Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 135

Thread: With prop 8 comes hate

  1. #1 With prop 8 comes hate 
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    According to prop 8, it defines the definition of marriage between a man and a woman which is the result of religious hate. Homosexual couples don't get the same rights as straight do to religious influence. Is the christian religion filled with bigotry and hate for those who don't agree with their view? I believe so. It's sad that religious bigots are running this country and ruining lives.
    I am not personally gay myself, but if I were, I would want religion to stay out of my life and not effect me at all. But the way things are going, even if you don't believe in christianity, it's still affecting your life whether you like it or not. I really feel sorry for homosexuals, since it's technically a birth defect.. not a choice.
    Why is this in the religion thread? Because religion is the sole reason it's illegal to allow gays to marry.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Is it though? Thats the point. Not just religion despise gay marraige. I mean for instance look at you reffering to Christianity as the only religion here that condones it. Also look at people who hate homosexuality and who are not religious. You can't blame them for everything. Yes of course religion sticks its ore in sometimes where it is not wanted, but none the less there are more factors than just religion when it comes to topics as this.

    I once had a bad thing against gay people, and yes I admit some of it was religion fuelled. Thankfully it is in my past now.

    I do feel sorry for them. They do have a lot of prejudice to let go through one ear and out the other and for the next day find the church on your door telling you what to do or not even if you don't believe in anything it does.

    On a final note, you said that homosexuals don't get the same rights as heterosexuals do. I know that in the UK they do, whether the church likes it or not. I'm sure it's the same in the US. They get the same rights, its just that some people choose not to respect those rights, unfortuantley.


    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I'm sure it's the same in the US. They get the same rights, its just that some people choose not to respect those rights, unfortuantley
    I don't think so. Each of the 50 odd states make most of their own laws.


    PS: Condone means to disregard or overlook. :wink:

    PSS: I don't think homosexuality is thought of as being "technically" a birth defect, as environmental stimulae probably also has quite a large influence. In fact, I don't think it can be thought of as a defect per se.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Environment can change the sex of some fish as well. It's been documented that the homosexual brain is very similar to that of a female brain.

    Chaotic - They don't get the same rights. If one of them dies and there is no will, their partner has no claim to any of their belongings. Also, they cant visit their partner in the hospital. Only immediate family may do so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    If the religious law says that homosexuals do not marry, why should it change to accomodate something which it condemns?

    That would be a pointless religion, as it means the people changing the laws, and indeed those benefitting from the change do NOT trully believe in the laws of their religion to start with. It also shows how weak the followers are.

    A point to note about marriage though. In religion, when you marry you are basically asking god to bless the union of two people. If the law says that gay's will not get that blessing, what is the point in getting married? It wouldnt actually count for ANYTHING positive based on the laws of your religion. It would only count as a sin. So why do it? Appearance sake?? It's a shame when people protest because their religion wont BREAK ITS RULES! What should be mroe important to the religious person? Appearances or the destiny of their soul?

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    The christians who are gay don't believe that it's against their religion. They believe god made them gay.
    Why would a religion, in their right mind, condemn and segregate a group of whom god made.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    If the religious law says that homosexuals do not marry, why should it change to accomodate something which it condemns?
    The problem is that religion interferes with government, the law and human rights. What reasons, other than religions ones, can you think of why gay marriages should not be allowed? If a religion condemns it, fine, don't let them marry in your church, but it should have absolutely no say in a lawfull act of marriage.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    The Old Testament has a command requiring believers to put to death male homosexuals caught in single sex activity. Most Christians would not go along with this, but what of those fundamentalists (including jews and muslims) who believe that every word in the bible is literal truth and must be followed as God's express command?

    Strangely, there is no word about female homsexuals. Just a command to kill those caught in adultery. Very male centred. Much more likely to be the result of the prejudices of male community leaders than any omnibenevolent deity.

    As far as I am concerned, if two males are silly enough to want to get married, then let them. Ditto two females. It is no more likely to lead to disaster than a man and a woman marrying. Come to think of it, disaster has a very high probability!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    This is messy on an international level. The US is one of the countries attempting to recognize duel citizenship, and harmonize with other countries, so what happens when same sex couples cross borders? You can find all sorts of complications here. Even between US states.

    What is best for humanity in general? Read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which we're all signatories:


    Article 16.

    (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

    (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

    (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.



    "Men and women" is in contrast to "Everyone" normally used throughout this document. The Declaration clearly indicates marriage is between man and woman. I'm sorry but the global consensus does not allow our progressive ideals. Can we make them allowable? Maybe if we all creep back into our isolated fjords and valleys.

    A state can not legally deny any rights set forth in this treaty, but it can extend additional rights to its citizens. Would the additional right (freedom) of same sex marriage impinge on "the family" as defined by international treaty? I think it would! But maybe we can spin this. Suppose same-sex marriage evidently supports the livelihood of (breeder) families. This could be argued. In fact, this could be socially engineered. I would show how gays fill an essential role in society, and around the family unit, by not breeding. I would expect gays to help in ways child-bearers cannot. When breeders find gays indispensable, there will be no argument.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    The problem is, by not allowing same sex marriage, you might as well say, "All blacks can't get married" or "All mexican's can't get married" or "All asians can't get married" Because a piece of parchment from 2000 years ago says it's a sin. (Assuming it would say that)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    The convention of marriage between man and woman is not a Christian invention, nor are the Christian nations its greatest supporters. If you wanna know who's really behind the notion everybody has to couple up into tight family units, try living in igloos.

    I just think the way we're framing the issue is silly. It's a problem of economics and family roles.

    In Pong's post-industrial utopia, every child has the right to babysitting by a queer auntie (and girlfriend), every grandma has the right to live-in care by her gay grandson (and boyfriend), and so forth. Same sex couples are essential confirmed non-breeding members of extended families. In a lot of families they are already filling these roles, and we ought to acknowledge that.

    The alternative is impersonal care by the state or corporation. I can't believe the Family Values folks would really prefer that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    24
    Pong is going beyond my understanding. That means : "What are you talking about ?!"

    Prop 8 is by all means a fascist and repressing piece of toilet-paper. Who ever sh*tted their signature on that, needs a good massage by 'Bubba, the gay with 25 inch'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    There truly are no good reasons for restricting the rights of gays to marry each other.

    The only arguments that can be made are those grounded in religion, and such arguments are unconstitutional by definition (religiously based).

    At the end of the day, if religious people don't like the idea of marrying someone of the same sex, they should marry someone of the opposite sex. Its as easy as that. Others who marry within their sex have absolutely no effect on their own marriages.

    I'm often amazed at the extent to which religious bigots will go in order to keep the other from enjoying liberty and pursuing happiness. They claim it comes from their "scripture," but the reality is their doctrine says very little about homosexuality and nothing about lesbians. It does, however, have far more to say about adultery, with examples on how to dispose of adulterers and adulteresses, but if the so-called "religious right" took a hard stance on adultery, they'd put themselves out of business really quick.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Skinwalker

    I read a historical article once that said the early Christian church had a very long debate whether to adopt the Old Testament or not. They wanted to dump it, since they had a new message, but decided to keep it, since there were prophecies of a messiah, which they thought would improve their chances of developing their own church.

    Makes you want to spit! The whole western world could have been rid of the whole bigoted, backward, punitive load of nonsense, and they decided to keep it for purely political reasons!

    I am not religious, but I admire the ethical standards taught by Jesus. (actually, his name was Yeshua, which translates into English as Joshua. So I am talking about the teaching of good ol' Josh.) Those teachings were full of charity. However, they have now been overlain by the garbage that comes from the Old Testament and which are so prejudiced that they are quite inhuman.

    If a couple of gays wanna get hitched, then let 'em, I say. Simple charity means that we should not take from them their right to choose.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    24
    Whatever belief or moral intention; you are not the one to rule over the others private. When we do ... and we do ! We go in a VERY wrong direction; namely backwards to the middleages !

    We are on the path to it, for quite a while now; we must turn, before it's too late.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I'm sure it's the same in the US. They get the same rights, its just that some people choose not to respect those rights, unfortuantley
    I don't think so. Each of the 50 odd states make most of their own laws.
    Yes I forgot about that. Thanks for reminding me.

    PS: Condone means to disregard or overlook. :wink:
    And that.

    PS: I don't think homosexuality is thought of as being "technically" a birth defect, as environmental stimulae probably also has quite a large influence. In fact, I don't think it can be thought of as a defect per se.
    I agree strongly with that. You can't naturally be 'born' gay verzen, like many things you're surroundings influence you. I mean its also like saying you were born heterosexual, or bisexual. Or non-sexual. And yes KALSTER I agree, it isn't a defect.

    They don't get the same rights. If one of them dies and there is no will, their partner has no claim to any of their belongings. Also, they cant visit their partner in the hospital. Only immediate family may do so.
    That is shocking, I'm sure that is not the case in the UK. I hope it isn't. Its the twenty first century and we should be moving forwards don't you agree?

    Whatever belief or moral intention; you are not the one to rule over the others private. When we do ... and we do ! We go in a VERY wrong direction; namely backwards to the middleages !

    We are on the path to it, for quite a while now; we must turn, before it's too late.
    It's prejudices that have been intersected with peoples beliefs to be thought of as wrong. For starters its parents who are against it who tell their children 'it is bad', that happened with me if I'm honest. It took me a while to get out of it and I'm sure some of you can remember how hard it was to get past that. Its parental influence mostly. So we need to get parents, or people in general to stop being so prejudice and abandon all these medieval notions of right and wrong.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I don't think homosexuality is thought of as being "technically" a birth defect, as environmental stimulae probably also has quite a large influence. In fact, I don't think it can be thought of as a defect per se.
    I agree strongly with that. You can't naturally be 'born' gay verzen, like many things you're surroundings influence you. I mean its also like saying you were born heterosexual, or bisexual. Or non-sexual. And yes KALSTER I agree, it isn't a defect.
    No ... it is a 'twist in the brain'; no true hetro-sexual man can fall in love with another man. It is proven to be a 'twist in the brain'.

    Do not deny science in such a way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    I'm heterosexual and I've had the odd inclination towards a man. It hasn't happened with me (turning gay) but it does happen. By twist in the brain I take it you mean not natural?
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    All beings are born bisexual. It depends how bisexual a being is which defines it. It is usually on a scale of 1 being completely gay and 7 being completely straight. 4 is falling in between the two as a pure bisexual. 3 or 5 is leaning toward one way or the other. But you can't wake up one day and say, "I'm going to be gay today."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    I'm intolerant against intolerance. Which is why I think proposition 8 should not be tolerated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Apollyon
    No ... it is a 'twist in the brain'; no true hetro-sexual man can fall in love with another man. It is proven to be a 'twist in the brain'.

    Do not deny science in such a way.
    Scientific research shows that homosexuality, as one manifestation of a range of possible sexual orientations, is a result of a complex combination of genetic and environmental influences. And some of that science research in fact suggests that it may be adaptive to feel sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, or to have a homosexual individual in the family, etc.

    Don't talk about denying science unless you actually know what the science says.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I just think the way we're framing the issue is silly. It's a problem of economics and family roles.
    Quote Originally Posted by Apollyon
    Pong is going beyond my understanding. That means : "What are you talking about ?!"

    Prop 8 is by all means a fascist and repressing...
    I'm talking about people taking sides on this issue, which address a lot more than the issue itself, and kinda miss it. For example you Apollyon seem to have this image of who's opposed to same sex marriage, and they're your perfect enemy. Likewise those supporting Proposition 8 are probably doing it mainly to combat some insidious moral menace they perceive, only incidentally related to gay marriage.

    I guess it could boil down to family vs. freedom, or society vs. individual. Everybody's got strong, inarticulate, personal feelings about those. The demographic divide is a no-brainer. Honestly I feel such vague urges guided most voters to their positions on this particular issue of same sex marriage. They take it personally, and as opportunity to express bottled frustrations.

    I don't properly take a side here because while I do feel families (children) rightfully own society, I also feel we need to promote homosexuality, especially integrated within our families. If gays can fit the puzzle somehow through same sex marriage, then I'm all for it. If they or anybody just want freedom, I'm opposed. The arguments from both sides seem rooted in (mostly unspoken) values I don't share.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    You heard it here first. Pong is opposed to freedom.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    I'm heterosexual and I've had the odd inclination towards a man. It hasn't happened with me (turning gay) but it does happen. By twist in the brain I take it you mean not natural?
    Yes, it is natural; I just mean by that, there is a difference between the brain of a homo- and a hetrosexual man.

    "Scientists at the Karolinska Institute studied brain scans of 90 gay and straight men and women, and found that the size of the two symmetrical halves of the brains of gay men more closely resembled those of straight women than they did straight men. " http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...815538,00.html

    "Gay's man's brain works a lot like that of a woman when exposed to a particular stimulus, researchers say.
    In an experiment, men and heterosexual women sniffed a chemical from the male hormone testosterone. The homosexual men's brains responded differently from those of heterosexual males, and in a similar way to the women's brains." http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php...228-000144.htm

    [Et cetera]

    There is nothing wrong with being gay and as it is not a choice, but 'naturally formed' and the feelings are an expression of the brain, prop 8 is discriminating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Then what about metrosexuals? Have there been any studies on that? Because I know they are feminine males, yet still have heterosexual drives. So would that not nullify the results of those done on gay men? Or is this totally different?

    Oh and sorry about misunderstanding you earlier.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Then what about metrosexuals? Have there been any studies on that? Because I know they are feminine males, yet still have heterosexual drives. So would that not nullify the results of those done on gay men? Or is this totally different?
    There are several sexual 'beings', so to say. We just took two. The homosexual man and the hetrosexual man and woman [suggesting, they are one type in the expression of sexuality]. As earlier explained in one of the postings, there are also bi-sexual people and even a-sexual people.

    The make-up in de the brain and the chemistry of hormones, can make, that people differentiate between the strickt gay and the strickt hetrosexual. 'Famous' are the women that have been 'caught' using male hormone to get stronger. Especially the Russian's did inject athletes with hormones; but, later it was found, some of these female sporters were [even infertile due to] producing [too] much male hormones themselves. These female are in essent male. But still they marry a man and are not lesbian [I know of some].

    You spoke about 'feminine man'. Well; lets examine their hormones. Maybe their male hormones are less in production, so they more or less stay 'in puberty', due to the lack of male hormone. Still, they are true hetrosexual in the brain. They have less muscle and are a bit 'girlish' as their voice is higher.

    Okee; I will set this very simple. Hormones are there to support the building of our body and things like regulating fertility. They are produced in a mixture of events. A hormone wil not let you react on an instant, but it is like a time-bomb; it's produced and you will have to wait a while for it to work and before even yourself will notice. In other words : You fall in love first, then the hormones will maybe be usefull.

    So, having hormones is not the event, that makes you fall in love. What is it then ?

    The eyes, the nose ... electrical signals, that are instantly 'decoded' by the brain. This is electrical, not chemical. So, you 'electrify when you fall in love'. The building of your optical nerve-system decides, if you like feminine shapes or a robust male. The smell, decides, if you like feminine smells or a sweaty bloke. So ... 'electrify' and the hormones produced after that will allow you to bond.

    To support the fact that hormones, or chemistry has nothing to do with the preference of sexual feelings towards a male or a female, I'd suggest people study 'the leather boy bodybuilders', that inject themselves with male hormones and still keep very gay.

    This was my lecture about 'metrosexuality'; I hope it was of any use.

    "Oh and sorry about misunderstanding you earlier."

    Please do not say sorry, as there is no need to say sorry to me. I can be rather harsh on a forum, as most things I already discussed on other fora and as I have little patience and I have a rather radical worldview, I should mostly be the one to say 'sorry', so foget it :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    If the religious law says that homosexuals do not marry, why should it change to accomodate something which it condemns?
    Is anyone asking religious people to change their religious laws? We're talking about secular laws.
    That would be a pointless religion, as it means the people changing the laws, and indeed those benefitting from the change do NOT trully believe in the laws of their religion to start with. It also shows how weak the followers are.
    Uh, okay. But what about all the people whose religion doesn't prohibit gay marriage?
    A point to note about marriage though. In religion, when you marry you are basically asking god to bless the union of two people. If the law says that gay's will not get that blessing, what is the point in getting married? It wouldnt actually count for ANYTHING positive based on the laws of your religion. It would only count as a sin. So why do it? Appearance sake?? It's a shame when people protest because their religion wont BREAK ITS RULES! What should be mroe important to the religious person? Appearances or the destiny of their soul?
    The problem, obviously, is that there are many secular rights that go along with being married that gay people miss out on. Things like insurance, inheritance, join property rights, custody, etc.

    Why do you suppose that so many atheists get married?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    The problem, obviously, is that there are many secular rights that go along with being married that gay people miss out on. Things like insurance, inheritance, join property rights, custody, etc.

    Why do you suppose that so many atheists get married?
    Very good point; alhough it was often mentionned. The Christians don't seem to get into their thick heads, how the REAL WORLD looks like. This also accounts for every religious person, who neglects evolution, logic and worships old phantasy figures.

    Somehow, they got a hold on this world [again !]. I could have never imagined in 1981.

    In the Netherlands, we also have these Christians who try to push us back to the Middleages and seek war against the world, so 'Jezus will come back'. Christians are VERY dangerous and should be handled with NON-CARE !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,107
    Obviously, no one here even knows what discrimination actually is.

    Discrimination is when you deny one class of people rights which are granted to another class of people because of their class. Discrimination can also be when you grant one class of people a right which other classes do not receive.

    So far, the Supreme court has defined classes based on race, religion, creed, color, age, national origin and sex, and in some cases sexual orientation.

    Thus if you are willing to rent to white people but not black people, that is discrimination. If you will sell cars to blacks, but not Hispanics, that is discrimination.

    In the case of marriage, a denial of same sex marriage does not discriminate against any class. Straight men are not allowed to marry men; homosexual men are not allowed to marry men. Straight women are not allowed to marry other women; homosexual women are not allowed to marry other women. It is the same for all people. Homosexual people are even allowed to marry other homosexual people so long as it is a person of the other sex. There is no discrimination. The rights of married people are available to same sex couples if they are willing to take the legal steps to establish them.

    There are religious groups which are denied sought rights such as polygamy. Some try to invoke religious protection for drug use. Generally speaking, I think a proposition on those issues would uphold the laws against them. Is that discrimination?

    The complaints here sound more like sore losers in an election. It would be like conservatives complaining they are being hated and discriminated against by liberals because the liberals won control of the executive and legislative branches of government.

    Laws are not born of hatred but of a desire to maintain social order. If people, at some point, feel same sex marriage is within the social order, prohibitions will be eliminated. If the majority some day decides that it is OK to have sex with and to marry non-humans, I suppose that will become legal, too. As of today, most people don't think marriage is the proper term to apply to a legal union of same sex couples.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Dayton - You are a moron

    Homosexuality is a class
    Heterosexuality is a class

    By saying that heterosexuals can marry other heterosexuals but homosexuals can not marry other homosexuals, you are depicting prejudice and discrimination.

    You can't just rely on their sex. But must rely on their sexual orientation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Straight men are not allowed to marry men; homosexual men are not allowed to marry men. Straight women are not allowed to marry other women; homosexual women are not allowed to marry other women. It is the same for all people. Homosexual people are even allowed to marry other homosexual people so long as it is a person of the other sex. There is no discrimination.
    What? You really think like this?

    As of today, most people don't think marriage is the proper term to apply to a legal union of same sex couples.
    Exactly who are these "most people", Dayton? Religious people.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Why do you suppose that so many atheists get married?
    Babies?

    The original product of marriage is children. That is why we give these family units slack. That's the only reason why. And it's a damn fine reason, from society's point of view.

    Now some individuals want that same slack from society because they commit to not produce children? Perhaps we should award scholarships to confirmed dropouts?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    The problem, obviously, is that there are many secular rights that go along with being married that gay people miss out on...
    You're right, it's an economic issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apollyon
    Christians don't seem to get into their thick heads, how the REAL WORLD looks like.
    Well if they breed like rabbits I can guarantee you they know what a sacrifice raising children is. I'd rank parenting as "real world" as death and taxes. You know, most parents find it quite an eye opener. So much so, we additionally help other parents. Because we understand the burden, and we understand that in the "real world" all that matters finally is raising that next generation up as best we can. Christian parents keenly understand this "real world".


    How do gay couples fit into this society? Apparently, they don't. All I read is personal freedom and entitlement. Going by the arguments presented here I'd have to oppose gay marriage.

    But like I said, I don't properly take a side here. I sincerely welcome gays as active participants in the "real world" revealed by looking past our own short lives, at generations. And I notice that through personal initiative some gays already fill roles they're simply more able to than breeders. The engine of society could run so sweet. We ought to encourage this and formalize it, just as we encouraged and formalized sexual reproduction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    The original product of marriage is children.
    Sure, but still today? You don't need to be married to produce children. Marriage might provide a more stable environment for rearing children, but when you look at the divorce rate that justification become less valid. Marriage is also an act of commitment toward a life partner, both symbolically and pragmatically. This aspect certainly is not missing from a gay couple and provides more than ample justification for a gay marriage IMO.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The original product of marriage is children.
    Sure, but still today?
    Marginally. So marriage has become somewhat immaterial, and re-invented as love story. I'm unsure society needs to grant special perks and title just for loving.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Marriage is also an act of commitment toward a life partner, both symbolically and pragmatically.
    For that I think same sex couples should have special title and presumed role regarding family. For example "grandparents" carries a sort of job description. I'd expect gay couples to fit in as well... somehow.

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    You don't need to be married to produce children. Marriage might provide a more stable environment for rearing children
    True. Gay couples can help by adopting. In that case they become practically identical to breeding couples.


    The great thing about gay marriage though, is that's it's basically a commitment to society the spouses won't breed. They won't become encumbered with children of their own. From then on, they're super reliable (or, have no excuse) for, say, helping elderly family members. We can plan lives around this. This is discrimination. I think it's fair discrimination because it's right on the level: plainly the one sibling without children is the first to call for taking kids off for the weekend, etc. Freedom is nice but everybody's got do their share too.

    Now, in modern society the extended families where gays can really come in handy, are pretty well dissolved. We hire professionals. Maybe it's not too late. We have this impending elderly demographic. Can gays save the day? I think that as a society we can fairly expect our gay brothers, sisters, etc. to bolster the family that brought them into this world, and that hopefully keeps bringing gays into this world.

    Indeed if there is a gay gene they really have no choice. If their breeders fail, their gene dies out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,107
    verzen asked:

    Exactly who are these "most people", Dayton? Religious people.
    You apparently don't understand that when some issue is voted upon the side with the most votes wins. So it become elementary that most people in the three states where this issue was voted upon, do not approve of same sex marriage. If the most people approved of same sex marriage, these same sex marriage would have passed.

    There is no way to know, but I would not be at all surprised if it came to a vote in Massachusettes, it would be defeated there also. However, Massachusetts is one of the few states which does not have the right to referendum and initiative petition. If homosexuals and lesbians want to get married, they can always go to Massachusetts to live. I hear it is really a nice place to live.

    People still do not seem to understand that the U.S. Constitution does not address the topic of marriage and it is left to the states to decide. Forty nine of the 50 states do not permit same sex marriage. That seems to me to be an overwhelming "most of the people" against same sex marriage. But it would also mean that most of the people who voted for the measure are religious, also. You don't seem to mind when religious people vote on your side of an issue.

    In view of the fact that statistics show more than 90 percent of the people in the U.S. are believers of some sort, you could probably say that "most people" who vote on any issue have some religious concept.

    I note that the major protest is aimed at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) who make up only 1.7 percent of the U.S. population but are not accepted as Christians by mainstream Christianity, although they are included in the latest Pew Report under Christians who make up 78.4 percent of the population. http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

    I also note the same report also lists the same 1.7 percent as being the makeup of the atheistic community in the U.S. It is so funny that you folks do not realize what a small, teeny-weenie insignificant segment of the population you are in.

    But yes, just based on the statistics as we know them, no measure (including this one) could pass without a large number of votes from religious people.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Obviously, no one here even knows what discrimination actually is.

    So far, the Supreme court has defined classes based on race, religion, creed, color, age, national origin and sex, and in some cases sexual orientation.

    In the case of marriage, a denial of same sex marriage does not discriminate against any class. Straight men are not allowed to marry men; homosexual men are not allowed to marry men.
    8) Someone called you a moron already, but let me say again : [Deleted]

    It is by law, that they can not marry; some old men invented that, based on Christian doctrine.

    If a law tells you to wear a cross or a star on your clothes, would you like that ? Would you like being expelled from society, because some say you are different ?

    Are you truely that [Deleted] ? [Yes, as I am a Christian] (as daytonturner would reply)

    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Why do you suppose that so many atheists get married?
    Babies?

    The original product of marriage is children. That is why we give these family units slack. That's the only reason why. And it's a damn fine reason, from society's point of view.

    Now some individuals want that same slack from society because they commit to not produce children? Perhaps we should award scholarships to confirmed dropouts?
    Well, [Deleted] seems to be well placed there also ...

    [Mod Note:] I'm sorry, but you don't get to direct insults to other members in this fashion. Further such posts will simply be deleted. Continued behavior like this could result in Temp/Perm Ban. PM me if you have concerns. -SkinWalker]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    People still do not seem to understand that the U.S. Constitution does not address the topic of marriage and it is left to the states to decide. .
    True. But the Constitution does very clearly imply that religious superstition (beliefs, if you prefer) have no place in creating legislation. The bigots opposed to people minding their own business with lives of their own -living them the way they choose- can only appeal to religious superstition in order to oppose same-sex marriage.

    If I'm wrong, give one good reason for not allowing same-sex marriage. When states do decide to protect and promote the rights of a minority, the majority shouldn't get to allow religious superstition to "vote" their rights away, particularly when the rights of these people have zero effect on their own lives.

    It is bigotry. Pure and simple.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Apollyon
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Obviously, no one here even knows what discrimination actually is.
    ...
    [Mod Note:] I'm sorry, but you don't get to direct insults to other members in this fashion. Further such posts will simply be deleted. Continued behavior like this could result in Temp/Perm Ban. PM me if you have concerns. -SkinWalker]
    I agree. I should not get overloaded.

    I will take a step back on that matter. Especially as my name is Apollyon [Rev.9/11].
    Religious doctrine as it is, is false [IMHO] and is invented by human kind.
    This obervation of religious uprise in daily life makes me very disturbed.

    Sorry I've used some nasty words.

    Back on topic : Homosexuals should have the same rights as any man or woman.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,107
    apollyon said:


    It is by law, that they can not marry; some old men invented that, based on Christian doctrine.

    If a law tells you to wear a cross or a star on your clothes, would you like that ? Would you like being expelled from society, because some say you are different ?

    Are you truely that ignorant ?
    It is not me that is ignorant. Do you understand that states have constitutions and laws. All laws must comply with the constitution. That is, you cannot have a law which conflicts with a constitutional provision.

    What "old man" has ever been allowed to dictate a law in our country. We operate from a basic standpoint that majority rules.

    Because sexual orientation is sometimes considered a class, laws passed barring same sex marriage have often been struck down by courts as violating state constitutions which either have no defintion of marriage or have a provision which is not clear. This is why Cal Prop 8 was not a law, but a constitutional amendment. It is so frustrating to discuss these issues with people who do not even know what laws are or how they are promulgated and what makes them valid. You talk about someone being ignorant!

    Your last paragraph is silliness. The German law which required Jews to wear a star would be in violation of the U.S. Constitution and probably the constitutions of every state in the nation. It is unfortunate, but people are discriminated against all the time for being different. They are excluded from participating in activities because they are too fat, they are too short, their hair is too long, their glasses are too thick, they are too smart or too dumb and probably hundreds of other reasons. If you don't realize this happens every day, you are just unaware of the real world around you. My bet is there are people you would exclude from your society and you would not care one whit how it made them feel.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,107
    SkinWalker said:
    True. But the Constitution does very clearly imply that religious superstition (beliefs, if you prefer) have no place in creating legislation.
    I am not sure what provision of the Constitution you think implies that. The seven articles of the Constitution do not relate religion and legislation at all. And the only thing in the Amendments is found in the first one which says in part:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
    What this says is that the congress cannot establish a national religion, nor may it pass any laws which prohibit people from worshipping (or not worshipping) as they wish. This is what we call freedom of religion; there is no intent to establish a state of freedom FROM religion.

    If you want to talk about creating legislation, you have to go back to Article I which says absolutely nothing about what should or should not influence the adoption of legislation. As I asked cosmo on another thread: Have you ever actually read the constitution? His reply was basically that he did not have to read it to know what it says. It is not really that long, even with all the amendments.

    The only other place I am aware of where the constitution mentions religion is in Article VI where it says:

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
    This only means that one cannot be disqualified from service based on his religious beliefs or lack thereof. I am not sure how you draw any implication that the constitution says religious thought has no place in the legislative process. With avowed atheists being only 1.7 percent of our population, are you suggesting that only atheistic thinking should be considered?

    As the new moderator of this section, SkinWalker, I hope you are fair in your monitoring of ad homonym comments. Or at least will allow ad homonym defenses to such comments.

    SkinWalker also said:

    The bigots opposed to people minding their own business with lives of their own -living them the way they choose- can only appeal to religious superstition in order to oppose same-sex marriage.
    If I'm wrong, give one good reason for not allowing same-sex marriage. When states do decide to protect and promote the rights of a minority, the majority shouldn't get to allow religious superstition to "vote" their rights away, particularly when the rights of these people have zero effect on their own lives.
    It is bigotry. Pure and simple.
    I personally do not care how homosexuals and lesbians live their private lives as long as they do not flaunt it in public. I do not like to see skinheads demonstrating or acting out in public. I tolerate homosexuals but do not condone their lifestyle. I neither tolerate nor condone the activities of skinheads.

    The main reason we do not allow same-sex marriage is because more people think it is wrong than there are people who think it is all right. The reason we do not allow polygamy is because more people thing it is wrong than there are people who think it is all right. The reason we do not allow childhood marriages is because more people think it is wrong. The reason we do not allow people to marry their pets is because more people think it is wrong than think it is all right. I mean, the list could go on and on and on and on. There are literally 100s of things that some people think should be allowed which are not allowed. Legal driving age, legal drinking age, legal voting age -- all of these are a degree of age discrimination which we approve. There are also things which are allowed that some people think should be banned. The thing is same-sex couples can obtain all the rights of marriage, but just by a different process. What is it they are not allowed to do other than make a public spectacle and call their relationship a marriage?

    And as I noted in a previous post, if 90 percent of the people in our country are religious of some sort, when a measure like Prop 8 passes by a 52.3% to 47.7 percent margin, it should be obvious that a lot of religious people supported same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage lost in this vote just as it has in every election that has ever been conducted on the issue. Maybe 50 or 100 years down the road, it will be different. But it isn't now.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    SkinWalker said:
    True. But the Constitution does very clearly imply that religious superstition (beliefs, if you prefer) have no place in creating legislation.
    I am not sure what provision of the Constitution you think implies that. The seven articles of the Constitution do not relate religion and legislation at all. And the only thing in the Amendments is found in the first one which says in part:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
    What this says is that the congress cannot establish a national religion, nor may it pass any laws which prohibit people from worshipping (or not worshipping) as they wish. This is what we call freedom of religion; there is no intent to establish a state of freedom FROM religion.

    If you want to talk about creating legislation, you have to go back to Article I which says absolutely nothing about what should or should not influence the adoption of legislation. As I asked cosmo on another thread: Have you ever actually read the constitution? His reply was basically that he did not have to read it to know what it says. It is not really that long, even with all the amendments.

    The only other place I am aware of where the constitution mentions religion is in Article VI where it says:

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
    This only means that one cannot be disqualified from service based on his religious beliefs or lack thereof. I am not sure how you draw any implication that the constitution says religious thought has no place in the legislative process. With avowed atheists being only 1.7 percent of our population, are you suggesting that only atheistic thinking should be considered?

    As the new moderator of this section, SkinWalker, I hope you are fair in your monitoring of ad homonym comments. Or at least will allow ad homonym defenses to such comments.

    SkinWalker also said:

    The bigots opposed to people minding their own business with lives of their own -living them the way they choose- can only appeal to religious superstition in order to oppose same-sex marriage.
    If I'm wrong, give one good reason for not allowing same-sex marriage. When states do decide to protect and promote the rights of a minority, the majority shouldn't get to allow religious superstition to "vote" their rights away, particularly when the rights of these people have zero effect on their own lives.
    It is bigotry. Pure and simple.
    I personally do not care how homosexuals and lesbians live their private lives as long as they do not flaunt it in public. I do not like to see skinheads demonstrating or acting out in public. I tolerate homosexuals but do not condone their lifestyle. I neither tolerate nor condone the activities of skinheads.

    The main reason we do not allow same-sex marriage is because more people think it is wrong than there are people who think it is all right. The reason we do not allow polygamy is because more people thing it is wrong than there are people who think it is all right. The reason we do not allow childhood marriages is because more people think it is wrong. The reason we do not allow people to marry their pets is because more people think it is wrong than think it is all right. I mean, the list could go on and on and on and on. There are literally 100s of things that some people think should be allowed which are not allowed. Legal driving age, legal drinking age, legal voting age -- all of these are a degree of age discrimination which we approve. There are also things which are allowed that some people think should be banned. The thing is same-sex couples can obtain all the rights of marriage, but just by a different process. What is it they are not allowed to do other than make a public spectacle and call their relationship a marriage?

    And as I noted in a previous post, if 90 percent of the people in our country are religious of some sort, when a measure like Prop 8 passes by a 52.3% to 47.7 percent margin, it should be obvious that a lot of religious people supported same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage lost in this vote just as it has in every election that has ever been conducted on the issue. Maybe 50 or 100 years down the road, it will be different. But it isn't now.
    So all homosexuals have to do is to create a religion based on homosexual marriages and they would legally be called marriages? If anyone fights back, it would be religious persecution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    This issue reminds me of the argument over Einstein's religious beliefs. People use it as a battleground - no, cesspool - to express unrelated peeves. The actual issue is immaterial. Both sides compete to see who can pump the most polarizing antagonism into it.

    How do we pull out of the spiral?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    This issue reminds me of the argument over Einstein's religious beliefs. People use it as a battleground - no, cesspool - to express unrelated peeves. The actual issue is immaterial. Both sides compete to see who can pump the most polarizing antagonism into it.

    How do we pull out of the spiral?
    Hey man, welcome to the religion section. :|
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    In the case of marriage, a denial of same sex marriage does not discriminate against any class. Straight men are not allowed to marry men; homosexual men are not allowed to marry men. Straight women are not allowed to marry other women; homosexual women are not allowed to marry other women. It is the same for all people. Homosexual people are even allowed to marry other homosexual people so long as it is a person of the other sex. There is no discrimination.
    This is like arguing that a law requiring all written and spoken communication be in English would not discriminate against anyone, since everyone is allowed to communicate in English and no one is allowed to communicate in any other language. Both English-speaking people and Spanish-speaking people are allowed to communicate in English and both English-speaking and Spanish-speaking people are not allowed to communicate in Spanish. The same rights and prohibitions apply to everyone, so there's no discrimination! Hurray! It doesn't matter to you, apparently, that the right to communicate in English is useless to a Spanish speaker.
    The thing is same-sex couples can obtain all the rights of marriage, but just by a different process. What is it they are not allowed to do other than make a public spectacle and call their relationship a marriage?
    Tax breaks. Insurance benefits. Visitation rights in hospitals. Legal rights related to being forced to testify etc. The ability to pass money or property back and forth easily and tax free. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many others. If all the benefits of marriage were really available to gays through other means, they wouldn't be nearly so adamant about being able to get married.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,107
    scifor listed:

    Tax breaks. Insurance benefits. Visitation rights in hospitals. Legal rights related to being forced to testify etc. The ability to pass money or property back and forth easily and tax free. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many others. If all the benefits of marriage were really available to gays through other means, they wouldn't be nearly so adamant about being able to get married.
    Hmmm, you may be right on a couple of those. Unmarried couples cannot file a joint return which usually can result in a lower tax obligation. The question becomes whether the IRS recognizes same sex marriages. I don't know. Even if so, there is this thing called the marriage penalty which sometimes disadvantages married couples.

    Insurance benefits can be assigned to anyone as a beneficiary. Medical directives can provide access to medical records and visitation rights. There is no reason any two people cannot own property jointly with right of survivorship. When it comes to community property states, some think unmarried same-sex couples might be better off than married people. Also, a same-sex partner can easily leave everything or nothing to his/her partner. Most states have a marital provision in which the surviving spouse must receive a certain portion of the marital estate, no matter if the other spouse attempts to cut that person off. An unmarried same-sex couple would have greater options in this area. All these things have their upsides and downsides.

    I am not sure as to whether an "unmarried" same-sex partner can be compelled to testify. But often, even when compelled to testify, witnesses can be less than helpful without being in contempt. Some people are against the marriage exception in the first place.

    Personally, from what little I know, if I were involved in a same-sex relationship, I would be willing to trade away the benefits of marriage in order to gain freedom from some of the burdens and obligations.

    Being involved in subsequent marriages with children from previous marriages is always complicated when it comes to testamentary decisions.

    One might also consider that cohabiting straight couples face the same situations as cohabiting homosexual couples.

    But for a moment, let's go back to the idea of the OP which says the vote on Prop 8 shows hatefulness. But, including the aftermath, who has shown the most hatefulness and spitefulness?

    I am not sure if California had a measure this time on parental notification for teenage abortion. The promotional sides would probably be pretty much the same on this issue as on same-sex marriage.

    Parental notification measures have not had much success anyplace, but do you see their proponents out demonstrating against supporters of the other side and seeking court orders to overturn the election? No. They regroup, draw up new measures and try to get out and convince more people to vote for it the next time. That is the way our political process is suppose to work. (Although -- I would support an idea to limit how often the same issue can be presented.)

    But what have the losers on the same-sex marriage issue done? Just the opposite. They are out picketing sponsors and supporters of the ban on same-sex marriage, intimidating and threatening them. They are trying to get the election overturned by the courts even though the majority has plainly stated it preference. Does this not show a greater intolerance with more hatefulness and spitefulness than going back to the drawing board in an effort to seek to convince the majority to support their cause?

    Had I been voting in California, I probably would have voted for the ban against same-sex marriage. However, I would not object to some other similar legal commitment of same-sex couples if it were not called marriage. However, they seem to object to that. Seems like that would satisfy everyone's wishes except that homosexuals would not receive the social validation they seek.

    As I said before, what one does in his or her own privacy is their business. What people do in public becomes other peoples' business. I have know some gay guys who were really fruity and others who were really good and likeable people. I think if we are honest with ourselves we will find that is true of any group. I know atheists who are fun to talk with and others were are just not.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Personally, from what little I know...

    Had I been voting in California, I probably would have voted for the ban against same-sex marriage.
    Can we then conclude that your decision would be based on your religious beliefs as opposed to what little you know?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Hmmm, you may be right on a couple of those. Unmarried couples cannot file a joint return which usually can result in a lower tax obligation. The question becomes whether the IRS recognizes same sex marriages.
    They do, assuming it's a genuine marriage and not merely a "civil union" or some such.
    Insurance benefits can be assigned to anyone as a beneficiary.
    Many employers (including the federal government) will provide medical insurance to an employee and the employee's spouse. Gay couples can't take advantage of that.
    Medical directives can provide access to medical records and visitation rights.
    True, generally you can get around this problem by filling out the correct paperwork and bringing it with you to the hospital.
    There is no reason any two people cannot own property jointly with right of survivorship. When it comes to community property states, some think unmarried same-sex couples might be better off than married people. Also, a same-sex partner can easily leave everything or nothing to his/her partner. Most states have a marital provision in which the surviving spouse must receive a certain portion of the marital estate, no matter if the other spouse attempts to cut that person off. An unmarried same-sex couple would have greater options in this area. All these things have their upsides and downsides.
    "Right of survivorship" will avoid probate in the even that one partner dies, but the survivor will still be required to pay taxes on the property that they "inherit," unlike when a married person dies. It is difficult to set up any sort of joint property ownership between two people that will cause the property to automatically pass to the survivor without any taxes (unless you are married of course, in which case it's automatic). Also, if one member of a same-sex partnership attempts to give assets to the other member while they are both still alive, it will likely be subject to the applicable "gift taxes".
    I am not sure as to whether an "unmarried" same-sex partner can be compelled to testify.
    They can.
    One might also consider that cohabiting straight couples face the same situations as cohabiting homosexual couples.
    But the difference, of course, is that cohabiting straight couple have the option to marry should they choose to do so. That's the entire point.
    But for a moment, let's go back to the idea of the OP which says the vote on Prop 8 shows hatefulness. But, including the aftermath, who has shown the most hatefulness and spitefulness?
    I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it "hateful and spiteful," but I certainly think it's discriminatory. Hopefully you now realize that it's perfectly possible for something to be discriminatory even though it applies the same set of permissions and restrictions on everyone?
    But what have the losers on the same-sex marriage issue done? Just the opposite. They are out picketing sponsors and supporters of the ban on same-sex marriage, intimidating and threatening them. They are trying to get the election overturned by the courts even though the majority has plainly stated it preference. Does this not show a greater intolerance with more hatefulness and spitefulness than going back to the drawing board in an effort to seek to convince the majority to support their cause?
    Yeah, people certainly do get pissy when they think that they are being unfairly discriminated against.
    Had I been voting in California, I probably would have voted for the ban against same-sex marriage. However, I would not object to some other similar legal commitment of same-sex couples if it were not called marriage.
    The problem is, it's impossible for the state of California (or any state) to create a legal commitment that's functionally the same as marriage. Unlike with marriage, neither the federal government nor any of the other 49 states have any obligation to recognize any "civil union" (or whatever you want to call) that a state creates. That's the problem with non-marriage civil unions; even if you get a civil union in, say, Vermont, any and all rights and legal ramifications associated with that union evaporate as soon as you set foot out of the state, or have any dealings with the federal government.
    However, they seem to object to that. Seems like that would satisfy everyone's wishes except that homosexuals would not receive the social validation they seek.
    If there were any sort of genuine legal substitute for marriage - perhaps one created at the federal level - I suspect that the vast majority of gay people wouldn't care about whether or not it was labeled "marriage". If christians really don't want marriage to be allowed between same-sex couples, creating a genuine substitute would probably be the most effective thing they could do. In addition to mollifying a huge percentage of the gay people who currently feel discriminated against, it would lend some actual weight to the usual christian argument of "But they don't need to get married! They can already have all the same rights as everyone else!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,107
    scifor said:

    The problem is, it's impossible for the state of California (or any state) to create a legal commitment that's functionally the same as marriage. Unlike with marriage, neither the federal government nor any of the other 49 states have any obligation to recognize any "civil union" (or whatever you want to call) that a state creates. That's the problem with non-marriage civil unions; even if you get a civil union in, say, Vermont, any and all rights and legal ramifications associated with that union evaporate as soon as you set foot out of the state, or have any dealings with the federal government.
    Hmm. Seems to me that if the "civil union" were in the form of a legal contract, it might come under the full faith and credit clause found in Article IV, section 1.
    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
    I do not know for sure how this has been interpreted, but I am thinking that if you make a contract, it must be honored in every state. It would seem that a legal contract would be a public act and could be made a matter of public record. However, marriage is a public act and gay marriage is not honored across state lines. But I do not know if this has actually been tested in the courts or if this article even applies to private acts or just government acts.

    scifor also said:

    Many employers (including the federal government) will provide medical insurance to an employee and the employee's spouse. Gay couples can't take advantage of that.
    Some state governments including where I live and also California, I know, will include same sex partners on insurance plans as though they were family members. The problem of doing this without some formal recording of such a relationship, is that it is not all that hard to cheat on the system by claiming someone is a partner when there is no actual relationship going on.

    scifor added:

    "Right of survivorship" will avoid probate in the even that one partner dies, but the survivor will still be required to pay taxes on the property that they "inherit," unlike when a married person dies. It is difficult to set up any sort of joint property ownership between two people that will cause the property to automatically pass to the survivor without any taxes (unless you are married of course, in which case it's automatic). Also, if one member of a same-sex partnership attempts to give assets to the other member while they are both still alive, it will likely be subject to the applicable "gift taxes".
    Actually, inheritance taxes do not kick in until the inheritance is rather sizeable and it applies the same to spouses as well as children and un-related beneficiaries of a will. Anything owned jointly with right of survivorship passes to the survivor tax free -- s/he already owns it so to speak. It is not all that difficult to own things jointly. Two names on a bank or stock account make it jointly owned. Things that are titled such as vehicles or property must be so titled.

    If you marry someone who owns property, you are not automatically a joint owner in the property except maybe in community property states. My understanding is that community property states do not differentiate between marital and non-marital assets. So the real difference here is found in divorce rather than in probate.

    Gift taxes apply to gifts to anyone including children if they exceed the amount that is tax free. But the same gifting limits would apply to married people as to unmarried people. Again, however, this would be somewhat different in community property states where they would be no need for married couples to transfer assets; they would still be marital assets. But then, there may be some prenuptial agreement. It does become very complex when you attempt to look at all the ramifications and possibilities and how they apply in different jurisdictions. Even marriage, however, does not always resolve such questions.

    As I suggested before there are pluses an minuses and I am not so sure that the non-recognition of gay marriage is not a blessing in disguise for gays and lesbians. Marriage has some benefits, but it also confers some onerous responsibilities. All you have to do is go through a divorce to understand some of the downside of marriage.

    I did not post to this thread for the purpose of saying, "Hooray for our side," but merely to attempt to counter the OP's claim that the vote was indicative of hateful religious sentiment with an implied focus on Christianity. I know many Christians who support liberal causes such as gay marriage. And I know from the statistics that if only non-religious people supported gay marriage, the best it could hope for in an election would be about 25 percent. (And, as I said before: in the aftermath of the election, it seems to me the supporters of gay marriage have overtly displayed considerable hate and spite.)

    My concern is that it is easy to demonize a segment of society and blame it for some perceived social inadequacy. If you have ever studied Nazi Germany, this is exactly how Hitler turned the people against the Jews.

    It just seems to me that gays and lesbians should realize that society is just not ready to accept gay marriage today. And it is not just California. Several states have had elections in the last few elections which have successfully barred gay marriage. Gays would probably be much better off looking for a way to develop a legal relationship that is not called marriage. It might still have some limitations, but it would be better than what they have now.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,107
    scifor said:

    The problem is, it's impossible for the state of California (or any state) to create a legal commitment that's functionally the same as marriage. Unlike with marriage, neither the federal government nor any of the other 49 states have any obligation to recognize any "civil union" (or whatever you want to call) that a state creates. That's the problem with non-marriage civil unions; even if you get a civil union in, say, Vermont, any and all rights and legal ramifications associated with that union evaporate as soon as you set foot out of the state, or have any dealings with the federal government.
    Hmm. Seems to me that if the "civil union" were in the form of a legal contract, it might come under the full faith and credit clause found in Article IV, section 1.
    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
    I do not know for sure how this has been interpreted, but I am thinking that if you make a contract, it must be honored in every state. It would seem that a legal contract would be a public act and could be made a matter of public record. However, marriage is a public act and gay marriage is not honored across state lines. But I do not know if this has actually been tested in the courts or if this article even applies to private acts or just government acts.

    scifor also said:

    Many employers (including the federal government) will provide medical insurance to an employee and the employee's spouse. Gay couples can't take advantage of that.
    Some state governments including where I live and also California, I know, will include same sex partners on insurance plans as though they were family members. The problem of doing this without some formal recording of such a relationship, is that it is not all that hard to cheat on the system by claiming someone is a partner when there is no actual relationship going on.

    scifor added:

    "Right of survivorship" will avoid probate in the even that one partner dies, but the survivor will still be required to pay taxes on the property that they "inherit," unlike when a married person dies. It is difficult to set up any sort of joint property ownership between two people that will cause the property to automatically pass to the survivor without any taxes (unless you are married of course, in which case it's automatic). Also, if one member of a same-sex partnership attempts to give assets to the other member while they are both still alive, it will likely be subject to the applicable "gift taxes".
    Actually, inheritance taxes do not kick in until the inheritance is rather sizeable and it applies the same to spouses as well as children and un-related beneficiaries of a will. Anything owned jointly with right of survivorship passes to the survivor tax free -- s/he already owns it so to speak. It is not all that difficult to own things jointly. Two names on a bank or stock account make it jointly owned. Things that are titled such as vehicles or property must be so titled.

    If you marry someone who owns property, you are not automatically a joint owner in the property except maybe in community property states. My understanding is that community property states do not differentiate between marital and non-marital assets. So the real difference here is found in divorce rather than in probate.

    Gift taxes apply to gifts to anyone including children if they exceed the amount that is tax free. But the same gifting limits would apply to married people as to unmarried people. Again, however, this would be somewhat different in community property states where they would be no need for married couples to transfer assets; they would still be marital assets. But then, there may be some prenuptial agreement. It does become very complex when you attempt to look at all the ramifications and possibilities and how they apply in different jurisdictions. Even marriage, however, does not always resolve such questions.

    As I suggested before there are pluses an minuses and I am not so sure that the non-recognition of gay marriage is not a blessing in disguise for gays and lesbians. Marriage has some benefits, but it also confers some onerous responsibilities. All you have to do is go through a divorce to understand some of the downside of marriage.

    I did not post to this thread for the purpose of saying, "Hooray for our side," but merely to attempt to counter the OP's claim that the vote was indicative of hateful religious sentiment with an implied focus on Christianity. I know many Christians who support liberal causes such as gay marriage. And I know from the statistics that if only non-religious people supported gay marriage, the best it could hope for in an election would be about 25 percent. (And, as I said before: in the aftermath of the election, it seems to me the supporters of gay marriage have overtly displayed considerable hate and spite.)

    My concern is that it is easy to demonize a segment of society and blame it for some perceived social inadequacy. If you have ever studied Nazi Germany, this is exactly how Hitler turned the people against the Jews.

    It just seems to me that gays and lesbians should realize that society is just not ready to accept gay marriage today. And it is not just California. Several states have had elections in the last few elections which have successfully barred gay marriage. Gays would probably be much better off looking for a way to develop a legal relationship that is not called marriage. It might still have some limitations, but it would be better than what they have now.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Hopefully you now realize that it's perfectly possible for something to be discriminatory even though it applies the same set of permissions and restrictions on everyone?
    Yeah, it is. How did we arrive here? The explanation I think is that we always intended to discriminate, not in favour of couples, but in favour of parents. At that time couples were assumed to become parents. Also aging couples were seen as pillars of larger families. But now, marriage often means forging out from existing families, many couples are not having children, and if they do those children typically break from their families to couple up themselves with very independent lives.

    So today many straight couples enjoy traditional favour they deserve no more than anybody else. Since they won't forsake an unfair advantage, others come with equally baseless claim to it. Then the two sides argue strenuously over who's more entitled, and of course both arguments are full of crap.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Anything owned jointly with right of survivorship passes to the survivor tax free -- s/he already owns it so to speak. It is not all that difficult to own things jointly. Two names on a bank or stock account make it jointly owned. Things that are titled such as vehicles or property must be so titled.
    I don't particularly want to turn this into a seminar on tax law and of course the specifics probably vary depending on where you live, but in general under federal tax law and most state tax laws if property is owned jointly with right of survivorship (whether it's a house, a bank account, or anything else) between two people then the survivor most certainly will have to pay an inheritance tax on 50% of the value of the asset when the other person dies - unless they are married. The spousal exception is an exception that's specifically written into tax laws.

    Jointly-owned property with right of survivorship, except between husband and wife, including but not limited to real estate, securities, bank accounts, etc., is taxable to the extent of the decedentís fractional interest in the joint property (calculated by dividing the value of the joint property by the number of joint owners at the time of the decedentís death).
    If you were actually counting on right of survivorship passing some jointly-owned property to someone else tax-free, you might want to consult a tax lawyer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,107
    You are right, we are getting far afield, but who knows who may somehow benefit from this discussion?

    You are also correct that it depends on what jurisdiction is involved athough I think most states today tie their inheritance taxes to the federal code. However, I think the provision you site is likely from the consequences involving rather large estates. I do not know at what point inheritance taxes kick in now. All I know is I will not inherit enough nor pass on enough for that unless I win the lottery or something.

    My suspicion is that if we asked 10 tax attorneys we would get several different answers.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    You are right, we are getting far afield, but who knows who may somehow benefit from this discussion?

    You are also correct that it depends on what jurisdiction is involved athough I think most states today tie their inheritance taxes to the federal code. However, I think the provision you site is likely from the consequences involving rather large estates. I do not know at what point inheritance taxes kick in now. All I know is I will not inherit enough nor pass on enough for that unless I win the lottery or something.

    My suspicion is that if we asked 10 tax attorneys we would get several different answers.
    I believe you always face taxes of around 33% on inherited property, but everyone gets a lifetime credit of $330k or so; which basically means that you don't have to pay any taxes on inherited property unless you inherit over $1 million in assets. But you only get the one credit and it can be eaten into by multiple inheritances, so if you inherit $500k in assets from your parents and then later $600k from anyone else who you aren't married to, you will face taxes on the last $100k of the second inheritance and full taxes on any later inheritances.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    9
    Apologies for bumping this, but I just had to resond:

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    The main reason we do not allow same-sex marriage is because more people think it is wrong than there are people who think it is all right.
    By that logic, do you think if a vote on black rights occured back in the 60's the response would've been positive? I dont think so...

    Legal driving age, legal drinking age, legal voting age -- all of these are a degree of age discrimination which we approve.
    You're being very hypocritical, and here's why. The age discrimination factors plays in due to...what? Safety...right? The reason you're being hypocritical is because unlike the legal drinking age, you'd like to discriminate against homosexuals NOT based on rights, but based on definition.

    It's more equivalent to saying "You can drive a car if you're a Muslim, just don't call it driving, call it something else!" or saying "We'd like to give women the ability to drive cars, but let's not give them 'licenses' and instead, let them go through a different PROCESS to achieve the same rights as men do"

    Sound familiar?

    What is it they are not allowed to do other than make a public spectacle and call their relationship a marriage?
    How does it effect your life in what they call it? If you don't like sharing a definition of something, then perhaps you could call your 'marriage' something else?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55 Re: With prop 8 comes hate 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    According to prop 8, it defines the definition of marriage between a man and a woman which is the result of religious hate. Homosexual couples don't get the same rights as straight do to religious influence. Is the christian religion filled with bigotry and hate for those who don't agree with their view? I believe so. It's sad that religious bigots are running this country and ruining lives.
    I am not personally gay myself, but if I were, I would want religion to stay out of my life and not effect me at all. But the way things are going, even if you don't believe in christianity, it's still affecting your life whether you like it or not. I really feel sorry for homosexuals, since it's technically a birth defect.. not a choice.
    Why is this in the religion thread? Because religion is the sole reason it's illegal to allow gays to marry.
    When will you learn that differences from the norm are not defects, you can't place one genotype above an other and remain objective.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Tired - You must look at it from a biological point of view. A man can not have sex with a man to produce a child. Biologically, you are trying to fit a square into a triangle. It just doesn't work on the biological side. So biologically, they are defective product. It is like if you buy a stud and the stud turns out to be gay. He is defective product since he can not reproduce. biological creatures have a goal of reproduction.
    Asexual beings can reproduce with themselves even. if you can not reproduce, you are considered defective material. If a women can not get pregnant for whatever reason, she is defective material. If a man is gay, he is defective material in accordance with biological science. It is in no way is an insult to homosexuals. Just because they don't want to hear what someone says does not make it untrue.

    So according to biology and life, they are defective material since the goal of life is reproduction. When something strays from that course, it becomes known as "Defective."

    Edit: If you buy a computer and it doesn't do what it is built to do, what would you call that? I know what I would call it.. defecitve.

    Here is the definition of defective

    lack or want, esp. of something essential to perfection or completeness; deficiency: a defect in hearing.

    Reproduction is essential to perfection within life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    9
    ^ Then perhaps anyone born sterile is defective as well, correct? I think a better (and less-insulting) word to use would be nonconformance
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Yes, people who are born sterile are defective.

    Nonconformist does not work as a word.

    a person who refuses to conform, as to established customs, attitudes, or ideas.
    You can't really refuse to do something if you have no choice. To refuse to do something is to HAVE a choice whether you want to do it or not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Verzen
    By your standards, I am defective. My wife had a defect with fallopian tubes and we have not been able to have a child. I am reproductively ormal, but that makes no difference sinceI have not reproduced, and will not. I do not like your definition!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Tired - You must look at it from a biological point of view. A man can not have sex with a man to produce a child. Biologically, you are trying to fit a square into a triangle. It just doesn't work on the biological side. So biologically, they are defective product. It is like if you buy a stud and the stud turns out to be gay. He is defective product since he can not reproduce. biological creatures have a goal of reproduction.
    Asexual beings can reproduce with themselves even. if you can not reproduce, you are considered defective material. If a women can not get pregnant for whatever reason, she is defective material. If a man is gay, he is defective material in accordance with biological science. It is in no way is an insult to homosexuals. Just because they don't want to hear what someone says does not make it untrue.

    So according to biology and life, they are defective material since the goal of life is reproduction. When something strays from that course, it becomes known as "Defective."

    Edit: If you buy a computer and it doesn't do what it is built to do, what would you call that? I know what I would call it.. defecitve.

    Here is the definition of defective

    lack or want, esp. of something essential to perfection or completeness; deficiency: a defect in hearing.

    Reproduction is essential to perfection within life.
    Not at all, heard of kin selection? If there was no selective pressure promoting homosexuality it would not exist at the rates it does. It is not necessary to directly reproduce to promote the propagation of a part of ones genome. Moreover, your view that homosexuals would be reproductively unsuccessful is not supported by historical studies of homosexuality.

    Today it is common for a homosexual to live an exclusively homosexual lifestyle, however historically this is almost unheard of. Because of social pressure most homosexuals would mate with females, and early on in human society it would probably not occur to homosexual males that they're is something different about them and that they could live differently. The gay identity is a recent development.

    Don't confuse this either with homosexuality being a choice. The human body will respond to the idea of sex, even with someone they are not overly attracted to.

    Moreover, you have a narrow view of what construes a homosexual. Many would consider themselves homosexual if they are capable of physical attraction to females and males, but are not able to form emotional attachments with women at a romantic level.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Defect is not a bad word like you make it out to be. People with blue eyes are considered defective since it is a mutation in the genes which can hurt eyesight. (people with blue eyes often need to wear glasses) So technically I am defective in that regard.
    Humans are just biological machines built to reproduce. Infact, males are ment to reproduce with as many females as possible which is why we are set up the way we are set up. A man can impregnate multiple women, but a women can not get pregnant multiple times at the same time. She can only have one child unless in the case of twins or what not. When you take away the ability for a portion of the species to reproduce, they are considered defective material.

    if you created a species in a lab and you built them to do something and they do something out of the ordinary from what you expected, would you call it normal? No, you would call it defective material.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    9
    I think verzen is using the right word but the wrong way. I don't think he's dumb enough to think homosexuality is a choice, or 'wrong' based on those standards.

    He's just saying that our purpose is to survive and replicate, and that homosexuality doesn't allow that. Perhaps we've taken the word 'defective' the wrong way.

    Maybe someone could think of a euphemism that could better describe what he's talking about, without the negative connotation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    No biologist would ever use the term defective in the way you are using it.

    It implies that life is created with a purpose, sure it is nice to think of things this way, but there was no intended purpose. There is no intrinsicly better way of being, something will either be selected for, against, or not at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Life IS created with a purpose. Reproduction. That is a universal truth to every single organism ever known. They reproduce and adapt. If you can't do any one of those, then you are defective. You can't go out and do what nature informs you to do and that is to reproduce.

    And no, I am not religious. But reproduction is a universal truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,627
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Life IS created with a purpose. Reproduction. That is a universal truth to every single organism ever known. They reproduce and adapt. If you can't do any one of those, then you are defective. You can't go out and do what nature informs you to do and that is to reproduce.
    Using This definition which you just gave, Homosexual individuals are NOT defective!

    This is because they do have the ability to reproduce and may individuals DO! Famous examples include folks such as Clay Aiken who procreate but do not want a relationship beyond that with the opposite sex.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Freshman SlugMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    26
    Regardless of if said person is born gay or desides to be gay for various reasons it doesn't mean that they should be discriminated. Marriage is originaly a religious thing in our society. But so was genocide and the holy wars. I know that's a horrible example.

    But a lot of purely athiest couples get married in churches purely for legal means. A gay couple could throw a non legal marriage but it wouldn't count for legal means and its still demeaning.

    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Life IS created with a purpose. Reproduction. That is a universal truth to every single organism ever known. They reproduce and adapt. If you can't do any one of those, then you are defective. You can't go out and do what nature informs you to do and that is to reproduce.
    I dont see it as defective. As you know our population has and is sky rocketing to amazing numbers. right now its at about 6-7 billion? Lets say 20-40 years from now lets see where it will be. This is really screwing us as were taking more to much resources as we should. This could help us in the end. Humans would still get there sexual need but would not reproduce. Also they could adopt a child so that child has a good beggining but will not populate the earth.

    Or to save the earth we kill everyone in places other then north and south america. Then we repopulate the world with whites and mexicans.
    I appoligize for mistakes in grammar, puncuation, and spelling. Cuz i suck at that stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Life IS created with a purpose. Reproduction. That is a universal truth to every single organism ever known. They reproduce and adapt. If you can't do any one of those, then you are defective. You can't go out and do what nature informs you to do and that is to reproduce.
    Using This definition which you just gave, Homosexual individuals are NOT defective!

    This is because they do have the ability to reproduce and may individuals DO! Famous examples include folks such as Clay Aiken who procreate but do not want a relationship beyond that with the opposite sex.
    Pale, humans are not made to have sex with other people of the same sex. They are not MADE to do that. If everyone decided to do that and only that, we would become extinct.
    A penis is not made to go inside of an ass. The vagina is made to accept the penis. Homosexuality is not a natural biological manifestation, but a defective nature of a biological entity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Or it could be a mechanism of kin selection...

    Moreover, sodomy is not synonymous with homosexuality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    I just dont understand why people refuse to accept homosexuality as a defect. If people realized that it IS a defect and is not a choice, they may actually give homosexuals the rights of other citizens since it is illegal to remove benefits from those who are deemed to have a disability.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    I just dont understand why people refuse to accept homosexuality as a defect. If people realized that it IS a defect and is not a choice, they may actually give homosexuals the rights of other citizens since it is illegal to remove benefits from those who are deemed to have a disability.
    It is not a disability, nor a defect.

    Moreover, there is no direct genetic correlation, of homosexuals with identical twins only 57% are also homosexual.

    Other figures like the birth order correlation suggest more environmental and socializing factors than completely genetic.

    Edit: And when you start branding certain genotypes as perfect and others as defective you are back at the base of eugenics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    look at it from a biological point of view... He is defective product since he can not reproduce. biological creatures have a goal of reproduction.
    You learned about the birds, now let's learn about the bees. Notice that most bees in a hive are not breeders. Technically they are nonreproductive females. How can the inborn queerness of these individuals survive and prosper even?

    The secret is twofold. Firstly, because bees have complex societies of extended family, a certain proportion of non-breeding members by virtue of their "defect" proves advantageous. The workers work better unencumbered by sex. They excel in roles breeders cannot, to the advantage of all. Secondly, the reproducing siblings - queens and drones - of these queer bees also carry the queer potential, which has skipped a generation so to speak. An individual carries many unexpressed potentials. Most daughters turn out queer, and it works.

    My son has both brown eyes and green eyes. One parent almost certainly passed brown to him; the other almost certainly passed green. You will see both eyes are brown, as the rule of this game requires brown dominant in an individual. However this outwardly brown eyed man may pass green eyes to his offspring. It's a penny flip. Then assuming his mate passes brown, my grandchild will also show brown eyes. The potential green might continue down the generations. It could resurface unexpectedly, and cause my great grandchild's family much puzzlement. Heh heh.

    I have a queer maid aunt. She's one of four siblings. The fact they she's not a breeder has proven hugely advantageous to the family. For examples, she was my on-call babysitter when both my parents had to work; when her sister left a husband and took the kids, they shared a house with this queer aunt; and finally when the queer aunt's aging parents needed care it was she not the breeder siblings who shouldered the responsibility. A member unencumbered by offspring may be really advantageous to a family. This queer aunt has been a deciding factor in her family's continued reproductive success. I hope her queerness runs though all the family and frequently resurfaces in both boys and girls. Therefore I hope she is correct that she's just born that way.

    Humans are a compromise between bird and bee. We're on this individuality kick wherein children are expressions of personal choice and success yet we also have society and extended family wherein a certain proportion of non-breeders should prove advantageous. We shouldn't all be tied down with children, yet the human limits of reproduction fall short of queen bees. So the queerness adaptation I think must surface randomly throughout the population. Post industrial, I guess 50% or more would be nice.

    We may promote a good ratio of homosexuals, ironically, through "traditional family values".

    Now the question of same-sex marriage is framed quite differently! How does same-sex marriage work for society, family, and the hypothetical "gay gene"? I think before we answer that we should acknowledge how drastically the concept of marriage has changed and how families have changed. Do we have a plan? How might queers fit into that?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,627
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Life IS created with a purpose. Reproduction. That is a universal truth to every single organism ever known. They reproduce and adapt. If you can't do any one of those, then you are defective. You can't go out and do what nature informs you to do and that is to reproduce.
    Using This definition which you just gave, Homosexual individuals are NOT defective!

    This is because they do have the ability to reproduce and may individuals DO! Famous examples include folks such as Clay Aiken who procreate but do not want a relationship beyond that with the opposite sex.
    Pale, humans are not made to have sex with other people of the same sex. They are not MADE to do that. If everyone decided to do that and only that, we would become extinct.
    A penis is not made to go inside of an ass. The vagina is made to accept the penis. Homosexuality is not a natural biological manifestation, but a defective nature of a biological entity.
    OK so you completely missed the point and obviously have never had any contact what so ever with someone who is gay. Thus I will restate my point:

    Gay people have the ability and do utilize the ability to procreate! Thus per your definition there is NO defect.

    PS if you are going to shorten my name Paleo is acceptable , not pale, please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    603
    Compelling evidences in genetics suggest that people are born gay or not.

    Compelling population studies within ecology demonstrate that as populations reach 'outrageous' levels in certain areas, homosexuality increases as a natural birth control.

    ergo, along with all the posts made before me refuting you by the members I am growing to have tremendous respect for (pong, paleo to mention a few) and science you are thusfar wrong. Certain people ARE made to be homosexual. It's really those trendy bisexual high school girls that do it for attention that you have to watch out for...

    Without reading much of this thread at all, I can tell two things:

    1. You are extremely bigotted, verzen, and are everything wrong with this planet
    2. You are probably catholic or one of the cute spinoffs of those ever crusading bunch (and may I say, much to my friend mitchells shagrin, that these are the most badass of christians historically).

    Either way, you're kind of a jerkoff.


    Homosexuality is as natural as...well...heterosexuality. While penetration of the buttocks region may not serve the true purposes of the anus, nor may it be entirely comfortable for those playing catcher, are you honestly telling me that thousands of years of 'what feels right' to certain people isn't natural? What else COULD be more natural than what the subject in question feels? We seem to be at am impass, where ignorance and bigottry meat level headed awesomness.

    All I can say, if you are still deadset on your self serving sense of what is right based on what religion tells you, is what I am sure to say over and over again on this forum:

    "Education cures ignorance 100% of the time."




    P.S.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum


    PS if you are going to shorten my name Paleo is acceptable , not pale, please.
    QFT
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Woah, you called me catholic? Thats laughable. Im an atheist, douche.

    Yes, people are either BORN GAY or NOT. I started this thread for GAY rights, remember? Oh yeah, obviously i'm bigoted because I think gays can get married. Yeah, makes a lot of sense me and my catholic bigoted nature. /sarcasm. Nothing pisses me off more than being associated with a religious mind set.
    EDIT: HOWEVER, homosexuality IS a defect. it is a stray from our normal biological nature. BIOLOGICAL nature is ment to reproduce. If you are unable to reproduce do to sexual orientation or being sterile, you are a defect. Its not bad to be a defective in the category of reproduction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    603
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Oh yeah, obviously i'm bigoted... Nothing pisses me off more than being associated with a religious mind set.
    nah, too easy


    EDIT: HOWEVER, homosexuality IS a defect. it is a stray from our normal biological nature. BIOLOGICAL nature is ment to reproduce. If you are unable to reproduce do to sexual orientation or being sterile, you are a defect. Its not bad to be a defective in the category of reproduction
    If it's posed as a natural mechanism for population control, how is it a defect?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    So hating bigotry means you're a bigot... clever.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    603
    hatred is hatred, you have your criteria and so does the definition:

    bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot

    savvy?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,627
    Just remember

    Oversimplification of a concept can result in that simplification being wrong. Yes, the goal of every organism is to eventually reproduce.

    HOWEVER, the mechanisms involved are much more complex, thus as points out in the Bee comparison you can not use the simplification to justify the argument that being gay=having a defect, it is too simple.

    It has been repeatedly been brought up that social factors need to be included in the mix.

    Plus calling it a defect is too similar to the call a while back that since homosexuality is a genetic process, then it is harmful and a "Cure" must be found.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    603
    yes, calling it a defect implies something is wrong; that is offensive to certain groups.

    Also, population ecology says that there is nothing wrong with them at all, infact, they are the saving grace in some instances in lieu of a predator. Ever wonder why homosexuality is on the rise from generation to generation?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Like I said before.. Defect does not mean something is wrong. It just means an alteration from the norm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    603
    Oh really? Looks like you need to learn English a bit better, for defect means:

    a shortcoming, fault, or imperfection: a defect in an argument; a defect in a machine.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defect
    Definition numero uno, mon frere.
    Please don't make me look up the above bolded terms to demonstrate that they do mean something is wrong with someone or thing that has a defect...


    also you said:

    If people realized that it IS a defect and is not a choice, they may actually give homosexuals the rights of other citizens since it is illegal to remove benefits from those who are deemed to have a disability.
    disability means:
    lack of adequate power, strength, or physical or mental ability; incapacity.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disability

    So they are inadequate? Disabled? I'm pretty sure you just compared those homosexuals that are exactly the same physically and mentally as you are to people who are disabled physically and mentally. Go have a conversation or a footrace with one and tell me what your test results yield.

    It is not a disability; it is an alternative lifestyle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,107
    Hmmmmm. Is there any consideration to the idea that homosexuality is perhaps not "normal." Usually, males of most species are attracted to females of that species and vice-versa. Taken as whole in the world of two sexed animals, that is the norm -- for them to mate male and female. I am not aware of any two sexed animal which normally practices mating my matching males to male or females to females. This does take place with hermaphroditic animals such as worms, but they each have both male and female reproductive organs.

    It seems to me that if we consider that humans have a tendency to reject those who are different in some way -- skin color, national origin, religious beliefs, body build for examples. Whatever is "normal" is basically defined by whatever is the majority.

    Since most of us are not rapists and murderers, people who do those things are considered abnormal and face retribution from the "normal." Some abnormalities which are unavoidable are less repugnant to the majority. We do not punish people for having Downs Syndrome or physical birth defects, even though we may treat them differently than "normal" people.

    At the current time in the history of mankind, most people are heterosexual and consider that homosexuality is abnormal. I don't think that is a function of hate, but a "normal" human tendency to reject that which is considered "abnormal."

    Were it determined that homosexuality is a birth defect rather than the result of a perceived personal aberrant decision, I think attitudes would change.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Dayton gets it and he put it in better words.

    First time I think I have ever agreed with you Dayton.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    603
    how convenient that he came along just in time to be agreed with
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    What are you talking about morm?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In Your Face
    Posts
    43
    religion is just a way to rationalize, and i personally support prop 8 and not from a religious aspect. i see homosexuality as a cry for attention, a media driven fad, mental disability (like a genetic defect), and/or a weak one who would have died off in the natural state.

    Homosexuals can not produce off spring in nature so they would just simply die off and out. People might say, "Well my dogs a boy and he humps my other boy dog!" but that is caused my the smell of a females pheromones when she is in heat and he just get excited. So please don't pull that card....

    prop 8 was right for the wrong reasons, it should be banned, but not by religious nuts, by the general public.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    9
    verzen, in a way you're right but you have to use a word that is much less ambiguous. I'm extremely grateful that you're not bigoted like people with a religious mind set are, but what people are trying to ask you is to use a word that makes sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Hmmmmm. Is there any consideration to the idea that homosexuality is perhaps not "normal." Usually, males of most species are attracted to females of that species and vice-versa. Taken as whole in the world of two sexed animals, that is the norm -- for them to mate male and female. I am not aware of any two sexed animal which normally practices mating my matching males to male or females to females. This does take place with hermaphroditic animals such as worms, but they each have both male and female reproductive organs.
    Being born with an extra finger is not normal, what's your point? The reason I bumped this thread was to get your answers on my previous questions to you (check page 4)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,627
    For those who think that homosexuality is just a "human thing" I would ask them to read this paper:

    Bruce Bagemihl, "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity", St. Martin's Press, 1999

    Which documents homosexual behaviors in 1500 different species of animals.

    This is not a "human thing" which would have died out in a "natural setting", as it is basicly RAMPANT in nature, found in creatures ranging from Bonobos, Bison, Dolphins, Birds, Dragonflies and gutworms!

    Sorry this is not a abnormality according to nature!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    So because another creature has a defect, it means its natural and in accordance with normal behavior? Your logic is baffling.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In Your Face
    Posts
    43
    nature is based on the survival to reproduce. not butt sex o.o jkjk but that is a common fact over all biological sciences, and just because there is a virus in one animal doesnt mean it cant be in another. Look at the bird flu, birds and humans can have it. does that mean its ok too?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Brokenazs
    nature is based on the survival to reproduce. not butt sex o.o jkjk but that is a common fact over all biological sciences, and just because there is a virus in one animal doesnt mean it cant be in another. Look at the bird flu, birds and humans can have it. does that mean its ok too?
    Too summerize, you think that this is a disease which shold be eliminated....

    Why??
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    For those who think that homosexuality is just a "human thing" I would ask them to read this paper:

    Bruce Bagemihl, "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity", St. Martin's Press, 1999

    Which documents homosexual behaviors in 1500 different species of animals.

    This is not a "human thing" which would have died out in a "natural setting", as it is basicly RAMPANT in nature, found in creatures ranging from Bonobos, Bison, Dolphins, Birds, Dragonflies and gutworms!

    Sorry this is not a abnormality according to nature!
    So what? animals can be homosexual to, it does not mean it is normal. The ultimate aim of a species is to reproduce making a healthy offspring that will survive in the outside world. How can homosexuality do this?
    you say that homosexuality occurs in 1500 species of animals? again so what the total number of animal species currently known is 1,250,000 (approx) that gives a ration of 3 homosexual species to 2500 heterosexual species which is 0.12% hell there is a greater chance of a human being born with Autism.

    I am not homophobic, just like arguing
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    you say that homosexuality occurs in 1500 species of animals? again so what the total number of animal species currently known is 1,250,000 (approx) that gives a ration of 3 homosexual species to 2500 heterosexual species which is 0.12% hell there is a greater chance of a human being born with Autism.

    I am not homophobic, just like arguing
    Ahh but of those 1,250,000 (aprox) how many have been studyied anywhere beyond the initial description of the species.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In Your Face
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Too summerize, you think that this is a disease which shold be eliminated....

    Why??
    not a disease, just a little infection. and i mean let homos do what they want in their own little world, but i dont wanna have my kids growing up thinking its ok to have 2 moms and no dad and 2 dads and no mom. marriage is a tradition that's been passed down for a long time. 1 man and 1 woman is how its been forever. and how nature intended. Im not saying that there isnt little bumps on this radar though. Hermaphrodites and creates which only carry X chromosomes are live, so maybe its just us men that are the weak evolutionary link o.o!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,627
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    So because another creature has a defect, it means its natural and in accordance with normal behavior? Your logic is baffling.
    I still maintain that you are severely oversimplifying a complex matter. thus what looks like a "defect" in a super simple view, should actually be viewed in the larger view as a normal behavior in the more in depth view.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In Your Face
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    I still maintain that you are severely oversimplifying a complex matter. thus what looks like a "defect" in a super simple view, should actually be viewed in the larger view as a normal behavior in the more in depth view.
    reproduction is normal behavior in ALL forms of life, may it be single celled or multi celled. Asexual or sexual. an organism fights to pass its genetic information on to the next generation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Brokenazs
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Too summerize, you think that this is a disease which shold be eliminated....

    Why??
    not a disease, just a little infection. and i mean let homos do what they want in their own little world, but i dont wanna have my kids growing up thinking its ok to have 2 moms and no dad and 2 dads and no mom. marriage is a tradition that's been passed down for a long time. 1 man and 1 woman is how its been forever. and how nature intended. Im not saying that there isnt little bumps on this radar though. Hermaphrodites and creates which only carry X chromosomes are live, so maybe its just us men that are the weak evolutionary link o.o!
    Hmm namecalling...you do realize that same argument has been used in past years against Black people, women, Asians etc. to justify why they should not be allowed rights?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Hmmmmm. Is there any consideration to the idea that homosexuality is perhaps not "normal." Usually, males of most species...
    We aren't most species.







    (tremendous implications)











    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Were it determined that homosexuality is a birth defect rather than the result of a perceived personal aberrant decision, I think attitudes would change.
    You think? In Iran homosexuality is fully medicalized as a sort of birth defect, and the state will even cover costs of (voluntary) sex change drugs and surgery, for those desiring a normal life. Common attitudes are like, "Fix yourself or disappear."



    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    The ultimate aim of a species is to reproduce making a healthy offspring that will survive in the outside world. How can homosexuality do this?
    No the "aim" of a species is the reproduction of the species not particular individuals. Infertile worker bees for plain example, do "make a healthy offspring" that continues their mainly infertile species. The aim of genes is reproduction of said genes, not any particular species or individual. For funny example, note that you share some genes with the banana, which happen to be reproducing well through this homo sapiens form. Note also that most bananas today are reproducing on plantations asexually through cuttings. In other words, "banana genes" are reproducing quite well both asexually and by the approved means of human coitus with sighs and sperm. The "gay gene" (if it exists) would have no trouble reproducing through heterosexual couples, especially if on the occasions it expresses in individuals it does a good turn to the greater population. Apparently it does.

    Suppose we have a "gimme gene" that runs in a family. So every few generations a child is born with this trait that while probably spoiling marriage success drives that individual to amass kilometers of oceanfront real estate or start the next Wal-Mart or get shot in a gang war. It might not serve the gene so well to surface in every individual, as it makes a lousy parent. It might do best appearing in, say, one of twenty individuals. The rest simply lead average lives, passing it along.

    Or suppose we have a "penis gene" that causes a deformation of the normal human form. So the human with penis is able to inject its own genes into humans and reproduce without actually bearing children. Weird, huh?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,107
    Pelio wrote:

    This is not a "human thing" which would have died out in a "natural setting", as it is basicly RAMPANT in nature, found in creatures ranging from Bonobos, Bison, Dolphins, Birds, Dragonflies and gutworms!

    Sorry this is not a abnormality according to nature!
    The fact that we can uncover instances in other animals where some form of apparent homosexual activity occurs does not indicate that it is "normal" behavior of those animals.

    If you could show that most of the sexual experiences of the bonobos, bison, dolphins, etc. were homosexual activities, then you could suggest that it is the "norm" among those animals. Otherwise, if such activities are confined to a minority of there populations, you must consider that such activity is not the "norm." I think suggesting that homosexuality is "rampant" in nature is a vast overstatement.

    I am trying to figure out if you would suggest from the fact that a dog will sometimes mount your leg and go through the motions of sex, that bestiality is the "norm" among our canine friends?

    But getting back to the OP which suggests that the results of Proposition 8 in California was the result of religious hatred toward homosexuals. I might point out that there are a number of Christian churches who are very accepting of homosexuality including some Episcopal concregations, Methodists, some Lutherans, and probably the rest of what is considered liberal Christian elements. I think you would find less sympathy among Baptists, the full gospel churches and what are called Holiness churches (Nazarenes, Evangelical and Quakers).

    I don't see this as a matter of hatred, but more a matter of nonacceptance just as they would not accept other considered sex sins such as adultry, pornography, child molestation and the like.

    Now then, if you want group hatred against homosexuals, I think you should look at groups such as the skinheads. This is a group which, to the best of my knowledge, has no religious basis but which outwardly displays disgust for homosexuals to the point of beating them and otherwise harassing and even torturing them.

    I don't think disapproving of homosexual activity is the same as attacking people who practice those things. I think there is a vast difference between atheists who talk against religion and those who bomb churches or set them on fire. Disapproving of religion does not show hatred any more than disapproving of homosexuality shows hatred.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    you say that homosexuality occurs in 1500 species of animals? again so what the total number of animal species currently known is 1,250,000 (approx) that gives a ration of 3 homosexual species to 2500 heterosexual species which is 0.12% hell there is a greater chance of a human being born with Autism.

    I am not homophobic, just like arguing
    Ahh but of those 1,250,000 (aprox) how many have been studyied anywhere beyond the initial description of the species.
    maybe this will shine a light on the study http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4130

    yes, and how many of those 1500 were studied in their natural enviroment and not in captivity?
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •