The Homosexual Dilemma

[Carib Gyal]

Another argument to the absurd.

That's what keys has been telling you

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's what I have been telling keys and you.

But that's OK.

 

[Carib Gyal]

How about this:

One guy could marry every illegal alien that are soon to be allowed to stay legally in the US by Obama's EO. Instant green cards for 5 million people. And why stop there? He could marry the entire population of the Earth and get green cards for everyone since they would all be legally married. This is fraught with possibilities. I like it.

 

[Coyote]

You are limiting consent to two people. Hundreds, thousands of consenting humans should all be allowed to marry each other.

why not?

Exactly. We are redefining the meaning of the word. Let's redefine it.

Marriage has only recently (in terms of human history) been redefined as one woman/one man.

And now we are redefining it again, to mean (as always), whatever we want it to mean. Do you really want to discriminate against the rights of thousands of consenting adults to marry each other? How very....close-minded of you.

????

If people want plural marriages as long as they are consenting adults I could care less. I've said that several times. I have yet to come across a good argument against polygamy in the US (in other countries it frequently leads to abuse of women).

What if one little Mexican wants out of the marriage to the old gay guy, but wants to remain married to the other homosexual members of the group marriage?

Good question. No idea how those things would be worked out.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Actually...it's sad when you can't find it in yourself to allow two people who love each other to marry when it does no harm to you or anyone else.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

An arbritrary definition.[sic]

Arbitrary?

It follows the natural design of the species. Its as far from arbitrary as one can get>

 

[Coyote]

How about this:

One guy could marry every illegal alien that are soon to be allowed to stay legally in the US by Obama's EO. Instant green cards for 5 million people. And why stop there? He could marry the entire population of the Earth and get green cards for everyone since they would all be legally married. This is fraught with possibilities. I like it.

Ok. So now you are mixing immigration into this. Let's keep this simple and make it about marriage. And lets keep it realistic.

 

[Coyote]

Actually...it's sad when you can't find it in yourself to allow two people who love each other to marry when it does no harm to you or anyone else.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

An arbritrary definition.[sic]

Arbitrary?

It follows the natural design of the species. Its as far from arbitrary as one can get>

Procreation is the natural order. Marriage is an artificial socio-political-religious construct. Arbritrary given how it varies and it's changed.

 

[Carib Gyal]

How about this:

One guy could marry every illegal alien that are soon to be allowed to stay legally in the US by Obama's EO. Instant green cards for 5 million people. And why stop there? He could marry the entire population of the Earth and get green cards for everyone since they would all be legally married. This is fraught with possibilities. I like it.

Ok. So now you are mixing immigration into this. Let's keep this simple and make it about marriage. And lets keep it realistic.

Sometimes it takes extremes to make the simple point. Why would you advocate for limitations on plural marriage? Why would you deny consenting adults the rights of marriage? Suddenly your previous open-minded stance becomes bigoted and contrived.

 

[Coyote]

How about this:

One guy could marry every illegal alien that are soon to be allowed to stay legally in the US by Obama's EO. Instant green cards for 5 million people. And why stop there? He could marry the entire population of the Earth and get green cards for everyone since they would all be legally married. This is fraught with possibilities. I like it.

Ok. So now you are mixing immigration into this. Let's keep this simple and make it about marriage. And lets keep it realistic.

Sometimes it takes extremes to make the simple point. Why would you advocate for limitations on plural marriage? Why would you deny consenting adults the rights of marriage? Suddenly your previous open-minded stance becomes bigoted and contrived.

Does it? I already said I don't have an issue with consenting adults in plural marriage. But I think that argument can be made without going to ridiculous extremes that are unlikely to ever happen. If it does then it would have to be figured out.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

And there is no question that homosexuality is replicated in every generation. It is part of Nature and has never threatened the continuation of mankind.

And? In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.

Mark

Nature is a complex and wondrous thing. Did you know that some species are a-sexual? Did you know some could change their gender? How about when animals intentionally sterilize themselves due to over population?

Since Homosexuality exists in over a thousand animals species and has existed in the human animal since the beginning of recorded history, it's pretty safe to assume that we're supposed to be here. Rest easy, scientists have some theories.

The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality

The genes that code for homosexuality do other things too
The allele - or group of genes - that sometimes codes for homosexual orientation may at other times have a strong reproductive benefit. This would compensate for gay people's lack of reproduction and ensure the continuation of the trait, as non-gay carriers of the gene pass it down.

Gay people were 'helpers in the nest'
Paul Vasey's research in Samoa has focused on a theory called kin selection or the "helper in the nest" hypothesis. The idea is that gay people compensate for their lack of children by promoting the reproductive fitness of brothers or sisters, contributing money or performing other uncle-like activities such as babysitting or tutoring. Some of the gay person's genetic code is shared with nieces and nephews and so, the theory goes, the genes which code for sexual orientation still get passed down.[...]

Gay people do have children
In the US, around 37% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people have a child, about 60% of which are biological. According to the Williams Institute, gay couples that have children have an average of two.

These figures may not be high enough to sustain genetic traits specific to this group, but the evolutionary biologist Jeremy Yoder points out in a blog post that for much of modern history gay people haven't been living openly gay lives. Compelled by society to enter marriages and have children, their reproduction rates may have been higher than they are now.

It's not all in the DNA
Qazi Rahman says that alleles coding for same sex attraction only explain some of the variety in human sexuality. Other, naturally varying biological factors come into play, with about one in seven gay men, he says, owing their sexuality to the "big brother effect".

This has nothing to do with George Orwell, but describes the observation that boys with older brothers are significantly more likely to become gay - with every older brother the chance of homosexuality increases by about a third. No-one knows why this is, but one theory is that with each male pregnancy, a woman's body forms an immune reaction to proteins that have a role in the development of the male brain. Since this only comes into play after several siblings have been born - most of whom are heterosexual and go on to have children - this pre-natal quirk hasn't been selected away by evolution.

And, after all of this, my statement still stands:

In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.

Humans are born with many types of problems. While these conditions are natural, they most assuredly are abnormal.

Mark

Lots of things are 'abnormal'- oral sex is abnormal by your definition- yet the majority of Americans experience it at some time in their life- some of us more than others.

Abnormal doesn't mean bad.

Except in the case of homophobes- homosexuals=abnormal-= bad.

It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?

The very question this whole thread is about. And in over 75 pages, none of the hemorrhoids have been able to answer it.

 

[Coyote]

And? In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.

Mark

Nature is a complex and wondrous thing. Did you know that some species are a-sexual? Did you know some could change their gender? How about when animals intentionally sterilize themselves due to over population?

Since Homosexuality exists in over a thousand animals species and has existed in the human animal since the beginning of recorded history, it's pretty safe to assume that we're supposed to be here. Rest easy, scientists have some theories.

The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality

The genes that code for homosexuality do other things too
The allele - or group of genes - that sometimes codes for homosexual orientation may at other times have a strong reproductive benefit. This would compensate for gay people's lack of reproduction and ensure the continuation of the trait, as non-gay carriers of the gene pass it down.

Gay people were 'helpers in the nest'
Paul Vasey's research in Samoa has focused on a theory called kin selection or the "helper in the nest" hypothesis. The idea is that gay people compensate for their lack of children by promoting the reproductive fitness of brothers or sisters, contributing money or performing other uncle-like activities such as babysitting or tutoring. Some of the gay person's genetic code is shared with nieces and nephews and so, the theory goes, the genes which code for sexual orientation still get passed down.[...]

Gay people do have children
In the US, around 37% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people have a child, about 60% of which are biological. According to the Williams Institute, gay couples that have children have an average of two.

These figures may not be high enough to sustain genetic traits specific to this group, but the evolutionary biologist Jeremy Yoder points out in a blog post that for much of modern history gay people haven't been living openly gay lives. Compelled by society to enter marriages and have children, their reproduction rates may have been higher than they are now.

It's not all in the DNA
Qazi Rahman says that alleles coding for same sex attraction only explain some of the variety in human sexuality. Other, naturally varying biological factors come into play, with about one in seven gay men, he says, owing their sexuality to the "big brother effect".

This has nothing to do with George Orwell, but describes the observation that boys with older brothers are significantly more likely to become gay - with every older brother the chance of homosexuality increases by about a third. No-one knows why this is, but one theory is that with each male pregnancy, a woman's body forms an immune reaction to proteins that have a role in the development of the male brain. Since this only comes into play after several siblings have been born - most of whom are heterosexual and go on to have children - this pre-natal quirk hasn't been selected away by evolution.

And, after all of this, my statement still stands:

In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.

Humans are born with many types of problems. While these conditions are natural, they most assuredly are abnormal.

Mark

Lots of things are 'abnormal'- oral sex is abnormal by your definition- yet the majority of Americans experience it at some time in their life- some of us more than others.

Abnormal doesn't mean bad.

Except in the case of homophobes- homosexuals=abnormal-= bad.

It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?

The very question this whole thread is about. And in over 75 pages, none of the hemorrhoids have been able to answer it.

Do you consider marriage "getting in everybody's faces"?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I could choose to be a criminal. Does that make me one?

I don't find men sexually attractive either because I choose not to.

So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?

Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.

If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:

Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News

Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.

Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.

Mark

You really should have researched further...

Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'

And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.

Homosexuality is not "special".

Mark

People can choose who to have sex with.

There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.

Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.

No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.

So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Nature is a complex and wondrous thing. Did you know that some species are a-sexual? Did you know some could change their gender? How about when animals intentionally sterilize themselves due to over population?

Since Homosexuality exists in over a thousand animals species and has existed in the human animal since the beginning of recorded history, it's pretty safe to assume that we're supposed to be here. Rest easy, scientists have some theories.

The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality

The genes that code for homosexuality do other things too
The allele - or group of genes - that sometimes codes for homosexual orientation may at other times have a strong reproductive benefit. This would compensate for gay people's lack of reproduction and ensure the continuation of the trait, as non-gay carriers of the gene pass it down.

Gay people were 'helpers in the nest'
Paul Vasey's research in Samoa has focused on a theory called kin selection or the "helper in the nest" hypothesis. The idea is that gay people compensate for their lack of children by promoting the reproductive fitness of brothers or sisters, contributing money or performing other uncle-like activities such as babysitting or tutoring. Some of the gay person's genetic code is shared with nieces and nephews and so, the theory goes, the genes which code for sexual orientation still get passed down.[...]

Gay people do have children
In the US, around 37% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people have a child, about 60% of which are biological. According to the Williams Institute, gay couples that have children have an average of two.

These figures may not be high enough to sustain genetic traits specific to this group, but the evolutionary biologist Jeremy Yoder points out in a blog post that for much of modern history gay people haven't been living openly gay lives. Compelled by society to enter marriages and have children, their reproduction rates may have been higher than they are now.

It's not all in the DNA
Qazi Rahman says that alleles coding for same sex attraction only explain some of the variety in human sexuality. Other, naturally varying biological factors come into play, with about one in seven gay men, he says, owing their sexuality to the "big brother effect".

This has nothing to do with George Orwell, but describes the observation that boys with older brothers are significantly more likely to become gay - with every older brother the chance of homosexuality increases by about a third. No-one knows why this is, but one theory is that with each male pregnancy, a woman's body forms an immune reaction to proteins that have a role in the development of the male brain. Since this only comes into play after several siblings have been born - most of whom are heterosexual and go on to have children - this pre-natal quirk hasn't been selected away by evolution.

And, after all of this, my statement still stands:

In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.

Humans are born with many types of problems. While these conditions are natural, they most assuredly are abnormal.

Mark

Lots of things are 'abnormal'- oral sex is abnormal by your definition- yet the majority of Americans experience it at some time in their life- some of us more than others.

Abnormal doesn't mean bad.

Except in the case of homophobes- homosexuals=abnormal-= bad.

It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?

The very question this whole thread is about. And in over 75 pages, none of the hemorrhoids have been able to answer it.

Do you consider marriage "getting in everybody's faces"?

I consider the subverting of the democratic process just so you can get your way is getting in everyone's face. You people are the most self centered of all, making sure that everyone is forced to accept your lifestyle even if at the point of a gun. Yes, you are getting in everyone's face and that's not going to go unanswered for long.

 

[hipeter924]

So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?

Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.

If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:

Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News

Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.

Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.

Mark

You really should have researched further...

Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'

And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.

Homosexuality is not "special".

Mark

People can choose who to have sex with.

There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.

Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.

No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.

So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?

Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:

Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News

Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.

Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.

Mark

You really should have researched further...

Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'

And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.

Homosexuality is not "special".

Mark

People can choose who to have sex with.

There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.

Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.

No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.

So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?

Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).

But isn't the "age of consent" just a social overlay, as Coyote said? Who are you to say they're love is wrong?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?

Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.

If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:

Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News

Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.

Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.

Mark

You really should have researched further...

Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'

And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.

Homosexuality is not "special".

Mark

People can choose who to have sex with.

There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.

Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.

No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.

So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

This issue concerns only two consenting adults eligible to enter into a marriage contract who are disallowed from doing so in violation of the Constitution.

To attempt to reference children is irrelevant demagoguery.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:

Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News

Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.

Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.

Mark

You really should have researched further...

Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'

And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.

Homosexuality is not "special".

Mark

People can choose who to have sex with.

There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.

Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.

No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.

So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?

Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).

Age of what? Oh yeah, that line we draw in the sand because it has to be drawn, but that's all it is, a line in the sand. Fuck five years older or five years younger and I can't be bothered to give a fuck, I have a life to lead.

 

[Carib Gyal]

How about this:

One guy could marry every illegal alien that are soon to be allowed to stay legally in the US by Obama's EO. Instant green cards for 5 million people. And why stop there? He could marry the entire population of the Earth and get green cards for everyone since they would all be legally married. This is fraught with possibilities. I like it.

Ok. So now you are mixing immigration into this. Let's keep this simple and make it about marriage. And lets keep it realistic.

Sometimes it takes extremes to make the simple point. Why would you advocate for limitations on plural marriage? Why would you deny consenting adults the rights of marriage? Suddenly your previous open-minded stance becomes bigoted and contrived.

Does it? I already said I don't have an issue with consenting adults in plural marriage. But I think that argument can be made without going to ridiculous extremes that are unlikely to ever happen. If it does then it would have to be figured out.

Some people think gay marriage is a ridiculous extreme. Your very arguments advocating same can be applied to plural marriage. Equal protection, consenting adults, redefinitions, etc.

But even you think there would be ridiculous extremes, and limitations would have to be figured out. Just not the limitations you don't want.

 

[Coyote]

And, after all of this, my statement still stands:

In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.

Humans are born with many types of problems. While these conditions are natural, they most assuredly are abnormal.

Mark

Lots of things are 'abnormal'- oral sex is abnormal by your definition- yet the majority of Americans experience it at some time in their life- some of us more than others.

Abnormal doesn't mean bad.

Except in the case of homophobes- homosexuals=abnormal-= bad.

It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?

The very question this whole thread is about. And in over 75 pages, none of the hemorrhoids have been able to answer it.

Do you consider marriage "getting in everybody's faces"?

I consider the subverting of the democratic process just so you can get your way is getting in everyone's face. You people are the most self centered of all, making sure that everyone is forced to accept your lifestyle even if at the point of a gun. Yes, you are getting in everyone's face and that's not going to go unanswered for long.

So blacks subverted the democratic process when they wanted to end Jim Crowe.
Women subverted the democratic process when they wanted the vote.

Oh how self centered they were forcing you all to accept their rights even at the point of a gun.

Wait a minute. At the point of a gun? Aren't you being a little bit ridiculous here?

And how is it going to go unanswered? You going to lynch some people?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:

Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News

Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.

Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.

Mark

You really should have researched further...

Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'

And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.

Homosexuality is not "special".

Mark

People can choose who to have sex with.

There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.

Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.

No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.

So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

This issue concerns only two consenting adults eligible to enter into a marriage contract who are disallowed from doing so in violation of the Constitution.

To attempt to reference children is irrelevant demagoguery.

But there's just as much right to shag a child as their is for gay marriage in the Constitution, so why not? Do you hear those footsteps behind you? It's NAMBLA marching proudly through all the doors you opened for them. That's what happens when "rights" are made up. I bet they even start winning some court battles because, after all, not being allowed to bugger children is a violation of the 14th Amendment, using the twisted logic of the Left.

Oh yeah!