CA Prop. 8 shot down

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
I just want to commend the class on their manners today. Relatively well behaved. I see great improvement.
 
dixon76710 said:
??? Witholding the benefits of marriage from gay couples, or any couple made up of two people of the same sex doesnt improve the well being of children. It is in extending them to heterosexual couples, the only couples who procreate.
Click to expand...
That is a logical fallacy. You cannot prove a negative. Please explain how the gender of any couple improves or does not improve the well being of a child? By your argument any infertile couple would be unable to improve the well being of a child. That's simply a preposterous notion.



Any two people could do that. Sticking their dicks in each others butts doesnt endow them with superior child raising skills. Biological parents arent prefered because they are sexual, they are preferred because they are the biological parents. A male lion will fight to the death to protect his offspring. He will likely kill the offspring of another male lion.

Anyway, more single mothers and grandmothers raising children together right now, than have ever been raised by gay couples. No justification for such discriminatory treatment, favoring gay couples, over ANY TWO PEOPLE who find themselve raising a child together.
Click to expand...
Again, another logical fallacy. Being able to stick a penis into a vagina or to have your vagina penetrated by a penis does not qualify you as a parent either and you're lion analogy is, again, stupendiously preposterous. By that half witted logic ANY couple who adopted would be incapable of "superior" child raising skills. This is just some of the most illogical and stupid arguments I have ever heard!
 
Can sexual orientation change?
One of the strongest arguments against homosexuality
as an inborn, unalterable condition is change in sexual orientation. In
this chapter we describe how the scientific literature shows that
sexual orientation is not fixed but fluid. People move around on the
homosexual-heterosexual continuum to a surprising degree in both
directions, but a far greater proportion of homosexuals become
heterosexual than heterosexuals become homosexual. Some of the
change is therapeutically assisted, but in most cases it appears to
be circumstantial. Life itself can bring along the factors that make
the difference. This chapter looks at change and its proponents and
opponents.
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch12.pdf

We also know that many genes, maybe hundreds, are involved
in human behaviours, and that behaviours affected by many genes
will change very slowly over very many generations (Chapter One).
That is, they will be very stable for centuries, with only minimal
changes from generation to generation. This is true not only in
families, but also in cultures. But if we look at homosexuality, we find none of the characteristics of genetic properties.

• There is a huge variety of homosexual practices between
cultures and even within them.

• The prevalence of homosexuality has varied considerably
in different cultures. In some cultures, it has been unknown; in
others, it has been obligatory for all males.
• There have been, and are, rapid changes in homosexual
behaviour, even over a lifetime. Not only that, but entire types
of homosexuality have disappeared over the course of just a
few centuries. In fact, anthropologists have found such huge variations
in heterosexual and homosexual practice from culture to culture, and
such sudden changes in sexual practice and orientation, even over
a single generation, that they mostly want to say that all sexual
behaviour is learned. In the words of one writer J. Rostand, “In the
secret coming together of two human bodies, all society is the third
presence.”
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch6.pdf
 
Alias said:
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.......To even argue that people are born homosexual is the height of ignorance....
Click to expand...
Yea except I have a graduate level education in human biology. Where did you learn biology? The back of a cereal box? I mean this is freshman biology shit were talking about here and you're completely fucking clueless dude.
 
Alias said:
Now why would winterborn start a thead and then ask that it be deleted?
Click to expand...

Because, despite being in the 12/9/2011 edition of Huffington, the article was originally written in August of 2010 and updated in May of 2011. I did not recall the first judges names, and I thought this article was referring to the appeal case currently being heard.

It was my mistake, but I was mislead by the date on the article linked.
 
Alias said:
This has nothing to do with tyranny by the majority over a minority. Queers are not a minority. Deciding to have sex with someone of the same sex does not give you the right to change the definition of marriage. Defending our American culture and heritage is not "tyranny". Dumb ass.
Click to expand...

While their sexual acts may be what you focus on, the fact is that they have long term, loving relationships that should be granted the same benefits as those of straight couples.

My wife and I, by getting married, have been granted numerous benefits by the gov't. Those rights are not based on us having sex.
 
WinterBorn said:
Because, despite being in the 12/9/2011 edition of Huffington, the article was originally written in August of 2010 and updated in May of 2011. I did not recall the first judges names, and I thought this article was referring to the appeal case currently being heard.

It was my mistake, but I was mislead by the date on the article linked.
Click to expand...

I see. Thanks for the update.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That is a logical fallacy. You cannot prove a negative. Please explain how the gender of any couple improves or does not improve the well being of a child? By your argument any infertile couple would be unable to improve the well being of a child. That's simply a preposterous notion.



Again, another logical fallacy. Being able to stick a penis into a vagina or to have your vagina penetrated by a penis does not qualify you as a parent either and you're lion analogy is, again, stupendiously preposterous. By that half witted logic ANY couple who adopted would be incapable of "superior" child raising skills. This is just some of the most illogical and stupid arguments I have ever heard!
Click to expand...

Its like you didnt understand a single word you read. Not because they are sexual, not because they are heterosexual, but instead because they are the biological parents of the child. Likely some evolutionary adaptation. Primate species where the females copulate with many different males, those fathers generally have no role in the raising of the offspring. In species where the females copulate with one male, those fathers generally do take a role in caring for the offspring.

We seem to be quickly enough evolving to resemble bonobo chimps where sex is with many different partners of both sexes, and the caring for offspring is solely the domain of females. No need for government to try and hasten that evolution.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yea except I have a graduate level education in human biology. Where did you learn biology? The back of a cereal box? I mean this is freshman biology shit were talking about here and you're completely fucking clueless dude.
Click to expand...

Do newborns have developed sex organs? At what age do the sex hormones start kicking in for boys, for girls?
 
dixon76710 said:
Can sexual orientation change?
One of the strongest arguments against homosexuality
as an inborn, unalterable condition is change in sexual orientation. In
this chapter we describe how the scientific literature shows that
sexual orientation is not fixed but fluid. People move around on the
homosexual-heterosexual continuum to a surprising degree in both
directions, but a far greater proportion of homosexuals become
heterosexual than heterosexuals become homosexual. Some of the
change is therapeutically assisted, but in most cases it appears to
be circumstantial. Life itself can bring along the factors that make
the difference. This chapter looks at change and its proponents and
opponents.
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch12.pdf

We also know that many genes, maybe hundreds, are involved
in human behaviours, and that behaviours affected by many genes
will change very slowly over very many generations (Chapter One).
That is, they will be very stable for centuries, with only minimal
changes from generation to generation. This is true not only in
families, but also in cultures. But if we look at homosexuality, we find none of the characteristics of genetic properties.

• There is a huge variety of homosexual practices between
cultures and even within them.

• The prevalence of homosexuality has varied considerably
in different cultures. In some cultures, it has been unknown; in
others, it has been obligatory for all males.
• There have been, and are, rapid changes in homosexual
behaviour, even over a lifetime. Not only that, but entire types
of homosexuality have disappeared over the course of just a
few centuries. In fact, anthropologists have found such huge variations
in heterosexual and homosexual practice from culture to culture, and
such sudden changes in sexual practice and orientation, even over
a single generation, that they mostly want to say that all sexual
behaviour is learned. In the words of one writer J. Rostand, “In the
secret coming together of two human bodies, all society is the third
presence.”
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch6.pdf
Click to expand...
More flawed logic. You're building an argument based on the pedestal of an utterly false premis. These distinctions you are making are sociological ones and not biological ones. It is complete nonsense to even attempt to apply a sociological perspective to biology. ALL SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IS INBORN AND INATE. Get it clear, in biology homosexuality and heterosexuality DO NOT EXIST! There is just sexuality and we are all born as sexual beings. That means homosexuality is just biologically inate to the human condition as heterosexuality.
 
Alias said:
Of course those laws against interracial marriage were unconstitutional because race can't be helped. There is no such thing as queer marriage. Marriage is a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

So you have proof that people are not born gay? I am sure the scientific community would love to see such proof.
 
dixon76710 said:
???? I never claimed it was. Procreation continues just fine with or without marriage. A father with a sexually active daughter, doesnt encourage her to pick one man to marry, because he is concerned she wont procreate without a marriage. It is because he is concerned she will procreate. Because a wamoan having sex with a man has the POTENTIAL OF PROCREATION.
Birth control pills arent for procreation either. BUT THE POTENTIAL of procreation is why women take birth control pills.
Click to expand...

Then I must have misread something in one of your previous posts, seeing as how you are the one that brought up procreation.

dixon76710 said:
Interracial couples procreate, just like same race couples. Children of interracial couples benefit, just as much from the advantage of having both their mother and father together in the home to provide and care for them. Government has, or should have just as much interest in the wellbeing of interracial children as they do single race children.

Purifying the white race isnt a legitimate governmental interest. Improving the well being of children is such an interest.
Click to expand...
 
Darla said:
This is amazing to me, and always has been. I have known I liked boys "that way" since I can't even remember when. I think Kindergarten. Though of course, I didn't know how I liked them then, just that I did.

When these bigots sat down and said, man I really get excited by boys, but maybe I should choose to be excited by girls, I have no idea.

I never had to do that.
Click to expand...

The only conclusion I can draw is when people like Alias strenuously advocate homosexuality is a choice it's reasonable to conclude he was attracted to the same sex and made a choice not to follow his attraction.
 
dixon76710 said:
Its like you didnt understand a single word you read. Not because they are sexual, not because they are heterosexual, but instead because they are the biological parents of the child. Likely some evolutionary adaptation. Primate species where the females copulate with many different males, those fathers generally have no role in the raising of the offspring. In species where the females copulate with one male, those fathers generally do take a role in caring for the offspring.

We seem to be quickly enough evolving to resemble bonobo chimps where sex is with many different partners of both sexes, and the caring for offspring is solely the domain of females. No need for government to try and hasten that evolution.
Click to expand...
It's like you didn't understand a single word that you read. The fact that one is a biological parents of a child does not make one an inately superior parent. That is a completley preposterous notion and so easily refuted by the facts. There are many biological parents who are horrible parents and many adoptive parents who are superb parents. These inconvinient facts completely demolish your argument.
 
Alias said:
Yes, I am positive about this. Christians believe one man and one woman is what the Christian Church teaches. If you can show me something from the New Testament that challenges that, then I'd be interested to see it.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that for the past 2011 years or so, that it's been about only one man and only one woman?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top