PDA

View Full Version : same sex marriages



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

major_small
11-18-2003, 08:43 PM
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3847661

here's some interesting parts:


President Bush called marriage "a sacred institution between a man and a woman" and pledged to work "to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
Regardless of the ruling, gay marriages will not be equal under federal laws for purposes of taxes and health and retirement benefits because a 1996 law defined marriage for federal purposes as between one woman and one man.

ZakkWylde969
11-18-2003, 09:01 PM
Not particurally for it. I do live in a large redneck town after all. I figure as long as it doesn't harm me why not.

XSquared
11-18-2003, 09:10 PM
It's their choice who they want to spend the rest of their life with.

Zach L.
11-18-2003, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by XSquared
It's their choice who they want to spend the rest of their life with.
Agreed.

curlious
11-18-2003, 10:07 PM
That's great, but it's kind of funny. In MT marriage means higher taxes.

Govtcheez
11-18-2003, 10:46 PM
I'm for the government getting out of marriage entirely, but that's different.

I'm all for this.

Yoshi
11-18-2003, 11:31 PM
Doesn't bother me. I don't care if they pass it or not.

joshdick
11-19-2003, 12:36 AM
Anybody notice that no one is posting against it yet the majority do not favor it?

DavidP
11-19-2003, 12:42 AM
I highly disagree with it, yet I will not get into my reasons, as they would spark yet another 300 post religious debate thread, and I think we have had plenty of those already.

Padawan
11-19-2003, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by DavidP
I highly disagree with it, yet I will not get into my reasons, as they would spark yet another 300 post religious debate thread, and I think we have had plenty of those already.

I'm with him. ;)

laserlight
11-19-2003, 01:29 AM
Actually, I like, the 2nd to vote.

I disagree on both logical and theological grounds, and I too think that the latter is going to get very messy, while the former isnt likely to be conclusive.

Xei
11-19-2003, 02:45 AM
I disagree with Same-Sex marriages, and this is why:

1: Marriage is intended, traditionally, for a Male and Female. Not male and male, or female and female.

2: Why should gay or lesbian people care if their legal status was 'Married' or not? They can still wear a ring (if they desire), they can still live with eachother, they can still write agreements about property incase if they 'separate', and they can still celebrate a wedding together. They just wont get a certificate that says "You are married. blah blah" - big deal.

3: IF gay's or lesbians start marrying eachother we'll probably end up with people who want to change their name from Mr. to Mrs. or vice versa. Which is completely retarded, and I don't care about what rights you think you have. If your male you're a Mr., If youre female you're a Mrs.

4: We'll end up with Gays / Lesbians telling their children: "I'm mommy and that's daddy! BTW, it's okay to screw around with the opposite sex cause it's natural!". For one, things like that warp childrens perspective. Horribly.

So you all might think I'm some homosexual basher who runs around curb-stomping gays - I'm not. I'll start off by explaining what happens in the Canadian School System. In a course called "Career and Life Managment" students are given a series of presentations. One of these presentations is a homosexual male who comes in and tells you how hard his life is etc.. Then he says something similar to the following: "Being a homosexual is perfectly natural. I like to be refered to as a 'female' because even though I look like a male, I am physically attracted to males so that means that my brain is like a females - so really in the inside I am a female."; I wonder how the retard got as far as the classroom.

I can deal with gays and lesbians, I really don't care what people do behind their doors.. it's physical interaction, it makes no difference to me. However, when they wish to include children into this apparently 'natural' act they really mess things up, which I will explain. I understand that not all gays or lesbians are going to go out and want to change their names or have children that are influenced towards homosexuality... but some will, and that is what I really worry about when homosexuals become allowed to marry eachother. Most children grow up understanding that a family consists of a mother, a father, and children - not 2 fathers or 2 mothers. Also, I will give you a possible scenario, lets say that it includes 2 female or male parents(we'll disregard where the real ones are) who have 1 son or daughter, who we will call 'Child1'. So lets say that Child1 grows up playing with the same sex as most small children do until they get older and realize that 'girls dont have cooties' and that 'boys aren't so gross' any more. But then lets say that 'Child1' decides that being homosexual is a personal preference and since his/her parents do it and so many other people that he/she may as well just keep to their own sex for relations so that they can save themselves from the hassle of getting to know the opposite sex. I think that this situation's outcome would be particularily the result of parents/schools continually brute-forcing the idea that being homosexual is okay and perfectly natural. It's okay if somone grows up and decides that they would prefer the same sex over the opposite, but it is not okay if that decision is being influenced by others.

Personally, I believe that being homosexual is a malfunction and that people should be able to get medical treatment for it. I do believe that gays/lesbians have real feelings for the opposite sex, feelings which truly are not natural. I believe that people should have the choice to remain attracted to the same sex or that they should be able to get help with the problem.

I welcome comments and arguments. Let's try not to turn this into a flame war.

Clyde
11-19-2003, 03:25 AM
1: Marriage is intended, traditionally, for a Male and Female. Not male and male, or female and female.


Traditional is supremely irrelevent. Every social injustice around the world is "intended, traditionally", perhaps we should applaud the Muslim countries who stone people to death for pre-marrital sex as sticking to tradition.



2: Why should gay or lesbian people care if their legal status was 'Married' or not? They can still wear a ring (if they desire), they can still live with eachother, they can still write agreements about property incase if they 'separate', and they can still celebrate a wedding together. They just wont get a certificate that says "You are married. blah blah" - big deal.


From a poor argument to an even worse one, why should they care? Uhmm what matters is that THEY DO, not whether or not you can understand why.



3: IF gay's or lesbians start marrying eachother we'll probably end up with people who want to change their name from Mr. to Mrs. or vice versa. Which is completely retarded, and I don't care about what rights you think you have. If your male you're a Mr., If youre female you're a Mrs.


Why do you care so much what they call themselves?



4: We'll end up with Gays / Lesbians telling their children: "I'm mommy and that's daddy! BTW, it's okay to screw around with the opposite sex cause it's natural!". For one, things like that warp childrens perspective. Horribly.


They warp children's perspective huh, what evidence or reasoning do you have to support your claim?



So you all might think I'm some homosexual basher who runs around curb-stomping gays - I'm not.


Yea, except you are.



I'll start off by explaining what happens in the Canadian School System. In a course called "Career and Life Managment" students are given a series of presentations. One of these presentations is a homosexual male who comes in and tells you how hard his life is etc.. Then he says something similar to the following: "Being a homosexual is perfectly natural. I like to be refered to as a 'female' because even though I look like a male, I am physically attracted to males so that means that my brain is like a females - so really in the inside I am a female."; I wonder how the retard got as far as the classroom.


So he's a retard, right.... and you disagree with his stance because......... oh wait yea your bigoted sorry yea that's it.



I can deal with gays and lesbians, I really don't care what people do behind their doors.. it's physical interaction,


ewww wouldn't want one to come near me!!! Bigoted MUCH?



I understand that not all gays or lesbians are going to go out and want to change their names or have children that are influenced towards homosexuality... but some will, and that is what I really worry about when homosexuals become allowed to marry eachother. Most children grow up understanding that a family consists of a mother, a father, and children - not 2 fathers or 2 mothers.


What reasons do you have for believing that children brought up by a homosexual couple will be anything other than slightly more tolerant?



Also, I will give you a possible scenario, lets say that it includes 2 female or male parents(we'll disregard where the real ones are) who have 1 son or daughter, who we will call 'Child1'. So lets say that Child1 grows up playing with the same sex as most small children do until they get older and realize that 'girls dont have cooties' and that 'boys aren't so gross' any more. But then lets say that 'Child1' decides that being homosexual is a personal preference


But it's not a personal "preference" or a lifestyle "choice", it's biology.



and since his/her parents do it and so many other people that he/she may as well just keep to their own sex for relations so that they can save themselves from the hassle of getting to know the opposite sex.


Oh dear God where do you come up with such piffle?



I think that this situation's outcome would be particularily the result of parents/schools continually brute-forcing the idea that being homosexual is okay and perfectly natural.


Why isn't it "ok"? And it certainly IS "natural", claiming otherwise is merely ignorance.



It's okay if somone grows up and decides that they would prefer the same sex over the opposite, but it is not okay if that decision is being influenced by others.


People are not presented with a choice, they don't think to themselves, hmmm lets see should I be gay or straight, hm... hmm well gay sounds fun, i'll be gay. That's not what happens. There is no choice.



Personally, I believe that being homosexual is a malfunction and that people should be able to get medical treatment for it.




I welcome comments and arguments. Let's try not to turn this into a flame war.


....

Personally i believe that being black is a malfunction and that people should be able to get medical treatment for it.

I welcome comments and arguments. Let's try not to turn this into a flame war.

H&R
11-19-2003, 04:01 AM
Spot on Clyde I don't anyone could have put it better.


What reasons do you have for believing that children brought up by a homosexual couple will be anything other than slightly more tolerant?

Xei, I respect that you live in a free country and are because of that entitled to your opinion even if to me it is utterly abhorrent up their with the opinions of Adolf, Osama, Idi and Pol sorry if any personal heroes have been overlooked.
There is very little I can add to Clyde’s excellent commentary other than to say for those of you for whom your objection is biblical please follow the below link and check that you are maintaining you strictly biblical lifestyle, because to use god’s word against another human being while ignoring the bits that don’t suit would be as hypocritical as I can imagine.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=13107161&method=full&siteid=50143

Personally i believe that being a manc is a malfunction and that people should be able to get medical treatment for it.(the only sensible one being euthanasia)

I welcome comments and arguments. Let's try not to turn this into a flame war.

Brian
11-19-2003, 05:51 AM
edit [i agree with same sex marriages].

Fountain
11-19-2003, 06:20 AM
Personally i believe that being a manc is a malfunction and that people should be able to get medical treatment for it.(the only sensible one being euthanasia)


Weird that. I also think the same about scousers. Oh and mancs. And Southerners.

Up the Elland Rd!!!

Oh yes-no flaming. Cheers. :)

Govtcheez
11-19-2003, 06:26 AM
Originally posted by Clyde
....
Dick, you didn't leave any for anyone else!

curlious
11-19-2003, 06:45 AM
The whole argument about not being a natural thing is flawd.

Anyone capable of love should be given all the rights of a full marriage. Love should not be for the select group, and when it comes to marriage this is what it is about.

Is it not natural to love.

:rolleyes: Suddenly I feel like a girl. :)

Brian
11-19-2003, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by curlious
The whole argument about not being a natural thing is flawd.


Exactly! Since when was marriage natural? Natural doesn't always mean good and good isn't always natural. Hurricaines are natural, and water pumps for those in third world countries aren't natural.

I'm not saying being gay isn't natural, rather the natural/unnatural argument is retarded.

major_small
11-19-2003, 07:16 AM
1: Marriage is intended, traditionally, for a Male and Female. Not male and male, or female and female.tradition isn't good grounds for that... at one point slavery was a tradition...


2: Why should gay or lesbian people care if their legal status was 'Married' or not? They can still wear a ring (if they desire), they can still live with eachother, they can still write agreements about property incase if they 'separate', and they can still celebrate a wedding together. They just wont get a certificate that says "You are married. blah blah" - big deal.so why not ban marriage all together? why does anybody need to be married in real life?


3: IF gay's or lesbians start marrying eachother we'll probably end up with people who want to change their name from Mr. to Mrs. or vice versa. Which is completely retarded, and I don't care about what rights you think you have. If your male you're a Mr., If youre female you're a Mrs.they already do that, actually, and in america you have that right ;)


4: We'll end up with Gays / Lesbians telling their children: "I'm mommy and that's daddy! BTW, it's okay to screw around with the opposite sex cause it's natural!". For one, things like that warp childrens perspective. Horribly.homosexuality is actually natural... it's seen in animals pretty often...

H&R
11-19-2003, 07:41 AM
@fountain


Up the Elland Rd!!!

the only way you can go is up, with the exception of jody who may go down before leeds do.

sorry very off topic. won't do it again.

ober
11-19-2003, 07:53 AM
I have nothing more to say than that I agree with Xei on the belief that it is not "natural" to be homosexual.

And before one of you jumps me and says that it is, I want proof.

And explain this to me:

If men were meant to lie with men, and women were meant to lie with women and this were all "natural"... WHY THE HELL do women have vaginas and men have penises? If it were natural, why wouldn't we all have both? If it were natural, why does 90-95% of the world choose male/female relationships? If it were natural and this "natural" feeling took over the rest of the world, how would we procreate? In case you haven't noticed, homosexual couples cannot create another human being without the aid of science. That is not "natural".

edit: removed because I lost my sense of control.

major_small
11-19-2003, 08:17 AM
If men were meant to lie with men, and women were meant to lie with women and this were all "natural"... WHY THE HELL do women have vaginas and men have penises? If it were natural, why wouldn't we all have both? If it were natural, why does 90-95% of the world choose male/female relationships? If it were natural and this "natural" feeling took over the rest of the world, how would we procreate? In case you haven't noticed, homosexual couples cannot create another human being without the aid of science. That is not "natural".according to your logic, four leafed clovers and albinos and naturally sterile things do not exist because they are not 'natural' (read: 'normal') and cannot reproduce...

an example of natural homosexuality: my neighbor's dogs (both males) have sex... there it is.

and a more scientific approach: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/332/19/1311?fyear=1994&tmonth=November&where=fulltext&tyear=2003&hits=20&fmonth=November&excludeflag=TWEEK_element&sortspec=Score+desc+PUBDATE_SORTDATE+desc&searchterm=homosexual+natural&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1069251644706_3919&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=nejm here's a part of it:
Their book describes how Hamer and his colleagues searched for and found evidence of genetic linkage in male homosexuality. Their finding of a correlation between homosexual orientation and the inheritance of polymorphic markers on the X chromosome in 64 percent of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers has created a stir in the scientific community. It has inflamed the nature-versus-nurture debate, caused both excitement and concern in the gay community...

ober
11-19-2003, 08:30 AM
>>according to your logic, four leafed clovers and albinos and naturally sterile things do not exist because they are not 'natural' (read: 'normal') and cannot reproduce...

You missed my point and I'm not going to discuss this because it'll just get into a flame war where you call me a bigot for the way I believe and I say I don't believe what you say.

I can't speak for your neighbors dogs. Dogs are horny. I'm sure if they're stuck in the same pen long enough, they're going to bone each other because they would bone ANYTHING. I doubt the dog recieving it is just laying there takin it, if your story is true, which I doubt.

ober
11-19-2003, 08:33 AM
OH, and you can make an experiment say whatever you want. Who funded the lab that came up with those results? You don't know, neither do I. How can you assume that their findings are the truth?

And maybe they are... what if that is true and there is a true genetic link? Well hey, then good for them for finding it. Personally, I need more proof.

Clyde
11-19-2003, 08:47 AM
have nothing more to say than that I agree with Xei on the belief that it is not "natural" to be homosexual.


...



And before one of you jumps me and says that it is, I want proof.


There are gay animals, that is proof.



And explain this to me:

If men were meant to lie with men, and women were meant to lie with women and this were all "natural"... WHY THE HELL do women have vaginas and men have penises?


"natural" does not equate to "meant to".

If you want to know why we have two sexes I can give you an evolutionary explanation, but i fail to see the relevence to the current discussion.



If it were natural, why wouldn't we all have both?


Because that's not how nature works.



If it were natural, why does 90-95% of the world choose male/female relationships?


You presumeably do not consider blue eyes "unnatural" yet they are less common than brown eyes. Heck i have oyster eyes, they are very rare, yet most people would consider them "natural".



If it were natural and this "natural" feeling took over the rest of the world, how would we procreate?


It's "natural" because it happens in nature.



In case you haven't noticed, homosexual couples cannot create another human being without the aid of science. That is not "natural".


I don't believe anyone has argued that homosexual reproduction is "natural", merely that homosexuality is.

Furthermore natural != good, unnatural != bad. There are plenty of lifesaving drugs around that are synthetic rather than "natural" and there plenty of poisons that are "natural" rather than synthetic. In fact if we were all to follow what is "natural" we would have a 30 year (average) lifespan.

Clyde
11-19-2003, 09:00 AM
And maybe they are... what if that is true and there is a true genetic link? Well hey, then good for them for finding it. Personally, I need more proof.


Here's the abstract for one of the many studies around documenting homosexual behaviour in animals:



The relationship of male-male mounting to mate choice and sexual performance in male dairy goats

Edward O. Price and Valerie M. Smith1

Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, U.S.A.

Accepted 13 January 1984. ; Available online 2 October 2003.




Abstract
Rearing of male farm animals in unisexual groups has been implicated as a factor contributing to the failure of many males to breed as adults. The present study examines the relationship of male-male mounting in yearling dairy goats to subsequent mate preferences and sexual performance.

Twenty-four sexually inexperienced male dairy goats, representing the Alpine, LaMancha, Saanen and Toggenburg breeds, were observed for male-male mounting in their home enclosure and then tested for mate choice and sexual performance when exposed to male and female (estrous and diestrous) stimulus animals. Their sexual behavior was compared with 7 adult goats with previous breeding experience.

In the mate choice-sexual performance tests, 4 sexually inexperienced goats (17%) were sexually inactive, 6 (25%) mounted both male and female stimulus animals and 14 (58%) mounted only the female stimuli. Mate choice and sexual performance of the 20 sexually active males was not related to the number of male-male mounts initiated or the number of different males mounted in their home enclosure. However, the goats that received the greatest number of mounts in their home pen tended to be bisexual (would mount both male and female stimulus animals) in the mate choice tests. Males that were sexually inactive in mate choice-sexual performance tests repeatedly mounted the same male during home pen observations. Except for ejaculation frequency, the sexual performance of the sexually naive and experienced goats was similar. Goats of the Saanen breed were favored recipients of mounts from other males. There was no relationship between the number of male-male mounts performed and received.

It was hypothesized that the reproductive failure of many male farm animals reared in all-male groups may be more closely related to the formation of specific sexual attachments to other males rather than the frequency with which they exhibit homosexual behaviors.

Clyde
11-19-2003, 09:39 AM
OH, and you can make an experiment say whatever you want. Who funded the lab that came up with those results? You don't know, neither do I. How can you assume that their findings are the truth?

And maybe they are... what if that is true and there is a true genetic link? Well hey, then good for them for finding it. Personally, I need more proof.


The link refers to a book which is based on this paper (by the same author):

A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation, Science, Volume 261, Issue 5119, July 1993, Pages 321-327
Hamer, Dean H.; Hu, Stella; Magnuson, Victoria L.; Hu, Nan; et al

A quick scan of sciencedirect shows that it is cited by 34 papers in journals i'm subscribed to.

e.g.



Biosocial factors, sexual orientation and neurocognitive functioning, Psychoneuroendocrinology, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 18 November 2003,
Qazi Rahman, Glenn D. Wilson and Sharon Abrahams

Born gay? The psychobiology of human sexual orientation, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 34, Issue 8, June 2003, Pages 1337-1382
Qazi Rahman and Glenn D. Wilson

Sex differences in the hypothalamus in the different stages of human life*1, Neurobiology of Aging, Volume 24, Supplement 1, May-June 2003, Pages S1-S16
Dick F. Swaab, Wilson C. J. Chung, Frank P. M. Kruijver, Michel A. Hofman and Andon Hestiantoro

The Interstitial Nuclei of the Human Anterior Hypothalamus: An Investigation of Variation with Sex, Sexual Orientation, and HIV Status, Hormones and Behavior, Volume 40, Issue 2, September 2001, Pages 86-92
William Byne, Stuart Tobet, Linda A. Mattiace, Mitchell S. Lasco, Eileen Kemether, Mark A. Edgar, Susan Morgello, Monte S. Buchsbaum and Liesl B. Jones

Fraternal Birth Order and the Maternal Immune Hypothesis of Male Homosexuality, Hormones and Behavior, Volume 40, Issue 2, September 2001, Pages 105-114
Ray Blanchard

Sexual Orientation and Handedness in Men and Women: A Meta-Analysis*1, Psychological Bulletin, Volume 126, Issue 4, July 2000, Pages 575-592
Martin L. Lalumière, Ray Blanchard and Kenneth J. Zucker

Taxometric Analyses of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity*1, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 78, Issue 6, June 2000, Pages 1109-1121
Steven W. Gangestad, J. Michael Bailey and Nicholas G. Martin

Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orientation and Its Correlates in an Australian Twin Sample*1, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 78, Issue 3, March 2000, Pages 524-536
J. Michael Bailey, Michael P. Dunne and Nicholas G. Martin

etc etc.


I've flipped through about 20 of these and of the papers that actually follow similar grounds and examine the likelyhood of a genetic basis, none of them disagree with it's findings.

Here are abstracts for two of the more relevent papers.



Born gay? The psychobiology of human sexual orientation

Qazi Rahman, and Glenn D. Wilson

Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, University of London, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK

Received 26 November 2001; revised 1 April 2002; accepted 27 April 2002. ; Available online 9 June 2002.

Abstract
Sexual orientation is fundamental to evolution and shifts from the species-typical pattern of heterosexuality may represent biological variations. The growth of scientific knowledge concerning the biology of sexual orientation during the past decade has been considerable. Sexual orientation is characterised by a bipolar distribution and is related to fraternal birth order in males. In females, its distribution is more variable; females being less prone towards exclusive homosexuality. In both sexes homosexuality is strongly associated with childhood gender nonconformity. Genetic evidence suggests a heritable component and putative gene loci on the X chromosome. Homosexuality may have evolved to promote same sex affiliation through a conserved neurodevelopmental mechanism. Recent findings suggest this mechanism involves atypical neurohormonal differentiation of the brain. Key areas for future research include the neurobiological basis of preferred sexual targets and correlates of female homosexuality.



Personality Processes and Individual Differences
Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orientation and Its Correlates in an Australian Twin Sample*1

J. Michael Bailey, , a, Michael P. Dunneb and Nicholas G. Martinc, d

a Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, USA
b School of Public Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
c Epidemiology Unit, Queensland Institute of Medical Research, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
d Joint Genetics Program, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Received 7 January 1998; revised 22 July 1999; accepted 30 July 1999. Available online 13 August 2002.

Abstract
We recruited twins systematically from the Australian Twin Registry and assessed their sexual orientation and 2 related traits: childhood gender nonconformity and continuous gender identity. Men and women differed in their distributions of sexual orientation, with women more likely to have slight-to-moderate degrees of homosexual attraction, and men more likely to have high degrees of homosexual attraction. Twin concordances for nonheterosexual orientation were lower than in prior studies. Univariate analyses showed that familial factors were important for all traits, but were less successful in distinguishing genetic from shared environmental influences. Only childhood gender nonconformity was significantly heritable for both men and women. Multivariate analyses suggested that the causal architecture differed between men and women, and, for women, provided significant evidence for the importance of genetic factors to the traits' covariation.

Felix
11-19-2003, 09:43 AM
I disagree, because it's unnatural. And now don't come and say that snails do eachother, they don't got any sexe. But heck, i don't hate gay people or stuff. It's just unnatural. Anyway, let the do what they want. But take the damn responsibility and don't cry if people say no, k?

Clyde
11-19-2003, 09:47 AM
I disagree, because it's unnatural


*Throws up hands*

ober
11-19-2003, 10:13 AM
Clyde, you can throw all the scientific evidence you want at me and some of the others, but we're going to believe what we're going to believe. *shrugs*

I'm allowed to be ignorant if that's what you want to consider me. I have that right. Apparently we've tapped into something that seems to mean a lot to you. I don't know why, I'm not going to ask. Maybe it's just your quest to make everyone see what you feel is the truth. That's fine too. Just don't get ........ed off when people don't agree with you whether what you say is correct or not.

ZerOrDie
11-19-2003, 10:21 AM
Whats next they want to clone themselves and raise them as their kids?

Govtcheez
11-19-2003, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by ZerOrDie
Whats next they want to clone themselves and raise them as their kids?
Where the hell'd you get that out of it?

I'd like to remind everyone with the "unnatural" thought that birth control and sex for pleasure are unnatural. ober, you should be rolling in kids right now if the only purpose of the sex organs is reproduction.

major_small
11-19-2003, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by ober5861
Clyde, you can throw all the scientific evidence you want at me and some of the others, but we're going to believe what we're going to believe. *shrugs*

I'm allowed to be ignorant if that's what you want to consider me. I have that right. Apparently we've tapped into something that seems to mean a lot to you. I don't know why, I'm not going to ask. Maybe it's just your quest to make everyone see what you feel is the truth. That's fine too. Just don't get ........ed off when people don't agree with you whether what you say is correct or not. since you have the right to be ignorant, shouldn't gays have the right to marry? just because you don't think it's right, why should it be wrong?

clyde was referring to how we've proven it natural, yet people are still trying to say it's 'unnatural', even though we gave the proof you asked for... and in detail...

PJYelton
11-19-2003, 10:52 AM
And before one of you jumps me and says that it is, I want proof
Personally, I need more proof.

Clyde, you can throw all the scientific evidence you want at me and some of the others, but we're going to believe what we're going to believe.

How many times have we heard this argument from people against homosexuality/evolution/whatever?

We want proof!
<give them proof>
We want more proof!
<give them more proof>
I don't care what you say anymore, we are just going to agree to disagree.

ober
11-19-2003, 10:54 AM
I never said that was their only purpose, Cheez. I said that is the major reason that we have them.

>>since you have the right to be ignorant, shouldn't gays have the right to marry?

I never said I didn't think they should have the right to get married. I said I disagreed with the concept of homosexuality.

>>clyde was referring to how we've proven it natural, yet people are still trying to say it's 'unnatural', even though we gave the proof you asked for... and in detail...

That was not enough to make me change my feelings on the subject. I'm not going to read a couple posts by some random guy on the internet and change my thinking on such a subject. That's absurd. And I haven't done enough research on my own to draw my own conclusions based outside of my religious beliefs, and that's not what this thread is about, and don't make it into one.

ober
11-19-2003, 10:57 AM
>>How many times have we heard this argument from people against homosexuality/evolution/whatever?

I guess I wasn't specifically asking for proof from you or any member here. I need to do/see more research on my own to prove to myself one way or another. As of right now, I don't feel like I've reached the point where my decision lies on the pro-gay side.

major_small
11-19-2003, 11:05 AM
>>That was not enough to make me change my feelings on the subject. I'm not going to read a couple posts by some random guy on the internet and change my thinking on such a subject. That's absurd. And I haven't done enough research on my own to draw my own conclusions based outside of my religious beliefs, and that's not what this thread is about, and don't make it into one.

that wasn't a random guy... he's done extensive research on it... a random guy posted his research, but it's still there... If you still want to dedicate your life to scanning DNA strands, your welcome... come back with the results...

or you can realize that this is how scientific advances are made... unless you want to keep reinventing the wheel...

maes
11-19-2003, 11:09 AM
didn't read the whole thread (to much and I'm lazy)
But in Belgium, gay people are allowed to marry.
If it makes them happy, why not. Everyone has the right to be happy

Voting pro

Govtcheez
11-19-2003, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by ober5861
I never said that was their only purpose, Cheez. I said that is the major reason that we have them.
Alright then. What about straight couples unable to bear children? Should they not be allowed to get married?

Clyde
11-19-2003, 11:29 AM
Clyde, you can throw all the scientific evidence you want at me and some of the others, but we're going to believe what we're going to believe. *shrugs*


You believe homosexuality is "unnatural" in stark contrast to the available evidence, furthermore presumeably you attach some kind of validity to "natural" in stark contrast to ... well common sense.

Why should your views not be considered on a par with any other set of views that have no rational basis but that ultimately discriminate against a subset of humanity?

How is it any different to say racism?

Don't you see that if you follow the "well, yes there is no reason to believe that, but i do anyway", then you have NO WAY to check whether what you think actually stands a chance of being true!

If I were brought up to be a racist, if my family and my friends were all racist, i would presumeably believe non-whites were somehow physically and mentally inferior. However if i did NOT do what you are doing i could be presented with the evidence and realise my error, IF however i followed the "yea well i believe what i believe" then i would remain racist the rest of my life.

Your views have no basis and harm people, you should alter them.



I'm allowed to be ignorant if that's what you want to consider me. I have that right


Why do you want to be ignorant, when you have the option of being knowledgable? Running away from the truth will not make it go away.



Just don't get ........ed off when people don't agree with you whether what you say is correct or not.


When people have nothing to support their views, and when their views cause real problems to real people, then sure i get annoyed, and damnit I'm GLAD i get annoyed i wish more people would get annoyed. Maybe if they did something would actually get done.

ober
11-19-2003, 11:39 AM
I said I wasn't going to go there, but I will:

I believe what I believe because the Bible says so.

":eek: He said "bible" and he said he "believes" in it".

Yes, yes I did. It is stated in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong. An entire city was destroyed because of this very thing. If I'm ignorant because of my blind beliefs, then so be it. I don't really give 2 $$$$s about what you think or what evidence there is to support the contrary to my beliefs. There, happy?

And I know you, Clyde, do not seem to understand this belief system or why so many people do it because everything you believe in has a scientific basis and an explanation, but that's just the way things are with me.

If you can't accept that, then you are a bigot to the christian lifestyle and beliefs.

And you're right, I have NO FREAKIN WAY of proving whether what is written in the Bible is true or not. Maybe it's all a bunch of stories and the authors of the bibles hated $$$s^H^H homosexuals too. I have no idea. But hey, it's what I believe and it's what I will standby. Sue me.

Clyde
11-19-2003, 11:40 AM
Whats next they want to clone themselves and raise them as their kids?


No, but what they probably will do is use a donor egg, remove the mothers genetic material insert the genetic material from the sperm of one partner into the egg then fertilise it with the sperm of the other partner. Implant the fertilised egg into a surrogate mother and voila homosexual reproduction. (i think the alternative option where genetic material from an egg is extracted and placed into a sperm is also feasable).

The last i read on the topic seemed to indicate that the technology was virtually there. So it's possible we will be seeing this sooner rather than later.



hat was not enough to make me change my feelings on the subject. I'm not going to read a couple posts by some random guy on the internet and change my thinking on such a subject. That's absurd.


What is absurd is to ignore the findings of science, and believe something entirely nonsensical based on didly squat.



I don't feel like I've reached the point where my decision lies on the pro-gay side.


..... if you have no arguments to support you anti-gay view then why does your "decision" lie on that side.

EvBladeRunnervE
11-19-2003, 11:42 AM
Now, the thing is,It could be that being gay is a genetic defect, as an organism's sole goal in the long run is to produce enough offspring that it passes its genes along to the next generation of that organism's species.


ok, now that my own personal convictions about the homosexual life itself, I would have to say that I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to get married just like any other couple should. Its not their problem they are gay, so let them be happy and enjoy their life.

Clyde
11-19-2003, 11:54 AM
Yes, yes I did. It is stated in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong. An entire city was destroyed because of this very thing. If I'm ignorant because of my blind beliefs, then so be it. I don't really give 2 $$$$s about what you think or what evidence there is to support the contrary to my beliefs. There, happy?


Happy? Yea i'm over the moon.

But surely you ignore some bits of the bible, so, why not ignore this bit?



If you can't accept that, then you are a bigot to the christian lifestyle and beliefs


LMAO. Right. Because obviously i don't think Christians should have equal rights oh wait, yes i do.



And you're right, I have NO FREAKIN WAY of proving whether what is written in the Bible is true or not. Maybe it's all a bunch of stories and the authors of the bibles hated $$$s^H^H homosexuals too. I have no idea. But hey, it's what I believe and it's what I will standby. Sue me.


Tell me something, why do you bother trying to reason out anything? Why not just arbitrarely pick what to believe, just..... because.

What's the fastest processor? - The Pentium 2 450 mghz. Why? Because it's what i believe and it's what i will standby.

Presumeably you don't do that, when asked by someone "what's the fastest processor?" you will use some sort of reasoning process; compare benchmarks, etc.

My question is why, if believing something "because it's what i believe" is a good way of working out what's true, why bother with having to sit down and think things through at all?

Clyde
11-19-2003, 11:58 AM
Now, the thing is,It could be that being gay is a genetic defect, as an organism's sole goal in the long run is to produce enough offspring that it passes its genes along to the next generation of that organism's species.


There are far far far too many homosexuals for homosexuality to be a "defect", if it does have some genetic basis those genes must be or have been selected for.

This admitedly seems sometwhat counter intuitive homosexuality being an evolutionary dead end, but the current explanation is that in certain situations the same genes offer benefits namely greater social compatibility, so having some or all of the "gay genes" in certain cirumstances means you are more likely to pass on your genes.

ober
11-19-2003, 12:01 PM
>>But surely you ignore some bits of the bible, so, why not ignore this bit?

Because I choose not to. Why should you care?

Why do you care what I think at all and why does it upset you that I choose to not accept scientific data? Why does it bother you that I don't reason certain things out because it's "common sense"? Why does it bother you that I have beliefs and stand by them?

PJYelton
11-19-2003, 12:04 PM
It matters because this view oppresses people and their rights. If I were to discriminate/oppress you because a book told me to, then you would be upset too.

If you wanted to believe that the sky is purple because the Bible says so, then thats your choice. But when it affects other people, then that is when it is wrong.

Clyde
11-19-2003, 12:09 PM
Because I choose not to. Why should you care?


Why should i care? ...... Because your stance harms people. That's why i should care.



Why do you care what I think at all and why does it upset you that I choose to not accept scientific data?


Because it screws the world up, right now in Africa countless young women are being garroted, why? Tradition, why follow tradition, because that's what we do.

The reasoning "because that's what we do" "because that's what i think" is behind a lot of the problems that plague our species. Why did it take so long for us to recognise that the colour of your skin does not mark you out as mentally or physically superior or inferior? Because they "believed what they believed"

Advocates of Christian "science" avoid modern medicine, people suffer and die needlessly, why? Because people "believe what they believe". It's the same thing over and over and over.

Why do i care? Because it ........es me off, so many problems so easily solveable if people removed their heads from their rectums.

People's views MATTER Ober, yours mine, everyones.



Why does it bother you that I have beliefs and stand by them?


Because your beliefs are irrational and harm people. Do the "beliefs" of neo nazis bother you? Why?

Felix
11-19-2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by ZerOrDie
Whats next they want to clone themselves and raise them as their kids?
Yup. They're busy with that now.