The Homosexual Dilemma

[Where_r_my_Keys]

1. Who is doing the research?

Who like in what? Individual people? Scientific disciplines?
Here are some links to research publications:
Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females - Nature Genetics
PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects
Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex - life - 16 June 2008 - New Scientist

Huh... yet their not of the opposite sex? So... that would tend toward evidence that the homosexual brain is disordered, thus is demonstrably abnormal... deviating from biological normality.

Similar in nature to the brain of the sociopath, the predeterminate value required for the psychotic, which also differs from the normal brain. And like those brains, there's not a SCINTILLA distinction, GENETICALLY.

Now research also shows that through training the brains observable patterns can be altered, thus where an individual male for example, were to be sexually stimulated by a male... in a loving and caring manner, in the earliest stages of postnatal development, that the cerebral function of the traditional male brain would therefore be trained to respond to sexual stimulation as would be expected by a female, who's natural tendency would be triggered by males.

SO... that doesn't really help ya much.

What else ya got?

 

[Syriusly]

Why are homophobic bigots so angry all of the time?

Perhaps they are just frustrated by their failure in life and project their anger out on blaming homosexuals for their own inadequacies.

Sounds like the homos are the angry ones. They whine and cry about how people should like them.

No, they don't. The whiners are you little Christian faggot-haters, who can't deal with the fact that their society is leaving them in the past, yet again.

That's the motivation behind their entire agenda. If you don't do what I want, I bitch and whine and make someone force it on society.

Don't worry, when I'm gone, my kids will continue to fight against you faggot lovers.

Oh I am sure you will try to pass your bigotry on.

But just like racial bigotry- it is on its way out- the first step is to make it socially unacceptable to be a bigot like yourself.

I'm sure you'll pass on that an abnormal lifestyle is the same as one that actually is normal.

I'm sure you'll pass one that anyone not agreeing with your beliefs is a bigot.

Oh I pass on that anyone who judges people by who they are- rather than by their actions and speech- is a bigot.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is a function of nature, not law... it of course has a legal component, but nature designed it and it is nature that requires that such is the joining of one man and one woman, and it is nature that precludes any two people of the same gender who play house, from every being married.

Nope. Nature has fucking. We made up marriage. Its a legal arrangement that's useful in organization in a civilization. But its not necessary for reproduction. Else everything that reproduces would have marriage.

And only we do. We made it up, so it can be whatever we want it to be.

The Law may provide it to be LEGAL that a person can flap their arms and fly... it is nature that defines such flight as 'falling' as well as the punishment for such, over toward the sudden stop right at the end there.

Marriage isn't gravity. Marriage is a social construct that we invented. It can encompass one man and one woman. Or one man and many women. Or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.

Its flexible like that. And in 36 of 50 States in our country, marriage includes same sex unions.

 

[Skylar]

Similar in nature to the brain of the sociopath, the predeterminate value required for the psychotic, which also differs from the normal brain. And like those brains, there's not a SCINTILLA distinction, GENETICALLY.

There's no connection between homosexuality and sociopathy. Rendering your claim yet another piece of bizarre and factually baseless fear mongering.

So 'what else ya got'?

 

[Iceweasel]

They are losing their crusade on almost every front and as predicted they will become more rabid as the defeats mount. They are nothing but loud windbags and whom won't actually do anything concerning gays other then anonymously bitch and moan on message boards.

We vote and most states still honor the democratic process. And we aren't the ones on a crusade. The rabid windbag is you.

 

[Coyote]

1. Who is doing the research?

Who like in what? Individual people? Scientific disciplines?
Here are some links to research publications:
Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females - Nature Genetics
PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects
Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex - life - 16 June 2008 - New Scientist

2. If I get offended, it's my problem. I thought I said I don't care what they call me or say about me. The problem is when the peter puffers get offended, they don't say anything, they whine and sue becasue someone doesn't like what they are.

Examples? And, is that any different from other people's behavior (ie - straight people who get offended by something?)

3. When my daughers were born, the doctor said in both cases you have daughers based on one thing only. I'll put her medical training up against less than 1/10 of one percent.

Like I said, look up hermaphrodite.

4. He didn't Tebow unless he accomplished something. NO different than any other player dancing around when they did the same thing.

The pro-athletes who came out gay were already accomplished athletes. Coming out was not their sole accomplishment. The leftwing media picked up on the coming out and made it front page news - a hero for gay rights.

Tebow was an accomplished athlete who did a religious ritual when he won. That ritual was not his sole accomplishment. The rightwing media picked up on his religious ritual and made it front page news - a hero for the religious right.

It's the same.

5. When they go around the legislative system to get a single judge to approve what they want, that's demanding. Like I said, when they stop using terms like homophobic and bigot to describe someone that thinks differently than they do about what they are, I'll ignore. As long as they say look at me, I'll say crawl back under your rock or in the closet.

Are you suggesting people who feel wronged should not make use of the courts but stick to the legislative system? Like Hobby Lobby?

1. Follow the research money.

Like National Cancer Institute? NIH? University of Arizona?

2. When has a straight person sued because someone said something about hetersexual marriage?

I asked you for examples. We haven't even determined if homosexuals have sued simply because someone said something about same sex marriage.

3. I don't have to. I know what one is. I also know that you're trying to use something that happens so rarely, it doesn't apply here. You make it out as if it happens on a regular basis.

Sure but it goes to show that gender and sexual orientation are complicated things - not straightforward and not "choice".

4. The leftwing media then makes a hero out of someone for something totally unrelated to their athletic accomplishments.

Yes! Just like Tebow! You finally got it

5. Hobby Lobby was sticking to what had been passed through the legislative process. The 1st Amendment say free exercise of religion. Since that Amendment was added to the Constitution by a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures, all Hobby Lobby was doing was getting the courts to clarify what had already been passed legislatively.

Marriage equality proponents are making the same case - based on "equal protection" in the constitution, passed through the legislative process. Same thing even if you don't like it

 

[Conservative65]

Sounds like the homos are the angry ones. They whine and cry about how people should like them.

No, they don't. The whiners are you little Christian faggot-haters, who can't deal with the fact that their society is leaving them in the past, yet again.

That's the motivation behind their entire agenda. If you don't do what I want, I bitch and whine and make someone force it on society.

Don't worry, when I'm gone, my kids will continue to fight against you faggot lovers.

Oh I am sure you will try to pass your bigotry on.

But just like racial bigotry- it is on its way out- the first step is to make it socially unacceptable to be a bigot like yourself.

I'm sure you'll pass on that an abnormal lifestyle is the same as one that actually is normal.

I'm sure you'll pass one that anyone not agreeing with your beliefs is a bigot.

Oh I pass on that anyone who judges people by who they are- rather than by their actions and speech- is a bigot.

Then you should pass that along to all those who hate Christians because they are Christians.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Most states still have traditional marriage so your theory doesn't hold water. No state could deny homosexual marriage if it were unconstitutional.

All states still have 'traditional marriage'- and now in 35 states, same gender couples get married.

Judges have overturned state marriage bans for being unconstitutional- here is a hint- bans on mixed race marriages were unconstitutional even before the Supreme Court confirmed the lower courts decision that they were unconstitutional. States did indeed deny mixed race marriages even though they were unconstitutional.

And continued to do so until the Supreme Court ruling made the decision applicable to all states.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Sub-species? Do you mean other species?

I mean subordinate, which is to say inferior... or those species designed for use by the superior species. Does that confuse you? I'll explain it for you if you need the tutoring.

 

[Syriusly]

No, they don't. The whiners are you little Christian faggot-haters, who can't deal with the fact that their society is leaving them in the past, yet again.

That's the motivation behind their entire agenda. If you don't do what I want, I bitch and whine and make someone force it on society.

Don't worry, when I'm gone, my kids will continue to fight against you faggot lovers.

Oh I am sure you will try to pass your bigotry on.

But just like racial bigotry- it is on its way out- the first step is to make it socially unacceptable to be a bigot like yourself.

I'm sure you'll pass on that an abnormal lifestyle is the same as one that actually is normal.

I'm sure you'll pass one that anyone not agreeing with your beliefs is a bigot.

Oh I pass on that anyone who judges people by who they are- rather than by their actions and speech- is a bigot.

Then you should pass that along to all those who hate Christians because they are Christians.

I find that absolutely equally offensive.

Bigots who hate Christians just because they are Christians are just as much bigots as those who hate homosexuals because they think that they are f*ggots.

And yes- I say that regularly.

 

[Syriusly]

Sub-species? Do you mean other species?

I mean subordinate, which is to say inferior... or those species designed for use by the superior species. .

What the hell is a superior species?

 

[Coyote]

1. Who is doing the research?

Who like in what? Individual people? Scientific disciplines?
Here are some links to research publications:
Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females - Nature Genetics
PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects
Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex - life - 16 June 2008 - New Scientist

Huh... yet their not of the opposite sex? So... that would tend toward evidence that the homosexual brain is disordered, thus is demonstrably abnormal... deviating from biological normality.

"Different" does not equal "disordered" or even "abnormal" since a certain amount of deviation is normal.

Similar in nature to the brain of the sociopath, the predeterminate value required for the psychotic, which also differs from the normal brain. And like those brains, there's not a SCINTILLA distinction, GENETICALLY.

You have a link or study showing that the brain of a homosexual is similar to the brain of a sociopath or psychotic? That's news to me pubes, but maybe you just made it up

Now research also shows that through training the brains observable patterns can be altered, thus where an individual male for example, were to be sexually stimulated by a male... in a loving and caring manner, in the earliest stages of postnatal development, that the cerebral function of the traditional male brain would therefore be trained to respond to sexual stimulation as would be expected by a female, who's natural tendency would be triggered by males.

SO... that doesn't really help ya much.

What else ya got?

Got a link that shows that and that the persons actual orientation changed as a result cause it sounds like you are talking about infantile pedophilia and I've not heard much research on that.

 

[Coyote]

Sub-species? Do you mean other species?

I mean subordinate, which is to say inferior... or those species designed for use by the superior species. .

What the hell is a superior species?

He doesn't know his biology.

 

[Conservative65]

1. Who is doing the research?

Who like in what? Individual people? Scientific disciplines?
Here are some links to research publications:
Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females - Nature Genetics
PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects
Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex - life - 16 June 2008 - New Scientist

2. If I get offended, it's my problem. I thought I said I don't care what they call me or say about me. The problem is when the peter puffers get offended, they don't say anything, they whine and sue becasue someone doesn't like what they are.

Examples? And, is that any different from other people's behavior (ie - straight people who get offended by something?)

3. When my daughers were born, the doctor said in both cases you have daughers based on one thing only. I'll put her medical training up against less than 1/10 of one percent.

Like I said, look up hermaphrodite.

4. He didn't Tebow unless he accomplished something. NO different than any other player dancing around when they did the same thing.

The pro-athletes who came out gay were already accomplished athletes. Coming out was not their sole accomplishment. The leftwing media picked up on the coming out and made it front page news - a hero for gay rights.

Tebow was an accomplished athlete who did a religious ritual when he won. That ritual was not his sole accomplishment. The rightwing media picked up on his religious ritual and made it front page news - a hero for the religious right.

It's the same.

5. When they go around the legislative system to get a single judge to approve what they want, that's demanding. Like I said, when they stop using terms like homophobic and bigot to describe someone that thinks differently than they do about what they are, I'll ignore. As long as they say look at me, I'll say crawl back under your rock or in the closet.

Are you suggesting people who feel wronged should not make use of the courts but stick to the legislative system? Like Hobby Lobby?

1. Follow the research money.

Like National Cancer Institute? NIH? University of Arizona?

2. When has a straight person sued because someone said something about hetersexual marriage?

I asked you for examples. We haven't even determined if homosexuals have sued simply because someone said something about same sex marriage.

3. I don't have to. I know what one is. I also know that you're trying to use something that happens so rarely, it doesn't apply here. You make it out as if it happens on a regular basis.

Sure but it goes to show that gender and sexual orientation are complicated things - not straightforward and not "choice".

4. The leftwing media then makes a hero out of someone for something totally unrelated to their athletic accomplishments.

Yes! Just like Tebow! You finally got it

5. Hobby Lobby was sticking to what had been passed through the legislative process. The 1st Amendment say free exercise of religion. Since that Amendment was added to the Constitution by a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures, all Hobby Lobby was doing was getting the courts to clarify what had already been passed legislatively.

Marriage equality proponents are making the same case - based on "equal protection" in the constitution, passed through the legislative process. Same thing even if you don't like it

1. It's not the findings but what you want to make them say. Just look at the global warming issue. Two distinct sides on the same thing based on research both claim to be true.

2. How many have sued claiming they were fired because they were gay. It's the automatica assumption.

3. It shows you use something that happens once in how many thousands of cases as if it is a regular occurrence.

4. Tebow actually accomplished something before he Tebowed on the field. The media made Michael Sam a hero without ever having stepped foot on an NFL field.

5. Difference is free exercise of religion is written in the Constitution where the word marriage doesn't. Different even if you are too fucking stupid to realize it.

By the way, those same ones you say argue equality are the first ones to deny equality to certain types of marriages they oppose. Just suggest polygamy and theyll find all sorts of personal reasons for situations that don't affect them to say it shouldn't happen. To them I respond, if you don't want to marry more than one person don't.

 

[Coyote]

1. It's not the findings but what you want to make them say. Just look at the global warming issue. Two distinct sides on the same thing based on research both claim to be true.

This isn't Global Warming we're talking about. So far you have not refuted any of these studies.

2. How many have sued claiming they were fired because they were gay. It's the automatica assumption.

Can't you answer a question or provide examples? We aren't talking about people being fired because they were gay (people have sued about being fired because they were black, Christian, female, disabled - so what?). You said sued becaues people said something about them.

3. It shows you use something that happens once in how many thousands of cases as if it is a regular occurrence.

4. Tebow actually accomplished something before he Tebowed on the field. The media made Michael Sam a hero without ever having stepped foot on an NFL field.

Michael Sam had a good Highschool career, good enough to get multiple scholarships. So he accomplished something. But beyond that - he and Tebow are the same because the media made them heros NOT because of accomplishment. Do you get it?

5. Difference is free exercise of religion is written in the Constitution where the word marriage doesn't. Different even if you are too fucking stupid to realize it.

Equal Protection IS.

By the way, those same ones you say argue equality are the first ones to deny equality to certain types of marriages they oppose. Just suggest polygamy and theyll find all sorts of personal reasons for situations that don't affect them to say it shouldn't happen. To them I respond, if you don't want to marry more than one person don't.

You sure about that?

I don't care one way or the other about polygamy. If consenting adults choose that - so be it. It's their right.

 

[Iceweasel]

[
Most states still have traditional marriage so your theory doesn't hold water. No state could deny homosexual marriage if it were unconstitutional.

All states still have 'traditional marriage'- and now in 35 states, same gender couples get married.

Judges have overturned state marriage bans for being unconstitutional- here is a hint- bans on mixed race marriages were unconstitutional even before the Supreme Court confirmed the lower courts decision that they were unconstitutional. States did indeed deny mixed race marriages even though they were unconstitutional.

And continued to do so until the Supreme Court ruling made the decision applicable to all states.

I didn't want to talk like I was trying to communicate with a toddler but if you insist....by traditional marriage, most people understand that to mean a man married to a woman if they are both eligible. And you're going to try to convince us that the Supreme Court case hasn't happened yet...because? Interracial marriage bans were obviously unconstitutional for reasons mention, men were treated differently. If you want to claim the state must be gender blind then you are saying it's unconstitutional for governments to have male and female restrooms. Your side is full of crap and is mostly forwarded through tyranny, not democracy.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I didn't want to talk like I was trying to communicate with a toddler but if you insist....by traditional marriage, most people understand that to mean a man married to a woman if they are both eligible. And you're going to try to convince us that the Supreme Court case hasn't happened yet...because? Interracial marriage bans were obviously unconstitutional for reasons mention, men were treated differently. If you want to claim the state must be gender blind then you are saying it's unconstitutional for governments to have male and female restrooms. Your side is full of crap and is mostly forwarded through tyranny, not democracy.

Actually the argument presented by Virginia was that men were treated the same. Men could marry only in their same race. Since the law applied equally to black men and white men, there was no inequality in the law. No discrimination.


>>>>

 

[mdk]

They are losing their crusade on almost every front and as predicted they will become more rabid as the defeats mount. They are nothing but loud windbags and whom won't actually do anything concerning gays other then anonymously bitch and moan on message boards.

We vote and most states still honor the democratic process. And we aren't the ones on a crusade. The rabid windbag is you.

We vote and we still honor the democratic process as well. However you can't use the process to strip away rights of other citizens unless you have a very good reason and you don't have one. The arguments against gay marriage pretty much boil down to "gays are icky" or "God said so" isn't relevant legally.

Besides, my post was a response to the claim that a violent war is coming against gays that would make "hate crimes look like Sunday brunch."

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Evolutionary success is not that simplistic and evolutionary success does not necessarily mean the passing on of every individuals genes but can be the successful survival of the group, pack or clan as a whole. Homosexuality has been showing up at about the same rate through out human history regardless of the level of social tolerance and persecution. That would indicate that there could be some evolutionary benefit to it or family members.

Well it's adorable to conclude that there are sufficient records of instances of homosexuality to know anything meaningful about what rates have been at any particular place or time... because such is not the case.

There is little doubt that such serve a purpose and that the purpose is to discourage whatever defect is present in the relevant homosexual from being passed on, to the extent that is possible.

Some theories hold that such homosexuality spikes during societal instability where competition for sexual mates is higher... others that it acts as a harbinger of population stress; which certainly serves reason.

Of course, where such is the case, normalizing such would be as foolish as carrying dead canaries into the mine, so as to show support for the dead canaries that are already down there.

There literally is no potential justification to normalize abnormality of any kind. As such is the personification of foolish.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I didn't want to talk like I was trying to communicate with a toddler but if you insist....by traditional marriage, most people understand that to mean a man married to a woman if they are both eligible. And you're going to try to convince us that the Supreme Court case hasn't happened yet...because? Interracial marriage bans were obviously unconstitutional for reasons mention, men were treated differently. If you want to claim the state must be gender blind then you are saying it's unconstitutional for governments to have male and female restrooms. Your side is full of crap and is mostly forwarded through tyranny, not democracy.

Actually the argument presented by Virginia was that men were treated the same. Men could marry only in their same race. Since the law applied equally to black men and white men, there was no inequality in the law. No discrimination.


>>>>

Yes and that is as irrelevant to the discussion of Gender in Marriage as is the note that steel sharpens iron in a discussion of the intellectual misfortunes of the Islamic inbred.