Research on sexual orientation and homophobia

[Lemon law]

The problem with homosexuality is that we get it from out children. About 96% turn out to be "normal", boys lust after girls, and girls lust after boys. But sure as death and taxes, that other 4% or so just ain't normal. Is there a cure? In a word no.

So oh no, what can the matter be, we have some 12 million queers in the USA. Shall we kill them, boil them in vats, torture them, or what? But rest assured, even if we kill the lot, next generation our children will still be queer in the same proportion.

As for me, titties and beer, thank god I am not queer, and for once I am in the majority.
Just a boring male married to a female.

But two things totally baffle me.

1. Why should homosexuals threaten my marriage in any way?

2. And then the biggie, why should aholes go way out of their way to make the lives of homosexuals more miserable than they already are because they are in a minority.

As for me, I have better things to do with my life and being a professional holier than thou asshole only inspires, how can we put it, aholes and sadists.

Mama don't let your children grow up to be aholes and sadists, the saddest and sorriest human beings on the planet.

 

[cybrsage]

But you can name someone for for power of attorney and such even without a civil union now.

You can, yes, but such things are surely wrapped into a civil union as well.

And a civil union implies a lot of other benefits besides those. Such as for example being able to claim Social Security based on your partners earnings. Why should the government grant these other benefits?

Civil unions imply that the two (or more when polygamy is no longer a criminal act) will build a life together. As such, they share a host of things with each other. Social Security rules, though, are hold overs of an old era, when women did not work and would die without the support of their husband. They needed to have survivor benefits to...well...survive.

 

[nehalem256]

May I ask how you identify the True Thoughts of these liberals, and why you think them afraid to post their True Thoughts on a largely anonymous forum?

Because they refuse to post what they believe. And instead resort to mocking and name calling.

The only reason I can see for them refusing to post their views, is that they dont think they are defensible.

 

[Incorruptible]

I dont think it would be fair to say minimum wage laws have hurt black people.

But it was liberals who destroyed the black family as part of their campaign to normalize single motherhood.

I completely agree it was liberals who destroyed the black family,

minimum wage has hurt black people because it discriminates against them on their skills, Heres Walter Williams explaining why this happens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85OIBOSJTwg

 

[nehalem256]

You can, yes, but such things are surely wrapped into a civil union as well.



Civil unions imply that the two (or more when polygamy is no longer a criminal act) will build a life together. As such, they share a host of things with each other. Social Security rules, though, are hold overs of an old era, when women did not work and would die without the support of their husband. They needed to have survivor benefits to...well...survive.

I agree with you on social security. They would only make sense for a well a conservative man-woman civil union. In fact most of the non power-of-attorneyesque benefits are really based on that kind of union.

And why do you need a piece of paper issue by the government to build a life together

 

[CallMeJoe]

Because they refuse to post what they believe. And instead resort to mocking and name calling.

The only reason I can see for them refusing to post their views, is that they dont think they are defensible.

Have you considered that they may resort to mockery because they consider your expressed opinions unworthy of more serious reply?

 

[nehalem256]

I completely agree it was liberals who destroyed the black family,

minimum wage has hurt black people because it discriminates against them on their skills, Heres Walter Williams explaining why this happens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85OIBOSJTwg

The minimum wage is low enough that they hire high school kids with no skills.

 

[cybrsage]

But two things totally baffle me.

1. Why should homosexuals threaten my marriage in any way?

2. And then the biggie, why should aholes go way out of their way to make the lives of homosexuals more miserable than they already are because they are in a minority.

For the first, you have to ask the homosexuals why they are demanding the word marriage be changed to include non-heterosexual unions. An oak and a fir are both trees, but they are not the same and therefor have different names. Homosexual unions and heterosexual unions are both unions, but they are not the same and therefor have different names.

The easy solution is to remove government from marriage, since (in the US) it was a religious institution prior to a legal institution. The legal institution was the same as the religious one, so there was no problem. Now that it is to be different, the seperation of church and state says the state should exit the marriage business altogether and only do civil unions.

As for the second, the majority will always attack the minority. It is how humans work. It was a needed thing back when humans were struggling to survive as a species and being different meant a breakdown of the system needed to allow the group to survive. We simply have not grown past it yet.

 

[alzan]

ahem

Just as a side note, his opinions do not align with Bill OReilly's. Personally, he's neutral on the subject.

Anyway, I know its fun to demonize your adversary, but you have to know their position first.

😉 Carry on...

Point taken. I fall into the trap of hearing the musings by O'Reilly and others and not exploring further into their views much too easily at times

Thanks for the reminder

 

[nehalem256]

The problem with homosexuality is that we get it from out children. About 96% turn out to be "normal", boys lust after girls, and girls lust after boys. But sure as death and taxes, that other 4% or so just ain't normal. Is there a cure? In a word no.

So oh no, what can the matter be, we have some 12 million queers in the USA. Shall we kill them, boil them in vats, torture them, or what? But rest assured, even if we kill the lot, next generation our children will still be queer in the same proportion.

As for me, titties and beer, thank god I am not queer, and for once I am in the majority.
Just a boring male married to a female.

But two things totally baffle me.

1. Why should homosexuals threaten my marriage in any way?

2. And then the biggie, why should aholes go way out of their way to make the lives of homosexuals more miserable than they already are because they are in a minority.

1.) It is a further attack on the institution of marriage by saying it has no meaning other than stroking your ego.

2.) How is not granting gays marriage making their life any worse? They already cant get married.

 

[nehalem256]

Have you considered that they may resort to mockery because they consider your expressed opinions unworthy of more serious reply?

Considering how compassionate and loving they claim to be that seems unlikely :sneaky:

 

[cybrsage]

I agree with you on social security. They would only make sense for a well a conservative man-woman civil union. In fact most of the non power-of-attorneyesque benefits are really based on that kind of union.

And why do you need a piece of paper issue by the government to build a life together

Our current system is based on the traditional marriage. You still see it in how divorces work - the women get more of everything even when they are the larger earner.

 

[LunarRay]

What compelling reason is there to keep you from marrying your sister?

Well... I've four sisters so I can conjur up at least one reason for each... but if I wanted to marry one the compelling reason for not doing so is it is not legal.

Perhaps you ask what compelling reason the State has for not permitting marriage among siblings.

It is codified and the reasons are articulated AND since it passes muster with the SCOTUS folks it has been tested and passed...

Same with Multi wives the Mormons and Moonbeam prefer...

But, more importantly and what I've tried to say all along... the Gay marriage issue has yet to be settled... IF SCOTUS sustains the lower court then there it is... IF they don't... then there it is... IT is them who tell me what is the law... I may or may not agree initially but their reasoning is usually pretty good...
I, at the moment, don't see how the State can preclude gay marriage but they have... The church can refuse to marry gays but the state has to follow the law and in this case it is up for review.

 

[alzan]

If you read my other post I said I have no problem with gays but there is an agenda thats part of the culture war. The agenda is pretty much liberals imposing their values and using gays as a wedge as well as the whole transgender issue by wanting to allow transgender in womens washrooms and other things

Why do you think Im an alt?

Since when is wanting equality for all citizens an agenda? And why are you so threatened by the notion of equality?

Using homosexuals as a wedge? Liberals simply support them in their quest for equal treatment. That's hardly a wedge. But you can go ahead and use that term, if it makes you feel better.

Your post content aligns almost syllable for syllable with another infamous poster who was temporarily banned just before your appearance. Your post count average for the short time you've been a member is strangely close to the average post per day of that poster.

It's just an opinion, but I'm not alone in having it.

 

[Bowfinger]

Because they refuse to post what they believe. And instead resort to mocking and name calling.

The only reason I can see for them refusing to post their views, is that they dont think they are defensible.

More dishonesty. Given that the real reasons have been presented to you repeatedly, it is NOT the only reason you can see. Or, more accurately, it is NOT the only reason unless you are substantially reading impaired or your cognitive dissonance is so overwhelming that you truly cannot see anything other than your own bogus straw men. That others refuse to engage your straw men does not mean they are afraid of their beliefs. It just means they're not going to accept your compulsion to re-frame the issue.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

...moon beam was right about everything...

 

[nehalem256]

Well... I've four sisters so I can conjur up at least one reason for each... but if I wanted to marry one the compelling reason for not doing so is it is not legal.

Perhaps you ask what compelling reason the State has for not permitting marriage among siblings.

It is codified and the reasons are articulated AND since it passes muster with the SCOTUS folks it has been tested and passed...

Same with Multi wives the Mormons and Moonbeam prefer...

But, more importantly and what I've tried to say all along... the Gay marriage issue has yet to be settled... IF SCOTUS sustains the lower court then there it is... IF they don't... then there it is... IT is them who tell me what is the law... I may or may not agree initially but their reasoning is usually pretty good...
I, at the moment, don't see how the State can preclude gay marriage but they have... The church can refuse to marry gays but the state has to follow the law and in this case it is up for review.

It seems to me you can either preclude both incestuous marriage and gay marriage,

or neither incestuous marriage and gay marriage.

 

[alzan]

Well... we can't even agree to involve expert opinion with out first examining the position the expert holds.

When scientific study is rejected out of hand because it supports one position or another we will never be able to exist in harmony. Thank God this is only Temporal... And thank God Heaven is a dictatorship....

I can see it all now... A Conservative enters into heaven and sees a Liberal who on this planet was Gay... The Conservative charges toward God but is met by Saint Peter... "Whoa dude, what you think you're doing"... says Peter... "I'm not sharing my cloud with no dam Gay ... not now not ever and I dam sure ain't gonna love him. Look here at these pictures I have, 8 by 10 glossies with circles and arrows and below a description of what that Gay person did"... Says our Conservative friend...
And just then along comes God lead by his seeing eye dog all dressed up in his gay apparel arm in arm with Moses... Our Conservative friend realizes at that moment that this is a case of blind justice and develops a heavy heart all laden with guilt and the reality of his condemnation... But, before he could plead his case the weight of his transgression overcomes his stability and he falls through the cloud and down down down he goes.... until finally he is met by all his former earthly friends... and there kissing her favorite wife is the devil with a sneer she compels our friend to do her bidding.... Entertain us she commands... and a thousand fiery pants fall.... 😱

Now that was funny; so funny in fact that Arlo would probably use it in a new verse for the song. 🙂

 

[nehalem256]

Our current system is based on the traditional marriage. You still see it in how divorces work - the women get more of everything even when they are the larger earner.

And isnt it silly to extend a system based on traditional marriage to people for whom traditional marriage clearly cannot apply?

 

[Jhhnn]

Pedophiles are also naturally occurring parts of the human race. What does naturally occurring have to do with anything.

How do you go from gay people are naturally occurring, therefore we should let them get married.

Now really the only important question is why should the government sanction marriages or civil unions at all?

Gays do no harm to anybody, unlike pedophiles. It's like being tall or short, blonde or swarthy, smart or not so smart, any other number of various qualities humans possess.

Gay people marrying threatens straight marriage not in the slightest.

 

[LunarRay]

It seems to me you can either preclude both incestuous marriage and gay marriage,

or neither incestuous marriage and gay marriage.

IF that is your position then you should read the reasoning behind the former and wait on the SCOTUS for the latter.

This IS a matter of Law... The churchy places can do as they wish according to their belief but the State cannot... It is subordinated to the Constitution and SCOTUS tells us and them what that contains.

 

[nehalem256]

IF that is your position then you should read the reasoning behind the former and wait on the SCOTUS for the latter.

This IS a matter of Law... The churchy places can do as they wish according to their belief but the State cannot... It is subordinated to the Constitution and SCOTUS tells us and them what that contains.

Why not tell me how you justify your beliefs against incestuous marriage?

Doesnt EVERYONE deserve equality afterall?

 

[cybrsage]

And isnt it silly to extend a system based on traditional marriage to people for whom traditional marriage clearly cannot apply?

Society does not accept large and sudden changes. Small, slow changes are accepted, though. Change the government role wrt marriage now, since right now we have a problem. Change how other parts of the system work after that.

 

[nehalem256]

Gays do no harm to anybody, unlike pedophiles. It's like being tall or short, blonde or swarthy, smart or not so smart, any other number of various qualities humans possess.

Gay people marrying threatens straight marriage not in the slightest.

Redefining marriage from an institution to insure a stable environment to be nothing more than ego stroking contract does harm marriage.

 

[nehalem256]

Society does not accept large and sudden changes. Small, slow changes are accepted, though. Change the government role wrt marriage now, since right now we have a problem. Change how other parts of the system work after that.

But why should we change more toward civil unions having no essential purpose. It seems like either we should go towards eliminating them completely or returning them to their original purpose.