it seems the key word is maybe. It still seems you are making shlt up. Although I don't actually know any gay couples (being associated with people like that would be more embarrassing than having black or hispanic acquaintances) and I can't because of my family's status in society (we're respected by the other decent white people in the community), I think there are gay people that have "been together" comparably as long as regular heterosexual married couples. I could be wrong, because I don't actually know any myself, but I've seen em around (you can tell by looking at them). ANd I agree, they are making an atrocity of the sanctity of divorce, which should be exclusive to decent white Christian folk.
it seems the key word is maybe. It still seems you are making shlt up. Although I don't actually know any gay couples (being associated with people like that would be more embarrassing than having black or hispanic acquaintances) and I can't because of my family's status in society (we're respected by the other decent white people in the community), I think there are gay people that have "been together" comparably as long as regular heterosexual married couples. I could be wrong, because I don't actually know any myself, but I've seen em around (you can tell by looking at them). ANd I agree, they are making an atrocity of the sanctity of divorce, which should be exclusive to decent white Christian folk.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
Someday, those who discriminated against gays will be looked upon in the same light as those that didn't support civil rights in the 50s and 60s. This is a major block of the population, and some of them are even republican, and yeah alot of them may be liberals, but that doesn't matter. What does matter is that they are people, they are americans, same as you, and the same as me; People. They will have equality, just as women, and blacks have been fighting so shall the homosexuals. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
And hey you're free to post whatever you wish in here barring AT's few rules, and you did. For that I applaud you, however, don't judge us all based on the ignorant statements of a few.
And hey you're free to post whatever you wish in here barring AT's few rules, and you did. For that I applaud you, however, don't judge us all based on the ignorant statements of a few.
I also want to see the evidence for this claim. I think it's you, bozack, with the selective memory. The idea that gays would get marriage right better than straights get it right is patently absurd on it's face. I can see no logic at all on which anybody could base such a claim. I think you might be suffering from paranoid delusions. But those come also before a bigot is finally able to let go of his delusions, so you may be on the right track, otherwise.
one would hope that at least initially they "got it right" since they were fighting for it for so long....and contrary to your assumptions I am not yet or anytime in the near future about to switch from one bigoted stance to another bigoted stance such as yours moonie...
Put up or shut up, bozack. Let's see all them posts that claim gays will get it better than straights. The one you posted said 'maybe' which means the poster was not even making that claim, but just wishing or speculating. I want to see lots of quotes from old threads where it was argued that gays will get marriage right over straights. Prove you're not hallucinating. And when you get done with that, I'll join you in condemning any such folk who make that claim as a bunch of bigots.
And since you want to call me a bigot perhaps you would like to define what it is you mean. Please tell me what argument I make it is that is based on an irrational, preferably religious, preconceived notion. While you are at it, please provide a logical rational reason why gays should not be allowed to marry a same sex partner.
Originally posted by: Perknose
"One of the most repeated phrases" and you can't find a single example?
bozack, you hussy, I want a divorce!
I'd go for an annulment based of failure to perform.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
See later installments...
It didn't piss me off, I just don't see the point in talking about non-news.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
C'mon, Red, I've seen a million articles and heard a million arguments that gays would be better than straights at marriage. Maybe not on AT (I will NOT search every post on this issue over the past years, but if I had the time, I guarantee I would find several), but they are out there.
While I don't usually agree with Bozack, he is right on this one. The Libs have (to use Moonie's expression) rectified this from their collective memory ala 1984 now that they no longer need the argument and knowing full well that it will backfire as the lie that it always was.
This issue is also hot in Australia, and look what I found on a 2 second google: "Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce. Despite a new kind of homophobia rising in this election year, it's time we let gays get married. There is a strong chance they will do better at it."
But hey, we're arguing this issue with Moonie, who despite the fact that science has more or less conceded that there is no "gay gene" and thus gays are not born that way, calls anyone and everyone who even questions the idea of same-sex marriage a "bigot". It's lovely ad hominem, and the new rally call of the Libs seems to be to attack everyone that dares to disagree with them, but it doesn't hold water.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,867
- 10,655
- 147
So., Vic, yet another stalwart who guarantees he would find "several" ATPN posts claiming gays would do marriage better, but who, sigh, just doesn't have the time or attention span or basic search skills to back up said claim, but who will take the time to Google the entire internet in order to come up with one non ATPN guy in Australia who makes the claim.
We're all impressed. :roll:
I'm thinking the average gay guy could do better (at searching AT). Do you think that lone Australian would agree with me? Homophobia is such a sad ugly spectacle to encounter.
Oh, and your "science" ain't for sh!t, either.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
I'm no stalwart. I know what I've read and heard time and again. You can deny it all you fscking want but I never forget what I've read (just maybe where I read it
). And I didn't google the whole internet, you lying sack of sh!t, I clearly said it was a "2 second google". In fact, it was the 2nd hit on the 1st page.And the reason I use insults now (asides from the fact that I know how P&N works) is because your post is full of them against me. "Stalwart", "homophobia", etc. All bullsh!t. One post doesn't make a stalwart. Opposing a hidden attempt to bilk the taxpayers out of hundreds of billions of dollars in benefits is not homophobia or bigotry.
And it's not my "science", it is science. Only the PC crowd and those who don't know better are holding out on this. No gene for homosexuality has been found despite 30 years of intensive research. That it could be genetic is simply bad science, as it would be a contra-survival gene in the extreme. The reality is that is behavioral. Is it really that bad? I don't care what 2 consenting adults do. More power to them (if the gays were fighting the "We can do what we want" fight, I would flock to their banner in a heartbeat with the dedication of a zealot). But for example, there is no gene to stop people from practicing cannibalism, but the behavioral stigma against cannibalism is so strong that most people think there is (i.e. referring to cannibals as "savages").
Oh well, I better stop. I have strayed perilously far from the PC path, and that will make many people label me an enemy and feel hate against me. The doublethink of that hate will force them to create a label in their mind that they can accept, and so I will become a "bigot" to them, whereupon they will be able to, with mental safety, spread hate messages and derision against me. Common sense arguments or devil's advocacy cannot be tolerated when PC or one's personal political agenda is at stake. Obviously same sex marriage is far and away the most important issue facing America today, right?
What can I say? "And the band played on... "
edit: Neither liberals nor conservative are "reasonable". Once you attach a group label to yourself and limit your thinking to the whims of the larger group, you are no longer allowed to call yourself "reasonable". You think and do what you are told to think and do.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,867
- 10,655
- 147
Stalwart is not an insult, Vic, calm down.Originally posted by: Vic
I'm no stalwart. I know what I've read and heard time and again. You can deny it all you fscking want but I never forget what I've read (just maybe where I read it
And the reason I use insults now (asides from the fact that I know how P&N works) is because your post is full of them against me. "Stalwart", "homophobia", etc. All bullsh!t. One post doesn't make a stalwart. Opposing a hidden attempt to bilk the taxpayers out of hundreds of billions of dollars in benefits is not homophobia or bigotry.
And it's not my "science", it is science. Only the PC crowd and those who don't know better are holding out on this. No gene for homosexuality has been found despite 30 years of intensive research. That it could be genetic is simply bad science, as it would be a contra-survival gene in the extreme. The reality is that is behavioral. Is it really that bad? I don't care what 2 consenting adults do. More power to them (if the gays were fighting the "We can do what we want" fight, I would flock to their banner in a heartbeat with the dedication of a zealot). But for example, there is no gene to stop people from practicing cannibalism, but the behavioral stigma against cannibalism is so strong that most people think there is (i.e. referring to cannibals as "savages").
Oh well, I better stop. I have strayed perilously far from the PC path, and that will make many people label me an enemy and feel hate against me. The doublethink of that hate will force them to create a label in their mind that they can accept, and so I will become a "bigot" to them, whereupon they will be able to, with mental safety, spread hate messages and derision against me. Common sense arguments or devil's advocacy cannot be tolerated when PC or one's personal political agenda is at stake. Obviously same sex marriage is far and away the most important issue facing America today, right?
What can I say? "And the band played on... "
edit: Neither liberals nor conservative are "reasonable". Once you attach a group label to yourself and limit your thinking to the whims of the larger group, you are no longer allowed to call yourself "reasonable". You think and do what you are told to think and do.
It does seem rather strange that you make a loooooong post claiming you "know what I've read and heard time and again [on ATPN]" but still don't or won't take the ten minutes to back it up. Why?
And Vic, if you used the default option "Web" on Google, then you did INDEED Google the entire internet, you lying sack of .... er, potatoes!
Finally, your "science" is stll crap.
I have to say, Vic, that I have a rather high regard for the quality and sense in most of your posts, so I have to confess to a bit of confusion as to where you are coming from on this issue and particularly to whatever fantasy, it seems to me, you are having about me. I asked if you were up on the threads on this subject here and you assured me that you are, but I, again, fail to see it. I know that you don't want to bother going back and finding examples that support your position and so I think you forfeit the point. I can tell you for sure you won't find a post by me that makes that point because I don't believe that gays would be better at marriage than straights.
As to the scientific question about the genetic origin (or not) of homosexuality, I believe that it is an ongoing issue, not one were no genetic link has become the scientific opinion of the day. I don't know how scientific a mind you posses or how deeply your understanding of evolutionary theory and genetics in particular run, but your notion that a homosexual gene would disappear from a population automatically for the simplistic reason you propose is simply absurd. You might want to look at the sickle cell gene as an example. Also, there may be a very complex multi-gene dealy going on, one that frustrates both our largely early stage scientific understanding of genetics and a simple inheritance path. Also, it is quite possible that homosexuality is in whole or in part a developmental phenomenon, relating to fetal conditions, as is sex and temperature in alligators.
The point I that feel is beyond dispute is that being gay is not a matter of choice. I will offer you the same argument on this that I offer anybody who disagrees. If homosexuality is a matter of choice, prove it to me by going out now and having gay sex. If you can, you will cast some doubt on my position. I say 'some' because I could no more make love to a man than fly off my roof. Actually I could fly off my roof much more easily. I am 100% heterosexual and have been back to my earliest memories. When gays say the exact same thing but in reverse I simply believe them. I believe people can know the truth of such things and I believe they can be honest about them. I have faith in people, you see. I also believe that to prevent gays from the right to marry you would have to prove that their love is a disease, and one that is illegal. Can you do that, or is the logical thing to do to presume that we are like them, sexually oriented from birth to feel attraction to the sex we do? What is the more bigoted point of view, to know the truth via your own being, or to believe, in the face of that obvious inner truth, that some religious text from ancient times is better? So if you don't like the scientific approach so do you prefer the Bible and the bigotry that is perpetrated from that point of view? What do you call people who deny others rights from a preconceived point of view?
As to all your nonsense about the left and rally calls and reverse intolerance and leftist bigotry, you have simply gone round the bend and simply lapsed into your own programmed world view. You are reacting with stereotyped name-calling. Relax a bit and breathe. I have defined bigot numbers of times and apply the definition exactly as defined. You have called me one but not made a case. Calling somebody a bigot who fits the bigot bill is not ad hominem it's identifying a fact. If bigots don't like the term let them change. The definition is the definition.
I anxiously await a logical argument as to why gays should not marry, one that contains no presupposed pejorative tenor.
Amen...I know if gay marriage is legalized, it will be a threat to the institution of marriage in this country. Don't ask me exactly how, but the neocons said it so it must be true...I love those guys, save me from having to do all that thinking...
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
there are other traits that one could suppose to be really bad. like color blindness. why hasn't it been bred out over thousands of years? why does it occur in about 10% of the male population? same goes for left handedness. why? there are some theories. could it be that in hunter groups that one left handed hunter helps with coverage? the colorblind hunter helps to spot camoflaged prey since they can do that more easily. and yet again about 10% are gay, so having one gay hunter in a small band of hunters increases the survival of the entire lot. how? no children. child rearing is a resource heavy task. that one gay hunter increases the groups efficiency, what would have gone to his children is redistributed to the rest. as for genes, as long as homosexuals have siblings, genes are passed on. and our understanding is still quite shallow. and your thinking is based on the old idea that it was one gene one trait. disproven when we discovered just how few genes we have recently. if it is the result of many genes working together, it may be next to impossible to find.
that being said, there are no scientific reasons against gay marriage. and all reputable studies have shown it to be an inate feature, not something learned.
thats a very poor comparison. eating preferences are simply that. based on taste, knowledge, and ease of aquisition. gender preference goes much deeper. you cannot be taught to love and lust for a sex. you just know what you want from an early age. long before you are taught anything about sex. it is instinct. almost no one as a child one day just lusts for the flesh of people. whereas homosexuals know something is different very young, even when growing up in societies where their feelings are taboo.
A couple things:
Many opinions on gay marriage have advanced the idea that they would "do it better." I have not been here for long enough to say wether or not it appeared more or less often on this forum. However, this has never been a fundamental part of of the pro- gay marriage argument, it has always been just a sideswipe on the "sanctity" straights grant marriage. Any who disagree take rhetoric way too literally.
The gay divorce case newsworthy, because it shows the consequences of law by jurisprudence: it leads to more law by jurisprudence. This does not remove the legitimacy of the law. Civil rights have almost always been recognized by the courts before the legislatures.
As far as the genetic arguments go:
I have heard no counter arguments to the family correlational studies regarding homosexuality, nor to the "twin" studies. The fact that a single gene has not been found means next to nothing. Most traits involve a complex interplay between numerous genes. 99% of all our genes are identical to the chimpanzee's. Why would you suppose that a homosexual's genes would be easily found to be different? We can't even pinpoint walking upright. Also, there is growing evidence that DNA is not the only carrier of genetic information, making all genetic arguments using current science highly suspect until we learn more. And that doesn't even begin to talk about the huge component environmental/behavioural factors play, most of which are established before we are 5.
All in all, don't cite science unless you're packing it.
Booyah.
Many opinions on gay marriage have advanced the idea that they would "do it better." I have not been here for long enough to say wether or not it appeared more or less often on this forum. However, this has never been a fundamental part of of the pro- gay marriage argument, it has always been just a sideswipe on the "sanctity" straights grant marriage. Any who disagree take rhetoric way too literally.
The gay divorce case newsworthy, because it shows the consequences of law by jurisprudence: it leads to more law by jurisprudence. This does not remove the legitimacy of the law. Civil rights have almost always been recognized by the courts before the legislatures.
As far as the genetic arguments go:
I have heard no counter arguments to the family correlational studies regarding homosexuality, nor to the "twin" studies. The fact that a single gene has not been found means next to nothing. Most traits involve a complex interplay between numerous genes. 99% of all our genes are identical to the chimpanzee's. Why would you suppose that a homosexual's genes would be easily found to be different? We can't even pinpoint walking upright. Also, there is growing evidence that DNA is not the only carrier of genetic information, making all genetic arguments using current science highly suspect until we learn more. And that doesn't even begin to talk about the huge component environmental/behavioural factors play, most of which are established before we are 5.
All in all, don't cite science unless you're packing it.
Booyah.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
"Bad" science is when you only find the conclusions you're looking for and ignore those that don't reinforce your pre-conceived opinions. Faulty logic is when you believe the someone would never do something simply because YOU find it personally distasteful. Bigotry comes in many flavors, for example, thinking that someone must be born a particular way because of behaviors you find offensive, i.e. "Don't you know they stick their blanks in the blanks?" *GASP* :roll:
It's not the civil rights movement. Were I black, I would find that tie-in offensive. A black person is obviously black and obviously born that way. Being black requires no action on his part, and even all of Michael Jackson's money couldn't change it if he wanted.
OTOH, if all gay people were born that way, they wouldn't have those "Curious?" ads in the alternative newspapers, nor the fact that a high percentage of gay men and women were once in a heterosexual marriage and did not become homosexual until after a divorcing in their early-to-mid 20's. I like the analogy to right- or left-handedness. While people are seemingly born with a predisposition to be one of the other, behavorial training in early childhood can change that from one to the other without the child even knowing it. This is because humans are the least genetically programmed of all animals, and the most behavioristically programmed, which is why it takes almost 20 years to raise our children.
You were babbling about science, Kibbo? You want bad science, read 0roo0roo's post above.
Anyway, you don't have to be gay to act gay. However distasteful YOU may find it (with your enlightened egalitarian nose high in the air I'm sure -- I think your cries of "bigotry" are born from guilt now, Moonie :roll, there are some people who will try anything. Personally, I think that humans are just as much generalists in our sexual behaviors as we are in our eating behaviors (in other words, we'll fsck anything), which is why we have such strong behavioralistic programming against taboo forms of sexualities. Or next people are going to be telling me that Montana sheep fsckers are born that way too? :roll:
It's not the civil rights movement. Were I black, I would find that tie-in offensive. A black person is obviously black and obviously born that way. Being black requires no action on his part, and even all of Michael Jackson's money couldn't change it if he wanted.
OTOH, if all gay people were born that way, they wouldn't have those "Curious?" ads in the alternative newspapers, nor the fact that a high percentage of gay men and women were once in a heterosexual marriage and did not become homosexual until after a divorcing in their early-to-mid 20's. I like the analogy to right- or left-handedness. While people are seemingly born with a predisposition to be one of the other, behavorial training in early childhood can change that from one to the other without the child even knowing it. This is because humans are the least genetically programmed of all animals, and the most behavioristically programmed, which is why it takes almost 20 years to raise our children.
You were babbling about science, Kibbo? You want bad science, read 0roo0roo's post above.
Anyway, you don't have to be gay to act gay. However distasteful YOU may find it (with your enlightened egalitarian nose high in the air I'm sure -- I think your cries of "bigotry" are born from guilt now, Moonie :roll
, there are some people who will try anything. Personally, I think that humans are just as much generalists in our sexual behaviors as we are in our eating behaviors (in other words, we'll fsck anything), which is why we have such strong behavioralistic programming against taboo forms of sexualities. Or next people are going to be telling me that Montana sheep fsckers are born that way too? :roll:
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Originally posted by: Vic
*GASP* :roll:
:roll
A symphony of smiley faces
Montana sheep fsckers may well be born that way. Or not. But we get topics here, and statistics in the news that claim 20-30% of the adult population is mentally ill... maybe we need to have a long hard look at deviant behaviour before we proclaim that it is damaging. I've witnessed several marriages break up when one partner announced their gay-ness. In every case, it was hardly shocking when the boa-wearing husband came out of the closet. The 'wrong' was done when they tried to bury their feelings at age 19, not when they accepted them at age 30.
Regardless of the root cause, being gay is perfectly acceptable, and fscking sheep is not.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
To this, I wholeheartedly agree.
The purpose of the analogy was not to say that homosexuality is wrong, but to show the flaw in Moonie's logic that gays just must be born that way because (in Moonie's opinion) the act of homosexuality was so abhorrent.
Originally posted by: Vic
V: "Bad" science is when you only find the conclusions you're looking for and ignore those that don't reinforce your pre-conceived opinions
M: And yet this is exactly what you go on to do further into your post. Also you continue to show strong evidence that you don't really think scientifically at all as I will point out soon enough here
V: Faulty logic is when you believe the someone would never do something simply because YOU find it personally distasteful.
M: That would of course be an example of faulty logic, not a definitive one. Also you have yet to show that's what I am doing but let's follow through with your case and see where it goes
V: Bigotry comes in many flavors, for example, thinking that someone must be born a particular way because of behaviors you find offensive, i.e. "Don't you know they stick their blanks in the blanks?" *GASP* :roll:
M: WTF are you talking about. Please point out where you acquired the data to make this remark. If you wish to accuse me of homophobia please indicate what words I used to lead you to that conclusion. Otherwise I will assume you have a thing for children, OK?
V: It's not the civil rights movement. Were I black, I would find that tie-in offensive. A black person is obviously black and obviously born that way. Being black requires no action on his part, and even all of Michael Jackson's money couldn't change it if he wanted.
M: I could care less what would offend you. People take offense because the feel inwardly inferior. It is not the responsibility or others to cure your mental problems or tip toe around them, theoretical mental problems here, of course, since you aren't black.
V: OTOH, if all gay people were born that way, they wouldn't have those "Curious?" ads in the alternative newspapers, nor the fact that a high percentage of gay men and women were once in a heterosexual marriage and did not become homosexual until after a divorcing in their early-to-mid 20's. I like the analogy to right- or left-handedness. While people are seemingly born with a predisposition to be one of the other, behavorial training in early childhood can change that from one to the other without the child even knowing it. This is because humans are the least genetically programmed of all animals, and the most behavioristically programmed, which is why it takes almost 20 years to raise our children.
M: This is not science. This is faulty reasoning, no doubt reasoning to a preconceived conclusion. The first part doesn't even make clear sense doubtless for reason of the fact that I'm unacquainted with the 'curious ads' in 'alternative' papers so could you please provide some examples? I want to understand how such newspaper ad are indicative of some implied sexual malleability. As a scientist, please also exclude bisexual persons from your sample in the off chance they are skewing your data. I want to see the scientific data linking handedness to sexual orientation too. Very preconceived without the data, no?
V: You were babbling about science, Kibbo? You want bad science, read 0roo0roo's post above.
M: You are the scientist, no? Pleas deconstruct OrooOroo's post yourself. I don't trust Kibbo to do anything but corroborate OO's points.
V: Anyway, you don't have to be gay to act gay.
M: Wow, that says exactly what?
V: However distasteful YOU may find it (with your enlightened egalitarian nose high in the air I'm sure -- I think your cries of "bigotry" are born from guilt now, Moonie :roll
M: Sorry Vic but your logic if flawed. The fact that some people will try anything explains little. You have the power to prove your case. Please go out and have yourself a homosexual relation. You can do it. The human personality is malleable, right? Don't give me that crap about some people. You are people and you claim they are malleable. Prove your case. And again, please show me the words I used to entitle you to call me a homophobic. I don't understand on what basis you make the claim that I find homosexuality distasteful. I am totally uninterested in men sexually and in that respect one might construe that as something that would be distasteful, but I don't think of it as distasteful with respect to others. I can't comprehend it, personally, that's all. But you should be able to because you are malleable. What I do not do is condemn it. I think it's a natural human variation, a natural and fixed variation.
V: Personally, I think that humans are just as much generalists in our sexual behaviors as we are in our eating behaviors (in other words, we'll fsck anything), which is why we have such strong behavioralistic programming against taboo forms of sexualities. Or next people are going to be telling me that Montana sheep fsckers are born that way too?
M: Again you have a very unscientific mind. Your personal opinion, scientifically, means Jack Squat. You, as I have suggested may be able to Fisk anything because of course you are malleable. I know that I cannot. By Vic science that ruins your claim.
Because you want to believe this does not make it so.But I cannot advance the science of genetics 20 or 100 years, so I can't prove, absolutely, a genetic link. I can point to the suspicion that science has. You, on the other hand can prove your case in a minute by having that homosexual relation. We will however, afterward have to then prove you weren't gay all the time and that will be tough, but one step at a time. Have your gay sex and report back with your success.
Science includes such things as human interview. If you interview thousands of gays and they report having gay feelings all their life that provides a body of inferential evidence pointing to the fact that people are born gay. It really boils down to whether you are persuaded by data, as I am, or are in denial, like yourself. Scientifically I have the far better case.
And don't forget that once you're right handed, barring some loss of limb or odd force of will, you will stay that way. But we allow left handers to marry. We don't make them change hands.
Errrr certain members of this forum are afraid of gays.... please just let them make their troll posts.
Zephyr
Zephyr
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter