POINT. One more time I ask for evidence of your assertion that the majority of the US believes that gays getting married will somehow negatively effect the "institution of marriage". So far you provided me with links to stuff that is not evidence.

It is "wrong" to let young kids get married, that doesn't mean that I think it would "destroy the institution", just that I think it is wrong and would vote against it.

I don't think that the government should be in the business of marriage at all. I think they muck it up.


The last thing that I'll say on that is that it is my belief as well as the belief of many others. Some choose to "just say no".

What difference does it make to the question posed in the OP?

Damocles
01-29-2008, 09:26 AM
The last thing that I'll say on that is that it is my belief as well as the belief of many others. Some choose to "just say no".

What difference does it make to the question posed in the OP?
This is a conversation, it progressed. I asked why I should care at all if gays are born that way or choose it. Why should my opnion be forced upon them in any case?

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 09:52 AM
This is a conversation, it progressed. I asked why I should care at all if gays are born that way or choose it. Why should my opnion be forced upon them in any case? Many believe, as do I, that it is the gays that are forcing their beliefs on society, and traditions that go back 5000 years.

gonzojournals
01-29-2008, 10:03 AM
Many believe, as do I, that it is the gays that are forcing their beliefs on society, and traditions that go back 5000 years.

But it isn't tradition that goes back 5000 years...that is a lie. Most of Western Civilisation comes from the Roman Empire, which in turn borrowed from the Greeks. The Greeks saw homosexual love as the highest form of love, and homosexuality was also practiced in Rome.

No one outside of the Middle East was even aware of Judaism and Jewish law until the spread of Christianity, and the Roman Empire did not even allow Christianity legally until 313 AD.

Christianity did not become the official religion of Rome until 380 AD...

So that means there is a 4,380 year tradition of homosexuality, and only a 1,620 year tradition of condemning it.

Damocles
01-29-2008, 10:05 AM
Many believe, as do I, that it is the gays that are forcing their beliefs on society, and traditions that go back 5000 years.
Neither are. It is ridiculous to say that wanting to live their lives the way they enjoy is "forcing" anything on another. The attempt to force them to conform to "centuries old" insitutions is ridiculous.

We'd still have slavery if centuries of wrong was a good reason to do something.

Regardless of how you personally feel about their "sin" or how "wrong" they are, the reality is it is their life to live and their soul to "stain". So long as they want to live that way, why would it be your business at all?

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 10:10 AM
But it isn't tradition that goes back 5000 years...that is a lie. Most of Western Civilisation comes from the Roman Empire, which in turn borrowed from the Greeks. The Greeks saw homosexual love as the highest form of love, and homosexuality was also practiced in Rome.

No one outside of the Middle East was even aware of Judaism and Jewish law until the spread of Christianity, and the Roman Empire did not even allow Christianity legally until 313 AD.

Christianity did not become the official religion of Rome until 380 AD...

So that means there is a 4,380 year tradition of homosexuality, and only a 1,620 year tradition of condemning it. Come on fella that's a tired and false argument. The Greeks condemned homosexuality, as well as false gods, when they embraced Christianity. Their culture as well as ours is thus embedded in the Old Testament.

Even using your argument, 1600 years is a lot of history to dump on just because less than 1% of society wants to use the word "marriage" to describe a monogamous homosexual relationship.

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 10:14 AM
Neither are. It is ridiculous to say that wanting to live their lives the way they enjoy is "forcing" anything on another. The attempt to force them to conform to "centuries old" insitutions is ridiculous.

We'd still have slavery if centuries of wrong was a good reason to do something.

Regardless of how you personally feel about their "sin" or how "wrong" they are, the reality is it is their life to live and their soul to "stain". So long as they want to live that way, why would it be your business at all?

You can't compare homosexual marriage to slavery. No one is stopping gays from enjoying any of the freedoms of normal people.

I never said it was my business; it is a societal issue.

Damocles
01-29-2008, 10:35 AM
You can't compare homosexual marriage to slavery. No one is stopping gays from enjoying any of the freedoms of normal people.

I never said it was my business; it is a societal issue.
My point is, it isn't a societal issue. It is a personal issue. And a religious one. There are churches that will give ceremonies to homosexuals now. Therefore "in the eyes of God" they are married. States that allow it, the institution hasn't failed because of it.

Your arguments are all weak and ineffective. "We did it this way for years" is not a valid logical stance, nor does it make your point that your will should be forced onto them as the only valid stance. Each of us are able to enjoy worshipping as we see fit, even if we choose to worship at a place that would marry two homosexuals to each other. Society should have no say other than to ensure they are of an age where decisions can be made and that they are not forced into it and therefore victimized.

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 10:44 AM
My point is, it isn't a societal issue. It is a personal issue. And a religious one. There are churches that will give ceremonies to homosexuals now. Therefore "in the eyes of God" they are married. States that allow it, the institution hasn't failed because of it.

Your arguments are all weak and ineffective. "We did it this way for years" is not a valid logical stance, nor does it make your point that your will should be forced onto them as the only valid stance. Each of us are able to enjoy worshipping as we see fit, even if we choose to worship at a place that would marry two homosexuals to each other. Society should have no say other than to ensure they are of an age where decisions can be made and that they are not forced into it and therefore victimized.

We live in a democratic society where the majority rules. The only time gays have been allowed to be married is when democracy has been bastardized.

Damocles
01-29-2008, 10:52 AM
We live in a democratic society where the majority rules. The only time gays have been allowed to be married is when democracy has been bastardized.
We don't. We have a measured democracy with a representative government that is restricted in its rights. Where in the constitution does it say that the Federal government has the power to regulate marriage?

It does not. It is therefore either a state or an individual right according to the 10th amendment. In this case I profer it to the individual, as it is between them and their God. You prefer to suggest it is the right of others to insist that in this matter they believe exactly as you do and therefore must follow your beliefs.

The constitution was written to protect the individual against such an intrusion.

evince
01-29-2008, 10:54 AM
We live in a democratic society where the majority rules. The only time gays have been allowed to be married is when democracy has been bastardized.

To hell with the constitution huh?

gonzojournals
01-29-2008, 12:35 PM
Come on fella that's a tired and false argument.
It is not tired because I have never seen anyone use it before, nor is it false. I believe, as you do, that homosexuality is a sin-- but that has no impact on my life or my government.

The Greeks condemned homosexuality
After writing pages and pages of philosophical texts praising it

, as well as false gods, when they embraced Christianity. Their culture as well as ours is thus embedded in the Old Testament.
Yes, when they embraced Christianity-- thousands of years later.


Even using your argument, 1600 years is a lot of history to dump on just because less than 1% of society wants to use the word "marriage" to describe a monogamous homosexual relationship.

Is 1600 years more time than 4000 years?

uscitizen
01-29-2008, 01:03 PM
Many people in the poll agree with me; however most just say the homosexuality is wrong. we don't know why they think it is.

You've managed to derail th thread for about 9 pages now. Good job. So back to the OP. Are gays born gay or not?

Just refer back to Thorns post long ago. I think that is the only real evidence presented in this thread so far.

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 03:25 PM
We don't. We have a measured democracy with a representative government that is restricted in its rights. Where in the constitution does it say that the Federal government has the power to regulate marriage?

It does not. It is therefore either a state or an individual right according to the 10th amendment. In this case I profer it to the individual, as it is between them and their God. You prefer to suggest it is the right of others to insist that in this matter they believe exactly as you do and therefore must follow your beliefs.

The constitution was written to protect the individual against such an intrusion. If someone can make up an abnormal sexual relationship then they can make up a religion and do with it what they want. However we are talking about State government and a license to marry. This was discussed previously in this thread.

Damocles
01-29-2008, 03:28 PM
If someone can make up an abnormal sexual relationship then they can make up a religion and do with it what they want. However we are talking about State government and a license to marry. This was discussed previously in this thread.
Again, you are basing it on the religion as they are "wrong". Society does not get to dictate this. As before it has been answered, repeating it as salient after it was found to be in error doesn't make it suddenly right.

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 03:33 PM
Again, you are basing it on the religion as they are "wrong". Society does not get to dictate this. As before it has been answered, repeating it as salient after it was found to be in error doesn't make it suddenly right.

Society dictates right and wrong on thousands of issues and deeds.

Damocles
01-29-2008, 03:35 PM
Society dictates right and wrong on thousands of issues and deeds.
However, in this case it is solely based in religion and thus crosses another of the Amendments.

Hermes Thoth
01-29-2008, 03:37 PM
Society dictates right and wrong on thousands of issues and deeds.

That's usually premised on the belief that the action actually HARMS OTHERS. Consensual gayness is just not that harmful to others.
I have some issues with gay prostelyttytizing (sp) going on in elementary schools, but other than that I'm cool with the queers.

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 03:40 PM
However, in this case it is solely based in religion and thus crosses another of the Amendments.
Assuming that true for a moment, which one?

Damocles
01-29-2008, 03:43 PM
Assuming that true for a moment, which one?
It doesn't matter which one. It matters that it is victimless other than in the eyes of religion. The attempt to first make the activity illegal or to later keep them inside a specific box is related solely to the "sin" or "wrongness" based on religious argument.

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 03:44 PM
That's usually premised on the belief that the action actually HARMS OTHERS. Consensual gayness is just not that harmful to others.
I have some issues with gay prostelyttytizing (sp) going on in elementary schools, but other than that I'm cool with the queers. We are not taliking about "consensual gayness", but marriage. If that were the case, most of America, including The Southern Man, would be "cool with queers".

Actually I wanted to discuss the nature vs. nuture issue, but there appears to be no one here able to argue the "nature" point of view. Perhaps because it is such a weak position.

uscitizen
01-29-2008, 03:45 PM
Gayness is why the islamofascists want to save us from ourselves ;)

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 03:47 PM
It doesn't matter which one. It matters that it is victimless other than in the eyes of religion. The attempt to first make the activity illegal or to later keep them inside a specific box is related solely to the "sin" or "wrongness" based on religious argument. Of course it matters. If you are going to argue Constitutionality with respect to an Amendment, you must be specific.

One could argue that drug abuse is a victimless crime, but society has banned that.

Damocles
01-29-2008, 03:48 PM
We are not taliking about "consensual gayness", but marriage. If that were the case, most of America, including The Southern Man, would be "cool with queers".

Actually I wanted to discuss the nature vs. nuture issue, but there appears to be no one here able to argue the "nature" point of view. Perhaps because it is such a weak position.
Again, the only reason to exclude them is the "sanctity" argument. Thus again crossing into using government to enforce religious beliefs.

Damocles
01-29-2008, 03:49 PM
Of course it matters. If you are going to argue Constitutionality with respect to an Amendment, you must be specific.

One could argue that drug abuse is a victimless crime, but society has banned that.
It is illegal to purchase and own it. That is Interstate commerce and a power of the government granted in the constitution. Now you are just showing ignorance.

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 03:50 PM
Again, the only reason to exclude them is the "sanctity" argument. Thus again crossing into using government to enforce religious beliefs.
And again, assuming that true for a moment, how is government prevented from doing that?

Damocles
01-29-2008, 03:52 PM
And again, assuming that true for a moment, how is government prevented from doing that?
They are perforce not permitted to make law respecting an establishment of religion. It doesn't matter which or why, if the sole reason is to enforce religious beliefs the government cannot play a part.

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 04:07 PM
They are perforce not permitted to make law respecting an establishment of religion. It doesn't matter which or why, if the sole reason is to enforce religious beliefs the government cannot play a part.
One could argue that it is tradition, not religion, and that one woman-one man is elemental and therefore society has a responsibility to uphold it.

Beefy
01-29-2008, 04:11 PM
One could argue that it is tradition, not religion, and that one woman-one man is elemental and therefore society has a responsibility to uphold it.

I don't believe its is the US federal Government's Constitutional authority to legislate traditions, especially those rooted in religion.

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 04:15 PM
I don't believe its is the US federal Government's Constitutional authority to legislate traditions, especially those rooted in religion. Can the government regulate circumcisions?

So when are we going to consummate our booze exchange agreement?

Beefy
01-29-2008, 04:19 PM
Can the government regulate circumcisions?

So when are we going to consummate our booze exchange agreement?

Circumcision is a health and human rights issue, they can regulate that I would believe.

Send me a bottle of heaven hill and we'll talk! :clink:

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 04:22 PM
Circumcision is a health and human rights issue, they can regulate that I would believe.

Send me a bottle of heaven hill and we'll talk! :clink:
Decide what you want and PM me with a mailing address. http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=200663&postcount=59

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 04:23 PM
Circumcision is a health and human rights issue, they can regulate that I would believe.
... One could argue the same thing about marriage.

Beefy
01-29-2008, 04:28 PM
One could argue the same thing about marriage.

Marriages don't inherently involve mutilation.

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 04:39 PM
Marriages don't inherently involve mutilation. But they do affect your health. That fact is undeniable.

Beefy
01-29-2008, 04:52 PM
But they do affect your health. That fact is undeniable.

The don't affect a straight or gay couple any differently. Thus, it would not logically follow that health could be used as a basis for banning gay marriage. Maybe ALL marriage if that's where you're going, but not gay anymore than interracial marriage.

Damocles
01-29-2008, 05:17 PM
One could argue that it is tradition, not religion, and that one woman-one man is elemental and therefore society has a responsibility to uphold it.
Again tradition is not the same as precedent and the only support of the "tradition" is the wickedness you see in it evident in the idea that it would desanctify the institution of...

Just as it was "traditional" to own slaves in all times of history before we made it different, "traditional" is not strong enough to enact inequality in law based on religious centered beliefs. Laws made to enact your sense of "wrong" because of religious belief are not constitutional regardless of what religion they stem from.

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 05:43 PM
The don't affect a straight or gay couple any differently. Thus, it would not logically follow that health could be used as a basis for banning gay marriage. Maybe ALL marriage if that's where you're going, but not gay anymore than interracial marriage.
It is a well known fact that gay men lead shorther lives than straight ones, due to their unhealty lifestyle.

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 05:47 PM
Again tradition is not the same as precedent and the only support of the "tradition" is the wickedness you see in it evident in the idea that it would desanctify the institution of...

Just as it was "traditional" to own slaves in all times of history before we made it different, "traditional" is not strong enough to enact inequality in law based on religious centered beliefs. Laws made to enact your sense of "wrong" because of religious belief are not constitutional regardless of what religion they stem from.

Haven't we been over this road before? Slavery is not a valid comparison because of the Declaration signed by the Founders. The “tradition” of slavery is self-evidently un-American, and traditional marriage is self-evidently the backbone of civilized society.

Damocles
01-29-2008, 06:08 PM
Haven't we been over this road before? Slavery is not a valid comparison because of the Declaration signed by the Founders. The “tradition” of slavery is self-evidently un-American, and traditional marriage is self-evidently the backbone of civilized society.
This is preposterous again, as the Constitution was specifically written to include slavery. It is not "evidently un-American" considering it was the Founders who wrote that Constitution. And traditional marriage is not the "backbone of civilized society" considering that it was only recently that governments attempted to regulate what was solely a religious ceremony. It also flies in the face that most "marriage" of the past was of the common law variety as most could not afford the ceremonies, and often preachers/priests were unavailable to those who lived more rurally than we do.

No, regardless of that. Slavery has been part of human history far longer than "traditional marriage". In fact, the religion upon which most in the US base "traditional marriage" on promoted multiple wives as well as many concubines often in its pages.

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 06:15 PM
This is preposterous again, as the Constitution was specifically written to include slavery. It is not "evidently un-American" considering it was the Founders who wrote that Constitution. And traditional marriage is not the "backbone of civilized society" considering that it was only recently that governments attempted to regulate what was solely a religious ceremony. It also flies in the face that most "marriage" of the past was of the common law variety as most could not afford the ceremonies, and often preachers/priests were unavailable to those who lived more rurally than we do.

No, regardless of that. Slavery has been part of human history far longer than "traditional marriage". In fact, the religion upon which most in the US base "traditional marriage" on promoted multiple wives as well as many concubines often in its pages.

The parts of the Constitution on slavery was a compromise to get the weathly landowners in The South to enter the Union. It does not in any way condone slavery. If fact the issue boiled for over 75 years until it finally blew.

Damocles
01-29-2008, 06:25 PM
The parts of the Constitution on slavery was a compromise to get the weathly landowners in The South to enter the Union. It does not in any way condone slavery. If fact the issue boiled for over 75 years until it finally blew.
LOL. So the fact that it was actually included in the Constitution means that it wasn't condoned? Rubbish, total and complete rubbish and desperate twisting. Most of the founders owned slaves of their own. You are making it obvious that you are getting desperate.

As I asked at the beginning. And will again. Why would it matter if they were born gay or not?

It matters nothing to the basic right to be able to worship as they will (including getting married) and as you referenced the DOI, it would not preclude their right to the pursuit of happiness, whatever form it would take.

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 06:29 PM
LOL. So the fact that it was actually included in the Constitution means that it wasn't condoned? Rubbish, total and complete rubbish and desperate twisting. Most of the founders owned slaves of their own. You are making it obvious that you are getting desperate.

As I asked at the beginning. And will again. Why would it matter if they were born gay or not?

It matters nothing to the basic right to be able to worship as they will (including getting married) and as you referenced the DOI, it would not preclude their right to the pursuit of happiness, whatever form it would take.
Methinks you're getting testy. I detect an insult coming. :)

This issue is directly related to gay's assertion of normal, healthy, etc., and their subsequent demand for equal rights. If homosexuality is a choice, or a sickness, the claim for equal status, for something like marriage, for example, flies out the window faster than a bee in summer.

Damocles
01-29-2008, 06:32 PM
Methinks you're getting testy. I detect an insult coming. :)

This issue is directly related to gay's assertion of normal, healthy, etc., and their subsequent demand for equal rights. If homosexuality is a choice, or a sickness, the claim for equal status, for something like marriage, for example, flies out the window faster than a bee in summer.
Again total rubbish. It doesn't matter if it is "normal" or "healthy", etc. None of that negates their rights. It is not "normal" to fly on airplanes, most people do not do that regularly, even often. That doesn't make it any more or less "moral". It isn't "healthy" to drink beer... so forth.

Your rights do not end at "normal", "Healthy" or even at "different". Marriage is a religious entity that governments only recently decided to try to tax and regulate. Shoot most places didn't even have licenses until inter-racial marriage was going to be an issue and they wanted to have people "test their blood" before they got married.

As a religious institution it is not the government's place to attempt to define it. Regulate contracts and age of consent, do not regulate religion. As there are churches, yes even Christian ones, that will currently perform marriages for homosexuals they are already married in "God's eyes".

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 06:41 PM
Again total rubbish. It doesn't matter if it is "normal" or "healthy", etc. None of that negates their rights. It is not "normal" to fly on airplanes, most people do not do that regularly, even often. That doesn't make it any more or less "moral". It isn't "healthy" to drink beer... so forth.

Your rights do not end at "normal", "Healthy" or even at "different". Marriage is a religious entity that governments only recently decided to try to tax and regulate. Shoot most places didn't even have licenses until inter-racial marriage was going to be an issue and they wanted to have people "test their blood" before they got married.

As a religious institution it is not the government's place to attempt to define it. Regulate contracts and age of consent, do not regulate religion. As there are churches, yes even Christian ones, that will currently perform marriages for homosexuals they are already married in "God's eyes".

Its perfectly normal to fly on planes. In fact, since it is odd to know someone who has not flown, it might be considered abnormal not to have flown. It is also normal to brink beer. Both are healthy activities in fact.

Damocles
01-29-2008, 06:47 PM
Its perfectly normal to fly on planes. In fact, since it is odd to know someone who has not flown, it might be considered abnormal not to have flown. It is also normal to brink beer. Both are healthy activities in fact.
That doesn't make it "normal". Normal is something most people do regularly, even today it is not "normal" to fly on planes as most do not do such regularly.

It is normal to drive a car, of course if we went by tradition we never would have started making the things because it wasn't normal some time ago. Nor is it very healthy considering how often people are killed doing such a normal activity.

I said it was normal to drink beer, I brought up that it wasn't all that healthy.

The reality is that you have not supported your own premise. You pretended that things in the constitution were not "supported" by that same document. You pretended that we base laws on activities that are "normal", and then tried to say it was "traditional" for government to regulate marriage. All of which we found to be untrue.

You are not doing well in this argument. It was not "traditional" for government to regulate marriage in the US until segregation became an issue and they wanted to ensure they could stop inter-racial marriage by regulating "blood tests" and licenses.

It is sad indeed to find out that all the things you have been told about your "tradition" is mistaken. Even to the point of what actually was "traditional marriage" according to the book that most people in this nation use to define "traditional marriage"....

I know it is hard to find out that most of your arguments are baseless in fact, lost in reality, and wrongly defined by those who gave them to you. But when the reality becomes apparent most at least try a different tack I suggest making a new argument because these ones have been soundly discredited.

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 06:51 PM
That doesn't make it "normal". Normal is something most people do regularly, even today it is not "normal" to fly on planes as most do not do such regularly.
.... . Most people aren't gay regularly.

Damocles
01-29-2008, 06:52 PM
Most people aren't gay regularly.
And?

The point is that "normal" is not something we often base laws on. It is in fact the weakest leg of your platform.

FUCK THE POLICE
01-29-2008, 09:04 PM
SM Sku-rd

Beefy
01-29-2008, 09:06 PM
SM Sku-rd

He should just be honest and say "I just don't like the idea of gay people getting married, and I don't want to tell anyone the real reason".

It's pretty obvious.

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 09:08 PM
And?

The point is that "normal" is not something we often base laws on. It is in fact the weakest leg of your platform. Normal is beyond the fat part of the bell curve for a given behavior. Most statisticians will classify anything outside of the 90th or maybe the 95th percentile as abnormal. Homosexuality is past the 99th percentile.

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 09:09 PM
He should just be honest and say "I just don't like the idea of gay people getting married, and I don't want to tell anyone the real reason".

It's pretty obvious.
What would that be?

Beefy
01-29-2008, 09:13 PM
What would that be?

Your reasons could vary. But the reasons you gave are wholesale invalid.

I was saying that it is obvious that you simply don't like the idea of gay people partaking in marriage.

You could just not like them. You could just be creeped out by them. You maybe just think they're akin to lepers, it could vary.

But you don't need a rational reason to not want gay marriage, as this thread has clearly shown.

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 09:24 PM
Your reasons could vary. But the reasons you gave are wholesale invalid.

I was saying that it is obvious that you simply don't like the idea of gay people partaking in marriage.

You could just not like them. You could just be creeped out by them. You maybe just think they're akin to lepers, it could vary.

But you don't need a rational reason to not want gay marriage, as this thread has clearly shown.
My reasons are as stated and are just as valid as any. What makes them invalid?

Another reason is the damage that I think it would do to the kids. But that's another subject entirely. The thread is supposed to be about nature vs. nurture.

What red-blooded man would be freaked out by a lesbian (unless she looked like Rosie O'Donell)?

uscitizen
01-29-2008, 09:35 PM
What real man sure of his sexuality would be freaked out by a gay guy ?

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 09:39 PM
What real man sure of his sexuality would be freaked out by a gay guy ? I've never been "freaked out"; but the ones I knew in college where all demented as hell. Not so for the lesbians; they were just normal screwed up kids.

uscitizen
01-29-2008, 09:41 PM
Not so for the lesbians; they were just normal screwed up kids.
//

so I guess you would support lesbian couples marrying and adopting or having kids by other means ?
After all that is what normal screwed up kids do.

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 09:47 PM
Not so for the lesbians; they were just normal screwed up kids.
//

so I guess you would support lesbian couples marrying and adopting or having kids by other means ?
After all that is what normal screwed up kids do.
No, because the ideal situation is to have a mum and dad raise a child, and every child deserves at least the chance of that. Don't you like children?

uscitizen
01-29-2008, 09:49 PM
No, because the ideal situation is to have a mum and dad raise a child, and every child deserves at least the chance of that. Don't you like children?

Kids are fine as long as they are someone elses.

What an idealist, heck the divorce rate alone shoots down your dream.

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 09:51 PM
Kids are fine as long as they are someone elses.

What an idealist, heck the divorce rate alone shoots down your dream.
So you want to weaken marriage further?

That's like having a dented door on your car so you get out and walk.

uscitizen
01-29-2008, 09:52 PM
As I will keep saying southerndude, Thorn has posted the only scientific evidence on here so far about whether gays are born or created. I think most all of them are born that way.
At least all of them I have known since they were children were obviously gay from birth.
but that is the same as your beliefs and such just my thoughts on it and not scientific .

DamnYankee
01-29-2008, 09:57 PM
As I will keep saying southerndude, Thorn has posted the only scientific evidence on here so far about whether gays are born or created. I think most all of them are born that way.
At least all of them I have known since they were children were obviously gay from birth.
but that is the same as your beliefs and such just my thoughts on it and not scientific .

How do you tell a baby is gay? That's just too weird, man. Stay away from kids.

I've known people in college that were gay, and are now happily married (to the opposite sex) and with children. That blows the born gay theory to hell, doesn't it?

uscitizen
01-29-2008, 10:00 PM
Push it to the absurd to make your point huh. I said kids not babies doofus.

Yeah like Ted Haggard, and others in denial trying to rif in to what they think society expects of them ?

Some of the worst mistakes in my life have been because of society/family pushing me in directions that were not right for me.

Beefy
01-29-2008, 10:50 PM
I've never been "freaked out"; but the ones I knew in college where all demented as hell. Not so for the lesbians; they were just normal screwed up kids.

Anecdotal evidence is not logical evidence.

I knew a lot of straight people in college that were "demented as hell" as well.

But I wouldn't want to interfere with their personal relationship decisions.

DamnYankee
01-30-2008, 07:11 AM
Push it to the absurd to make your point huh. I said kids not babies doofus.
...

You said "from birth".

Point scored by the Southern Man due to the insult.

DamnYankee
01-30-2008, 07:14 AM
Anecdotal evidence is not logical evidence.

I knew a lot of straight people in college that were "demented as hell" as well.

But I wouldn't want to interfere with their personal relationship decisions.There are plenty of documented cases that this has occurred. I am merely discussing some of my personal experiences.

I could tell you some great stories about these guys man. This goes beyond "Animal House".

Damocles
01-30-2008, 07:53 AM
Normal is beyond the fat part of the bell curve for a given behavior. Most statisticians will classify anything outside of the 90th or maybe the 95th percentile as abnormal. Homosexuality is past the 99th percentile.
So is skydiving. I guess we should keep people who do it from getting married.

DamnYankee
01-30-2008, 07:55 AM
So is skydiving. I guess we should keep people who do it from getting married.
Totally unrelated. Skydivers, however, should pay higher insurance premiums to pay for their risky lifestyle. Just like gays should pay for the consequences of their lifestyle choice.

Damocles
01-30-2008, 07:58 AM
Totally unrelated. Skydivers, however, should pay higher insurance premiums to pay for their risky lifestyle. Just like gays should pay for the consequences of their lifestyle choice.
It isn't unrelated. It's "not normal" which was your criteria for restricting gay people from the same. It's also not normal to do deep sea diving, or myriad other things. We should restrict people who do that from marrying as well. Because "normal" is the standard by which we judge.... Less people run in marathons than there ever were gay people. That practice isn't "normal" we better stop those people from getting married too....

As I said, this is the weakest leg of your tottering table of an argument.

DamnYankee
01-30-2008, 09:21 AM
It isn't unrelated. ... Of course it is. Don't be silly!

Damocles
01-30-2008, 10:52 AM
Of course it is. Don't be silly!
The only "silly" thing here is the attempt to say that something is not "normal" and therefore should be "illegal". The reality is all of those are part of the set of "not normal". Some even more so than the supposed less than 1% of homosexuality.

DamnYankee
01-30-2008, 11:01 AM
The only "silly" thing here is the attempt to say that something is not "normal" and therefore should be "illegal". The reality is all of those are part of the set of "not normal". Some even more so than the supposed less than 1% of homosexuality. I think that you're completely off base here with your analogies. A better analogy was sugested earlier: "you wouldn't give a driver's license to a blind man". Your analogies are silly, because they attempt to relate unrelated issues.

Damocles
01-30-2008, 11:13 AM
I think that you're completely off base here with your analogies. A better analogy was sugested earlier: "you wouldn't give a driver's license to a blind man". Your analogies are silly, because they attempt to relate unrelated issues.
No, that is not a proper analogy. Gays are not the same as a disability. They are simply abnormal. What are gays unable to do because of being gay? The reality is you don't want the analogy to fit, but were the one that said that it was because they are "not normal" therefore such a restriction should be enforced. That argument has shown to be one of the weakest arguments ever.

DamnYankee
01-30-2008, 12:16 PM
No, that is not a proper analogy. Gays are not the same as a disability. They are simply abnormal. What are gays unable to do because of being gay? The reality is you don't want the analogy to fit, but were the one that said that it was because they are "not normal" therefore such a restriction should be enforced. That argument has shown to be one of the weakest arguments ever.
You seem to hope that by calling an argument weak makes it so. That itself is the weakest argument ever.

Gays are unable to raise children in the environment proven to be the most beneficial to them: with a mum and a dad. In that context, gays have a disability.

Damocles
01-30-2008, 12:28 PM
You seem to hope that by calling an argument weak makes it so. That itself is the weakest argument ever.

Gays are unable to raise children in the environment proven to be the most beneficial to them: with a mum and a dad. In that context, gays have a disability.
No, I seem to be able to easily point out the weakness in the argument while you seem totally ineffective in defending the position, that is what makes it weak.

LOL. So single mothers have a disability, widows have a disability?

This is more hogwash. Stability is more important than number of males v females in the relationship.

The number of people with a "disability" is staggering in your world...

DamnYankee
01-30-2008, 03:42 PM
No, I seem to be able to easily point out the weakness in the argument while you seem totally ineffective in defending the position, that is what makes it weak.

LOL. So single mothers have a disability, widows have a disability?

This is more hogwash. Stability is more important than number of males v females in the relationship.

The number of people with a "disability" is staggering in your world...

With regards to raising children, single mums definitely have a disability.

Damocles
01-30-2008, 03:45 PM
With regards to raising children, single mums definitely have a disability.
Then we should make it illegal for them to marry. Your arguments are totally sad, just plain irrevocably sad. It begins to make me feel sorry for you.

DamnYankee
01-30-2008, 04:19 PM
Then we should make it illegal for them to marry. Your arguments are totally sad, just plain irrevocably sad. It begins to make me feel sorry for you.
That's insane. If they marry then their disability vanishes. Do you actually think about what you write?

Damocles
01-30-2008, 07:57 PM
That's insane. If they marry then their disability vanishes. Do you actually think about what you write?
LOL. And if they can't or decide not to? Should we make it illegal for them to have children? I mean we can't let the disabled raise children! How long should we give them before we take the kid/kids away from them?

Do you think it is only possible to get pregnant while in that state? And if they do, should we enforce an abortion onto them or should we just take the kid as soon as it is born? I mean, they are "disabled" and thus cannot raise children properly.

Do you actually think about what you write?

They do not have a disability if they are single, or if they are gay. They have challenges, just like any parent.

And if this is the standard why would you allow a sterile man, or a sterile female to marry? What about a woman who has past child bearing age? Or a man who had a vasectomy? If a man has a vasectomy before he has kids should it be illegal for him to marry unless he gets it reversed, he's "disabled" as a parent, right?

You seriously have no idea what you infer with the idea that unmarried people are "disabled". It's just plain the most inane argument I have ever heard.

DamnYankee
01-30-2008, 08:08 PM
LOL. And if they can't or decide not to? Should we make it illegal for them to have children? I mean we can't let the disabled raise children! How long should we give them before we take the kid/kids away from them?

Do you think it is only possible to get pregnant while in that state? And if they do, should we enforce an abortion onto them or should we just take the kid as soon as it is born? I mean, they are "disabled" and thus cannot raise children properly.

Do you actually think about what you write?

They do not have a disability if they are single, or if they are gay. They have challenges, just like any parent.

And if this is the standard why would you allow a sterile man, or a sterile female to marry? What about a woman who has past child bearing age? Or a man who had a vasectomy? If a man has a vasectomy before he has kids should it be illegal for him to marry unless he gets it reversed, he's "disabled" as a parent, right?

You seriously have no idea what you infer with the idea that unmarried people are "disabled". It's just plain the most inane argument I have ever heard.You keep bringing up these straw man arguments. I never said “we” should make it illegal for people to have children. What I said a traditional marriage is the best way to raise a family, and that every child deserves a chance for that ideal situation.

With regards to heterosexual couples who cannot or wish no to have children, the issue here is that gay marriage will encourage gay adoption. And again, a child brought up in an abnormal environment is not the ideal situation.

Damocles
01-30-2008, 08:40 PM
You keep bringing up these straw man arguments. I never said “we” should make it illegal for people to have children. What I said a traditional marriage is the best way to raise a family, and that every child deserves a chance for that ideal situation.

With regards to heterosexual couples who cannot or wish no to have children, the issue here is that gay marriage will encourage gay adoption. And again, a child brought up in an abnormal environment is not the ideal situation.
No, you keep referencing them in your post. This idea of "disability" is simply extended. That is not a 'strawman argument'. You again misapply the term and show you have no idea what a logical fallacy is. That is likely why you use them so very often. Such as "disabled" for people who are simply single.

You said that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they are "disabled" as parents. However, if they have children stability is far better for their children than what you suggest. Marriage brings such a stability that forcing them to never marry will ever bring.

Gays do not have to adopt to have children, there are myriad ways for a gay man or a lesbian woman to have children.

WhiteAsBirdShit
01-31-2008, 12:14 AM
3. There are cases of identical (same dna) twins where one is gay and one is not. Definately a case for nurture not nature.

My guess is it's a combination of maybe some genetic disposition along with upbringing

No one can be "born" gay - common sense.

WhiteAsBirdShit
01-31-2008, 12:15 AM
You said that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they are "disabled" as parents.

Gays shouldn't be allowed to be married because it's not natural. Plain and simple.

DamnYankee
01-31-2008, 06:02 AM
No, you keep referencing them in your post. This idea of "disability" is simply extended. That is not a 'strawman argument'. You again misapply the term and show you have no idea what a logical fallacy is. That is likely why you use them so very often. Such as "disabled" for people who are simply single.

You said that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they are "disabled" as parents. However, if they have children stability is far better for their children than what you suggest. Marriage brings such a stability that forcing them to never marry will ever bring.

Gays do not have to adopt to have children, there are myriad ways for a gay man or a lesbian woman to have children. For gays to have children without adoption they would have to have heterosexual sex. If that is the case then obviously they have a choice with whom they allow themselves to have sex with. This obviously means that they are not gay. Your argument that they are born gay has thus fallen apart.

Damocles
01-31-2008, 08:09 AM
For gays to have children without adoption they would have to have heterosexual sex. If that is the case then obviously they have a choice with whom they allow themselves to have sex with. This obviously means that they are not gay. Your argument that they are born gay has thus fallen apart.
No, they wouldn't. You've never heard of insemination? There are myriad ways, including heterosexual sex, that they could get pregnant.

And my argument has never been that they were born gay. I asked why it would matter if they were born gay. What difference would it make to their rights?

WhiteAsBirdShit
01-31-2008, 08:57 AM
No, they wouldn't. You've never heard of insemination? There are myriad ways, including heterosexual sex, that they could get pregnant.

And my argument has never been that they were born gay. I asked why it would matter if they were born gay. What difference would it make to their rights?

Cus it just ain't right. Common sense.

DamnYankee
01-31-2008, 09:50 AM
No, they wouldn't. You've never heard of insemination? There are myriad ways, including heterosexual sex, that they could get pregnant.

And my argument has never been that they were born gay. I asked why it would matter if they were born gay. What difference would it make to their rights? In semination is a relatively new technology, and gays have been around since Ham. So that argument doesn't make sense.

It matters for the reasons already stated. If they choose deviant behavior then they cannot claim rights, or privledges, that belong to those who choose normal behavior.

DamnYankee
01-31-2008, 09:51 AM
Cus it just ain't right. Common sense.
Common sense seems to go out the window in "progressive" society.

Damocles
01-31-2008, 09:58 AM
In semination is a relatively new technology, and gays have been around since Ham. So that argument doesn't make sense.

It matters for the reasons already stated. If they choose deviant behavior then they cannot claim rights, or privledges, that belong to those who choose normal behavior.
What? Again. I am talking about now. There are myriad ways for gays to have kids. I don't care about Ham or whether they are "born that way" or not. It doesn't matter to their rights.

There are billions of people on this world who do things I don't want to do, they have every right to it and to their enjoyment and to decide how to worship. Including getting married in churches that support them in their endeavors to do whatever it is that I don't like.

And again "deviant" behavior does not take away one's rights to worship, nor give the government more power over religion than it should have. Marriage is fundamentally a religious function and it should stay that way. The only reason we even have licenses today was to keep inter-racial couples from getting 'permission' in certain areas and so government can get money from the transaction. It isn't their business. I believe we should get government entirely out of marriage in such a direct fashion. Laws should be based on victimization. No 14 year olds can sign a contract, therefore they cannot get married types of things. Otherwise let churches decide whether to sanctify homosexual couples. It isn't mine or the government's business to decide for them.

DamnYankee
01-31-2008, 10:06 AM
What? Again. I am talking about now. There are myriad ways for gays to have kids. I don't care about Ham or whether they are "born that way" or not. It doesn't matter to their rights.

There are billions of people on this world who do things I don't want to do, they have every right to it and to their enjoyment and to decide how to worship. Including getting married in churches that support them in their endeavors to do whatever it is that I don't like.

And again "deviant" behavior does not take away one's rights to worship, nor give the government more power over religion than it should have. Marriage is fundamentally a religious function and it should stay that way. The only reason we even have licenses today was to keep inter-racial couples from getting 'permission' in certain areas and so government can get money from the transaction. It isn't their business. I believe we should get government entirely out of marriage in such a direct fashion. Laws should be based on victimization. No 14 year olds can sign a contract, therefore they cannot get married types of things. Otherwise let churches decide whether to sanctify homosexual couples. It isn't mine or the government's business to decide for them. Sorry, but the reality is that marriage licenses are granted by the States as a legal contract. That license is then tied into bank transcations, decisions on child care, heatlh care, inheritance, and a slew of other issues. You can't just forget all that and go backwards.

Damocles
01-31-2008, 10:11 AM
Sorry, but the reality is that marriage licenses are granted by the States as a legal contract. That license is then tied into bank transcations, decisions on child care, heatlh care, inheritance, and a slew of other issues. You can't just forget all that and go backwards.
Again, only recently. Licenses in the US are a relatively new thing. Your "sorry" is just a sad extension of a "I want to stop it because I think it is a 'sin'" argument. It isn't the government's place to decide the fate of your soul.

DamnYankee
01-31-2008, 10:34 AM
Again, only recently. Licenses in the US are a relatively new thing. Your "sorry" is just a sad extension of a "I want to stop it because I think it is a 'sin'" argument. It isn't the government's place to decide the fate of your soul.
It is certainly a sin but I never put forth that argument with respect to gay mariage. I'll stick with the reasons that I have stated and so far have proven impenetrable.

Damocles
01-31-2008, 11:52 AM
It is certainly a sin but I never put forth that argument with respect to gay mariage. I'll stick with the reasons that I have stated and so far have proven impenetrable.
They have been proven unsupportable as shown in the thread. Denial isn't a river in Egypt, but it runs strong in SM's land.

DamnYankee
01-31-2008, 12:03 PM
They have been proven unsupportable as shown in the thread. Denial isn't a river in Egypt, but it runs strong in SM's land.

The facts speak for themselves, Damo. No matter how fervently you spin it, The Southern Man remains unfettered and correct.

Damocles
01-31-2008, 01:04 PM
The facts speak for themselves, Damo. No matter how fervently you spin it, The Southern Man remains unfettered and correct.
And if he looks in the mirror he might even start believing this foolishness. Each of your "arguments" has been a silly fallacy and shown as such in this thread.

DamnYankee
01-31-2008, 01:12 PM
And if he looks in the mirror he might even start believing this foolishness. Each of your "arguments" has been a silly fallacy and shown as such in this thread. Your behavior here, claiming victory falsely, is unfounded.

Damocles
01-31-2008, 01:15 PM
Your behavior here, claiming victory falsely, is unfounded.
So you have begun to talk to yourself? Come on man. Your argument was "that's a strawman" I showed myriad times how they weren't. You don't even know what a fallacy is or how to properly apply them. Almost all of your suppositions and originating comments were fallacies of their own as shown throughout the thread. This was, in fact, the easiest debate on the subject I have ever been in because you so consistently repeated very funny fallacies.

DamnYankee
01-31-2008, 01:25 PM
So you have begun to talk to yourself? Come on man. Your argument was "that's a strawman" I showed myriad times how they weren't. You don't even know what a fallacy is or how to properly apply them. Almost all of your suppositions and originating comments were fallacies of their own as shown throughout the thread. This was, in fact, the easiest debate on the subject I have ever been in because you so consistently repeated very funny fallacies. Look I realize that you have a lot of time invested in this board but don't be silly. You have not come close to proving that gays are born gay, or that gay marriage is a right. For someone who supposed to be the Big Man on Campus I must say that I am dissapointed.

Damocles
01-31-2008, 01:33 PM
Look I realize that you have a lot of time invested in this board but don't be silly. You have not come close to proving that gays are born gay, or that gay marriage is a right. For someone who supposed to be the Big Man on Campus I must say that I am dissapointed.
This is a fallacy. I have never suggested that "gays are born gay". This is an actual strawman fallacy. It shows how deliberately disingenuous you have been throughout the argument. Nor did I suggest that marriage is a "right" per se. I said that they have a right to their religious ceremonies and that the government DOES NOT have a right to interfere or interject. That is also a strawman fallacy.

Now that we have summed up the thread nicely we can see how your arguments are not even close to "water tight" and how your lap is all wet with the drool you attempted to put into that container.

DamnYankee
01-31-2008, 03:47 PM
This is a fallacy. I have never suggested that "gays are born gay". This is an actual strawman fallacy. It shows how deliberately disingenuous you have been throughout the argument. Nor did I suggest that marriage is a "right" per se. I said that they have a right to their religious ceremonies and that the government DOES NOT have a right to interfere or interject. That is also a strawman fallacy.

Now that we have summed up the thread nicely we can see how your arguments are not even close to "water tight" and how your lap is all wet with the drool you attempted to put into that container.

This is a fallacy. I have never suggested that "gays are born gay". This is an actual strawman fallacy. It shows how deliberately disingenuous you have been throughout the argument. Nor did I suggest that marriage is a "right" per se. I said that they have a right to their religious ceremonies and that the government DOES NOT have a right to interfere or interject. That is also a strawman fallacy.

Now that we have summed up the thread nicely we can see how your arguments are not even close to "water tight" and how your lap is all wet with the drool you attempted to put into that container.
On the issues mention my positions are:
1. gays are not born gay,
2. government should not interfere with religious ceremonies,
3. State governments should grant marriage licenses only to heterosexual couples.

Damocles
01-31-2008, 04:01 PM
On the issues mention my positions are:
1. gays are not born gay,
2. government should not interfere with religious ceremonies,
3. State governments should grant marriage licenses only to heterosexual couples.
3. Is a logical fallacy. Those licenses are in fact an intrusion into religion. States should not be in the business of marriage.

DamnYankee
01-31-2008, 04:13 PM
3. Is a logical fallacy. Those licenses are in fact an intrusion into religion. States should not be in the business of marriage. This was argued back in post 45.

Damocles
01-31-2008, 05:49 PM
This was argued back in post 45.
And you failed to support it. You said "traditionally" it was done this way. It was then shown that "traditionally" it was not and that licensing is a recent event.

DamnYankee
01-31-2008, 06:33 PM
And you failed to support it. You said "traditionally" it was done this way. It was then shown that "traditionally" it was not and that licensing is a recent event. I wasn't aware that the issue was challenged. In the past, religion and government have been intertwined. The contemporary secular government regulates thousands of activities that it was never involved with. The progression of government intervention doesn't negate old traditions.

Damocles
01-31-2008, 06:37 PM
I wasn't aware that the issue was challenged. In the past, religion and government have been intertwined. The contemporary secular government regulates thousands of activities that it was never involved with. The progression of government intervention doesn't negate old traditions.
In the past there wasn't an Amendment 1 that prohibits the government from messing around in it. There wasn't an Amendment 10 that talks about the powers of the Federal Government that does not include Marriage. There was no Amendment 14 that ensures that the rights of all citizens are universal throughout the states, there is no Amendment 9 that states that rights not enumerated still exist...

In other words, in the past, where religion controlled the government, the government and religion intermixed.

But in that past, the US created this neat barrier that keeps you from intruding onto that particular right of mine, or even of homosexuals. You cannot choose what their church can and cannot do, nor regulate their ceremonies.

Imagine that.

Said1
01-31-2008, 06:39 PM
This was argued back in post 45.

Could you link the quotes from post 45?

DamnYankee
01-31-2008, 06:46 PM
In the past there wasn't an Amendment 1 that prohibits the government from messing around in it. There wasn't an Amendment 10 that talks about the powers of the Federal Government that does not include Marriage. There was no Amendment 14 that ensures that the rights of all citizens are universal throughout the states, there is no Amendment 9 that states that rights not enumerated still exist...

In other words, in the past, where religion controlled the government, the government and religion intermixed.

But in that past, the US created this neat barrier that keeps you from intruding onto that particular right of mine, or even of homosexuals. You cannot choose what their church can and cannot do, nor regulate their ceremonies.

Imagine that. No one is suggesting that the States choose what churches do. I don't see your point.

DamnYankee
01-31-2008, 06:48 PM
Could you link the quotes from post 45? They are linked in post 42.

Said1
01-31-2008, 07:02 PM
They are linked in post 42.

And that op-ed was to prove marriage is a privilege not a right? I'm not reading the entire thread, so I'm probably not following (and yes, I get the religious angle, that's not my question, to you). Anyway, was that an accurate guess?

DamnYankee
01-31-2008, 07:06 PM
And that op-ed was to prove marriage is a privilege? I'm not reading the entire thread, so I'm probably not following. Anyway, was that an accurate guess?
The "op-ed" was a summation from a government clerk on the secular state-sponsored contractual basis of marriage. So far no one has argued that this was not an accurate description.

Said1
01-31-2008, 07:20 PM
The "op-ed" was a summation from a government clerk on the secular state-sponsored contractual basis of marriage. So far no one has argued that this was not an accurate description.

I didn't ask you what an article, largley consisting of someone paraphrasing the words of clerk, was about. I asked you if it was in defense of this comment
Marriage is not a right, but a privledge.

I think that Gonzo guy asked 'Says who" after the above quoted post, then you posted the commentary. In any case, a simple yes or no would suffice. Geez.

DamnYankee
01-31-2008, 08:31 PM
The answer to "says who" is yes? :p

DigitalDave
01-31-2008, 08:52 PM
This isn't my specific area, but as with other reports of biological research some findings do make their way into the pile. Off the top of my head, here are two findings of note:

Some years ago it was learned that the medial preoptic area in the brains of gay men (an area well established as being involved in sexual behavior) was more similar to that in the brains of heterosexual adult females than the same nucleus in straight males.

More recently, a link was found between the number of boys born consecutively to a mother and the incidence of homosexuality among the youngest. Nothing specific can be derived from a correlational study but it can point the way for future research. In this case, the hypothesis derived was that the consecutive births of males (uninterrupted by female births) somehow changed the mother's ability to provide an appropriate hormonal environment for subsequent male offspring. To broaden this study, it would be necessary to conduct an extensive longitudinal study among gay males and their parents. Ultimately it might be possible to identify a marker, not only among large families, but during gestation to see if a hormonal balance exists and what effect, if any, it might have on gender identification/sexual preference among the offspring.

:whome:

So did he ever respond to this?

Said1
01-31-2008, 09:05 PM
The answer to "says who" is yes? :p

Ok. Sounds pretty convincing to me. Can't argue with:

1. Queer logic
and most importantly,
2. People who post like suspiciously like CWN.


Keep the faith, yo.

uscitizen
01-31-2008, 09:30 PM
I can't believe this thread is still going.

Beefy
02-01-2008, 03:32 AM
:whome:

So did he ever respond to this?

I don't think its really what he wants to hear.

DamnYankee
02-01-2008, 08:10 AM
:whome:

So did he ever respond to this?


:whome:

So did he ever respond to this?
Sorry 'bout that. ( ;) to Said1) I got sidetracked by Beefy and his girlfriend Mrs. Palmer.

1. With regards to the medial preoptic area, does it develop after birth or before?
2. With regards to the number of boys born consecutively to a mother and the incidence of homosexuality among the youngest. Couldn’t this be more simply explained by nurture? Big boys tend to pick on small ones, and as the pecking order gets established, the smallest would have to develop some other form of defense other than physical force. It seems that hanging onto mum’s skirt and would work, but the boy would then learn to bake cookies and arrange flowers instead of rumbling in the mud.

Beefy
02-01-2008, 02:29 PM
I got sidetracked by Beefy and his girlfriend Mrs. Palmer.


Din Ding Ding! Beefy scores!