Generally it is, but that has little to do with who is getting married as opposed to the value placed on marriage by the parties involved (which shows in the high divorce rate).
Anyone hear about the lesbian couple that split and now the doner's (sperm) being sought after for child support? Anyone can be in a troubled marriage or relationship, but the ones that lasts are made of those who vow to keep their promises, come what may, gay or striaght.
It's kinda amusing when some say that gays should be allowed to marry because of the "current divorce" rate. Yeah well they run into trouble too.
Seriously, I am not mocking you, but the article.
Seems like they'll conduct any study to explain anyway any question against how evolution will someday wipe out the human race with this "gay gene".
Evolution is intelligent enough to supply us with enough offsping to offset the shortage homosexuals will cause with their lack of reproductive capabilites.
If I ever saw base-covering, this is it. Scientists, admittedly, are right on some things, but they're reaching here. Since people will be looking for evolution to rid us of this "gay gene" in due time and since it won't, they've given themselves a backdoor.
Amazing.
EDIT: hope I didn't misunderstand that. But that's what I got from it.
Last edited:
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 110,614
- 29,259
- 146
no, it actually has no merit. it's OK for people to not have merit in the things they say. Otherwise, you must think that everyone is right all of the time, it just depends on one person's point of view whether or not they accept this person's beliefs.
I don't think you believe that because that is clearly asinine.
Now, I think that instant and copious and free access to porn and video games and internet in general have indeed had a stark social impact on society--we are all far more isolated, far less socialized individuals, generally selfish little bastards with little to no redeeming qualities. I think that has merit, but she seems to think that marriage is the largest and most fundamental victim of this new paradigm. That is absurd, of course. Marriage has been in trouble simply because of....well, marriage. And it has been this heading this way for decades, long before any of this content existed.
that she further tries to lay the blame on a natural occurrence such as homosexuality simply labels her as a profoundly uneducated dipshit.
she probably hates the fact that she, herself, likes to go carpet diving on occasion.
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2007
- 16,432
- 1
- 81
This is one of the single stupidest points that has ever been made about anything. Well done.
You're talking to a troll/robot. All it ever does is make stupid points. You can counter-argue against them, and it will ignore that and just repeat the same points here and in the next thread and the thread after that.
That's your choice. But please, please stop quoting its inane ramblings, for the sake of us who are tired of reading them. Thanks.
I'm sure that is what you got from it. But that says a lot more about you than it says about the article.
In a nutshell, it tells you something you don't want to hear, so, with absolutely no contrary evidence or arguments, you summarily dismiss it.
Its not stupid. It exposes the inherent hypocrisy in complaining about straight marriage discriminating against homosexuals.
The whole point of marriage is discrimination. You are providing a special status to a certain group of people. How is that not discrimination?
If you are opposed to government discrimination you should be arguing for ending straight marriage, not arguing for SSM.
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
Marriage certainly has legal rights singles don't enjoy, but it also has disadvantages. However, some of our population are prohibited from choosing to be married in any meaningful sense. If for instance I had the right to get married but only to a man, my right to get married has effectively been removed since I'm never going to want to marry a man. Certainly there are others besides gays who are prohibited from marrying as they wish, but typically those prohibitions involve one partner unable to give informed consent.
Hell, even serial killers on death row can get married. Can you really make an argument that a hetero marriage between a serial killer on death row and his groupie is more valuable to society than a homo marriage between two gay men or women who are already living together and raising a family?
Do you have a similar problem accepting the fact that there's a mutated gene where if you only inherit one copy you get some immunity to malaria but if you inherit two copies of that gene you get sickle-cell anemia? One version of a gene will likely have both strengths and weaknesses (regarding reproductive fitness) compared to other versions of the gene. Whether the strengths outweigh weaknesses generally depends on the selection pressures in that environment.
The problem with your argument is SSM making any amount of sense relies on Opposite-sex Marriage already existing.
Assume that marriage didnt exist would society suddenly decide to start granting special rights to same-sex couples?
The informed consent of a toaster is irrelevant. Every argument made for SSM applies equally to Object Sexual Marriage.
It seems that better solution is to remove the right to marry while in prison.
irishScott
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2006
- 21,568
- 3
- 0
Ah gay marriage, one of those issues that displays the American population's lack of basic critical thinking in all it's glory.
Assume I'm married. Assume there are two guys down the street doing each other in the ass 6 times a day. Assume they never do anything that would be considered indecent exposure. How am I affected? How is my family and marriage affected? How? I neither see nor feel any threat of any kind, yet I'm told by some that society should be crashing down around me; or that it's insidious and my kids will grow up to be gay and my family line will end... all because two guys down the street are packing the fudge.
Yeah, that's a pretty big load of bull. The only argument against gay marriage is, at its core, a religious one. Either of an established religion or worship of some strict, inflexible marital doctrine that the person has dreamed up. At the end of the day, your religion and personal philosophy don't get to dictate what other people do, and religion is supposed to be separate from legislation anyway.
Two gays down the street get married? I don't give a fuck, and anyone who gets their panties in a twist over it is someone to keep a friendly distance from IMO. If nothing else because I don't like surrounding myself with irrational, neurotic people.
Assume I'm married. Assume there are two guys down the street doing each other in the ass 6 times a day. Assume they never do anything that would be considered indecent exposure. How am I affected? How is my family and marriage affected? How? I neither see nor feel any threat of any kind, yet I'm told by some that society should be crashing down around me; or that it's insidious and my kids will grow up to be gay and my family line will end... all because two guys down the street are packing the fudge.
Yeah, that's a pretty big load of bull. The only argument against gay marriage is, at its core, a religious one. Either of an established religion or worship of some strict, inflexible marital doctrine that the person has dreamed up. At the end of the day, your religion and personal philosophy don't get to dictate what other people do, and religion is supposed to be separate from legislation anyway.
Two gays down the street get married? I don't give a fuck, and anyone who gets their panties in a twist over it is someone to keep a friendly distance from IMO. If nothing else because I don't like surrounding myself with irrational, neurotic people.
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,560
- 2
- 0
No, it is not.
Because procreation is not the only thing of very high value to society. Whether something is less or more doesn't matter.
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,560
- 2
- 0
No it does not. Toasters and other "objects" are not granted any rights or responsibilities by our constitution.
dawp
Lifer
- Jul 2, 2005
- 11,345
- 2,705
- 136
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,560
- 2
- 0
To be quite honest with you, I posted that remark on the article becasue I personally think that too many people and too many scientists try to explain away (or excuse) human behavior via genetics, and other factors. While I agree that genetics have a huge influence on who we are and how we act, our ability to reason and think on matters, and then choose govern our final actions (animals lack the ability to reason or be reasonable).
When someone says that homosexual behavior is seen in 'X' amount species of animal, I'm like "okay, but we're not animals... we're humans are are not primarily governed by instinct". So?
Maybe I am missing something man, but I'm being straight up and honest. However, I'd go as far as saying that beastiality is viewed as "abnormal", or attraction to a child, (when you're an adult) or "Object love", but attraction to the same-sex is normal?
I don't want to be overly-critical of this research because it does a great deal to help us to understand what makes us tick, but something just doesn't seem right or honest about it.
I just have a lot of sincere questions about this, to be honest.
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,560
- 2
- 0
We're also animals. We're animals who sometimes govern ourselves by concerns beyond our natural instincts.
Homosexuality is "abnormal" because it is not the most common form of sexuality in society. Left-handedness is also abnormal... and there is no objective reason to regard homosexuality with any more enmity or fear than we do people who are left-handed.
Beastiality, pedophilia, and object-sexuals are abnormal because they are extremely uncommon and because they involve participants that cannot give informed consent and, therefore, are harmed (beastiality and pedophilia) or, in the case of object-sexuals, the human involved is arguably doing nothing more than masturbating; the characterization of it as something more than that being the truly abnormal part.
Last edited:
Maybe I am missing something man, but I'm being straight up and honest. However, I'd go as far as saying that beastiality is viewed as "abnormal", or attraction to a child, (when you're an adult) or "Object love", but attraction to the same-sex is normal?
I don't want to be overly-critical of this research because it does a great deal to help us to understand what makes us tick, but something just doesn't seem right or honest about it.
I just have a lot of sincere questions about this, to be honest.
VERY Valid points that will not have a legitimate counter. Guaranteed.
The answer, however, is simple. Zsdersw is just another example that has been morphed like clay into what modern society (Read: Mentally handicapped morons) deems as "normal". Yes, yes, go watch "The Biggest Loser" while reading the "National Enquirer" to find out how the media can morph your thoughts to the next stage of thought.
You knew where I was getting at Z. You're actually misrepresenting my position here.
However, this doesn't have anything to do with homosexuals like yourself as much as I am skeptical about the research that goes behind all of this.
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,560
- 2
- 0
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,560
- 2
- 0
If you bothered to read the Wiki page I provided, you'd see that homosexuality is not a creation of "modern society" and has, in fact, been a consistent presence throughout all of human history.
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,560
- 2
- 0
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 8K
-
Facebook
Twitter