The Homosexual Dilemma

[kaz]

Redfish is babbling.

Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined.

You realize if that's true then gays will eventually become extinct. Think about it, they pretend to be straight now and have kids. As they become mainstream, they will stop breeding and homosexuality will die out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The social stigmatization once used by the far right social con haters is now turned back on them.

Don't dish what you can't take, boyos.

 

[JakeStarkey]

kaz, heterosexuals create homosexuals.

They will never die out.

 

[80zephyr]

Redfish and Zephyr are babbling while Green Bean is excited by a hard gay propaganda piece.

Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined.

Show me that it is.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

The social stigmatization once used by the far right social con haters is now turned back on them.

Don't dish what you can't take, boyos.

Lol. A cognizant argument beats hell outta name calling.

I think I'll stick to that.

Mark

 

[kaz]

kaz, heterosexuals create homosexuals.

They will never die out.

Even if it's a recessive gene, that once you get a gay/gay match you stop breeding, the number of gays will significantly drop. Think about it. Liberals never do think through your arguments. You can't, you would realize they don't make sense...

 

[80zephyr]

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.

Now that depends. Every other generation didn't celebrate it.

Mark

Most don't "celebrate it". Wanting to not be forced to hide it is not "celebrating" it. They want to be treated the same way you are - like people.

The militiant straights want to "celebrate" their sexuality. Of course. So do gays.

The straights do not want gays to have the same rights under law.

That is deviant.

So Penis Breath - who, pray tell , in your warped little mind are the "militant" Heterosexuals -

That's easy. Leftists believe that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a militant extremist. And all the while, they preach that they are the side of "tolerance".

Lol.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

1. It is about science and how different conlcusions can come from the same research.

People Are Not Born Gay Affirms Royal College of Psychiatrists

Except that's not what happened. What happened was an anti gay group misinterpreted the study.

UK ‘gay cure’ group red-faced as psychiatrists point out they are wrong

Speaking to Gay Star News, a Royal College of Psychiatrists spokeswoman said it was a clear ‘misinterpretation’ of their actual statement.

‘Homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder,’ it reads. ‘The College believes strongly in evidence-based treatment. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.

‘The College would not support a therapy for converting people from homosexuality any more than we would do so from heterosexuality.

‘Psychiatrists should be committed to reducing inequalities, not supporting practices that are explicitly based on pathologizing homosexuality. As such, the College remains in favor of legislative efforts to ban such conversion therapies.’
​

2. Gay West New York cop claims in lawsuit he was harassed intimidated by police director NJ.com

There was a lot more than just "saying something" in that case. Also, you can't "say anything" at work, you know that right? Your "free speech" goes only as far as your employer allows.

Tebow's action of praying got media attention. However, had he not scored a toughdown, etc. there would have been no attention because he wouldn't have Tebowed. For Sam, the attention came before ever stepping foot on an NFL field. Tebow also had high school accomplishments. You don't start at Florida and win the Heisman if you don't.

You can't pretend Michael Sam didn't have accomplishments prior to coming out. He was SEC defensive player of the year and I think would be on a roster right now if he hadn't come out as gay.

Do you think role models are important? You obviously see Tebow as a role model for Christians and have no problem with that. Why can't Michael Sam be a role model for gay athletes? You may not realize it, but it is important for the gay High School football player in Iowa to see that there are others like him and it's okay to be athletic and gay.

5. Define equal. It doens't mean you get to do exactly the same things I do or vice versa.

Just ask them about polygamy or a sibling marriage. They are quicker to say no to it coming up with why equality should be denied than they are about bending over and taking one in the ass for the homos.

Polygamy and incest are both illegal so bringing them up is what is referred to in polite circles as a "slippery slope fallacy". They are completely unrelated to gays having equal access to civil marriage, and would either have a valid argument for legalization or they would not regardless of gays civilly marrying.

Quite a few countries have been marrying the gays for a while now. Even more countries perform legal polygamist marriages. None do both. There is no slippery slope.

There is a slippery slope. It started with the leftists instituting welfare, easy divorce, and single motherhood to destroy families.

Gay marriage is simply the latest step in that direction.

Mark

There is such a thing as a "slippery slope fallacy".

That is another fallacy. People write these "fallacy's" to prove to the "sheep" there really is no such thing. And yet we see the slippery slope employed every day, in almost every area of our lives.

Reality trumps bullshit. The slippery slope is not a fallacy.

A fallacy only works when humans are not involved. Since they are your belief is false.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

To an authoritarian leftist, yes. To a liberal, no. A liberal walks out of a business that doesn't want to do business with them and goes to one that does. An authoritarian leftist runs to government to use force to compel them to do business. It's very clear.

We've resolved the authority issue, as the states clearly have the authority over commerce within their States.

What's left are ethical issues. And I think its perfectly ethical and reasonable for a State to require those doing business with the public to treat the public fairly and equally.

You disagree. So?

So, I am a liberal and you are an authoritarian leftist.

Nope. You're just an anarchist with an opinion. One I don't give a shit about in this thread.

Do you have anything else to say about homosexuality?

Yes, gays have every right to be left alone, they have no right to demand anything from anyone.

Just like everyone else.

People, any people, have a right to demand equality.

You are correct. They were equal before gay marriage.

Mark

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

]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 ?

Because the far right social cons want to dictate what grown adults do sexually.

That's over and done with. You've lost.

Who said that? I don't care if gay men want to fuck each other, or a goat for that matter. I DO CARE that by normalizing homosexual marriage by force of law will harm society and the family unit.

Mark

I've been legally married to my partner of 20 years since October of 2008. How is that harming you? Is your family unit falling apart yet?

No Fault Divorce didn't harm my Marriage... per se, but how many other marriages were destroyed, because it was easier to throw it away than to work out the problems? Then, how many kids of divorced marriages took that message and played house until it got tough and divorced, leaving their kids to be drug from mommy's house to Daddy's house, 'lucky' that they had TWO HOUSES?

And from that, how many kids have chosen NOT to get married, and just procreate outside of marriage? with the concept of marriage, and its stabilizing purpose being lowered, thus destabilizing the culture, with marriage now so thoroughly discounted and the culture so bereft of morality and the concept of marriage so convoluted, that a tiny minority of states have passed laws allowing males to marry males.

(This is where they mock the idea that the culture is destabilized, on the basis that it still exists, therefore: It must be stable.)

So... my marriage doesn't need to be harmed, for the lowering of the marriage standard to be injurious.

I'll tell you what that "normalizing" has done for our family...it means our kids can say that their parents are married and that matters.

As I've said many times, she sought marriage for the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage.

What she fails to understand is that by her disrespecting marriage; by trying to BE such with a person of the same gender, she did not legitimize her abnormality, she delegitimized marriage.

Bigots back in the 60s thought the same things about interracial marriage that you do about same sex marriage. Society wasn't harmed in the least.

LOL! So you... a bigot, are complaining about bigotry? That is hysterical!

 

[80zephyr]

All peope have a right to be treated with respect until their individual actions warrant otherwise.
All people have a right to be treated equally under the law.
People opposing same-sex marriage fall back on the same tired old arguments:
Gays are being "pushy"
Gays are asking for "special rights"
Marriage is between one man and one woman.
It will destroy the institution of marriage.

On the first - how is it that people trying to gain equal rights, get labeled pushy? Women demanding the vote? Blacks and civil rights? Those advocating for the rights of the unborn and those advocating for the rights of women over their own bodies? Advocating for fundamental rights is not "pushy" and marriage is recognized as a fundamental right.

Gays are asking for "special rights"...no, not really, because - to turn yet another argument on it's head (that gays already have the right to marry, they can marry anyone of the opposite sex) - there is no special right here, heterosexuals will have the same right to marry someone of the same sex.

Marriage is between one man and one woman. Marriage, and the reasons for it as an institution has evolved and changed throughout history (for example, marriage at in medievil Europe was reserved for upper classes for political and inheritance reasons while the lower classes cohabitated), it varies according to culture and has not always been one/one. Opponents of same sex marriage are essentially saying marriage can't change anymore and ignoring history.

It will destroy the institution of marriage. This is the one I find hysterically funny. How exactly will that happen? No one has been able to explain how the marriages, of a subset of the approx 4% gay population, is going to have any affect on the rest of the 96% who might or might not choose to marry.

Marriage is a fundamental right. In today's western world, we recognize that right, and it is not attached to procreation alone. We recognize the right of two elderly people to marry just as we recognize the right of two young people to marry. Extending that dignity and respect for the union of two people in love to a same-sex marriage is not that much of a stretch.

People have a right to happyness as long as that right does not infringe on the rights of others or hurt others. Marriage is widely recognized as a socially stabilizing influence and there is no reason that would not apply to same sex marriages as well.

Same sex marriage hurts NO ONE. It's not "shoving" anything into someone else's face. It's about recognizing the union of two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together under the legal protections and benefits of marriage.

I have stated this before. The left has assured us that welfare, divorce, and single motherhood would not hurt the institution of marriage.

They were wrong. Now, why should I believe your claim that gay marriage hurts no one?

Your accuracy leaves much to be desired.

Also, you said this:

for example, marriage at in medievil Europe was reserved for upper classes for political and inheritance reasons while the lower classes cohabitated),

The lower classes cohabitated because marriage is not a social construct, but a biological one. The mating of the sexes is "marriage. And those lower classes were "married", even without being allowed to use the word.

Mark

 

[bodecea]

All peope have a right to be treated with respect until their individual actions warrant otherwise.
All people have a right to be treated equally under the law.
People opposing same-sex marriage fall back on the same tired old arguments:
Gays are being "pushy"
Gays are asking for "special rights"
Marriage is between one man and one woman.
It will destroy the institution of marriage.

On the first - how is it that people trying to gain equal rights, get labeled pushy? Women demanding the vote? Blacks and civil rights? Those advocating for the rights of the unborn and those advocating for the rights of women over their own bodies? Advocating for fundamental rights is not "pushy" and marriage is recognized as a fundamental right.

Gays are asking for "special rights"...no, not really, because - to turn yet another argument on it's head (that gays already have the right to marry, they can marry anyone of the opposite sex) - there is no special right here, heterosexuals will have the same right to marry someone of the same sex.

Marriage is between one man and one woman. Marriage, and the reasons for it as an institution has evolved and changed throughout history (for example, marriage at in medievil Europe was reserved for upper classes for political and inheritance reasons while the lower classes cohabitated), it varies according to culture and has not always been one/one. Opponents of same sex marriage are essentially saying marriage can't change anymore and ignoring history.

It will destroy the institution of marriage. This is the one I find hysterically funny. How exactly will that happen? No one has been able to explain how the marriages, of a subset of the approx 4% gay population, is going to have any affect on the rest of the 96% who might or might not choose to marry.

Marriage is a fundamental right. In today's western world, we recognize that right, and it is not attached to procreation alone. We recognize the right of two elderly people to marry just as we recognize the right of two young people to marry. Extending that dignity and respect for the union of two people in love to a same-sex marriage is not that much of a stretch.

People have a right to happyness as long as that right does not infringe on the rights of others or hurt others. Marriage is widely recognized as a socially stabilizing influence and there is no reason that would not apply to same sex marriages as well.

Same sex marriage hurts NO ONE. It's not "shoving" anything into someone else's face. It's about recognizing the union of two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together under the legal protections and benefits of marriage.

I have stated this before. The left has assured us that welfare, divorce, and single motherhood would not hurt the institution of marriage.

They were wrong. Now, why should I believe your claim that gay marriage hurts no one?

Your accuracy leaves much to be desired.

Also, you said this:

for example, marriage at in medievil Europe was reserved for upper classes for political and inheritance reasons while the lower classes cohabitated),

The lower classes cohabitated because marriage is not a social construct, but a biological one. The mating of the sexes is "marriage. And those lower classes were "married", even without being allowed to use the word.

Mark

So...you want to eliminate welfare, divorce and single motherhood? How do you propose doing that?

 

[80zephyr]

There is such a thing as a "slippery slope fallacy".

Oh, its a classic. You'll find all the best fallacies represented here. The most common being an Appeal to Authority. Where homosexuality is wrong because 'nature' said it was. Or 'god' said it was. Or whatever.

There's no logical or rational basis behind it. Nor can they offer much in terms of reasoned, rational arguments. Its the main reason why most gay marriage opponents have such a rough time in court. As the motivation for many of them is 'God Hates Fags!'. But you can't really argue that in court.

So they're left with a litany of half baked 2nd tier arguments that are easily refuted....as they don't make the slightest sense.

I have given you valid reasons. That you refuse to acknowledge them is not my fault.

Mark

 

[bodecea]

kaz, heterosexuals create homosexuals.

They will never die out.

Even if it's a recessive gene, that once you get a gay/gay match you stop breeding, the number of gays will significantly drop. Think about it. Liberals never do think through your arguments. You can't, you would realize they don't make sense...

Genetics is probably part of it but not all of it....like left-handedness...or a artistic talent.

 

[80zephyr]

Anyone here that that can prove that homosexuals NEED to get married, I will buy you a GOOD cup coffee, you name it. Really.

Don't hold your breath...

The purpose of the demand for marriage is that with marriage come legitimacy... what they don't understand is that legitimacy comes as a result of the standard that defines it. Therefore, they're chasing something that can't be had until THEY turn from that which renders them illegitimate.

It's some fairly sad stuff... but insanity has always been sad.

And they're willing to settle for appearances, because real marriage cannot be redefined. Gay couple can play house and delude themselves, but they can never marry for real. The Bible refers to this as "strong delusions". They forget that marriage is ordained by God and is not up for personal interpretation.

Marriage in this era is for many reasons. In western culture it is mostly about love. Two people love each other and want to commit to a long term (hopefully) permanent relationship with each other that might or might not include children, that might include purchasing and building a home together, shared assets, a shared future together that is recognized legally and - if religion is involved, by a religious service. It is a relationship recognized right now, in many areas, as limited only to hetero couples.

And people can't do all that without government? Why not?

Because in our country marriage is recognized by the government which confers special priveledges and legal benefits to those couples that may or may not be obtained by unmarried couples.

And every one of those reasons were propagation of the species.

Mark

 

[Seawytch]

There is nothing "pushy" about two people who want to commit to a stable long term legally recognized relationship.

Yes, to be a true relationship, government has to validate it. I mean who could consider their partner to be their partner without government recognition? That wouldn't be possible. Man, a partner without OKs from politicians and bureaucrats, that would just be meaningless, wouldn't it?

Why are you asking gays that just want exactly what you enjoy? Ask your wife.

Yes, you keep reminding us gays aren't ready for full marriage, you can't disagree with each other. In heterosexual marriage, that happens all the time.

I never said you can't disagree. We know you're the reluctant hypocrite. That's not what I said. Instead of asking gays why they need "government validation", ask your wife why she needs it. She can answer your questions and you'll actually maybe believe the answers from her.

12 Reasons Marriage Equality Matters

That's exactly what I just addressed. I've addressed it repeatedly. She doesn't agree with me. She knows what I think about government marriage. She knows I oppose it. She is fully aware of it. She disagrees with me. Why would I continue to ask a question that was asked and answered? I've told you this a bunch of times. What is wrong with you that you can't grasp that?

That's my point, you keep saying you wouldn't give it up. Ask again, and again, and again. I'm not changing my mind, she's not changing her mind. That happens in heterosexual marriages and the marriage can go on just fine. We don't have to agree on everything. When you reach that point, then you will be closer to gay marriage being equivalent to straight marriage. You must just be a joy to live with having to be agreed with on everything, or at least told you're right.

Disagreement happens in all marriage, you're not special. We all disagree and we all compromise. You've compromised on civil marriage, yes we get it and not arguing that. I'm saying stop asking us the questions your wife obviously has the answers to. Stop asking gays why they want to be married since she can answer your questions.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Redfish is babbling.

Show me the scientific evidence that hetero and homo sexuality are not genetically determined.

Show evidence that is IS!

Ya see scamp, it is not reasonable for me to have to break out every scintilla of human knowledge regarding genetics and prove that none of it provides any trace of evidence that sexual deviancy is genetic. Because to do so would require a massive effort that would span a period of time, of which 99% would be practiced without anyone engaged in this discussion being present, because most fo them would have died of natural causes before the evidence was fully presented.

Therefore, in terms of reason, nature established the law which says that where you assert something as fact, YOU must present the evidence that such is true.

Now there's only one species of reasoning which rejects nature's law... and that is the reasoning which is common to Left-think; OKA: Relativism...

So... it falls to you to prove that sexual deviancy is genetic, not for Kaz to prove that it is NOT.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Any heterosexuals can marry in most Churches and you don't need to be a member of their Church.
Catholic Churches require you the be Catholic to marry in their churches.

Actually churches are not ever forced to marry someone they do not want to. At least on this planet.

Bull f*cking shit! Idaho city s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail - Washington Times

That was a for-profit wedding chapel like those you see in Vegas. You DID know that, right?

PASTORS.

For Profit Business.

You don't seem to get that ALL PASTORS were being threatened, so you're wrong, and like any stubborn Leftist, you can't admit when you're wrong because you'd never stop. That's a dangerous combination, incorrigibility and ignorance, and you model it well.

 

[80zephyr]

]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 ?

Because the far right social cons want to dictate what grown adults do sexually.

That's over and done with. You've lost.

Who said that? I don't care if gay men want to fuck each other, or a goat for that matter. I DO CARE that by normalizing homosexual marriage by force of law will harm society and the family unit.

Mark

I've been legally married to my partner of 20 years since October of 2008. How is that harming you? Is your family unit falling apart yet?

No Fault Divorce didn't harm my Marriage... per se, but how many other marriages were destroyed, because it was easier to throw it away than to work out the problems? Then, how many kids of divorced marriages took that message and played house until it got tough and divorced, leaving their kids to be drug from mommy's house to Daddy's house, 'lucky' that they had TWO HOUSES?

And from that, how many kids have chosen NOT to get married, and just procreate outside of marriage? with the concept of marriage, and its stabilizing purpose being lowered, thus destabilizing the culture, with marriage now so thoroughly discounted and the culture so bereft of morality and the concept of marriage so convoluted, that a tiny minority of states have passed laws allowing males to marry males.

(This is where they mock the idea that the culture is destabilized, on the basis that it still exists, therefore: It must be stable.)

So... my marriage doesn't need to be harmed, for the lowering of the marriage standard to be injurious.

I'll tell you what that "normalizing" has done for our family...it means our kids can say that their parents are married and that matters.

As I've said many times, she sought marriage for the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage.

What she fails to understand is that by her disrespecting marriage; by trying to BE such with a person of the same gender, she did not legitimize her abnormality, she delegitimized marriage.

Bigots back in the 60s thought the same things about interracial marriage that you do about same sex marriage. Society wasn't harmed in the least.

LOL! So you... a bigot, are complaining about bigotry? That is hysterical!

And the kicker? After the left destroyed marriage, they tell us that since it is fucked up already, making it worse won't matter.

Wow.

Mark

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Disagreement happens in all marriage, you're not special. We all disagree and we all compromise. You've compromised on civil marriage, yes we get it and not arguing that. I'm saying stop asking us the questions your wife obviously has the answers to. Stop asking gays why they want to be married since she can answer your questions.

Civil unions... not marriage.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. Civil Unions are merely a form of incorporation which provide for financial equality through which two sexual deviants can eventually screw each other.