Research on sexual orientation and homophobia

[cybrsage]

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

Doesnt EVERYONE deserve equality afterall?

The only legitimate complaint is genetic defects. However, if both partners are sterile (either naturally or via an operation), then there is no legitimate reason to deny it outside of religious grounds...but those same grounds also apply to homosexuality.

Here is the current list of requirements:

1. Be of legal age.
2. Be of opposite sexes.
3. Be human.
4. Be of sufficient genetic distance apart.
5. Not already be married.

If we are going to change it, we should look at all of them. Of all of them, only 1 and 3 have suffient grounds to stand without morality or religion being involved. Marriage (or civil unions) are legal contracts and therefor must have an age limit on them. Human is also an obvious requirement since currently we only have the means to determine concent for other humans. The rest, no reason to deny rights.

This is why I say the government should just shift to civil unions.

 

[cybrsage]

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.

Because they do serve a purpose, as I already stated. Society does not do well to massive, sudden changes. Either make no changes at all, or make small, slow ones. This is simply how humans work.

 

[LunarRay]

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

Alice's Restaurant ... all 18 minutes of it is my favorite song of all time... I actually sat there on Whitehall Street back in '63... I still see those people. Arlo was not foreign to me mainly because of Woody... He was born in Coney Island, Brooklyn but moved to Massachusetts in around '60ish... and that story he wrote really did happen... in '65 I think it was .. heheheh Thanksgiving Day.

I wonder how many know he is or at least was a republican who just loves Paul....

 

[nehalem256]

The only legitimate complaint is genetic defects. However, if both partners are sterile (either naturally or via an operation), then there is no legitimate reason to deny it outside of religious grounds...but those same grounds also apply to homosexuality.

Here is the current list of requirements:

1. Be of legal age.
2. Be of opposite sexes.
3. Be human.
4. Be of sufficient genetic distance apart.
5. Not already be married.

If we are going to change it, we should look at all of them. Of all of them, only 1 and 3 have suffient grounds to stand without morality or religion being involved. Marriage (or civil unions) are legal contracts and therefor must have an age limit on them. Human is also an obvious requirement since currently we only have the means to determine concent for other humans. The rest, no reason to deny rights.

This is why I say the government should just shift to civil unions.

Genetic defects would be seem to be pretty shaky, especially from a liberal perspective.

1.) On legal age. Interestingly in many states no parental involvement is necessary to get an abortion.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion/parental-consent-notification-laws-25268.htm

If you are old enough to get an abortion, shouldnt you be old enough to get married?

 

[LunarRay]

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

Doesnt EVERYONE deserve equality afterall?

It is the law... don't you get it yet? I will argue for what is before us based on my take on what is law. I am an advocate... when it is determined to be this or that by SCOTUS then I incorporate that into my thinking... It is what it is...

It no longer matters what Right anyone thought existed once SCOTUS speaks... It, SCOTUS, may sustain that belief or reject it... either way it becomes quite clear what is the law from that point on...

EDIT: I should add that some folks are using the 2003 Lawrence V Texas decision as the center piece to attempt to overturn existing anti incestuous marriage laws among others... IF successful then it would be legal and I would say folks have the right to marry (presume to engage in sex) their who ever.

Personally, my parents and beyond are dead and no one whose diapers I've changed interest me in the least... my sisters are married so can't marry them.... Maybe my daughter's chihuahua... she's cute... hmmmm

 

[cybrsage]

Genetic defects would be seem to be pretty shaky, especially from a liberal perspective.

Still a valid argument.

1.) On legal age. Interestingly in many states no parental involvement is necessary to get an abortion.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion/parental-consent-notification-laws-25268.htm

If you are old enough to get an abortion, shouldnt you be old enough to get married?

No.

 

[Sunburn74]

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.

This is honestly the most sensible thing I've read on this forum in a long time.

The only legitimate complaint is genetic defects. However, if both partners are sterile (either naturally or via an operation), then there is no legitimate reason to deny it outside of religious grounds...but those same grounds also apply to homosexuality.

Here is the current list of requirements:

1. Be of legal age.
2. Be of opposite sexes.
3. Be human.
4. Be of sufficient genetic distance apart.
5. Not already be married.

If we are going to change it, we should look at all of them. Of all of them, only 1 and 3 have suffient grounds to stand without morality or religion being involved. Marriage (or civil unions) are legal contracts and therefor must have an age limit on them. Human is also an obvious requirement since currently we only have the means to determine concent for other humans. The rest, no reason to deny rights.

This is why I say the government should just shift to civil unions.

I'm not even sure number 3 stands on sufficient grounds on its own. You can totally outlaw bestiality sure, but why can't a guy marry his favorite chair? Or his farm?

 

[cybrsage]

I'm not even sure number 3 stands on sufficient grounds on its own. You can totally outlaw bestiality sure, but why can't a guy marry his favorite chair? Or his farm?

It is a legal contract and requires the consent of both parties. You must be able to prove consent to enter the contract is willingly given, else the contract cannot be made valid.

With a non-human, we do not have the ability to show consent.

 

[Lemon law]

Because they do serve a purpose, as I already stated. Society does not do well to massive, sudden changes. Either make no changes at all, or make small, slow ones. This is simply how humans work.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What massive and sudden changes? We have had the same 4% or so of the population being homosexual ever since biblical times 4000 years ago.

And now in the USA we think of ourselves as enlightened, yet we have only have only allowed women to vote for only 100 years. the USA still allowed slavery 100 years after most nations had prohibited it, we still don't have an equal rights amendment to our constitution. We were still fighting Jim Crow and separate but equal bullshit fifty years ago and still are, and Europe is light years ahead of us in terms of gay rights.

And when I said in a previous post , don't be an ahole and a sadist, I was talking about you cybrsage and your ilk. You are rude, crude, socially unacceptable, small minded, and you offer no solutions.

 

[Incorruptible]

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.

There is nothing wrong with wanting equal rights, gay people should have equal rights but what I do have a problem with is with liberals who use gay people to further there agenda

As for this accusation that I am some other poster that is completely not true, you really need to use some common sense before you make these accusations and I have already been contacted by a mod who is looking into this claim that I am someone elses account

 

[LunarRay]

There is nothing wrong with wanting equal rights, gay people should have equal rights but what I do have a problem with is with liberals who use gay people to further there agenda

As for this accusation that I am some other poster that is completely not true, you really need to use some common sense before you make these accusations and I have already been contacted by a mod who is looking into this claim that I am someone elses account

Folks for years and even today think Moonbeam and I are the same person... I can't begin to imagine why... besides, I'm much prettier than Moonbeam.

 

[MrColin]

Facts? You mean like believing that women dont need a man to help raise children, but then whining when single mothers end up poor? And expecting men to bail them out.

Those kind of facts?

That's not liberalism, that's feminism.

 

[nehalem256]

That's not liberalism, that's feminism.

What are you arguing. Feminism is a much apart of liberalism as my right arm is a part of me.

 

[OCGuy]

I don't believe it. I believe it has more to do with how you are brought up, and how much exposure you have to homosexuals in general.

 

[WelshBloke]

Why do people get so worked up about a private ceremony that two blokes might have?

 

[LunarRay]

What are you arguing. Feminism is a much apart of liberalism as my right arm is a part of me.

OMG! Apparently a clear case of the right arm not knowing what the left one is saying...

Feminism, as I would define it, is a term used to identify a group of activities intended to insure equality for women in the political, economic, employment, social, probably educational and other areas where women have issues regarding how men and women are treated differently... The 'ism' bit generally denotes a philosophy, ergo, one who has the above motivation practices Feminism...

I'm sure Liberalism contains equality as an objective but the feminist is concerned more with defending her right to be equal mainly in the areas I mentioned.

Conservative women and Liberal women might be feminist... or if not they are content with their subordinated position in life.. (that was intended to be a funny.... but true...)

 

[nehalem256]

Why do people get so worked up about a private ceremony that two blokes might have?

Because they are demanding that society issue them a license that congratulates them for having said "private" ceremony.

 

[nehalem256]

Feminism, as I would define it, is a term used to identify a group of activities intended to insure equality for women in the political, economic, employment, social, probably educational and other areas where women have issues regarding how men and women are treated differently... The 'ism' bit generally denotes a philosophy, ergo, one who has the above motivation practices Feminism...

Except that feminists most sacred belief is that reproductive rights only belong to women. Which would be the opposite of equality.

And to continue, considering that the quote of what represented feminism and not liberalism was:

"Facts? You mean like believing that women dont need a man to help raise children, but then whining when single mothers end up poor? And expecting men to bail them out."

What does forcibly taking a man's money to support women's life choices have to do with "equality"

 

[WelshBloke]

Because they are demanding that society issue them a license that congratulates them for having said "private" ceremony.

So? It's not like they are asking you to turn up at the wedding for some cake.

If two guys get married what practical difference is it going to make to your life? (assuming that your not one of the guys)

 

[nehalem256]

So? It's not like they are asking you to turn up at the wedding for some cake.

If two guys get married what practical difference is it going to make to your life? (assuming that your not one of the guys)

Nothing is preventing gays from having private wedding ceremonies now.

You are asking that society recognize your marriage. That is clearly no longer a private matter.

 

[WelshBloke]

Nothing is preventing gays from having private wedding ceremonies now.

You are asking that society recognize your marriage. That is clearly no longer a private matter.

I'll ask again, what practical difference does it make to your life?

 

[nehalem256]

I'll ask again, what practical difference does it make to your life?

See, now you are changing your argument. Either a marriage is private or not. If you are asking society to recognize your marriage it is not private.

I have never said anything about it affecting me personally. It affects the institution of marriage which affect society.

 

[Atreus21]

I think the most brilliant deduction by the left yet is to conclude that to disapprove of something means you're either 1) that of which your disapprove or 2) phobic of it.

There's no such thing as a principled disapproval of any behavior.

 

[Incorruptible]

I think the most brilliant deduction by the left yet is to conclude that to disapprove of something means you're either 1) that of which your disapprove or 2) phobic of it.

There's no such thing as a principled disapproval of any behavior.

This is so true, if you criticize any race your a racist or criticize gays your a homophobe, you cant engage in a proper conversation with them

 

[blackangst1]

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.

Wow. I never thought I'd see the day where you and Bill OReilly share the same view 😉