• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Research on sexual orientation and homophobia

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
alzan said:
Special privileges? Affording homosexuals the same rights and privileges as other citizens enjoy is a "special privilege?

Hidden agenda? Is this in addition to the "Agenda" or is it the same thing? And is it part of the "War" which you've claimed is underway?

Do you get your talking points from Dr. James Dobson or Bill O'Reilly? Or do they come from one of your other ALTs?

alzan
Click to expand...

ahem

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

Your humble correspondent doesn't really care much about gay marriage because I believe it is no danger to the republic and the deity can sort all this stuff out after we're dead. I take a libertarian position on issues like gay marriage because I want all Americans to be able to pursue happiness equally.
Click to expand...
Anyway, I know its fun to demonize your adversary, but you have to know their position first.

😉 Carry on...
 
part of the liberal fear/envy and phobia campaign. Liberals insist on staying in a permanent state of adolescence. Their liberal psychosis causes them to see everything thru the lens of "phobia".
 
nehalem256 said:
The purpose of marriage is to insure a stable environment for the raising of children. Given that gay people cannot reproduce together there is no reason for gay marriage. Gay people still have the same right as straight people to get married to a person of the opposite sex. They just choose not to exercise said right.

And you are wrong phobia is about fear. So ironically people who are actually "afraid" of homosexuals might actually be more likely to secretly gay. But liberals have so abused the term as to render it meaningless.

To them it has just become a way to shame people into supporting gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Must suck to be married and not want kids. I guess we should ban no desire for kids marriages.

Lol
 
LunarRay said:
hehehehe,

I guess Some States agree with you and some don't... It will take an opinion by SCOTUS to unite the States.

You can't argue that Marriage is a Fundamental Right of an Individual and then say but only some can enjoy it with out also proving that there is a Compelling Interest by the Government (fundamental = strict scrutiny in my opinion) to deny Equal Protection of those Rights. That is what is to be decided by SCOTUS at some point and then, IF my crystal ball is gleeming correctly, SCOTUS will say..., 'but for a compelling State interest marriage is a Right of the individual to be enjoyed by willing participants..."

But, you don't hold Marriage to be a Right so... I guess you ask the State to sanction or deny based on any criteria they see fit to employ... You may be too short and your short genes are not desirable....
Click to expand...

I have never heard anyone say that marriage is between 2 people over 6 feet tall.

And, so following from what you said
Should siblings be able to marry?
Should you be able to marry multiple people?

Are there any conditions the state can put on who you can marry?
 
nehalem256 said:
The problem is how do we determine if people want kids before they marry?

Should we require a lie detector test before marriage?
Click to expand...

The real problem is that many conservatives refuse to recognize that gay people are a naturally occurring part of the human race, refuse to recognize that their lives enrich our own, and that they deserve equality in all things. Conservatives often fear gays simply because, as noted, they've never really looked at themselves at any depth at all.

And the arguments are the same as they've always been, for ending slavery, for women's suffrage, for civil rights. And of course gays generally align themselves with liberals, because we've fought for all those things while conservatives opposed them.
 
alzan said:
Special privileges? Affording homosexuals the same rights and privileges as other citizens enjoy is a "special privilege?

Hidden agenda? Is this in addition to the "Agenda" or is it the same thing? And is it part of the "War" which you've claimed is underway?

Do you get your talking points from Dr. James Dobson or Bill O'Reilly? Or do they come from one of your other ALTs?

alzan
Click to expand...

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?
 
Jhhnn said:
The real problem is that many conservatives refuse to recognize that gay people are a naturally occurring part of the human race, refuse to recognize that their lives enrich our own, and that they deserve equality in all things. Conservatives often fear gays simply because, as noted, they've never really looked at themselves at any depth at all.

And the arguments are the same as they've always been, for ending slavery, for women's suffrage, for civil rights. And of course gays generally align themselves with liberals, because we've fought for all those things while conservatives opposed them.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Jhhnn said:
The real problem is that many conservatives refuse to recognize that gay people are a naturally occurring part of the human race, refuse to recognize that their lives enrich our own, and that they deserve equality in all things. Conservatives often fear gays simply because, as noted, they've never really looked at themselves at any depth at all.

And the arguments are the same as they've always been, for ending slavery, for women's suffrage, for civil rights. And of course gays generally align themselves with liberals, because we've fought for all those things while conservatives opposed them.
Click to expand...

Democrats were the ones who started the KKK along with Jim Crow laws and minimum wage, They have done more to hurt black people than Conservatives ever could
 
Incorruptible said:
Democrats were the ones who started the KKK along with Jim Crow laws and minimum wage, They have done more to hurt black people than Conservatives ever could
Click to expand...

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.
 
Moonbeam said:
I would advise against the conservative mind suggesting that defectives be excluded from marriage.
Click to expand...

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.... 😱
 
Am I the only one who finds reading these discussions fascinating? It's not really the subject matter but the interactions of egos. It is really interesting watching the human psyche in action.

If I was a psychology student this would be a great source of observation!

As poohbear said, mindsets are best changed through direct experience and not arguments, especially online arguments. I guess some dialog is better than no dialog though. Moonbeam could be a little more tactful in his delivery but his posts are insightful and work on a pretty deep level. Don't look at them as attacks, they are his observations.

Decisions made by people will have some degree of bias to them. If we desire the most objective source of decision making then the scientific method is the closest we can come.
 
Franz316 said:
Moonbeam could be a little more tactful in his delivery but his posts are insightful and work on a pretty deep level. Don't look at them as attacks, they are his observations.
Click to expand...

This is like saying to not look at being mauled by a bear as an attack, look at is as the bear's observations. Yeah, it is just that silly.
 
nehalem256 said:
Now really the only important question is why should the government sanction marriages or civil unions at all?
Click to expand...

This is the key. The gov should step out of marriages altogether and only issue civil unions. They should authorize people to perform civil unions, just like they do now. These same people can also issue marriage certificates of their respective religion, along with the civil union certificate from the government.

The government can then legalize heterosexual civil unions, homosexual civil unions, polygamist civil unions, and incestuous civil unions to grant legal rights to all the various lifestyle groups. Religious institutions can issue marriages.

Everyone wins...there really are no losers here. OK, the only losers are those who demand that everyone redefine marriage to meet their own agenda and those who say only heterosexuals should have legal rights. But these two groups are simply a handful of morons who should be ignored while the vast majority become happy.
 
cybrsage said:
This is the key. The gov should step out of marriages altogether and only issue civil unions. They should authorize people to perform civil unions, just like they do now. These same people can also issue marriage certificates of their respective religion, along with the civil union certificate from the government.

The government can then legalize heterosexual civil unions, homosexual civil unions, polygamist civil unions, and incestuous civil unions to grant legal rights to all the various lifestyle groups. Religious institutions can issue marriages.

Everyone wins...there really are no losers here. OK, the only losers are those who demand that everyone redefine marriage to meet their own agenda and those who say only heterosexuals should have legal rights. But these two groups are simply a handful of morons who should be ignored while the vast majority become happy.
Click to expand...

But why should even civil unions be granted?
 
Franz316 said:
Am I the only one who finds reading these discussions fascinating? It's not really the subject matter but the interactions of egos. It is really interesting watching the human psyche in action.

If I was a psychology student this would be a great source of observation!

As poohbear said, mindsets are best changed through direct experience and not arguments, especially online arguments. I guess some dialog is better than no dialog though. Moonbeam could be a little more tactful in his delivery but his posts are insightful and work on a pretty deep level. Don't look at them as attacks, they are his observations.

Decisions made by people will have some degree of bias to them. If we desire the most objective source of decision making then the scientific method is the closest we can come.
Click to expand...

It is actually an excellent source of observation... It is free thought without constraint or thoughts of repercussion...
I'd expect each poster is posting what they really do think.

The scientific method does not convince in a forum... not when the input is denied to be authentic or the truth.

Folks tend not to provide their own hypotheses but rather, they tear apart what is in front of them using what is consistent with their view and if that possibility does not exist they castigate the hypothesis holder. There is no independent authority in a forum... none that are acceptable to both sides...
 
nehalem256 said:
But why should even civil unions be granted?
Click to expand...

That is a good question. It is because of the legal need for an immediately identifiable next of kin, power of attorney for both medical and financial, etc. The partner in the civil union is granted all of these things automatically.

Without it, it falls to the oldest living child or the parents if no child exists. However, these people may be hundreds of miles away (or more), while a partner is most likely nearby.

It simply makes legal issues far simpler to sort out in an emergency.
 
LunarRay said:
It is actually an excellent source of observation... It is free thought without constraint or thoughts of repercussion...
I'd expect each poster is posting what they really do think.
Click to expand...

No there are number of liberals posters who are clearly afraid to post what they really think even here.
 
nehalem256 said:
I have never heard anyone say that marriage is between 2 people over 6 feet tall.

And, so following from what you said
Should siblings be able to marry?
Should you be able to marry multiple people?

Are there any conditions the state can put on who you can marry?
Click to expand...


It is ok and actually preferred to think and speak using analogy... When one seeks to use an element of an analogy without the context it was used in, one communicates nothing other than an effort that fails... what ever that effort might be...

Grasp the notion of a law and a compelling State need. Hold this in your thinking while you seek to answer the questions proffered..

Ergo,
Is it legal to marry your sister. IF so then all may go forth and do so otherwise refrain from an illegal act.
The second verse the same as the first.... Remember always you reside in Caesar's world... and render unto him as his law dictates.
 
cybrsage said:
That is a good question. It is because of the legal need for an immediately identifiable next of kin, power of attorney for both medical and financial, etc. The partner in the civil union is granted all of these things automatically.

Without it, it falls to the oldest living child or the parents if no child exists. However, these people may be hundreds of miles away (or more), while a partner is most likely nearby.

It simply makes legal issues far simpler to sort out in an emergency.
Click to expand...

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

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?
 
islam is going to have the last say in all this. They will take over the world in 50 years or less..10 years in the YK. And we all know what their answer will be.
 
LunarRay said:
It is ok and actually preferred to think and speak using analogy... When one seeks to use an element of an analogy without the context it was used in, one communicates nothing other than an effort that fails... what ever that effort might be...

Grasp the notion of a law and a compelling State need. Hold this in your thinking while you seek to answer the questions proffered..

Ergo,
Is it legal to marry your sister. IF so then all may go forth and do so otherwise refrain from an illegal act.
The second verse the same as the first.... Remember always you reside in Caesar's world... and render unto him as his law dictates.
Click to expand...

What compelling reason is there to keep you from marrying your sister?
 
nehalem256 said:
No there are number of liberals posters who are clearly afraid to post what they really think even here.
Click to expand...
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top