North Carolina bans gay marriage.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

The7Sins:

No not really as it has not my fear is an actual thing that could happen.

In English? I looks like you're saying your superstitious belief is possible, while the one I stated is not, but it's hard to tell as "it has not my fear" in it.

Your example is just you pulling a ridiculous idea out of your ass to try and discredit my argument with troll logic.

Calling it "troll logic" is nothing more than a cop-out to avoid dealing with your superstitions as what they are.

My personal thoughts on this have always been, that the Constitution of the United States has always guaranteed a separation between church and state. "marriage is and will always be religious "rite". The Government should have never started issuing marriage licenses in the first place as that is clear them putting their hands in to the religious pie. They should have issued Civil Union Licenses from the start as the only purpose for their existence is for the government to get some money in exchange for certain legal rights (not religious ones).

But as I am sure you have noticed all this boils down to is semantics no matter it you call it Marriage or Civil Unions its purely a matter of Law not religion. Human beings should be allowed to marry what ever other consenting human being they want. This really shouldn't be a matter of debate.

RoBi3.0:
"marriage is and will always be religious "rite".

Except that is clearly untrue on both cases. The original forms of marriage were social, and modern marriage is as much to do with social rites and civil recognition as it is to do with religion--if not more.

Buretsu:

The7Sins:

Zachary Amaranth:

Come now. That's on par with not traveling for fear that if you hit the edge of the flat earth you would fall off the edge and be eaten by dragons.

No not really as it has not my fear is an actual thing that could happen. Your example is just you pulling a ridiculous idea out of your ass to try and discredit my argument with troll logic.

Much like fear of falling off the edge of the world is born out of an ignorance of how the Earth works, your fear of "gay-washing" is born out of an ignorance of how being gay works.

In one case, it's based on not knowing the Earth is round. In the other, it's based on not knowing that being gay isn't a choice.

Science has not proven that upbringing holds no part in if someone will be gay or not. Yes genetics do play a part I do not deny that but there is no evidence to support that it is the only thing that is a factor in determining someone's sexuality.

The7Sins:
Science has not proven that upbringing holds no part in if someone will be gay or not. Yes genetics do play a part I do not deny that but there is no evidence to support that it is the only thing that is a factor in determining someone's sexuality.

Again, even if you could "turn" somebody gay, what would be the problem? Your parents obviously brainwashed you into becoming a bigot; wouldn't it be preferable to turn them into somebody who is defined by whom they love, not whom they hate?

The7Sins:

Science has not proven that upbringing holds no part in if someone will be gay or not. Yes genetics do play a part I do not deny that but there is no evidence to support that it is the only thing that is a factor in determining someone's sexuality.

Of course not. Because there are other, known factors. A more important one than genetics if physical development in the womb. To help you out here, have you ever noticed identical twins don't always look exactly identical? It's like, even though they came from the same genetic source, something different happened somewhere. Now, I could go your route and accuse upbringing, but that would be silly.

Just like when you try and argue upbringing can make people gay.

We get it. You don't grasp the subject matter very well. Please don't spread false ideas spawned from ignorance and fear.

Zachary Amaranth:

RoBi3.0:
"marriage is and will always be religious "rite".

Except that is clearly untrue on both cases. The original forms of marriage were social, and modern marriage is as much to do with social rites and civil recognition as it is to do with religion--if not more.

Were you trying to make a point or just pointing out your believe that I am wrong.

Archangel357:

The7Sins:
Science has not proven that upbringing holds no part in if someone will be gay or not. Yes genetics do play a part I do not deny that but there is no evidence to support that it is the only thing that is a factor in determining someone's sexuality.

Again, even if you could "turn" somebody gay, what would be the problem? Your parents obviously brainwashed you into becoming a bigot; wouldn't it be preferable to turn them into somebody who is defined by whom they love, not whom they hate?

Nah man, he's only straight because his parents told him gay is bad. >.>

Archangel357:

The7Sins:
Oh goody a debate. Well I feel like that people who are homosexual should not be able to adopt kids as I feel they may even purely by accident brainwash the kid into being gay as well. If the kid would become gay they should become such because on there own not because of adoptive parents both being such.
As someone who is gay I would be quite upset if I had adopted a kid and later found out that they became gay because I somehow made them think that was how they have to be. Until science proves that being gay is 100% caused only by genetics and not through even a part to do with upbringing then I say homosexuals should not ever be allowed to adopt.

The staggering ignorance aside, even if they "educated" a child to be gay, that would be bad...why, exactly? People brainwash their children into being republicans, Raiders fans, and worse every day.

Michelangelo was gay, and he gave the world the greatest works of art in human history. Stephen Fry is gay, and he is one of the smartest, funniest, most talented and best educated people on the planet. If my child was gay, I'd have ZERO problems with it. If my child became a tea partier, I'd have it shot.

I have no problems with people who are gay. Hell I am also gay. (said so in my earlier post)
However I do have a problem with people forcing others into having a specific sexuality. It should be the kid's choice independent of the parent's wants or feelings that should determine his her her sexuality. A gay person forcing there kid to be gay (even if it happens unintentionally) is just as wrong IMO as people who send there obviously gay kids to places to try and re-educate them into becoming straight.
Also none of the examples you gave have a stigma about them that could hurt that kid or are things affect there daily lives. Being a republican will not affect your life in a meaningful way. (as long as you ignore the radical kill all the gays republicans of course) Being a Raiders fan will not affect your life in any way. Your sexuality defines who you are and as such will affect your life and as such you should have your sexuality be decided for yourself by yourself.

RoBi3.0:
My personal thoughts on this have always been, that the Constitution of the United States has always guaranteed a separation between church and state. "marriage is and will always be religious "rite".

Actually, marriage is a legal matter, being a written contract signed by two individuals, observed by an agent of the law, and involves the creation of a third entity, the legal union of those two individuals, and dictates the rights, privileges, and duties of both parties according to the contract.

The religious rite is the Wedding. It's a ceremony that exists purely to formalize the contract, and for a priest or other religious figure to give that religion's blessing and acknowledge them as a couple according to their beliefs.

The problem is that the line between the two has been increasingly blurred, to the point where people don't recognize marriage as anything other than a religious affair. In essence, religion has co-opted marriage.

Civil Union is basically a 'loophole' created to subvert religion's stranglehold on marriage, by being marriage, just with a different name. Essentially, one could say that both sides are fighting for the wrong thing. Supporters of gay rights are fighting to be able to call these civil unions as marriage, and the opposition is defending the incorrect notion of what a marriage is.

RoBi3.0:

Were you trying to make a point or just pointing out your believe that I am wrong.

There's no "believe" in it. That statement was factually wrong.

Besides, the two are not mutually exclusive. The "point" you seem to be looking for is that any conclusion based on that false belief is similarly false.

The7Sins:

I have no problems with people who are gay. Hell I am also gay.

Gay people can be just as ignorant as straight people.

In fact, odds are that if you believe someone can be brainwashed into homosexuality, someone brainwashed that belief into you.

So what you seem to be saying is: my brainwashing is okay, but this other kind is not.

Archangel357:

The7Sins:
Science has not proven that upbringing holds no part in if someone will be gay or not. Yes genetics do play a part I do not deny that but there is no evidence to support that it is the only thing that is a factor in determining someone's sexuality.

Again, even if you could "turn" somebody gay, what would be the problem? Your parents obviously brainwashed you into becoming a bigot; wouldn't it be preferable to turn them into somebody who is defined by whom they love, not whom they hate?

As said forcing something onto a kid that will affect there lives is wrong no matter what that something is. And in some parts of the country that could be something that will hurt that kid for a good part of there lives. (like Oh here in the South thanks to the plethora of rednecks)

And I'm a bigot now why exactly? And how did my parents views @ all become a factor? FYI they have no problem with gays adopting but do not want them to marry. Whereas I have no problem with them marrying but do not want them to adopt. So basically do not flame people without any proof.

Zachary Amaranth:

The7Sins:

I have no problems with people who are gay. Hell I am also gay.

Gay people can be just as ignorant as straight people.

In fact, odds are that if you believe someone can be brainwashed into homosexuality, someone brainwashed that belief into you.

So what you seem to be saying is: my brainwashing is okay, but this other kind is not.

Except no one has expressed that opinion to me in any way it is one I came up with surprise surprise on my own. You continue to make off the mark claims with no bearing all you want. It only degrades your argument.

The7Sins:
I have no problems with people who are gay. Hell I am also gay. (said so in my earlier post)
However I do have a problem with people forcing others into having a specific sexuality. It should be the kid's choice independent of the parent's wants or feelings that should determine his her her sexuality. A gay person forcing there kid to be gay (even if it happens unintentionally) is just as wrong IMO as people who send there obviously gay kids to places to try and re-educate them into becoming straight.
Also none of the examples you gave have a stigma about them that could hurt that kid or are things affect there daily lives. Being a republican will not affect your life in a meaningful way. (as long as you ignore the radical kill all the gays republicans of course) Being a Raiders fan will not affect your life in any way. Your sexuality defines who you are and as such will affect your life and as such you should have your sexuality be decided for yourself by yourself.

You cannot cause or force someone to be gay if they're not, whether by intent or 'unintentionally'. Hell, I'm not sure how anyone can think they can accidentally turn someone gay. Do you think that, by being homosexual, you emit some sort of gay-diation, or possible release gay spores into the air?

Sexual orientation cannot be changed. Yes, the possibility exists that a gay couple might adopt a child, and persecute them if they happen to like someone of the opposite gender. But that's no different from a straight couple doing the same thing to an adopted child who turns out to be gay. Unless you'd like to say that nobody should adopt children?

Buretsu:

You cannot cause or force someone to be gay if they're not, whether by intent or 'unintentionally'. Hell, I'm not sure how anyone can think they can accidentally turn someone gay. Do you think that, by being homosexual, you emit some sort of gay-diation, or possible release gay spores into the air?

Sexual orientation cannot be changed. Yes, the possibility exists that a gay couple might adopt a child, and persecute them if they happen to like someone of the opposite gender. But that's no different from a straight couple doing the same thing to an adopted child who turns out to be gay. Unless you'd like to say that nobody should adopt children?

No. But however if I am sleeping with men, dating men, and other such things while raising the kid even if I never tell him that is what he has to do or what is expected his upbringing because of me would probably make him become gay (or @ least bi). And honestly I'd feel horrid if I somehow turned the kid into someone he would not have otherwise become.

It's funny to hear people call southerns bigots and then watch it devolve into a bigotted diatribe about so called "rednecks." Need I remind people that in California (that bluest of blue states) Prop 8 (a gay marriage ban) passed by a healthy margin. Oh yeah, it's also legal to marry your first cousin in Cali, while it is not legal in a number of southern states.

The7Sins:

Buretsu:

You cannot cause or force someone to be gay if they're not, whether by intent or 'unintentionally'. Hell, I'm not sure how anyone can think they can accidentally turn someone gay. Do you think that, by being homosexual, you emit some sort of gay-diation, or possible release gay spores into the air?

Sexual orientation cannot be changed. Yes, the possibility exists that a gay couple might adopt a child, and persecute them if they happen to like someone of the opposite gender. But that's no different from a straight couple doing the same thing to an adopted child who turns out to be gay. Unless you'd like to say that nobody should adopt children?

No. But however if I am sleeping with men, dating men, and other such things while raising the kid even if I never tell him that is what he has to do or what is expected his upbringing because of me would probably make him become gay (or @ least bi). And honestly I'd feel horrid if I somehow turned the kid into someone he would not have otherwise become.

Again, and I'm not sure how many times this has to be said, you can't make someone become gay. Do you feel that someone caused YOU to become gay, and that's why you worry the same thing would happen to an adopted child?

If they're gay, they're gay. If they're not, they're not. You can't change that. What you can do is teach acceptance, that it's okay for them to like whoever they like, regardless of their gender, the other person's gender, or indeed the gender of their adoptive parents.

Buretsu:

RoBi3.0:
My personal thoughts on this have always been, that the Constitution of the United States has always guaranteed a separation between church and state. "marriage is and will always be religious "rite".

Actually, marriage is a legal matter, being a written contract signed by two individuals, observed by an agent of the law, and involves the creation of a third entity, the legal union of those two individuals, and dictates the rights, privileges, and duties of both parties according to the contract.

The religious rite is the Wedding. It's a ceremony that exists purely to formalize the contract, and for a priest or other religious figure to give that religion's blessing and acknowledge them as a couple according to their beliefs.

The problem is that the line between the two has been increasingly blurred, to the point where people don't recognize marriage as anything other than a religious affair. In essence, religion has co-opted marriage.

Civil Union is basically a 'loophole' created to subvert religion's stranglehold on marriage, by being marriage, just with a different name. Essentially, one could say that both sides are fighting for the wrong thing. Supporters of gay rights are fighting to be able to call these civil unions as marriage, and the opposition is defending the incorrect notion of what a marriage is.

I are correct I misspoke. Your last paragraph explains what I was going for very well. Thanks for the input.

Buretsu:

The7Sins:

Buretsu:

You cannot cause or force someone to be gay if they're not, whether by intent or 'unintentionally'. Hell, I'm not sure how anyone can think they can accidentally turn someone gay. Do you think that, by being homosexual, you emit some sort of gay-diation, or possible release gay spores into the air?

Sexual orientation cannot be changed. Yes, the possibility exists that a gay couple might adopt a child, and persecute them if they happen to like someone of the opposite gender. But that's no different from a straight couple doing the same thing to an adopted child who turns out to be gay. Unless you'd like to say that nobody should adopt children?

No. But however if I am sleeping with men, dating men, and other such things while raising the kid even if I never tell him that is what he has to do or what is expected his upbringing because of me would probably make him become gay (or @ least bi). And honestly I'd feel horrid if I somehow turned the kid into someone he would not have otherwise become.

Again, and I'm not sure how many times this has to be said, you can't make someone become gay. Do you feel that someone caused YOU to become gay, and that's why you worry the same thing would happen to an adopted child?

If they're gay, they're gay. If they're not, they're not. You can't change that. What you can do is teach acceptance, that it's okay for them to like whoever they like, regardless of their gender, the other person's gender, or indeed the gender of their adoptive parents.

And as I've said science has not proven that upbringing does not play a part in it. Yes genetics also play a part but until it is proven that it is the ONLY cause I stand by my claims.

The7Sins:

Buretsu:

The7Sins:

No. But however if I am sleeping with men, dating men, and other such things while raising the kid even if I never tell him that is what he has to do or what is expected his upbringing because of me would probably make him become gay (or @ least bi). And honestly I'd feel horrid if I somehow turned the kid into someone he would not have otherwise become.

Again, and I'm not sure how many times this has to be said, you can't make someone become gay. Do you feel that someone caused YOU to become gay, and that's why you worry the same thing would happen to an adopted child?

If they're gay, they're gay. If they're not, they're not. You can't change that. What you can do is teach acceptance, that it's okay for them to like whoever they like, regardless of their gender, the other person's gender, or indeed the gender of their adoptive parents.

And as I've said science has not proven that upbringing does not play a part in it. Yes genetics also play a part but until it is proven that it is the ONLY cause I stand by my claims.

That's fine. Nobody's trying to force the ignorance out of you. It's probably best you don't adopt.

The7Sins:

Danzavare:
I dismissed North Carolina the second I heard it's legal to marry your cousin there. o.O

I know there's a big push for it in Australia but our government isn't budging as it is. (Then again, it's not really doing anything productive currently...)

Edit: Speaking of my government, I have a question:
Why is it more acceptable (to some people) for a child to have a single parent (or in more extreme cases go without anyone) than be adopted by a homosexual couple?

Oh goody a debate. Well I feel like that people who are homosexual should not be able to adopt kids as I feel they may even purely by accident brainwash the kid into being gay as well. If the kid would become gay they should become such because on there own not because of adoptive parents both being such.
As someone who is gay I would be quite upset if I had adopted a kid and later found out that they became gay because I somehow made them think that was how they have to be. Until science proves that being gay is 100% caused only by genetics and not through even a part to do with upbringing then I say homosexuals should not ever be allowed to adopt.

I have more questions:
- I am curious about your desire to have '100% science' to say homosexuals can't 'make' children homosexual. Do you have 100% science suggesting that sexuality is 'given' by parents?
- Ignoring the idea of '100% science', do you believe that heterosexual parents dictate the sexuality of their child? More to the point, do you think they necessarily replicate the exact sexual preferences of their parents?
- If you think this is true, would it then stand that straight couples produce straight children? What then, do we make of homosexuals? (Does this train of thought seem counter-intuitive to you?)
- If -hypothetically- I were to accept the claim that children are 'made gay' by parents, are you suggesting that it would be preferable that children be left to an unstable home or without a home than be exposed to homosexuality?
(So many questions. @ _ @)

I suppose my problem is a practical one. In many cases the choice isn't "should this child be adopted by a straight or gay couple?" but "Should this child be adopted?" I think individual capacities to care for or raise someone have little to nothing to do with sexuality. I think the reality is by denying the ability to adopt to homosexual couples we're denying many children the chance to be adopted. I just find it hard to accept that homosexual couples are so inherently destructive to children that they're better off alone (Or in a terrible foster care system).

I initially wanted to just post a few snappy questions and call it a post, but I do want to get to the heart of your opinion. I think that regardless of the role genetics play in homosexuality (I don't think people can just choose their sexuality personally, but I'll put that aside for now), I cannot accept the premise that parents can outright define their children or their children's sexuality. I mean, there's a reason my interests/quirks/ambitions/desires aren't uniformly the same as my father or mother's. I don't think it's at all unintuitive to suggest that children can grow to be different from their parents.

You may also want to be careful with your word choice: (I assume you meant something along the lines of 'influence' )

brainwash [ˈbreɪnˌwɒʃ]
vb
(tr) to effect a radical change in the ideas and beliefs of (a person), esp by methods based on isolation, sleeplessness, hunger, extreme discomfort, pain, and the alternation of kindness and cruelty

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/brainwash

Wolverine18:

How can you dislike all those three thousand year old laws and yet seem to agree with the one on cousins marrying? Now your case makes absolutely no sense at all lol. Seems like ancient bigotry is still in you strong in some areas.

What in the fuck are you smoking, and is it a prescribed course of medicine, or something you get from a guy in a back alley?

At no point have I supported cousins-fucking or cousins marrying; in fact, if you were bothering to read any of what I posted, I've made it clear that I consider homosexual marriage far less squicky than cousin-fucking, because a pair of queers don't have a higher chance of a genetic flaw being introduced into a new generation.

I'm pretty sure that queers can't breed without outside help.

Danzavare:

The7Sins:

Danzavare:
I dismissed North Carolina the second I heard it's legal to marry your cousin there. o.O

I know there's a big push for it in Australia but our government isn't budging as it is. (Then again, it's not really doing anything productive currently...)

Edit: Speaking of my government, I have a question:
Why is it more acceptable (to some people) for a child to have a single parent (or in more extreme cases go without anyone) than be adopted by a homosexual couple?

Oh goody a debate. Well I feel like that people who are homosexual should not be able to adopt kids as I feel they may even purely by accident brainwash the kid into being gay as well. If the kid would become gay they should become such because on there own not because of adoptive parents both being such.
As someone who is gay I would be quite upset if I had adopted a kid and later found out that they became gay because I somehow made them think that was how they have to be. Until science proves that being gay is 100% caused only by genetics and not through even a part to do with upbringing then I say homosexuals should not ever be allowed to adopt.

I have more questions:
- I am curious about your desire to have '100% science' to say homosexuals can't 'make' children homosexual. Do you have 100% science suggesting that sexuality is 'given' by parents?
- Ignoring the idea of '100% science', do you believe that heterosexual parents dictate the sexuality of their child? More to the point, do you think they necessarily replicate the exact sexual preferences of their parents?
- If you think this is true, would it then stand that straight couples produce straight children? What then, do we make of homosexuals? (Does this train of thought seem counter-intuitive to you?)
- If -hypothetically- I were to accept the claim that children are 'made gay' by parents, are you suggesting that it would be preferable that children be left to an unstable home or without a home than be exposed to homosexuality?
(So many questions. @ _ @)

I suppose my problem is a practical one. In many cases the choice isn't "should this child be adopted by a straight or gay couple?" but "Should this child be adopted?" I think individual capacities to care for or raise someone have little to nothing to do with sexuality. I think the reality is by denying the ability to adopt to homosexual couples we're denying many children the chance to be adopted. I just find it hard to accept that homosexual couples are so inherently destructive to children that they're better off alone (Or in a terrible foster care system).

I initially wanted to just post a few snappy questions and call it a post, but I do want to get to the heart of your opinion. I think that regardless of the role genetics play in homosexuality (I don't think people can just choose their sexuality personally, but I'll put that aside for now), I cannot accept the premise that parents can outright define their children or their children's sexuality. I mean, there's a reason my interests/quirks/ambitions/desires aren't uniformly the same as my father or mother's. I don't think it's at all unintuitive to suggest that children can grow to be different from their parents.

You may also want to be careful with your word choice: (I assume you meant something along the lines of 'influence' )

brainwash [ˈbreɪnˌwɒʃ]
vb
(tr) to effect a radical change in the ideas and beliefs of (a person), esp by methods based on isolation, sleeplessness, hunger, extreme discomfort, pain, and the alternation of kindness and cruelty

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/brainwash

Go back and read my posts I have said before that I agree genetics do also play a part.

1. I acknowledge that there is no science confirming my end either. But until science comes out and says being gay is only caused by genetics and not @ least in part by upbringing I feel homosexuals should not adopt kids.
2. Sometimes I have no doubt that some straight people are only straight because there upbringing made them such. However as being straight is the default sexual orientation of most of the world this is both harder to prove when it happens and when it does it will not ever affect the child's life as much as being gay would.
3. As said you seem to have missed the parts I have said that genetics do as well play a part. As such the times where a kid is gay when having a normal upbringing would suggest genetics were the overriding factor.
4. This question would not have been asked had you even read all of my posts for the reason sated earlier in the opening sentence.

I really don't get why this is such a big deal. Simple solution:

Let Gays get married

Remove any and all benefits in place for the sake of maintaining a family until said family actually exists (for everyone obviously)

Tell the religious nuts to get bent

Wolverine18:

Except its less potentially damaging than letting people with known inheritble conditions marry and have sex, and its also far less damaging than letting women over 40 marry and have kids. Why do you think we have such a large outbreak of autism spectrim disorders over the last 20 years? It's all those old mothers, we should ban them right? I mean if you think a 2% increase in risk is a problem then clearly a 10% increase is a bigger concern? Or the 98% crease for two parents who both have certain genetic disorders that require you to have 2 impacted genes to be vulnerable.

Oh but wait, it was quite sensible when people in places like the US said blacks and whites shouldn't breed because blacks carried sickle cell and almost no white person did meaning a HUGE increase in risk. Hold on, that was dumb too.

Warning! Warning! Danger, Internet Commentator, Danger!

You just brought up eugenics, not me. Feel free to invoke Godwin's Law, because I won't.

It's easier, morally and legally, to have laws concerning marriage involving close relations that it would be to even considering any discussion of eugenics. Besides which, the ASD rampage of the last 10-15 years seems like the ADHD rampage of my generation: some justified diagnoses have been made, and a lot of lazy doctors and parents have latched onto it as any excuse for their underachieving and ill-adjusted offspring, rather than facing the truth that many people have made for piss-poor parents.

Captcha = beyond me, which your position is, to me.

The7Sins:
1. I acknowledge that there is no science confirming my end either. But until science comes out and says being gay is only caused by genetics and not @ least in part by upbringing I feel homosexuals should not adopt kids.
2. Sometimes I have no doubt that some straight people are only straight because there upbringing made them such. However as being straight is the default sexual orientation of most of the world this is both harder to prove when it happens and when it does it will not ever affect the child's life as much as being gay would.
3. As said you seem to have missed the parts I have said that genetics do as well play a part. As such the times where a kid is gay when having a normal upbringing would suggest genetics were the overriding factor.
4. This question would not have been asked had you even read all of my posts for the reason sated earlier in the opening sentence.

1. Until science disproves the existence of unicorns, will you continue to believe in them?
2. I have no doubt that some homosexual people deny their homosexuality and act straight because their upbringing made them act such a way. Which is completely different.
3. So you're saying that genetics makes someone gay, but upbringing can make them not be? So genetics makes someone black, but upbringing can turn them white?

Buretsu:

The7Sins:
1. I acknowledge that there is no science confirming my end either. But until science comes out and says being gay is only caused by genetics and not @ least in part by upbringing I feel homosexuals should not adopt kids.
2. Sometimes I have no doubt that some straight people are only straight because there upbringing made them such. However as being straight is the default sexual orientation of most of the world this is both harder to prove when it happens and when it does it will not ever affect the child's life as much as being gay would.
3. As said you seem to have missed the parts I have said that genetics do as well play a part. As such the times where a kid is gay when having a normal upbringing would suggest genetics were the overriding factor.
4. This question would not have been asked had you even read all of my posts for the reason sated earlier in the opening sentence.

1. Until science disproves the existence of unicorns, will you continue to believe in them?
2. I have no doubt that some homosexual people deny their homosexuality and act straight because their upbringing made them act such a way. Which is completely different.
3. So you're saying that genetics makes someone gay, but upbringing can make them not be? So genetics makes someone black, but upbringing can turn them white?

1. This comment here proves your just trying to troll me. As such I shall not respond to you after this post.
3. Your misunderstanding me. I'm saying for people who are gay genetics allow you to be more likely to choose that lifestyle assuming that person's upbringing is normal. However if raised by a gay person a kid may become gay not because of any part of genetics being in play but because of slowly over time being brainwashed (unintentionally mind you) by his or her adoptive parents because of there lifestyle.

Aerodyamic:

It's easier, morally and legally, to have laws concerning marriage involving close relations that it would be to even considering any discussion of eugenics.

You do know that your thing about close relations is pretty much eugenics, right? Same reasoning for it, just an acceptable target. How is it at all morally easier? It's the same exact reasoning.

"I think it sends a message to the rest of the country that marriage is between one man and one woman," Fitzgerald said at a celebration Tuesday night. "The whole point is simply that you don't rewrite the nature of God's design based on the demands of a group of adults."

Everyone who voted for the bill were christ freaks in a nutshell. "The bible says" is basically all that I'm hearing from this argument. Its so hypocritical too.

I'm hearing people in this thread call others trolls because they don't agree with them. Topic needs to be moderated.

WTF?
Why nobody thinks this over?
Yay for gays and their rights.
The more dudes butfuck each other, the more chicks are left for us.
WHY ARE NOBODY UNDERSTANDING THIS???

All I keep thinking when I see things like this is how embarrassed our children and our children's children are going to be when they look back on all this shit.

Simonoly:
All I keep thinking when I see things like this is how embarrassed our children and our children's children are going to be when they look back on all this shit.

I completely agree. Future generations are going to be as embarrassed of this as we are of the way ethnic minorities were treated in the past.

Cheeseknife53:

Aerodyamic:

Listen, if you want to shag your cousin, you now have my EXPLICIT permission. In fact, I'm sure there's sites for that, and a subculture dedicated to it that would welcome you in, if you have few enough teeth.

For the rest of us, cousin-fucking is a very small step from sister-fucking, and that's been a rule that most supposedly 'progressive" societies have kept around for a while, because it's socially and potentially genetically damaging.

If social revulsion to incest is enough to keep such marriages illegal then why isn't the same revulsion most people have towards homosexual behavior enough? Either "this gives me the willies and ought to be illegal" works or it doesn't. If two consenting cousins or siblings wanna go after it, that's their own affair and none of mine. Sure, it grosses me out but so does the thought of two men having sex.

I choose not to contemplate the actual physical mechanics, because I don't dig cock; unfortunately, I've seen the result of inbreeding: the local university did a 30 year long study on it, at a nearby settlement. That's not even 2 full generations, and some noticeable, and potentially major genetic flaws were being expressed in enough members of that population to draw pretty good conclusions on the effects of close relations interbreeding.

I don't really care what any 2 other consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, because I never think about it, but the possibility of producing a child with serious health and emotional issues as a result of inbreeding, in a country that has privatized healthcare seems like a bad idea.

Mortai Gravesend:

Aerodyamic:

It's easier, morally and legally, to have laws concerning marriage involving close relations that it would be to even considering any discussion of eugenics.

You do know that your thing about close relations is pretty much eugenics, right? Same reasoning for it, just an acceptable target. How is it at all morally easier? It's the same exact reasoning.

That's a shaky semantic target, my friend; many societies decided at some point in the past that the potential consequences of close relations marrying was something they wanted to avoid.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/04/Inbreeding-&-the-downfall-of-the-Spanish-Hapsburgs/

On the other hand, my other point STILL STANDS: homosexuals can't reproduce without an outside agency, and for some reason, are almost completely unlikely to be close relations.

Aerodyamic:

Mortai Gravesend:

Aerodyamic:

It's easier, morally and legally, to have laws concerning marriage involving close relations that it would be to even considering any discussion of eugenics.

You do know that your thing about close relations is pretty much eugenics, right? Same reasoning for it, just an acceptable target. How is it at all morally easier? It's the same exact reasoning.

That's a shaky semantic target, my friend; many societies decided at some point in the past that the potential consequences of close relations marrying was something they wanted to avoid.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/04/Inbreeding-&-the-downfall-of-the-Spanish-Hapsburgs/

On the other hand, my other point STILL STANDS: homosexuals can't reproduce without an outside agency, and for some reason, are almost completely unlikely to be close relations.

That's not shaky at all. If it was, why didn't you refute it? I made my argument. You pointed to... what societies have decided? Which says nothing about me being wrong that it is the same as eugenics. Doesn't matter what many societies decided, that has nothing to do with what falls under eugenics. Red herring much?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked