• 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 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
thraashman said:
HOW DARE YOU! How dare you say something that I find reasonible and agree with. I am against having marriage and civil union be separate states for heterosexual vs homosexual couples because of the premise in Brown v The Board of Education that separate but equal is inherently not equal. I would support however the government recognizing only civil unions and extending that right to both opposite sex and same sex marriages. To me it's not about morality, it's about Constitutionality. And so long as there are legal benefits gratned to married couples I feel it violated the 14th Amendment to deny them the right to marry. If no one had the right to marry but could instead enter into a civil union (let each couple call it whatever they want), then it would not violated the 14th Amendment. It's an equality thing.

I admit, you are one of the last people I would expect to agree with in P&N on an issue. We should probably avoid doing it again, I'm sure you find it as awkward as I do.
Click to expand...

😀 I am sure there will be other issues we agree upon. It is just the most logical AND emotion solution to the entire problem. Religion gets to keep its sacred rites intact and government gets to pass on legal rights. The two should never have been combined, but that is the ancient past...only thing we can do now is fix it.


Howver, Seperate but Equal is allowed by law, restrooms are an example.
 
piasabird said:
Whan a single parent with children files for Earned income credit, combined with the standard deduction on an income of $12,000, they get $8,000 back from the IRS. So lets remove the government from both marriage and support. The government does not force people to get preagnant, so they should not take my tax money to pay for it. That would be more like freedom.
Click to expand...

Why? People with children get a deduction from tax because they need more of their money to raise their children who will grow up to pay taxes. You aren't paying more because they are paying less. Your parents got to deduct you so you have already been paid.

If your thinking made the slightest sense then the government should not allow business deductions for business expenses so business can grow faster, hire more employees who pay taxes themselves, and earn more so the business also pays more taxes.

If you don't have kids or own a business you are essentially on government welfare as an unproductive parasite, living on the productivity and fertility of others.
 
cybrsage said:
😀 I am sure there will be other issues we agree upon. It is just the most logical AND emotion solution to the entire problem. Religion gets to keep its sacred rites intact and government gets to pass on legal rights. The two should never have been combined, but that is the ancient past...only thing we can do now is fix it.


Howver, Seperate but Equal is allowed by law, restrooms are an example.
Click to expand...

Yup, the law is full of hypocrisy, like a husband can't be forced to testify against his wife, a lawyer gets to keep confessions private as do priests, all kinds of examples of inequality. This is why it's so outrageous that blacks still aren't counted as fractional people.
 
nehalem256 said:
100% agree. Liberals should stop forcing their morality on us and making us support single parents.
Click to expand...

First we're forcing an agenda, now we're forcing morality.

I really wish you'd make up your mind.

By the way, you're not forced to support single parents, you can stop paying taxes anytime you choose.
 
cybrsage said:
😀 I am sure there will be other issues we agree upon. It is just the most logical AND emotion solution to the entire problem. Religion gets to keep its sacred rites intact and government gets to pass on legal rights. The two should never have been combined, but that is the ancient past...only thing we can do now is fix it.


Howver, Seperate but Equal is allowed by law, restrooms are an example.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I'll concede that point to you... Damn, what's going on here? Twice in the same thread. It's like I've stepped into the Twilight Zone.
 
alzan said:
First we're forcing an agenda, now we're forcing morality.

I really wish you'd make up your mind.

By the way, you're not forced to support single parents, you can stop paying taxes anytime you choose.
Click to expand...

People dont have a choice to pay taxes, the government will come after you if you dont pay taxes
 
alzan said:
First we're forcing an agenda, now we're forcing morality.

I really wish you'd make up your mind.

By the way, you're not forced to support single parents, you can stop paying taxes anytime you choose.
Click to expand...

You do realize I never used agenda. And I was clearly making a jest at the typical liberal complaint of Republicans forcing their morality on others.

And if I quit paying them some nice men with suits and guns would pay me a visit.
 
Moonbeam said:
Why? People with children get a deduction from tax because they need more of their money to raise their children who will grow up to pay taxes. You aren't paying more because they are paying less. Your parents got to deduct you so you have already been paid.
Click to expand...

You mean like the -$8,000 in taxes their parents are "paying". Maybe I should be able to count my car a dependent, I mean it already pays more in taxes than 46% of Americans combined.
 
piasabird said:
Whan a single parent with children files for Earned income credit, combined with the standard deduction on an income of $12,000, they get $8,000 back from the IRS. So lets remove the government from both marriage and support. The government does not force people to get preagnant, so they should not take my tax money to pay for it. That would be more like freedom.
Click to expand...

Nope! I checked and your tax money goes to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan... incidentally, you still owe about a trillion $ so pay up...

Only the compassionate could come up with a tax rule that targets low and middle class workers with the ETC... Best as I can recon it is Moonbeam's tax money that is held in trust to fund the ETC...

IF you really want to get down to 'brass tacks' you sorta have to blame God for all the baby stuff... He started it all with that Adam and Eve bit.

IF you don't think God exists then ok... it was some galactically random event but one that evolved specifically with you and a few others in mind. Sorta like... after David asked the king where the queen was and the old king said, "in bed with arthritis" and then David said, "Is that Greek bastard still around", he was thrown into the arena where he started throwing tuffs of dirt at random but random ducked and it hit the king square in the face... "shit, cried the King and a thousand iron pants fell"... Ya see, In those days the king's word was law....
 
LunarRay said:
Nope! I checked and your tax money goes to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan... incidentally, you still owe about a trillion $ so pay up...
Click to expand...

Clearly we need to decrease the size and scope of the military if we are to having any hope of reducing the budget deficit.
 
nehalem256 said:
You do realize I never used agenda. And I was clearly making a jest at the typical liberal complaint of Republicans forcing their morality on others.

And if I quit paying them some nice men with suits and guns would pay me a visit.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I keep getting you and Incorruptible confused. It's almost like you're twins, or something.

Like I told Incorruptible, never said you wouldn't get into trouble. But you do have to admit you can choose to not pay your taxes.

Just a suggestion: if you dislike paying taxes you can always pick a nice little shithole of another country to live in. Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized country/society.
 
nehalem256 said:
If it is wrong to force a woman to be a mother. It is wrong to force a man to be a father.

By being the one who gets pregnant I woman can still choose to abort without a man's consent. Just if she keeps it she cannot force him to be responsible for it. She has the power, she has the responsibility.
Click to expand...

I'm not certain but presume that all States agree and the Federal Government concurs with the opposite of your continued philosophy on the issue of Child stuff...
The States for the most part and the Federal Government concurs with the majority of States regarding the Gay Marriage bit.

You do not choose to agree with the underlying reasoning that created the situations above that are in conflict with your view. There can be no other better authority I can point you toward. You are free to rationalize how you wish as we all are.
However, the difference is that I choose to amend my view based on the temporal nature of Caesar's world but act according to my eternal view as it applies to my actions. On these issues it seems Caesar is showing compassion and to me that is good... You seem to choose condemnation and to me that is bad. IF you believe your temporal actions have not to do with your eternal aspirations or if eternal is not relevant then I have no argument that can alter, if it were to be accepted, your view.
I can only conclude that IF eternity IS the criteria we'll all face we'll not see each other 'there'... and I'm certain where 'there' is.

Sadly, it seems money and the love of it drives many to the abyss of its design.
 
nehalem256 said:
You can also choose not to eat instead of expecting the government to provide you with food.

It makes the same amount of sense.
Click to expand...

I pay for my own food, whizkid. And I don't mind supporting, through my tax dollars, other people who can't afford a decent meal. It's called compassion, although it's not surprising that you have no concept of it.
 
nehalem256 said:
Clearly we need to decrease the size and scope of the military if we are to having any hope of reducing the budget deficit.
Click to expand...

Clearly the folks we put in charge know this too but are convinced there is a greater need and that view is not shared by everyone, but maybe if everyone knew what that greater need was they might move toward the notion we seem embarked upon...
 
LunarRay said:
I'm not certain but presume that all States agree and the Federal Government concurs with the opposite of your continued philosophy on the issue of Child stuff...
The States for the most part and the Federal Government concurs with the majority of States regarding the Gay Marriage bit.

You do not choose to agree with the underlying reasoning that created the situations above that are in conflict with your view. There can be no other better authority I can point you toward. You are free to rationalize how you wish as we all are.
However, the difference is that I choose to amend my view based on the temporal nature of Caesar's world but act according to my eternal view as it applies to my actions. On these issues it seems Caesar is showing compassion and to me that is good... You seem to choose condemnation and to me that is bad. IF you believe your temporal actions have not to do with your eternal aspirations or if eternal is not relevant then I have no argument that can alter, if it were to be accepted, your view.
I can only conclude that IF eternity IS the criteria we'll all face we'll not see each other 'there'... and I'm certain where 'there' is.

Sadly, it seems money and the love of it drives many to the abyss of its design.
Click to expand...

I dont see how you can argue that a man's choice not to support his offspring is worse than a woman's choice to kill her offspring.

Either you believe in equality or not. If you believe that women should not be forced to be a mother, but it is okay to force a man to be a father. Then you oppose equality.
 
nehalem256 said:
I dont see how you can argue that a man's choice not to support his offspring is worse than a woman's choice to kill her offspring.

Either you believe in equality or not. If you believe that women should not be forced to be a mother, but it is okay to force a man to be a father. Then you oppose equality.
Click to expand...

There are different thingi involved here..

The first is the assumption of financial responsibility should a child occur the result of a sexual event. iow, as I understand it, the law maintains that the act of intercourse creates the 'contract' should a child occur from that event... ergo, boy and girl are jointly responsible for the child's everything and both have the same rights regarding the child.

The second is to do with the woman and the fetus up to birth...
"Roe" controls... so I need not elaborate there... read it.

Consider:.... just for the moment, if you will....

One cannot lose a Right they never had....

The man never had the Right regarding the body of the woman and her sole decision to have or not have a child...

Ergo, there is no question of equality... Not according to law, as I see it.

For me, there would not be a question of abortion cuz If I were a woman and got pregnant I'd have the child... and the father would have the rights he has...
 
LunarRay said:
There are different thingi involved here..

The first is the assumption of financial responsibility should a child occur the result of a sexual event. iow, as I understand it, the law maintains that the act of intercourse creates the 'contract' should a child occur from that event... ergo, boy and girl are jointly responsible for the child's everything and both have the same rights regarding the child.

The second is to do with the woman and the fetus up to birth...
"Roe" controls... so I need not elaborate there... read it.

Consider:.... just for the moment, if you will....

One cannot lose a Right they never had....

The man never had the Right regarding the body of the woman and her sole decision to have or not have a child...

Ergo, there is no question of equality... Not according to law, as I see it.

For me, there would not be a question of abortion cuz If I were a woman and got pregnant I'd have the child... and the father would have the rights he has...
Click to expand...

There is a truth with an authority higher than law or even the law of
God and that is the truthiness contained in the defective brains of conservatives. The only hope I can see is if the discussion continues long enough for new nerves to grow while old ones die and healthy neural pathways have time to develop. The pressure of logic that you apply to his mind might just be enough to create such a need.

For what you have done to my brain over so many years I want to thank you.
 
LunarRay said:
There are different thingi involved here..

The first is the assumption of financial responsibility should a child occur the result of a sexual event. iow, as I understand it, the law maintains that the act of intercourse creates the 'contract' should a child occur from that event... ergo, boy and girl are jointly responsible for the child's everything and both have the same rights regarding the child.

The second is to do with the woman and the fetus up to birth...
"Roe" controls... so I need not elaborate there... read it.

Consider:.... just for the moment, if you will....

One cannot lose a Right they never had....

The man never had the Right regarding the body of the woman and her sole decision to have or not have a child...

Ergo, there is no question of equality... Not according to law, as I see it.

For me, there would not be a question of abortion cuz If I were a woman and got pregnant I'd have the child... and the father would have the rights he has...
Click to expand...

They dont have the same rights

For example safe haven laws:
http://safehaven.tv/states/minnesota/
A woman is legally allowed to abandon her child without notification or consent of the father.

Further lets us continue on what liberals believe:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/nyc/talking-turkey-38298.htm

"For example, “I might not personally choose to get an abortion, but I could never decide for another woman whether or not she was ready to become a parent.”
"

So why is it okay to choose for a man whether or not he is ready to become a parent.

Consent to sex is not consent to being a parent.
 
Moonbeam said:
There is a truth with an authority higher than law or even the law of
God and that is the truthiness contained in the defective brains of conservatives. The only hope I can see is if the discussion continues long enough for new nerves to grow while old ones die and healthy neural pathways have time to develop. The pressure of logic that you apply to his mind might just be enough to create such a need.

For what you have done to my brain over so many years I want to thank you.
Click to expand...


Well.. thanks to you I am able to enjoy being me while you get to enjoy being you. One thing for sure in our discussions that is not present here is that we both listen to each other and think on what is said which at times is quite awhile in order to further our mutual understanding of the topic at hand.

But, I really do know what motivates our friend, Nehalem, regarding the issues he gravitates to regardless of the topic...

He is upset over the fact that Homosexual Marriage and Homosexual Sex does not produce (normally) kids.... Therefore, they get to enjoy sex without having to worry about the paying for child support or demanding abortions and like that... whereas Hetero marriage and Hetero sex presents that condition...

He says Gay marriage should not be allowed because marriage is only for making babies... I posit that marriage being a fundamental right is for what ever the participants wish it to be for.... It is for them to decided, after all...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top