Is Homosexuality Genetic? Ask the Ancient Greeks
tim jones
A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays cannot
change their sexual orientation. This can be read in more than one
way. But perhaps the most obvious interpretation is that homosexuality
is biological or innate, and therefore a certain percentage of people
in every society are genetically programmed to be gay.
This view, I think, is simply wrong.
To figure this out we don't have to dispute the controversial
scientific studies, which are inconclusive. We simply have to look at
a concrete historical example. Homosexuality was widespread in ancient
Greece and Rome. The Greeks even had an educational philosophy based
on pederasty. As K.J. Dover describes in his study of the subject,
older men would take teenage boys as sex partners, and in return for
sexual favors they would supposedly provide wisdom and knowledge.
Interestingly one character in Plato's Symposium protests this
practice. He thinks it is unfavor to the older men!
If these practices are genetic, why aren't homosexuality and pederasty
prevalent in Greece and Rome today? Has the gene pool changed that
much? These questions can be deepened by noting that for the ancients,
there was no question of being either heterosexual or homosexual. The
Greeks and Romans were both. In other words, Greek and Roman males
typically were married and had families, yet these same married men
also had sexual liaisons with younger boys.
I'm sure if someone in those days conducted a poll, the Greeks and
Romans would confidently proclaim their sexual practices "natural." If
you told the ancient Athenians that other societies weren't into
pederasty like they were, chances are they would laugh and say that
obviously pederasts in other cultures were concealing their true
inclinations. With the same cultural myopia, we think that since there
are homosexuals in our society, and since they clearly aren't
whimsically "choosing" to be homosexual, therefore homosexuality must
be biological and innate. But this is a non-sequitur, and history
suggests that it is not so.
Ray Fischer
>Dinesh D'Souza
>
>A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays cannot
>change their sexual orientation. This can be read in more than one
>way. But perhaps the most obvious interpretation is that homosexuality
>is biological or innate, and therefore a certain percentage of people
>in every society are genetically programmed to be gay.
>
>This view, I think, is simply wrong.
Nobody gives a shit. Biology counts. Uninformed beleifs do not.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Enos Penvy
> Dinesh D'Souza
>
> A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays cannot
> change their sexual orientation.
Good. They're catching up with reality.
> This can be read in more than one
> way.
It says what it says.
> But perhaps the most obvious interpretation is that homosexuality
> is biological or innate, and therefore a certain percentage of people
> in every society are genetically programmed to be gay.
You've misused the term "genetically". Something that is biological
or innate does not necessarily have a genetic cause.
> This view, I think, is simply wrong.
> To figure this out we don't have to dispute the controversial
> scientific studies, which are inconclusive.
Even the Catholics, and even the "ex-gay" ministries, believe that the
orientation itself cannot be changed. A person is attracted to who he
is attracted to.
> We simply have to look at
> a concrete historical example. Homosexuality was widespread in ancient
> Greece and Rome. The Greeks even had an educational philosophy based
> on pederasty. As K.J. Dover describes in his study of the subject,
> older men would take teenage boys as sex partners, and in return for
> sexual favors they would supposedly provide wisdom and knowledge.
> Interestingly one character in Plato's Symposium protests this
> practice. He thinks it is unfavor to the older men!
>
> If these practices are genetic, why aren't homosexuality and pederasty
> prevalent in Greece and Rome today?
Pederasty has been made illegal. Homosexuality continues, but after
the arrival of Christianity, simply more hidden. That, of course, is
changing, and homosexuality is once again becoming more accepted
worldwide, as it was for most of the history of mankind.
> Has the gene pool changed that
> much?
No. What you seem to think is a reduction in the number of
homosexuals is the result of man-made laws, and punishments against
the behavior. This simply pushes the persecuted underground.
> These questions can be deepened by noting that for the ancients,
> there was no question of being either heterosexual or homosexual.
Correct. But that doesn't "deepen" the question. It shows that for
millennia, homosexuality was not considered to be a moral issue, and
civilizations thrived even so.
> The
> Greeks and Romans were both. In other words, Greek and Roman males
> typically were married and had families, yet these same married men
> also had sexual liaisons with younger boys.
Correct.
> I'm sure if someone in those days conducted a poll, the Greeks and
> Romans would confidently proclaim their sexual practices "natural."
They are "natural". Humans are not capable of "unnatural" acts.
> If
> you told the ancient Athenians that other societies weren't into
> pederasty like they were, chances are they would laugh and say that
> obviously pederasts in other cultures were concealing their true
> inclinations.
Most cultures at that time showed acceptance of homosexuality
activity.
> With the same cultural myopia, we think that since there
> are homosexuals in our society, and since they clearly aren't
> whimsically "choosing" to be homosexual, therefore homosexuality must
> be biological and innate.
It is likely biological.
> But this is a non-sequitur,
No. One of the "reasons" homophobes use for keeping rights from gays
is that they CHOOSE to be homosexual and are simply unwilling to
change to heterosexual inclinations.
> and history
> suggests that it is not so.
History suggests that, before the rise of Christianity, most cultures
accepted a preference for or dalliance in homosexual relationships,
much as today we accept a person's preference for baseball over
basketball. The ancients did not consider it to be a moral issue.
jrh
fcfbd6...@p28g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
> Dinesh D'Souza
> A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays cannot
> change their sexual orientation. This can be read in more than one
> way. But perhaps the most obvious interpretation is that homosexuality
> is biological or innate, and therefore a certain percentage of people
> in every society are genetically programmed to be gay.
> This view, I think, is simply wrong.
I agree, polls are poor indicators of truth
especially when issues are clouded by criminalization.
> To figure this out we don't have to dispute the controversial
> scientific studies, which are inconclusive. We simply have to look at
> a concrete historical example. Homosexuality was widespread in ancient
> Greece and Rome. <clip>
> If these practices are genetic, why aren't homosexuality and pederasty
> prevalent in Greece and Rome today?
> Has the gene pool changed that much?
Homosexuality, heterosexuality and asexuality are socially imposed.
Genetically, individuals are bisexual with a bias towards the opposite sex.
Consider the sign of man's fall was sexual shame. The first thing
the Serpents meta program caused was shame and from then
on man's natural impulses were corrupted by it's lies. Religion has
been propagating shame ever since and Christ's commandment
telling them to get out of peoples bedrooms so they could find a way
out of the mess has been ignored .
This unrecognized error is the cause of homosexuals disorder, divorce,
rape, child abuse and abortion. If "good" religious people don't
come to grips with the log in their eye and stop trying to punish sinners,
all will be lost.
jrh
Josh
>
> Even the Catholics, and even the "ex-gay" ministries, believe that the
> orientation itself cannot be changed. A person is attracted to who he
> is attracted to.
Do have a citation for these claims?
Josh Rosenbluth
raven1
<timjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Dinesh D'Souza
Pretty much sums it up right there.
thomas p.
"tim jones" <timjo...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:c3bb36f3-f560-4240...@p28g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
The fact that he is apparently well educated destroys any possible excuse
(besides insanity)
for the above distortions. He is quite simply a dishonest little man making
money by
catering to the ignorant.
LC
One trick troll "tim jones" <timjo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3bb36f3-f560-4240...@p28g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays cannot
> change their sexual orientation.
This kook has exactly three trolls...errrr...posts to it's credit, and each
one obsesses over homosexuality.
Paging Dr. Freud!
The Chief Instigator
> tim jones <timjo...@gmail.com> wrote in news:c3bb36f3-f560-4240-88b1-
> fcfbd6...@p28g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Dinesh D'Souza
>
>> A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays cannot
>> change their sexual orientation. This can be read in more than one
>> way. But perhaps the most obvious interpretation is that homosexuality
>> is biological or innate, and therefore a certain percentage of people
>> in every society are genetically programmed to be gay.
>
>> This view, I think, is simply wrong.
>
> I agree, polls are poor indicators of truth especially when issues are
> clouded by criminalization.
>
>> To figure this out we don't have to dispute the controversial scientific
>> studies, which are inconclusive. We simply have to look at a concrete
>> historical example. Homosexuality was widespread in ancient Greece and
>> Rome. <clip>
>
>> If these practices are genetic, why aren't homosexuality and pederasty
>> prevalent in Greece and Rome today? Has the gene pool changed that much?
>
> Homosexuality, heterosexuality and asexuality are socially imposed.
Bullshit. Homosexuality is a less likely orientation, and orientation is
likely encoded into genes (which haven't been identified yet). Homosexual
behavior has been observed in animals, as well, so that slaps down the
"socially imposed" fantasy.
> Genetically, individuals are bisexual with a bias towards the opposite sex.
...and in humans, a slight percentage are born with a bias towards the same
sex. That's what produces the situation that you can't get a grasp of.
> Consider the sign of man's fall was sexual shame. The first thing the
> Serpents meta program caused was shame and from then on man's natural
> impulses were corrupted by it's lies. Religion has been propagating shame
> ever since and Christ's commandment telling them to get out of peoples
> bedrooms so they could find a way out of the mess has been ignored .
Dragging imaginary gods into your slumgullion of an explanation does you no
honor. Organized religions have latched on to your tactics, and have been
lying ever since.
> This unrecognized error is the cause of homosexuals disorder, divorce,
> rape, child abuse and abortion. If "good" religious people don't
> come to grips with the log in their eye and stop trying to punish sinners,
> all will be lost.
>
> jrh
This married atheist heterosexual doesn't need your dysfunctional obsession
with sexuality or religion. (Neither does my wife, and we have a few
homosexual friends, considering we're in the fourth-largest city in this
country.)
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 2, Houston 1 (OT, November 22)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, November 25 at Hamilton, 6:05
James A. Donald
> If these practices are genetic, why aren't homosexuality and pederasty
> prevalent in Greece and Rome today? Has the gene pool changed that
> much?
Sexual characteristics are notoriously prone to rapid evolutionary
change.
Suppose that in the ancestral environment, pederasty was strongly
discouraged by lethal violence. Assume that in the more "civilized"
environment it was not. Then in the ancestral environment, there
would be only weak selection against an inclination towards pederasty,
in the "civilized" environment, strong selection.
> I'm sure if someone in those days conducted a poll, the Greeks and
> Romans would confidently proclaim their sexual practices "natural." If
> you told the ancient Athenians that other societies weren't into
> pederasty like they were, chances are they would laugh and say that
> obviously pederasts in other cultures were concealing their true
> inclinations.
Which they were, since most of their neighbors were apt to kill
pederasts.
Pat Magroyne
One Catholic example: 2006-NOV: Pastoral statements from American
bishops: "To the extent that a homosexual tendency or inclination is
not subject to one's free will, one is not morally culpable for that
tendency." http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rom5.htm
I don't know where I read about a number of ex-gay ministries
reversing course at least somewhat on the issue of homosexual
attraction vs. homosexual behavior, but Exodus International has
distanced itself somewhat (even though on their site I saw something
to the contrary). "Exodus describes change as 'attaining abstinence
from homosexual behaviors, lessening of homosexual temptations,
strengthening their sense of masculine or feminine identity,
correcting distorted styles of relating with members of the same and
opposite gender.'" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-gay This
description of change is CLEARLY not the same as claiming that same-
sex ATTRACTION can be changed.
Peter Franks
> tim jones <timjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dinesh D'Souza
>>
>> A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays cannot
>> change their sexual orientation. This can be read in more than one
>> way. But perhaps the most obvious interpretation is that homosexuality
>> is biological or innate, and therefore a certain percentage of people
>> in every society are genetically programmed to be gay.
>>
>> This view, I think, is simply wrong.
>
Does nature count?
Wexford
I'd be cautious about making sweeping claims of the prevalence of any
particular practice based only on the surviving remnants of a few
ancient writers. Plato was hardly representative of the typical Greek
of his day. As for Romans, some were homosexual, some bi-sexual. There
is evidence that some Romans were violently homophobic as well. In
both societies poor and unproctected women and children could be
exploited, and slaves, who could be the majority of the population,
were always available. The truth is, we don't know what common
practices were, who enjoyed what or how much of anything went on. We
do know that certain people did certain things. Some ancient writing
alludes to homosexual practices. The Spartans -- who were, if
anything,utterly weird -- had their own odd sexual practices.
Heterosexuality gets a great deal of play in the surviving texts and
was certainly celebrated and prevalent throughout the Ancient world,
forming the substance of myths and the basis of romantic legend.
However many homosexuals populated ancient Greece and Rome, there were
enough heteros to keep the population expanding, and to support a
large number of brothels, where some prostitutes and concubines
demanded enormous sums for their favors. What conclusion can you draw
from this? None. What relevance has it to today's world?
little.
Ric Locke
The relevance, if any, lies in trying distinguish between the civil
rights aspect (which is real and valid) and the linguistic imperialism
(which is pure power-grab, and is being resisted as such). The "gay
rights" advocates try to steer everything into the first channel; it
doesn't work, because it can't work.
There are a near-infinite number of ways in which modern society differs
from the ancient ones. At the top of that list, we no longer keep slaves
except in a few backward pockets, mainly Islamic but with a few criminal
organizations. However, in every case we can point to societies in the
past that had the same or similar customs.
This is not the case with "gay marriage". Even the Sacred Band of
Thebes, celebrated in homosexual mythology, did not refer to the
domestic arrangements of its members as "marriage". Their chroniclers
claimed it was the /equivalent/ of marriage, but in the few cases where
a member of the Band got married, he left the Band and married a woman.
Homosexuals ought to have the same rights as anybody else, and we were
on track to accomplish that right up until Gavin Newsom pulled his
stupid publicity stunt. It is apocraphylly noted that the Legislature of
Mississippi once passed a law requiring pi to be exactly three. Trying
to establish "gay marriage" -- changing the definition of a word -- by
legislative or judicial fiat is equally stupid, and people react to
that. They will continue to do so.
Regards,
Ric
thomas p.
"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:hekp20$sit$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
Yes, go on. Did you have a point?
Josh
>
> Homosexuals ought to have the same rights as anybody else, and we were
> on track to accomplish that right up until Gavin Newsom pulled his
> stupid publicity stunt. It is apocraphylly noted that the Legislature of
> Mississippi once passed a law requiring pi to be exactly three. Trying
> to establish "gay marriage" -- changing the definition of a word -- by
> legislative or judicial fiat is equally stupid, and people react to
> that. They will continue to do so.
I disagree that permitting same-sex couples to enter into civil marriage
changes the definition of the word marriage because I reject the idea
that marriage is defined by who is eligible. Instead, marriage ought to
be defined by its purpose in society.
Josh Rosenbluth
thomas p.
"Ric Locke" <warric...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:1894f1nautkzh$.11w8s6xb14vut$.dlg@40tude.net...
If the law says that pi equals 3 exactly, nothing will change; using 3 in
calculations will not work.
The law did not create pi. It did create civil marriage. See the
difference?
Josh
He's made it before, and he expresses it in a hard-to-swallow way. But,
basically it comes to a Darwinian argument that natural selection should
act against homosexuality because of procreation.
My guess is one of three things are true: 1) there is another reason
for selecting homosexuality that counters the procreation effect, 2) the
model of natural selection requires adjustments to explain why
homosexuality continues, or 3) we need to wait much, much longer to see
homosexuality die out.
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
Yes, I do.
Homosexuality is contrary to natural design. I presume that supersedes
the biology argument.
Peter Franks
> thomas p. wrote:
>> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:hekp20$sit$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> tim jones <timjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Dinesh D'Souza
>>>>>
>>>>> A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays cannot
>>>>> change their sexual orientation. This can be read in more than one
>>>>> way. But perhaps the most obvious interpretation is that homosexuality
>>>>> is biological or innate, and therefore a certain percentage of people
>>>>> in every society are genetically programmed to be gay.
>>>>>
>>>>> This view, I think, is simply wrong.
>>>> Nobody gives a ***. Biology counts. Uninformed beleifs do not.
>>> Does nature count?
>>
>> Yes, go on. Did you have a point?
>
> He's made it before, and he expresses it in a hard-to-swallow way. But,
> basically it comes to a Darwinian argument that natural selection should
> act against homosexuality because of procreation.
Why is it hard to swallow? Is it not a fact?
> My guess is one of three things are true: 1) there is another reason
> for selecting homosexuality that counters the procreation effect,
Why does nature 'select' any defect?
> 2) the
> model of natural selection requires adjustments to explain why
> homosexuality continues, or
Perhaps it isn't 'natural'.
> 3) we need to wait much, much longer to see
> homosexuality die out.
Why?
Josh
Here is one idea: the female relatives of gays reproduce at a higher
rate than the female relatives of straights. So, the same "defect" that
harms the propagation of the species by creating gays, helps the
propagation by creating more fertile women.
http://www.slate.com/id/2194232/
>> 2) the model of natural selection requires adjustments to explain why
>> homosexuality continues, or
>
> Perhaps it isn't 'natural'.
>
>> 3) we need to wait much, much longer to see homosexuality die out.
>
> Why?
Because if Natural Selection predicts that homosexuality will die out,
then it better eventually die out or something in the model is wrong.
Josh Rosenbluth
Ray Fischer
>Josh wrote:
>> thomas p. wrote:
>>> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>> news:hekp20$sit$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>> tim jones <timjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Dinesh D'Souza
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays cannot
>>>>>> change their sexual orientation. This can be read in more than one
>>>>>> way. But perhaps the most obvious interpretation is that homosexuality
>>>>>> is biological or innate, and therefore a certain percentage of people
>>>>>> in every society are genetically programmed to be gay.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This view, I think, is simply wrong.
>>>>> Nobody gives a ***. Biology counts. Uninformed beleifs do not.
>>>> Does nature count?
>>>
>>> Yes, go on. Did you have a point?
>>
>> He's made it before, and he expresses it in a hard-to-swallow way. But,
>> basically it comes to a Darwinian argument that natural selection should
>> act against homosexuality because of procreation.
>
>Why is it hard to swallow? Is it not a fact?
It is not a fact. There are some interesting hypotheses which
homosexuality is so common, and not just in humans. For example:
younger male siblings tend to be homosexual more often, and a possible
reason is that they provide support for their nephews/nieces while not
competing for adults females.
>> My guess is one of three things are true: 1) there is another reason
>> for selecting homosexuality that counters the procreation effect,
>
>Why does nature 'select' any defect?
Assuming the conclusion. In fact you have not shown that it is a
defect. Indeed, the very notion harks back to the eugenecists who
believe that they were able to decide which biological attributes were
good and which were not.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Fred
news:c3bb36f3-f560-4240...@p28g2000vbi.googlegroups.com
tim jones <timjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dinesh D'Souza
If homosexuality was genetic, it should have died out after one
generation, unless most homosexuals act against their own principles and
breed (with members of the opposite sex).
Ray Fischer
>If homosexuality was genetic, it should have died out after one
>generation,
Why?
> unless most homosexuals act against their own principles and
>breed (with members of the opposite sex).
Homosexual share genes with other people. If the trait impoves the
survivability of nieces and nephews then the trait will survive.
Don't assume that your ignorance justifies your hate.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ric Locke
Don't pat yourself on the back so hard. It strains your arm muscles, and
people will ridicule you.
Regards,
Ric
Info Junkie
Hmmm. You posted, "...I reject the idea that (civil) marriage is
defined by who is eligible"...and yet you've previously posted, "It is
true that civil marriage and its benefits are not a Due Process right,
that is the state can deny civil marriage or its benefits to all
people." Message-ID:
<1164578027.126159.168...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
As you well know, in a multitude of ways, the majority of society has
stated the definition of marriage AND its' "purpose in society". You,
like the the majority of pro-homosexual advocates, refuse to accept
their definition of marriage and how its purpose has been defined, by
well established law and custom, to provide benefits to all people
within their society....hence the reason pro-homosexual advocates
perform an end-run-around to the Courts.
"...The Equal Protection Clause "is not a license for courts to judge
the wisdom, fairness, or logic of [the voters’] choices."
(http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf)
"Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage
to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental
rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2006_sc/759341MAJ&invol=4
Josh Rosenbluth
Why does the state celebrate the marriages of the elderly and
infertile?
Josh Rosenbluth
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 26, 10:24 am, Josh <u...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Ric Locke wrote:
>>
>> > Homosexuals ought to have the same rights as anybody else, and we were
>> > on track to accomplish that right up until Gavin Newsom pulled his
>> > stupid publicity stunt. It is apocraphylly noted that the Legislature of
>> > Mississippi once passed a law requiring pi to be exactly three. Trying
>> > to establish "gay marriage" -- changing the definition of a word -- by
>> > legislative or judicial fiat is equally stupid, and people react to
>> > that. They will continue to do so.
>>
>> I disagree that permitting same-sex couples to enter into civil marriage
>> changes the definition of the word marriage because I reject the idea
>> that marriage is defined by who is eligible. Instead, marriage ought to
>> be defined by its purpose in society.
>
>Hmmm. You posted, "...I reject the idea that (civil) marriage is
>defined by who is eligible"...and yet you've previously posted, "It is
>true that civil marriage and its benefits are not a Due Process right,
>that is the state can deny civil marriage or its benefits to all
>people." Message-ID:
><1164578027.126159.168...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
>
>As you well know, in a multitude of ways, the majority of society has
>stated the definition of marriage AND its' "purpose in society".
No, in some elections the majority of people who voted chose to keep
marriage segregated, but many of those voters were lied to yb
religious bigots. And none actually voted on anything that stated any
purpose for marriage.
> You,
>like the the majority of pro-homosexual advocates,
As opposed to you anti-liberty bigots?
>"...The Equal Protection Clause "is not a license for courts to judge
>the wisdom, fairness, or logic of [the voters�] choices."
>(http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf)
Of course it is. The US Constitution overrides any and all local
elections. That conservatives are willing to trash the constitution
in order to defend bigotry is hardly new.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
thomas p.
Odd that nobody has yet cited a court case or a law that requires marriage
to serve any specific purpose. Furthermore use of the Courts part of the
"well-established
law and custom of the US and all other developed countries for that matter.
>
> "...The Equal Protection Clause "is not a license for courts to judge
> the wisdom, fairness, or logic of [the voters'] choices."
> (http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf)
>
> "Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage
> to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental
> rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing."
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2006_sc/759341MAJ&invol=4
Perhaps it would be better to wait for the decisions of those who actually
have the authority to make them.
dracc...@gmail.com
> >news:hekp20$sit$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> Ray Fischer wrote:
> >>>> Dinesh D'Souza
>
> >>>> A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays cannot
> >>>> change their sexual orientation. This can be read in more than one
> >>>> way. But perhaps the most obvious interpretation is that homosexuality
> >>>> is biological or innate, and therefore a certain percentage of people
> >>>> in every society are genetically programmed to be gay.
>
> >>>> This view, I think, is simply wrong.
> >>> Nobody gives a ***. Biology counts. Uninformed beleifs do not.
> >> Does nature count?
>
> > Yes, go on. Did you have a point?
>
> Yes, I do.
>
> Homosexuality is contrary to natural design. I presume that supersedes
> the biology argument.
Seeing as there is in fact no such thing natural design but only
nature your argument has no meaning whatsoever.
Ray Fischer
Nope.
> I presume that supersedes
>the biology argument.
You presume wrong.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
dracc...@gmail.com
The problem with this logic is that the Courts have repeatedly held
that the Rights of Homosexuals are violated when they are not allowed
the Right of Marriage. Thus it seems the anti-homosexual forces are
making the end run around the courts. Now as to the other matter it
was not that long ago that majority declared that blacks and whites
could marry as well, the Courts overruled the majority and extended
rights where the majority would deny them. Right now the Majority of
the Nation is Christian but they are quickly losing that as majority
would you have a new majority whomever they might become dictate their
will on Christians?
thomas p.
I did not see his post, but your response is pretty much what I would have
said.
I also thought it was funny that he apparently there was some kind of
conflict
between biology and nature - very strange.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> >news:hekp20$sit$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> Ray Fischer wrote:
> >>>> Dinesh D'Souza
>
> >>>> A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays cannot
> >>>> change their sexual orientation. This can be read in more than one
> >>>> way. But perhaps the most obvious interpretation is that homosexuality
> >>>> is biological or innate, and therefore a certain percentage of people
> >>>> in every society are genetically programmed to be gay.
>
> >>>> This view, I think, is simply wrong.
> >>> Nobody gives a ***. Biology counts. Uninformed beleifs do not.
> >> Does nature count?
>
> > Yes, go on. Did you have a point?
>
> He's made it before, and he expresses it in a hard-to-swallow way. But,
> basically it comes to a Darwinian argument that natural selection should
> act against homosexuality because of procreation.
>
Well, stupidity is also not Darwinian, yet it exists. So do various
genetic deceases.
Or maybe the species need a certain percentage of men to be effeminate
to perform some useful social function? [Like giving us good haircuts,
figure skating, or decorating homes. :-)]
Afterall, most other species have homosexuals too, right?
Ric Locke
That would be a good idea, if you weren't so uniformly hostile to it.
The ones with "the authority to make [decisions about the Law] are the
voters, and voters have uniformly rejected "gay marriage" wherever it
was presented to them -- whereupon you bleat "it isn't fair" and demand
a rematch.
Sooner or later the patience will end.
Regards,
Ric
Josh Rosenbluth
wrote:
> On Nov 28, 8:27 am, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
> > "Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage
> > to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental
> > rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing."http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2006_sc...
>
> The problem with this logic is that the Courts have repeatedly held
> that the Rights of Homosexuals are violated when they are not allowed
> the Right of Marriage. Thus it seems the anti-homosexual forces are
> making the end run around the courts.
It's been a split decision at the state court level, and the only "end-
run" around the courts have been through constitutional processes.
Josh Rosenbluth
Info Junkie
Name the US CourtS that have "repeatedly held" the allegedly "Rights
of Homosexuals are violated when they are not allowed the Right of
Marriage" that have not been overturned. FWIW, there is no such thing
as "Rights of Homosexuals" that should be capitalzed any more than
one would claim the exclusive "Rights of Nudists"
>Thus it seems the anti-homosexual forces are
> making the end run around the courts.
Utter nonsense. The majority are following their State Constitution
and DOMA. The pro-homosexual advocates are trying to get the law(s)
change by judical fiat, not legislatively as the constitution(s)
intended.
>Now as to the other matter it
> was not that long ago that majority declared that blacks and whites
> could marry as well, the Courts overruled the majority and extended
> rights where the majority would deny them.
Like many liberals (progressives), you've posted that old-worn-out
fallacy wrt marriage between blacks and whites. (sigh)
"A fundamental right must be objectively and deeply rooted in this
Nation's history and tradition. While the right to marry is well-
established, that right, without exception, has been limited to
opposite-sex unions. Cases striking down anti-miscegenation laws and
other marital restrictions considered those laws only in the context
of opposite-sex unions and affirmed marriage's purpose of promoting
procreation in the optimal environment for raising children. No
appellate court in this Nation has held that its state constitution
creates such a fundamental right. "
http://marriagelaw.cua.edu/Law/states/Washington%20State/Intervenor's%20Reply%20Brief.doc
(IJ) "...In lieu of a direct challenge to the well-established
societal norms (historical US customs and traditions) the proponents
instead attempt to steer away from the gay lifestyle in general by
narrowing (or limiting) the discussion
to individual topics such as re-defining "marriage" and "rights" and
try to cite their various "interpretations" of what one or two court
cases have ruled.
When such this diversionary tactic fails, some same sex marriage
proponents will invariably attack their opponents through a variety of
fallacies that include religion, slavery, or interracial
marriages...
Claiming otherwise irrational and usually found by those that focus on
short-term thinking, false assertions fallacious illogical rhetoric
and/or ad hominem" (Message-ID: <432d5129.4823...@news.ifx.net>)
>Right now the Majority of
> the Nation is Christian but they are quickly losing that as majority
> would you have a new majority whomever they might become dictate their
> will on Christians?- Hide quoted text -
The religion of Christianity was not part of my claims wrt marriage.
As to your claim "they are quickly losing...majority (status) in the
USA, according to whom?
thomas p.
On Nov 26, 7:32 am, Josh <u...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> thomas p. wrote:
> > "Peter Franks" <n...@none.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> >news:hekp20$sit$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> Ray Fischer wrote:
> >>> tim jones <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Dinesh D'Souza
>
> >>>> A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays
> >>>> cannot
> >>>> change their sexual orientation. This can be read in more than one
> >>>> way. But perhaps the most obvious interpretation is that
> >>>> homosexuality
> >>>> is biological or innate, and therefore a certain percentage of people
> >>>> in every society are genetically programmed to be gay.
>
> >>>> This view, I think, is simply wrong.
> >>> Nobody gives a ***. Biology counts. Uninformed beleifs do not.
> >> Does nature count?
>
> > Yes, go on. Did you have a point?
>
> He's made it before, and he expresses it in a hard-to-swallow way. But,
> basically it comes to a Darwinian argument that natural selection should
> act against homosexuality because of procreation.
>
As far as we know homosexuality is as old as our species, and our
species still exists and its numbers are still increasing; therefore
procreation has not been negatively affected, or, at the very least,
not to any degree that has visibly affected the reproductive
success of our species. As a matter of fact our very success
appears to be a much greater threat than the small percentage of
individuals who do not procreate.
In any event homosexuality exists, so it is natural. He seemed to be
implying
that it was not, which he confirmed in another post.
thomas p.
I am glad that you admit that the state can make the decision through the
established procedures. That is progress.
Ray Fischer
> thomas p. wrote:
>> Perhaps it would be better to wait for the decisions of those who actually
>> have the authority to make them.
>
>That would be a good idea, if you weren't so uniformly hostile to it.
>The ones with "the authority to make [decisions about the Law] are the
>voters, and voters have uniformly rejected "gay marriage" wherever it
>was presented to them -- whereupon you bleat "it isn't fair" and demand
>a rematch.
That would be a credible argument if you didn't overstate your case.
In all cases where it was put up to a vote the margins were narrow and
the reigious propaganda was dishonest and sleazy.
The principle of equal justice will win out.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Pat Magroyne
>
> > Perhaps it would be better to wait for the decisions of those who actually
> > have the authority to make them.
>
> That would be a good idea, if you weren't so uniformly hostile to it.
> The ones with "the authority to make [decisions about the Law] are the
> voters, and voters have uniformly rejected "gay marriage" wherever it
> was presented to them -- whereupon you bleat "it isn't fair" and demand
> a rematch.
Then when the voters start voting FOR same-sex marriage, you'll have
no problem with it.
That's good to know. Because it's just a matter of time. You DID see
how close those votes were in California and Maine, did you not? And
you ARE aware that the younger generations are overwhelming pro-gay,
right? So it's good to know that you'll FULLY support these laws when
they go into effect.
Pat Magroyne
When the courts are involved and make a decision the antis don't like,
the antis screech "Activist judges!" When the legislature gets
involved, and doesn't vote the way the antis want them to, the antis
screech about the will of the people.
What are the antis going to be screeching when direct votes start
legalizing same-sex marriage? It's just a matter of time, and not
much time, at that.
> >Now as to the other matter it
> > was not that long ago that majority declared that blacks and whites
> > could marry as well, the Courts overruled the majority and extended
> > rights where the majority would deny them.
>
> Like many liberals (progressives), you've posted that old-worn-out
> fallacy wrt marriage between blacks and whites. (sigh)
Do you care to name the fallacy?
> "A fundamental right must be objectively and deeply rooted in this
> Nation's history and tradition. While the right to marry is well-
> established, that right, without exception, has been limited to
> opposite-sex unions. Cases striking down anti-miscegenation laws and
> other marital restrictions considered those laws only in the context
> of opposite-sex unions and affirmed marriage's purpose of promoting
> procreation in the optimal environment for raising children. No
> appellate court in this Nation has held that its state constitution
> creates such a fundamental right. "http://marriagelaw.cua.edu/Law/states/Washington%20State/Intervenor's...
>
> (IJ) "...In lieu of a direct challenge to the well-established
> societal norms (historical US customs and traditions) the proponents
> instead attempt to steer away from the gay lifestyle in general by
> narrowing (or limiting) the discussion
> to individual topics such as re-defining "marriage" and "rights" and
> try to cite their various "interpretations" of what one or two court
> cases have ruled.
>
> When such this diversionary tactic fails, some same sex marriage
> proponents will invariably attack their opponents through a variety of
> fallacies that include religion, slavery, or interracial
> marriages...
>
> Claiming otherwise irrational and usually found by those that focus on
> short-term thinking, false assertions fallacious illogical rhetoric
> and/or ad hominem" (Message-ID: <432d5129.4823...@news.ifx.net>)
>
> >Right now the Majority of
> > the Nation is Christian but they are quickly losing that as majority
> > would you have a new majority whomever they might become dictate their
> > will on Christians?- Hide quoted text -
>
> The religion of Christianity was not part of my claims wrt marriage.
> As to your claim "they are quickly losing...majority (status) in the
> USA, according to whom?
According to the votes in California and Maine, which struck down same-
sex marriage by very narrow margins. It must SUCK to see that nearly
50% are in FAVOR of something that you think is so horrific. And the
tide continues to move in the direction of legal same-sex marriage.
What are you going to use as the basis of your complaint when direct
votes are responsible for the legalization of same-sex marriage?
Info Junkie
I don''t know (or care) who the so-called "antis" are you're referring
to, but you seem to have a problem with the majority of the US
citizenry ensuring the will of the majoirty of society (that doesn't
violate Amendment XIV) has been heard.
> What are the antis going to be screeching when direct votes start
> legalizing same-sex marriage? It's just a matter of time, and not
> much time, at that.
If the majority decides to legalize homosexual marriage in all
states,and is recognized by the federal government, the (then)
minority crowd ("antis"?) are free to use the same end-around tactic
currently used by the pro-homosexual advocate crowd, i.e. legislate by
judical fiat, eh?
> > >Now as to the other matter it
> > > was not that long ago that majority declared that blacks and whites
> > > could marry as well, the Courts overruled the majority and extended
> > > rights where the majority would deny them.
>
> > Like many liberals (progressives), you've posted that old-worn-out
> > fallacy wrt marriage between blacks and whites. (sigh)
>
> Do you care to name the fallacy?
Sure. Red herring.. Comparing same-sex marriage to a man marrying a
women (regardless of color). This is shown by the URL I cited below as
to the spirit and intent of marriage.
> votes are responsible for the legalization of same-sex marriage?- Hide quoted text -
You claimed, "the Majority of the Nation is Christian but they are
quickly losing that as majority". I asked you back your claim with,
"...according to whom?" It appears you falsely assumed you knew that
my "basis" was religous-based and when you were caught flat-footed in
error, you ducked and moved onto a different comment about two states
that LOST the issue wrt homosexual marriage.
Second request:
According to whom is "the Majority of the Nation is Christian but they
are quickly losing that as majority"?
California and Maine are not the "majority" of this country, but
represent only the persons within two of the 50 (not 57) states. If
neither recognized the marriage of homosexuals, then that's what the
majority decided. To paraphrase you; "It must SUCK to see that nearly
50% are" AGAINST "...something that you think is so horrific"
Enos Penvy
Majorities aren't necessary when dealing with civil rights issues.
> > What are the antis going to be screeching when direct votes start
> > legalizing same-sex marriage? It's just a matter of time, and not
> > much time, at that.
>
> If the majority decides to legalize homosexual marriage in all
> states,and is recognized by the federal government, the (then)
> minority crowd ("antis"?) are free to use the same end-around tactic
> currently used by the pro-homosexual advocate crowd, i.e. legislate by
> judical fiat, eh?
Well, it would be hard to do that, since they've already complained
about "activist judges", and then about legislatures, and their final
stand is that the majority (50% + 1 vote) must approve, so when that
majority approves, what are they going to do? I mean, it'd be
ludicrous to think that they'll just stop screeching, right?
> > > >Now as to the other matter it
> > > > was not that long ago that majority declared that blacks and whites
> > > > could marry as well, the Courts overruled the majority and extended
> > > > rights where the majority would deny them.
>
> > > Like many liberals (progressives), you've posted that old-worn-out
> > > fallacy wrt marriage between blacks and whites. (sigh)
>
> > Do you care to name the fallacy?
>
> Sure. Red herring.. Comparing same-sex marriage to a man marrying a
> women (regardless of color). This is shown by the URL I cited below as
> to the spirit and intent of marriage.
Well, it's not a red herring. It isn't an attempt to divert, but is
rather is an analogy, and biracial marriage is not only an analogy,
but there is legal precedent that can be applied to the current
circumstance.
Nice try.
Actually, I didn't write that. Someone who doesn't understand
capitalization wrote that.
> I asked you back your claim with,
> "...according to whom?" It appears you falsely assumed you knew that
> my "basis" was religous-based and when you were caught flat-footed in
> error, you ducked and moved onto a different comment about two states
> that LOST the issue wrt homosexual marriage.
>
> Second request:
> According to whom is "the Majority of the Nation is Christian but they
> are quickly losing that as majority"?
Address the person who posted it.
> California and Maine are not the "majority" of this country, but
> represent only the persons within two of the 50 (not 57) states. If
> neither recognized the marriage of homosexuals, then that's what the
> majority decided. To paraphrase you; "It must SUCK to see that nearly
> 50% are" AGAINST "...something that you think is so horrific"
Intelligent people are able to determine patterns and trends. Your
inability to detect which way the tide is moving is indicative of ...
well.... you should be able to figure it out what comes next
here... :o)
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
wrote:
Sure homosexuality is part of natural design. As I said, if there were
no homosexuals, our hairstyles and our home interiors would look
awful, which in turn would anger the good Lord God. In fact, the last
time God and I discussed the natural design, he told me that he sees
lots of uses for gays. For example, he is a big fan of ballet dancing
and watches all Bolshoi and Kirov premiers.
Mike
At least one majority opinion flatly disagrees with you
B. Plaintiffs' Analogy To Loving v. Virginia Is Erroneous As The
Marriage Limitation Does Not Exist To Discriminate Against Men Or
Women, Or For That Matter, Homosexuals.
Plaintiffs allege that the Intervenors' "equal application" argument
fails under Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1. They claim that the anti-
miscegenation statutes in Loving are essentially the same as
Washington's limitation of marriage to opposite-sex unions.
Plaintiffs' comparison falls short. See also Brief of Intervenors, pp.
20, 24.
The Loving court specifically found that the anti-miscegenation laws
were "obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy."
Loving, 388 U.S. at 7. The statutes were a "comprehensive statutory
scheme aimed at prohibiting and punishing interracial marriages." Id.
at 4. The Loving court also noted that its decision reflected the
overwhelming view of the Nation and that the limitation was not
imposed uniformly against all non-white races. Id. at 4, 11.
Enos Penvy
>
> read more »
I've seen before the argument that Loving might not be applicable in
an argument regarding same-sex marriage in court (it all depends on
who sits on the Supreme Court when hearing the argument, really), but
in a discussion such as we're having, it can still be used as an
illustration. In both Loving, and Lawrence v. Texas (in which the
Court decided 6-3 that sodomy laws are unconstitutional), the opinions
(the majority opinion in Lawrence) focused on the Constitution's due
process and equal protection guarantees.
It would be interesting to see a same-sex marriage case decided by
this Court. You can be sure that Loving v. Virginia would be
mentioned as precedent in such a case.
Ric Locke
No. The People make the decisions, then inform the State, which codifies
them. Any other procedure is pure goon-with-gun tyranny.
Regards,
Ric
Ric Locke
> Ric Locke <warl...@hyperusa.com> wrote:
>> thomas p. wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps it would be better to wait for the decisions of those who actually
>>> have the authority to make them.
>>
>>That would be a good idea, if you weren't so uniformly hostile to it.
>>The ones with "the authority to make [decisions about the Law] are the
>>voters, and voters have uniformly rejected "gay marriage" wherever it
>>was presented to them -- whereupon you bleat "it isn't fair" and demand
>>a rematch.
>
> That would be a credible argument if you didn't overstate your case.
> In all cases where it was put up to a vote the margins were narrow and
> the reigious propaganda was dishonest and sleazy.
The "reigious" propagandists are merely taking their cue from the
advocates, who cannot open their mouths without claiming moral
superiority they clearly do not own.
>
> The principle of equal justice will win out.
No. The principle of "whoever can grant the State and its agents the
most power to bash people" will win out. In this case, that means you
will "win", then have a wonderful time machine-gunning Baptists until
the whole system breaks down and you starve.
Regards,
Ric
Pat Magroyne
> On 29 Nov 2009 19:02:25 GMT, Ray Fischer wrote:
>
> >> thomas p. wrote:
>
> >>> Perhaps it would be better to wait for the decisions of those who actually
> >>> have the authority to make them.
>
> >>That would be a good idea, if you weren't so uniformly hostile to it.
> >>The ones with "the authority to make [decisions about the Law] are the
> >>voters, and voters have uniformly rejected "gay marriage" wherever it
> >>was presented to them -- whereupon you bleat "it isn't fair" and demand
> >>a rematch.
>
> > That would be a credible argument if you didn't overstate your case.
> > In all cases where it was put up to a vote the margins were narrow and
> > the reigious propaganda was dishonest and sleazy.
>
> The "reigious" propagandists are merely taking their cue from the
> advocates, who cannot open their mouths without claiming moral
> superiority they clearly do not own.
>
>
>
> > The principle of equal justice will win out.
>
> No.
Yep. It's just a matter of time.
> The principle of "whoever can grant the State and its agents the
> most power to bash people" will win out.
We're talking about the inevitability of majority vote on the issue of
same-sex marriage, Snookums. It's just a matter of time. And not
much time, at that. And when that happens, what will you screech
about?
Ray Fischer
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Ric Locke <warl...@hyperusa.com> wrote:
>>> thomas p. wrote:
>>>> Perhaps it would be better to wait for the decisions of those who actually
>>>> have the authority to make them.
>>>
>>>That would be a good idea, if you weren't so uniformly hostile to it.
>>>The ones with "the authority to make [decisions about the Law] are the
>>>voters, and voters have uniformly rejected "gay marriage" wherever it
>>>was presented to them -- whereupon you bleat "it isn't fair" and demand
>>>a rematch.
>>
>> That would be a credible argument if you didn't overstate your case.
>> In all cases where it was put up to a vote the margins were narrow and
>> the reigious propaganda was dishonest and sleazy.
>
>The "reigious" propagandists are merely taking their cue from the
>advocates,
And there is more of the sleazy filth that you bigots use to demonize
the people that you hate.
>> The principle of equal justice will win out.
>
>No.
Then you're just some bigoted fascist.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ric Locke
As it happens, I don't think the majority vote on the issue of same-sex
marriage will come out the way you expect. One of the reasons for that
is your and other proponents' tendency to dismiss disagreement as
"screeching" and other, similar denigrations. It tends to get backs up
on people who are basically sympathetic.
Regards,
Ric
Ric Locke
Keep it up, kiddo. It's /so/ attractive to people who are confused or
undecided about the matter.
Regards,
Ric
Ray Fischer
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Ric Locke <warl...@hyperusa.com> wrote:
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> Ric Locke <warl...@hyperusa.com> wrote:
>>>>> thomas p. wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Perhaps it would be better to wait for the decisions of those who actually
>>>>>> have the authority to make them.
>>>>>
>>>>>That would be a good idea, if you weren't so uniformly hostile to it.
>>>>>The ones with "the authority to make [decisions about the Law] are the
>>>>>voters, and voters have uniformly rejected "gay marriage" wherever it
>>>>>was presented to them -- whereupon you bleat "it isn't fair" and demand
>>>>>a rematch.
>>>>
>>>> That would be a credible argument if you didn't overstate your case.
>>>> In all cases where it was put up to a vote the margins were narrow and
>>>> the reigious propaganda was dishonest and sleazy.
>>>
>>>The "reigious" propagandists are merely taking their cue from the
>>>advocates,
>>
>> And there is more of the sleazy filth that you bigots use to demonize
>> the people that you hate.
>>
>>>> The principle of equal justice will win out.
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>> Then you're just some bigoted fascist.
>
>Keep it up, kiddo.
I intend to, bigot. And it's so easy to show that you really have
nothing but irrational hate.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
thomas p.
"Ric Locke" <warric...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:1r1zdfqpnsyyo.x...@40tude.net...
The fact is that the majority of people who oppose legalizing same-sex
marriage
are nearing retirement. One of the effects of that is the higher and higher
numbers
expressing acceptance of the idea especially among the educated.
I remember being told by an American that they would never accept complete
integration of the races. Things do change. Sometimes the changes can be
seen
very clearly, if one opens one's eyes that is.
Ric Locke
If you think the "races" -- that is, blacks and whites -- are
"integrated" in America today, you should stop being greedy and share
some of whatever you're taking. Many, perhaps most, American blacks
would disagree with you, and a substantial number of blacks maintain
that voluntary apartheid is the only permissible system, with the
enthusiastic and near-unanimous agreement of "the educated".
Legalizing same-sex "marriage" doesn't let homosexuals marry, it removes
State support for marriage by trivializing it.
Regards,
Ric
thomas p.
The fact that society is not perfect or that some Blacks support such
ideas as apartheid does not affect what I said. I never claimed that
all was harmonious between the races or that all Blacks supported
integration. The point I made still stands, and it completely negates
your claim.
>
> Legalizing same-sex "marriage" doesn't let homosexuals marry, it
> removes State support for marriage by trivializing it.
Do you actually have an argument, or do you intend to continue to
make unsupported assertions as the above?
Pat Magroyne
You need to get transported somehow into reality. Look at the votes
in California and Maine. Nearly 50% of the VOTERS are in favor of
same-sex marriage. Consider, now, that younger people are
overwhelmingly in favor. Give a few years for the oldies to die off
and for this current younger generation to start visiting the polls,
and it's just a matter of time.
> One of the reasons for that
> is your and other proponents' tendency to dismiss disagreement as
> "screeching"
Well, it is. They are so desperate to keep the right to marry out of
the hands of gays that they try to find a reason and then screech.
First, it was activist judges. (NOTE: "activist judge" is basically
a judge who rules for something you don't want.) Remember the
argument back then? The argument was that these things need to go
THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE.
So, some laws go through the LEGISLATURE that they didn't want. So
what are they screeching NOW? "They aren't listening to the WILL OF
THE PEOPLE!!!"
So, we get direct votes on the issue. Very close in California and
Maine. You must be TERRIFIED that it's so close, because the writing
is on the wall, and if you'd take your lithium, you'd see that just as
the rest of us do.
Enos Penvy
> Legalizing same-sex "marriage" doesn't let homosexuals marry,
Yes, it does. That's why you're fighting it.
Ric Locke
Still the lithium obsession. Did your mother swallow a coin cell when
you were but an egg?
Regards,
Ric
Ric Locke
Ah, well, just more evidence that critical thinking skills are in
decline. You haven't even figured out what I'm objecting to, let alone
how to argue against it.
Regards,
Ric
thomas p.
I would be interested in your response to the actual points made. The votes
"for" were close to 50%. How does that support your idea that there is no
chance for legal same-sex marriage? Imagine what the vote would have been
in 1950; no doubt it would have been overwhelmingly against, but today it is
very different.
thomas p.
You insist that it is not possible, but clearly you are wrong; since it
exists.
Your best attempt to show it to be impossible (comparing it to a law
changing
the value of pi) doesn't work, because pi is not a creation of man but a
discovery;
while civil marriage is a creation of man.
Father Franks
d4b0c0...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>
Make it legal all you want. If I choose not to marry a pair of
sexual degenerates, then it's my choice, my decision, and there
isn't anything you can do about it except go somewhere else.
Lars Eighner
<db8c4799212fad0e...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>, the lovely
and talented Father Franks broadcast on alt.atheism:
Marriage was a civil institution for many centuries before the church
permited anyone to be married in a church or by a priest. The church could
not prevent marriage then, and it cannot do so now.
--
Lars Eighner *Atheist #1965* use...@larseighner.com <http://larseighner.com/>
7.8 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II.
Warbama: An LBJ for the Twenty-First century. No hope. No change.
Ric Locke
This merely emphasizes the contempt I hold for accusations of mental
instability ("lithium"). Before you utter such assessments you should
have a track record of responding to the actual arguments of your
interlocutors, rather than talking back to the voices in your head.
To my knowledge I have not argued either for or against "gay marriage".
What I have said, repeatedly, is that it is impossible, cannot exist,
and that attempts to bring it into being by legislative or judicial fiat
will not accomplish the stated goals and will have intolerable
"unintended consequences". Nor have I made any but the most tentative
and qualified predictions about whether or not the attempt will be
enacted. That last is because, having watched them for a good little
while, I have come to realize that the asininity of the people whose
mental imbalances ("fire in the belly") compel them to move Heaven and
Earth to gain positions of power either has no limit, or is limited only
by something not yet encountered.
Regards,
Ric
Father Franks
Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>
> In our last episode,
> <db8c4799212fad0e...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>, the lovely
> and talented Father Franks broadcast on alt.atheism:
>
> > In article <183d834f-9ca4-4164-8755-
> > d4b0c0...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>
> > Enos Penvy <enos...@null.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Dec 1, 9:06�am, Ric Locke <warrick.lo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Legalizing same-sex "marriage" doesn't let homosexuals marry,
> >>
> >> Yes, it does. That's why you're fighting it.
>
> > Make it legal all you want. If I choose not to marry a pair of
> > sexual degenerates, then it's my choice, my decision, and there
> > isn't anything you can do about it except go somewhere else.
>
> Marriage was a civil institution for many centuries before the church
> permited anyone to be married in a church or by a priest. The church could
> not prevent marriage then, and it cannot do so now.
Civilized society did not have to concern itself with the
insanity of homosexuals then either. They put them out of their
misery as they would any sick animal, then went on with their
lives.
A church has always had the option to deny marriage, and you can
do nothing about it, or pass any law that mandates it. That is
not considered prevention as the civil option is available. For
that matter, anyone can perform a marriage, the question is
validity. Homosexuals are not of sound mind, therefore they
should not engage in things they cannot understand or commit to.
Liberalism as you know it is decaying from within, and will soon
rot away in the wind. I suggest you find peace with yourself
and decide which direction your life will take. There is a war
within this country coming, and even though liberals will have
support from other nations, they will lose this time and be
hunted down like animals.
thomas p.
And you have not demonstrated this supposed impossibility or responded
to my argument for it being possible.
Nor have I made any but the most tentative
> and qualified predictions about whether or not the attempt will be
> enacted. That last is because, having watched them for a good little
> while, I have come to realize that the asininity of the people whose
> mental imbalances ("fire in the belly") compel them to move Heaven and
> Earth to gain positions of power either has no limit, or is limited only
> by something not yet encountered.
>
>
In response to another poster who pointed out that the vote "for" was close
to 50% and
that it was only a matter of time before it did pass, you wrote:
"As it happens, I don't think the majority vote on the issue of same-sex
marriage will come out the way you expect."
Given the reality that the numbers opposing it have decreased and that the
last vote resulted in nearly half
accepting it, please explain why you think it will not turn out as the
poster expected. You could also try to
justify your assertion that such marriages are impossible. I look forward
to your answer.
thomas p.
"Father Franks" <ffra...@aol.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:db8c4799212fad0e...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
Which is hardly relevant. Government officials with the responsibility for
performing civil marriages will be obliged to perform such marriages or lose
their positions, as was demonstrated recently to a justice of the peace in
Louisiana who refused to marry mixed race couples.
thomas p.
So what? The issue is civil marriage not marriage witnessed by a priest.
Ric Locke
You needn't look forward, since you can look back -- I've already
spelled it out in some detail, and don't feel like typing it over again.
I will give a precis: I don't think the definitions of words are subject
to modification by State declaration, whereas you feel that any
Legislature is a God that can bring anything it damn well pleases into
being by 50+ percent vote. The two positions are not subject to
compromise, so all we can do is await events.
Regards,
Ric
Enos Penvy
> In article <183d834f-9ca4-4164-8755-
> d4b0c0518...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>
>
> Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 1, 9:06 am, Ric Locke <warrick.lo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Legalizing same-sex "marriage" doesn't let homosexuals marry,
>
> > Yes, it does. That's why you're fighting it.
>
> Make it legal all you want. If I choose not to marry a pair of
> sexual degenerates, then it's my choice, my decision, and there
> isn't anything you can do about it except go somewhere else.
If you work for the government, you'll be breaking the law. If not,
nobody cares.
Ray Fischer
>You needn't look forward, since you can look back -- I've already
>spelled it out in some detail, and don't feel like typing it over again.
>I will give a precis: I don't think the definitions of words are subject
>to modification by State declaration, whereas you feel that any
>Legislature is a God that can bring anything it damn well pleases into
>being by 50+ percent vote. The two positions are not subject to
>compromise, so all we can do is await events.
So you're argument is that you don't like gay marriage and you're so
arrogant that you believe that your prejudices are Truth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>> > Legalizing same-sex "marriage" doesn't let homosexuals marry,
>>
>> Yes, it does. That's why you're fighting it.
>
>Make it legal all you want. If I choose not to marry a pair of
>sexual degenerates, then it's my choice, my decision, and there
>isn't anything you can do about it except go somewhere else.
Good of you to declare yourself to be a perverted bigot so clearly.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Info Junkie
> On Nov 28, 8:27 am, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 10:24 am, Josh <u...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ric Locke wrote:
>
> > > > Homosexuals ought to have the same rights as anybody else, and we were
> > > > on track to accomplish that right up until Gavin Newsom pulled his
> > > > stupid publicity stunt. It is apocraphylly noted that the Legislature of
> > > > Mississippi once passed a law requiring pi to be exactly three. Trying
> > > > to establish "gay marriage" -- changing the definition of a word -- by
> > > > legislative or judicial fiat is equally stupid, and people react to
> > > > that. They will continue to do so.
>
> > > I disagree that permitting same-sex couples to enter into civil marriage
> > > changes the definition of the word marriage because I reject the idea
> > > that marriage is defined by who is eligible. Instead, marriage ought to
> > > be defined by its purpose in society.
>
> > Hmmm. You posted, "...I reject the idea that (civil) marriage is
> > defined by who is eligible"...and yet you've previously posted, "It is
> > true that civil marriage and its benefits are not a Due Process right,
> > that is the state can deny civil marriage or its benefits to all
> > people." Message-ID:
> > <1164578027.126159.168...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
>
> > As you well know, in a multitude of ways, the majority of society has
> > stated the definition of marriage AND its' "purpose in society". You,
> > like the the majority of pro-homosexual advocates, refuse to accept
> > their definition of marriage and how its purpose has been defined, by
> > well established law and custom, to provide benefits to all people
> > within their society....hence the reason pro-homosexual advocates
> > perform an end-run-around to the Courts.
>
> > "...The Equal Protection Clause "is not a license for courts to judge
> > the wisdom, fairness, or logic of [the voters’] choices."
> > (http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf)
>
> > "Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage
> > to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental
> > rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing."http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2006_sc...
>
> Why does the state celebrate the marriages of the elderly and
> infertile?
You know we've both played this "game" before Mr Rosenbluth:
(as it relates to western society)
"Marriage is a civil right. All civil rights are rights deemed as
beneficial to the promotion of society, not individuals. The basic
premise is that marriage benefits society by historically and
traditionally acknowledging marriages between one-man-one-woman. The
benefit is a dramatic increase in the probability of additional
children being added to the community. This would in turn dramatically
increase the chance that the community would be self-sustaining, i.e.
more citizens via marriages, more schools, more businesss, more
families,...more children ...etc. etc..
Over time, society reciprecated by recognizing these benefits to
society, hence encouraging citizens to continue one-man-one-woman
marriage by the creation of marriage benefits. This allowed
communities to continue to grow and propser."
Elderly: Unless you have data to the contrary, the majority of elderly
married couples
have previously benefitted society by producing/encouraging children,
schools, families and are now reaping the benefits of their direct/
close decendants, i.e. grandchildren, grand-nieces/nephews, etc, etc.
Infertile: "This does not imply that children are a requirement of
marriage, as that's just sophistry. The percentage of married
heterosexuals being irreversibly infertile is infinitestiminally small
when compared to the number of married heterosexuals having multiple
children dramtically raising the chances for future societal
benefits.
OTOH, homosexual marriages provides a 100% chance of infertility and
dramatically reduces the chances for the survival of society."
Message-ID: <qtbhg49u2vkddrlbh...@4ax.com> (typos/
grammar corrected)
Your turn to answer questions:
1. If homosexuals are allowed to marry, what does the majority of
society gain?
IOW, how, to what extent and by what means will the redefining of
marriage be beneficial to the majority of society?
2. If the status of marriage remains the current status quo, i.e.,
"one man and one woman", to what extent and by what means will the
majority of society suffer?
Info Junkie
> Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 26, 10:24 am, Josh <u...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> Ric Locke wrote:
>
> >> > Homosexuals ought to have the same rights as anybody else, and we were
> >> > on track to accomplish that right up until Gavin Newsom pulled his
> >> > stupid publicity stunt. It is apocraphylly noted that the Legislature of
> >> > Mississippi once passed a law requiring pi to be exactly three. Trying
> >> > to establish "gay marriage" -- changing the definition of a word -- by
> >> > legislative or judicial fiat is equally stupid, and people react to
> >> > that. They will continue to do so.
>
> >> I disagree that permitting same-sex couples to enter into civil marriage
> >> changes the definition of the word marriage because I reject the idea
> >> that marriage is defined by who is eligible. Instead, marriage ought to
> >> be defined by its purpose in society.
>
> >Hmmm. You posted, "...I reject the idea that (civil) marriage is
> >defined by who is eligible"...and yet you've previously posted, "It is
> >true that civil marriage and its benefits are not a Due Process right,
> >that is the state can deny civil marriage or its benefits to all
> >people." Message-ID:
> ><1164578027.126159.168...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
>
> >As you well know, in a multitude of ways, the majority of society has
> >stated the definition of marriage AND its' "purpose in society".
>
> marriage segregated, but many of those voters were lied to yb
> religious bigots. And none actually voted on anything that stated any
> purpose for marriage.
So you're claiming the majority of individuals in some elections are
either to stupid to understand the meaning and purpose of marriage or
they agree just with "religious bigots"?
> > You,
> >like the the majority of pro-homosexual advocates,
>
> As opposed to you anti-liberty bigots?
From the spirit and intent of constitutional law, there are no "anti-
liberty" rights being violated against homosexuals.
> >"...The Equal Protection Clause "is not a license for courts to judge
> >the wisdom, fairness, or logic of [the voters’] choices."
> >(http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf)
>
> Of course it is. The US Constitution overrides any and all local
> elections. That conservatives are willing to trash the constitution
> in order to defend bigotry is hardly new.
I suspect you don't understand what a civil right is...and isn't under
the spirit and intent of constitutional law. Also you seem to have
missed the fact that was a quote from the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eight Circuit....your bad.
Info Junkie
> Info Junkie wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 10:24 am, Josh <u...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> Ric Locke wrote:
>
> >>> Homosexuals ought to have the same rights as anybody else, and we
> >>> were on track to accomplish that right up until Gavin Newsom pulled
> >>> his stupid publicity stunt. It is apocraphylly noted that the
> >>> Legislature of Mississippi once passed a law requiring pi to be
> >>> exactly three. Trying to establish "gay marriage" -- changing the
> >>> definition of a word -- by legislative or judicial fiat is equally
> >>> stupid, and people react to that. They will continue to do so.
>
> >> I disagree that permitting same-sex couples to enter into civil
> >> marriage changes the definition of the word marriage because I
> >> reject the idea that marriage is defined by who is eligible.
> >> Instead, marriage ought to be defined by its purpose in society.
>
> > Hmmm. You posted, "...I reject the idea that (civil) marriage is
> > defined by who is eligible"...and yet you've previously posted, "It is
> > true that civil marriage and its benefits are not a Due Process right,
> > that is the state can deny civil marriage or its benefits to all
> > people." Message-ID:
> > <1164578027.126159.168...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
>
> > As you well know, in a multitude of ways, the majority of society has
> > like the the majority of pro-homosexual advocates, refuse to accept
> > their definition of marriage and how its purpose has been defined, by
> > well established law and custom, to provide benefits to all people
> > within their society....hence the reason pro-homosexual advocates
> > perform an end-run-around to the Courts.
>
> to serve any specific purpose.
"Society" is not the "Court". It is not the role of the Court to rule
on the purpose of marriage.
>Furthermore use of the Courts part of the
> "well-established
> law and custom of the US and all other developed countries for that matter.
When the Courts begin to apply "customs" of other countries outside
the US on the the basis of, in whole or in part, a justification of
their rulings (or dicta), IMNSHO they have ignored their oaths of
office and begin to abrogate the spirit and intent of the US
Constitution.
> > "...The Equal Protection Clause "is not a license for courts to judge
> > the wisdom, fairness, or logic of [the voters'] choices."
> > (http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf)
>
> > "Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage
> > to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental
> > rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing."
> >http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2006_sc...
>
> Perhaps it would be better to wait for the decisions of those who actually
> have the authority to make them.-
Again, that's a false premise. You're waiting for the Court to rule on
an issue they have no authority to decide on, i.e. the purpose of
marriage.
Josh Rosenbluth
> grammar corrected)
That's every bit as unpersuasive now as when your first presented it
because there is also a 100% chance of infertility for an infertile
couple (which includes elderly couples who are remarrying such as my
dad did after my mom died). Once we celebrate the marriage of even
one infertile couple, the fact the number of such couples is small is
of no significance.
> Your turn to answer questions:
> 1. If homosexuals are allowed to marry, what does the majority of
> society gain?
>
> IOW, how, to what extent and by what means will the redefining of
> marriage be beneficial to the majority of society?
Society beneifts in exactly the same way they do for the marriage of
the infertile: more people will settle down with their loving,
lifemate - and such people are happier and more productive in society.
> 2. If the status of marriage remains the current status quo, i.e.,
> "one man and one woman", to what extent and by what means will the
> majority of society suffer?
Per above, fewer people will settle down with a lifemate, resulting in
less happy, less productive citizens. Moreover, a class of people
(gays) will suffer discrimination, and that demeans everybody.
Josh Rosenbluth
Poetic Justice
Gays should be taxed like Smokers and Transfat eaters are taxed.
After all.... they do cost the Nation more for health care.
Ddfr
...
> OTOH, homosexual marriages provides a 100% chance of infertility and
> dramatically reduces the chances for the survival of society."
I'm curious.
There are developments in biotech that might, in the not very distant
future, make it possible for a same sex couple to produce children who
were biologically the children of both of them. There was a recent
news story about experiments with mice that involved producing ones
that had two mothers and no father:
"The Japanese researchers looked at mice created with genetic material
from two mothers but no father. The 13 "bi-maternal" (BM) mice were
produced by manipulating DNA so that the genes in young mouse eggs
behaved like those in sperm, giving them the ability to fertilise. The
altered genetic material was then implanted into eggs of adult female
mice to create embryos. Resulting offspring had genes inherited from
two mothers, with no contribution made by sperm."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hGEKGbQ_oXCwmhqbPE6wrhniSuzg
There have been other techniques suggested that could produce a child
with two fathers.
Suppose such technologies develop to the point where they are workable
for humans. Would you then reverse your position on same sex marriage?
thomas p.
Civil marriage is a creation of legislation. That legislation does not
require that
a marriage produce children or even be capable or be interested in producing
children or in any other purpose that required the couple to be
heterosexual.
The purpose of marriage as set by custom or religious teaching applies
(in a secular country such as the US) only to those persons who accept said
custom or
teaching. It should also be noted that even in one country there are a
large number
of conflicting customs and teachings, but only the law applies to all.
>
>> Furthermore use of the Courts part of the
>> "well-established
>> law and custom of the US and all other developed countries for that
>> matter.
>
> When the Courts begin to apply "customs" of other countries outside
> the US on the the basis of, in whole or in part, a justification of
> their rulings (or dicta), IMNSHO they have ignored their oaths of
> office and begin to abrogate the spirit and intent of the US
> Constitution.
Which has nothing to do with what was said.
>
>>> "...The Equal Protection Clause "is not a license for courts to
>>> judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of [the voters'] choices."
>>> (http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf)
>>
>>> "Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage
>>> to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental
>>> rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing."
>>> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2006_sc...
>>
>> Perhaps it would be better to wait for the decisions of those who
>> actually have the authority to make them.-
>
> Again, that's a false premise. You're waiting for the Court to rule on
> an issue they have no authority to decide on, i.e. the purpose of
> marriage.
It has every right to rule on who has a civil right to access to what is an
institution created by secular law i.e. civil marriage. I have no idea why
you think it does not. Courts have made rulings concerning marriage
for centuries.
Ray Fischer
>> >As you well know, in a multitude of ways, the majority of society has
>> >stated the definition of marriage AND its' "purpose in society".
>>
>> No, in some elections the majority of people who voted chose to keep
>> marriage segregated, but many of those voters were lied to yb
>> religious bigots. �And none actually voted on anything that stated any
>> purpose for marriage.
>
>So you're claiming the majority of individuals in some elections are
>either to stupid to understand the meaning and purpose of marriage or
>they agree just with "religious bigots"?
Not a "majority". Just enough to tip the result.
>> > �You,
>> >like the the majority of pro-homosexual advocates,
>>
>> As opposed to you anti-liberty bigots?
>
>From the spirit and intent of constitutional law,
I reject YOUR self-serving interpretation.
>> >"...The Equal Protection Clause "is not a license for courts to judge
>> >the wisdom, fairness, or logic of [the voters�] choices."
>> >(http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf)
>>
>> Of course it is. �The US Constitution overrides any and all local
>> elections. �That conservatives are willing to trash the constitution
>> in order to defend bigotry is hardly new.
>
>I suspect you don't understand what a civil right is...and isn't under
>the spirit and intent of constitutional law.
Unless you're a dishonest bigot who doesn't care what the Constitution
actually says.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 28, 10:29�am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Odd that nobody has yet cited a court case or a law that requires marriage
>> to serve any specific purpose. �
>
>"Society" is not the "Court". It is not the role of the Court to rule
>on the purpose of marriage.
Then it is certainly not YOUR role to dictate the purpose of marriage.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Enos Penvy
> grammar corrected)
>
> Your turn to answer questions:
> 1. If homosexuals are allowed to marry, what does the majority of
> society gain?
Irrelevant and ridiculous. Society "gaining" something is not a
requirement for the legalization of something.
> IOW, how, to what extent and by what means will the redefining of
> marriage be beneficial to the majority of society?
I believe the legal concept is more one of what harm it will do, or
what the state's compelling interest is in FORBIDDING same-sex
marriage. That really is the question.
> 2. If the status of marriage remains the current status quo, i.e.,
> "one man and one woman", to what extent and by what means will the
> majority of society suffer?
It is believed that society suffers when there is discrimination.
In any event, the tide has turned, and it's just a matter of time
before same-sex marriage is legal and recognized at the federal level
in the U.S. Even the popular votes are near 50% in favor, and that
will increase as the older population dies off and is replaced by
younger voters.
Enos Penvy
> On Dec 4, 6:46 am, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > OTOH, homosexual marriages provides a 100% chance of infertility and
> > dramatically reduces the chances for the survival of society."
>
> I'm curious.
>
> There are developments in biotech that might, in the not very distant
> future, make it possible for a same sex couple to produce children who
> were biologically the children of both of them. There was a recent
> news story about experiments with mice that involved producing ones
> that had two mothers and no father:
>
> "The Japanese researchers looked at mice created with genetic material
> from two mothers but no father. The 13 "bi-maternal" (BM) mice were
> produced by manipulating DNA so that the genes in young mouse eggs
> behaved like those in sperm, giving them the ability to fertilise. The
> altered genetic material was then implanted into eggs of adult female
> mice to create embryos. Resulting offspring had genes inherited from
> two mothers, with no contribution made by sperm."
>
>
> There have been other techniques suggested that could produce a child
> with two fathers.
>
> Suppose such technologies develop to the point where they are workable
> for humans. Would you then reverse your position on same sex marriage?
> Would you then reverse your position on same sex marriage?
Why do you keep asking this?
If same-sex couples ARE able to produce their own genetic offspring,
that would then be a premise used to SUPPORT same-sex marriage, as
many of the antis keep using children as a reason to support opposite-
sex marriage while denying marriage to same-sex couples.
Info Junkie
What you find it "unpersuasive" is irrelevent Mr Rosenbluth and you've
provided the same amount of non-existant evidence to refute it as you
did the first time you responded to it.
You wish to "split hairs" Mr Rosenbluth on the spirit and intent of a
civil right. Shall we demand all people between the age of 10 and 17
years of age MUST be given a voter registration card and the right to
vote? Using your (false) logic, "Once we celebrate the (vote) of even
one (voter), the fact the number of such (immature voters) is small is
of no significance."
One could apply your false logic to those under age for access to
alcohol, driving, fishing, etc. It is a false logic as you well know
that civil rights are not intended to cater to the individual, but are
based on the best interests of society bu the majority of society.
As usual, you've again show you're not interested in the potential
long-term harm to society as long as the individual's selfish
interests (yours?) are presumed to be greater than the interests of
the majority of society
Let's not waste eveyone's time (again) by re-posting your (disproven)
claims wrt immutabilty issues that do not exist except in the minds
of pro-homosexual advocates tha refuse to accept otherwise.
> > Your turn to answer questions:
> > 1. If homosexuals are allowed to marry, what does the majority of
> > society gain?
>
> > IOW, how, to what extent and by what means will the redefining of
> > marriage be beneficial to the majority of society?
>
> Society beneifts in exactly the same way they do for the marriage of
> the infertile: more people will settle down with their loving,
> lifemate - and such people are happier and more productive in society.
No Mr Rosenbluth, not "exactly", as there are no children being
reproduced by a homosexual couple that could be part of the binding of
a community and replacing its older members....unless you focus ONLY
on the selfish interests of a few.
> > 2. If the status of marriage remains the current status quo, i.e.,
> > "one man and one woman", to what extent and by what means will the
> > majority of society suffer?
>
> Per above, fewer people will settle down with a lifemate, resulting in
> less happy, less productive citizens. Moreover, a class of people
> (gays) will suffer discrimination, and that demeans everybody.
Your "above" is based on a false permise, i.e., as no homosexual
couple can produce children for a growing society, a society that
needs to replace its older members. A potential loss reduces the need
for schools, teachers, manufactuers/distributors for supplies used to
cater to children (from birth through teenage years), schools, medical/
dental doctor and medical suppliers, and a whole host of stores/
restaurants that cater to families,etc., etc.
The "less happy, less productive citizens" will be society as a whole,
as they see their community whither and die a slow death....all for
the sake of a few individuals whose selfish interests demand special
"rights" (and benefits) based on their "feelings".
It seems you're now playing the "troll" by your oft-claimed but
disproven whine that "a class of people...will suffer" in reffering to
homosexuals.
Claiming such false suffering would "demeans everybody" is just
unsubstatiated poopycock. Once again as a "class of people" homosexual
will "suffer" no more than other "class(es) of people", i.e., such as
nudists, chain gang, knitting club members or even people with red
hair.
Josh Rosenbluth
There are no children being reproduced by an infertile couple.
I'm a troll in the same way that California and Connecticut are trolls
because they recongize sexuality as a suspect classification. I'm a
troll in the same way that 21 states have employment anti-
discrimination statutes covering sexuality.
Josh Rosenbluth
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>> thomas p. wrote:
>>> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>> news:hekp20$sit$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>> tim jones <timjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Dinesh D'Souza
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays cannot
>>>>>> change their sexual orientation. This can be read in more than one
>>>>>> way. But perhaps the most obvious interpretation is that homosexuality
>>>>>> is biological or innate, and therefore a certain percentage of people
>>>>>> in every society are genetically programmed to be gay.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This view, I think, is simply wrong.
>>>>> Nobody gives a ***. Biology counts. Uninformed beleifs do not.
>>>> Does nature count?
>>> Yes, go on. Did you have a point?
>> Yes, I do.
>>
>> Homosexuality is contrary to natural design.
Sure is. Easy to prove as well, just look around.
>
> Nope.
>
>> I presume that supersedes
>> the biology argument.
>
> You presume wrong.
>
Ray Fischer
Looking around I see that you're wrong and just another stupid bigot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Info Junkie
Unlike homosexuals, you're assuming an "infertile (opposite sex)
couple" of today will NEVER conceive in the future.
The number of infertile couples in the United States is approximately
1 million
(http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S001502820700516X)
"What treatment options do infertile couples have?
There are several different therapeutic options for infertile couples,
depending on the type of infertility that has been diagnosed. For
example, in case of ovulatory problems, the vast majority of female
patients can be successfully treated with the administration of drugs
such as clomiphene citrate or gonadotropins. In case of tubal damage,
in vitro fertilization (IVF) is the preferred treatment. In cases of
male infertility, surgical reconstruction, intrauterine insemination
(IUI), in vitro fertilization (IVF), or intracytoplasmic sperm
injection (ICSI) are the most common therapeutic options, depending on
the severity of the subfertility. Finally, for women who unable to use
their own eggs, or men who are unable to produce sperm, pregnancy may
still be achieved using donor eggs or sperm."
(http://www.americanfertility.com/faqs/11.php)
In the attempt to conceive, how many children may a homosexual couple
produce without the opposite sex involved?
My comment remains un-refuted, i.e. “the percentage of married
heterosexuals being irreversibly infertile is infinitesimally small
when compared to the number of married heterosexuals having multiple
children dramatically raising the chances for future societal
benefits.”
> because they recognize sexuality as a suspect classification.
You're confusing what the majority of people in California and
Connecticut believe vs. what a group of unelected partisan members of
a Court adjudicated by fiat. Show where the majority of US citizens
in those states voted to classify homosexuals as "married" or a
"suspect classification".
As I've noted previously:
"By failing to convince the majority, the proponents of the gay
lifestyle have opted to challenge society, not directly...but by
challenging the laws-on-the-books through the court system in an
attempt to have their beliefs adjudicated as a bona fide minority
status at the same level as blacks and/or women based on Article
XIV."
>I'm a
> troll in the same way that 21 states have employment anti-
> discrimination statutes covering sexuality.
Mr Rosenbluth, I have no concern with statutes that ensure US citizens
have the ability to enjoy "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness". Yet we have moved WAY beyond such concepts for individual
achievement, with "progressive" (i.e. liberal) advocates such as
yourself that insist placing individuals into categories based on
their personal "feelings" and demanding the Courts rubber-stamp such
"feelings" in direct opposition of the majority of society. Such
childish concept s only divides the country by segregating individuals
into groups and merely serves a few selfish individuals that
"perceive" their short-term personal satisfaction to game financial
benefits. By ignoring the adult long-term considerations of
potential ramifications of such divisions, one may begin to see the
destructive process of the family and the uniqueness of the US citizen
and their role in a democratic republic, not the progressives’ demand
of an "us vs. them" progressive ideology be adjudicated by fiat.
How sad we have become where pro-homosexual advocates need to
denigrate and trash groups such as the Boy Scouts in an effort to make
them look "moral" in an attempt to serve their selfish needs. How sad
that some demand statues against "perceived sexual orientation".
Such "perception"(s) make as much sense as Pres. Obama being awarded
the Nobel Peace Prize based on what some "perceive" he MIGHT achieve.
It shows the woulda, coulda, shoulda of progressive ideology of a
fuzzy-based "perception" but it lacks any facts he has accomplished
any peace. It does not meet the original spirit and intent of the
award, so the progressive NPP committee re-defined it's meaning to fit
the short-term selfish need to embarrass Bush and prop up a "historic"
President (based on his color). Now that they've awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize to (liberal) Jimmy Carter (2002) based on "Nobel Committee
Chairman Gunnar Berge emphasized that the award was meant as a
denunciation of American policy toward Iraq." and "Gunnar Staalsett,
another committee member, confirmed that the award was intended as a
condemnation of US policy." http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2022
In 2007 it again awarded the prize to (liberal) Al Gore based on "man-
made climate change", which is now being seen as a failed model, when
it most recently gave the award to (liberal) Pres. Obama, based on a
"perception". The Nobel Peace Prize should now be officially
considered worthless in credibility as it no longer has any real value
beyond the money it provides to the recipient. Not unlike the awards
bestowed on Hollywood actors/actresses, the Nobel Peace Prize has
become a political tool to show the public what select individuals
wish the public would emulate while denigrating those who they wish to
publically (and subtly) denigrate.
ITM, there are laws to protect people against suicide as some are so
insecure about their own "feelings" they must be protected against
themselves and their "perception". Seems pro-homosexual advocates
feel a similar need for such "feelings" of insecurity and demand the
Courts provide it for them while showing the world they are selfish
children under the false guise of “rights” that don’t exist except in
the like-minded ideology of children.
Richard Smol
> Dinesh D'Souza
>
> A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays cannot
> change their sexual orientation.
Even if they could: so what?
RS
Info Junkie
>
> ...
>
> > OTOH, homosexual marriages provides a 100% chance of infertility and
> > dramatically reduces the chances for the survival of society."
>
> I'm curious.
>
> There are developments in biotech that might, in the not very distant
> future, make it possible for a same sex couple to produce children who
> were biologically the children of both of them. There was a recent
> news story about experiments with mice that involved producing ones
> that had two mothers and no father:
>
> "The Japanese researchers looked at mice created with genetic material
> from two mothers but no father. The 13 "bi-maternal" (BM) mice were
> produced by manipulating DNA so that the genes in young mouse eggs
> behaved like those in sperm, giving them the ability to fertilise. The
> altered genetic material was then implanted into eggs of adult female
> mice to create embryos. Resulting offspring had genes inherited from
> two mothers, with no contribution made by sperm."
>
>
> There have been other techniques suggested that could produce a child
> with two fathers.
>
> Suppose such technologies develop to the point where they are workable
> for humans. Would you then reverse your position on same sex marriage?
An interesting question and in answer your question: No.
(long post)
I find comparisons between humans and animals tenuous at best. They
are not human and do not strive to improve the lives of their society,
i.e., animals don't improve the education of their offspring,
intentionally produce goods/services beyond their own needs, etc. etc.
IOW, the primary interest of those in the animal kingdom (humans
excluded) is to survive and raise the next generation; nothing more or
less. You might find exceptions here or there, but exceptions are rare
and rarer still to carry through to further generations.
What I find amazing (and amusing) is the very progressives (i.e.
liberals) that tout "diversity" seem to reject this "diversity" when
raising children, (It seems those that cry the loudest against the
issue of procreation and marriage don't have or don't raise children
on a day-to-day basis :-)
Regardless of your views on homosexuality, by far and away males and
females do not think the same.* Yet pro-homosexual advocates strive to
address the nagging question regarding procreation and marriage in
society by ignoring the natural order of such "diversity" and demand
selfish personal gain on the false premise of an alleged "right" that
doesn't not meet the spirit and intent of Article XIV.
*(one example) http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/News-sexes-respond-differently-danger-113009.aspx
As I once posted elsewhere: "…marriage is not an *either or* scenario.
It's not JUST "procreation" OR "binding responsibility to the
children" OR benefitting society OR a two-parent model. Among others,
it's a combination of all of those things. It's these combinations
that homosexuals as a couple cannot meet naturally...and why society
rejects rewarding them based on their "feelings" as it doesn't benefit
the majority of society. So, pro-homosexual advocates need the courts
to do an end-run around the long-standing customs and traditions of
society."
Pro-homosexual advocates tout homosexuality exists in the animal
kingdom. What they don't show is if the males/females were also
parents, where it is normal for the same two allegedly observed
homosexual males or two homosexual females to ALSO serve as the ONLY
parents of their offspring? Where in the animal kingdom do animals
use science to ensure their society allows only two homosexual dads or
two homosexual moms?
I hope this better elucidates my "no" answer to your interesting
question. However your question prompts other questions:
1. To what advantage would society gain in having to two parents that
have only the same overall perspective to embracing life's challenges?
2. Outside of the short-term self-satisfaction of a few individuals,
what long-term ramifications would re-defining marriage (and all it
encompasses) have on the children and society as a whole?
3. Unless procreation no longer exists, why would someone turn to
science to intentionally to create an unnatural abnormality if there
is no medical problem with their reproductive functions?
IMNSHO, the issue regarding homosexual marriages is based on the false
premise of a violation of a "right" (discrimination per the Civil
Rights Act of 1965). Marriage is a "civil right"...one that the
majority of society defines its criteria, just as society defines the
criteria in obtaining a driver's license, voter registration, fishing
license, etc. There is no "gay gene" and the issue of immutability
does not exist.
Homosexuals are not a "suspect group" any more than a group of bikers,
knitting-club members, nudists or people with red hair. Their claims
are based on a false premise and there are some (politically powerful)
fools that agree with them.
There are those that will disagree and point to one or two court cases
ruled upon by a few unelected court members that ignore their oaths of
office, but like a science-created child with two homosexual dads or
two homosexual mothers, these are abnormalities and not the will of
the majority of society.
(/long post)
Info Junkie
> Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 28, 10:24 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >As you well know, in a multitude of ways, the majority of society has
> >> >stated the definition of marriage AND its' "purpose in society".
>
> >> No, in some elections the majority of people who voted chose to keep
> >> marriage segregated, but many of those voters were lied to yb
> >> religious bigots. And none actually voted on anything that stated any
> >> purpose for marriage.
>
> >So you're claiming the majority of individuals in some elections are
> >either to stupid to understand the meaning and purpose of marriage or
> >they agree just with "religious bigots"?
>
> Not a "majority". Just enough to tip the result.
Like the word "right", clearly you also don't know what "majority"
means. Let me help you out:
"Majority:
2. The amount by which the greater number of votes cast, as in an
election, exceeds the total number of remaining votes."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com
That would mean those that that make up "Just enough to tip the
result" ...is called a majority.
> >> > You,
> >> >like the the majority of pro-homosexual advocates,
>
> >> As opposed to you anti-liberty bigots?
>
> >From the spirit and intent of constitutional law,
>
> I reject YOUR self-serving interpretation.
Free free to reject whatever you want. I belong to those in the
"majority" (see definition above)
> >> >"...The Equal Protection Clause "is not a license for courts to judge
> >> >the wisdom, fairness, or logic of [the voters’] choices."
> >> >(http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf)
>
> >> Of course it is. The US Constitution overrides any and all local
> >> elections. That conservatives are willing to trash the constitution
> >> in order to defend bigotry is hardly new.
>
> >I suspect you don't understand what a civil right is...and isn't under
> >the spirit and intent of constitutional law.
>
> Unless you're a dishonest bigot who doesn't care what the Constitution
> actually says.
...and yet I posted my evidence while all you've posted is...ad
hominen.
huge
Setting aside the straw 'progressives' you are trying to sit up,
it is common in social animals for offspring to be raised not
by the parents but by same-sex caretakers. Consider ants and
bees. Who are you to just assume that only one pattern of
raising children is of benefit to society? What actual evidence
do you have of such a thing? Certainly not Sparta, which did very
well for a long period of time. Who raised their children?
And just whose society are you talking about? It may very well
be that people who want new kinds of lifestyles are not interested
in being members of _your_ society.
--
huge: Not on my time you don't.
Info Junkie
I "pick on" the progressives (i.e. liberal) as they appear to be the
primary group that has promoted, or at least ignored, such nonsense to
permeate our society unabated.
ITM, you're claiming ants and bees are homosexual? Tell us: How long
do drone bees live and take care of their homosexual partner in
raising immature bees after they've mated with the queen bee? How can
you tell which ants are heterosexual? I do hope you realize how far
your foolish you seem by trying to stretch human behavior to the
ridiculous and imply it's normal in other spieces....as if the
behavior of ants and bees is comparble to the rational berhavior of
humans.
>Who are you to just assume that only one pattern of
> raising children is of benefit to society?
This is not about *me* nor is it *my* assumption, but the opinion of
the majority of society in the united States. My conclusions are based
on the fact I'm of the majority opinion of that society.
>What actual evidence
> do you have of such a thing?
The continuation of the species and the fact that to date, the united
States is the only remaining superpower on earth. Notice the majority
of the world continue to come TO the US, not FROM the US. It's
social fabric however, has been declining since the 1960s, due,
IMNSHO, to the shredding of the social fabric by the progressive
movement that promotes this nonsense and tries to emulate like-minded
societies that have declining social values.
>Certainly not Sparta, which did very
> well for a long period of time. Who raised their children?
Non-sequitur as Sparta is not the united States. OTOH, as a once major
force in the world, how is Sparta doing now? Do they retain the same
allegedly *tried-and-true* methods of raising children as they did
eons ago? Why not?
> And just whose society are you talking about? It may very well
> be that people who want new kinds of lifestyles are not interested
> in being members of _your_ society.
I'm agree with the majority opinion of the united States citizenry.
Others are free to go to those areas of the world that already meet
their criteria, unlike the majority of those in the united States that
oppose to homosexual marriages.
> > and demand
> > selfish personal gain on the false premise of an alleged "right" that
> > doesn't not meet the spirit and intent of Article XIV.
>
> > *(one example)
> >http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/News-sexes-respond-differently-dan...
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 4, 1:58�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Info Junkie �<bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Nov 28, 10:24�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> >As you well know, in a multitude of ways, the majority of society has
>> >> >stated the definition of marriage AND its' "purpose in society".
>>
>> >> No, in some elections the majority of people who voted chose to keep
>> >> marriage segregated, but many of those voters were lied to yb
>> >> religious bigots. �And none actually voted on anything that stated any
>> >> purpose for marriage.
>>
>> >So you're claiming the majority of individuals in some elections are
>> >either to stupid to understand the meaning and purpose of marriage or
>> >they agree just with "religious bigots"?
>>
>> Not a "majority". �Just enough to tip the result.
>
>Like the word "right", clearly you also don't know what "majority"
>means. Let me help you out:
>
>"Majority:
>2. The amount by which the greater number of votes cast, as in an
>election, exceeds the total number of remaining votes."
>http://www.thefreedictionary.com
>
>That would mean those that that make up "Just enough to tip the
>result" ...is called a majority.
There are always bigots. Add to those a number of people who were
lied to about the facts and that can tip the election. When people
learn the truth then the election goes the other way.
>> >> > �You,
>> >> >like the the majority of pro-homosexual advocates,
>>
>> >> As opposed to you anti-liberty bigots?
>>
>> >From the spirit and intent of constitutional law,
>>
>> I reject YOUR self-serving interpretation.
>
>Free free to reject whatever you want. I belong to those in the
>"majority" (see definition above)
"Might makes right".
>> >I suspect you don't understand what a civil right is...and isn't under
>> >the spirit and intent of constitutional law.
>>
>> Unless you're a dishonest bigot who doesn't care what the Constitution
>> actually says.
>
>...and yet I posted my evidence
You posted no evidence that justifies your lie about the COnstitution,
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
anonymous
>
> Info Junkie :
>
> > On Dec 4, 11:16 am, Ddfr <daviddfried...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 4, 6:46 am, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > OTOH, homosexual marriages provides a 100% chance of infertility and
> >> > dramatically reduces the chances for the survival of society."
Most of the middle class can't follow in their father's footsteps
because of global over population where people from crowded countries
have had to move to other countries to fill their schools with foreign
competition, compete for their father's job, compete for the family
living quarters and the list is endless. When I bought my shack it cost
45,000 dollars and the averate worker made 30 to 50 thousands dollars a
year. The averate worker today make closer to 50, 000 a year but the
cost of housing is now global competition along with the workforce and
houses today, land mostly and buildings, too, cost 500 dollars. Trying
paying that on 50,000. And today we only have polite wars where each
side only kills a polite number of the enemy over a certain affordable
number of years whereas in the past millions and millions of young men
and civilians were killed and there were always lots of jobs when the
war ended and lots of land to rebuild homes on. Most of the land that
can support a house or building has been built on.
> >>
> >> I'm curious.
> >>
> >> There are developments in biotech that might, in the not very distant
> >> future, make it possible for a same sex couple to produce children who
> >> were biologically the children of both of them. There was a recent news
> >> story about experiments with mice that involved producing ones that had
> >> two mothers and no father:
> >>
> >> "The Japanese researchers looked at mice created with genetic material
> >> from two mothers but no father. The 13 "bi-maternal" (BM) mice were
> >> produced by manipulating DNA so that the genes in young mouse eggs
> >> behaved like those in sperm, giving them the ability to fertilise. The
> >> altered genetic material was then implanted into eggs of adult female
> >> mice to create embryos. Resulting offspring had genes inherited from
> >> two mothers, with no contribution made by sperm."
> >>
> >> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hGEKGbQ_oXCwmh...
> >>
> >> There have been other techniques suggested that could produce a child
> >> with two fathers.
> >>
> >> Suppose such technologies develop to the point where they are workable
> >> for humans. Would you then reverse your position on same sex marriage?
> >
> > An interesting question and in answer your question: No.
> >
> > (long post)
> > I find comparisons between humans and animals tenuous at best. They are
> > not human and do not strive to improve the lives of their society, i.e.,
> > animals don't improve the education of their offspring
And today few occupations are needed because of overpopulation. IT is
cheaper for most societies to rely on other countries who fullfill their
workforce like India and China who have billions more looking for good
jobs everyday.
, intentionally
> > produce goods/services beyond their own needs,
Most countries keep secret their techlology so the outsourced country
remains mostly poor and gets the labouring jobs but not the technology
to do bigger, better, cheaper and more sophisticated than the
originating country.
> > As I once posted elsewhere: "…marriage is not an *either or* scenario.
> > It's not JUST "procreation" OR "binding responsibility to the children"
> > OR benefitting society OR a two-parent model. Among others, it's a
> > combination of all of those things. It's these combinations that
> > homosexuals as a couple cannot meet naturally...and why society rejects
> > rewarding them based on their "feelings" as it doesn't benefit the
> > majority of society. So, pro-homosexual advocates need the courts to do
> > an end-run around the long-standing customs and traditions of society."
> >
Heterosexuals produced every homosexual that walked the planet since the
beginning of time. Society knows why it happened but that is not to be
spoken of in polite company.
If you look at the parents relationship, you know why and how they
produced a homosexual.
> > Pro-homosexual advocates tout homosexuality exists in the animal
> > kingdom. What they don't show is if the males/females were also
> > parents, where it is normal for the same two allegedly observed
> > homosexual males or two homosexual females to ALSO serve as the ONLY
> > parents of their offspring? Where in the animal kingdom do animals use
> > science to ensure their society allows only two homosexual dads or two
> > homosexual moms?
> >
> > I hope this better elucidates my "no" answer to your interesting
> > question. However your question prompts other questions:
> >
> > 1. To what advantage would society gain in having to two parents that
> > have only the same overall perspective to embracing life's challenges?
Homosexual equality rights are just that, equality with marriage being
included.
Of course, most homosexuals don't want to produce offspring they cannot
afford to raise.
The average citizen and the average homosexual doesn't have 200,000
dollars to spend on raising a kid.
> >
> > 2. Outside of the short-term self-satisfaction of a few individuals,
> > what long-term ramifications would re-defining marriage (and all it
> > encompasses) have on the children and society as a whole?
Marriage is not defined, it just includes the rights of homosexuals to
equal rights including marriage. It hasn't changed Canada at all in the
same way that giving equal rights to other minorities in other countries
hasn't changed their society.
> >
> > 3. Unless procreation no longer exists, why would someone turn to
> > science to intentionally to create an unnatural abnormality if there is
> > no medical problem with their reproductive functions?
> >
Again, in an over populated world, procration is a non-issue. In fact,
procreation is the main problem with the earth today especially in a
world that doesn't use wars to destroy other civilizations.
> > IMNSHO, the issue regarding homosexual marriages is based on the false
> > premise of a violation of a "right" (discrimination per the Civil Rights
> > Act of 1965). Marriage is a "civil right"...one that the majority of
> > society defines its criteria, just as society defines the criteria in
> > obtaining a driver's license, voter registration, fishing license, etc.
> > There is no "gay gene" and the issue of immutability does not exist.
> > Homosexuals are not a "suspect group" any more than a group of bikers,
> > knitting-club members, nudists or people with red hair. Their claims are
> > based on a false premise and there are some (politically powerful) fools
> > that agree with them.
> >
Sounds good to be but has no foundation in modern society. In the same
way that women were denied the right to education, voting, divorce,
pension, the right to work, half the marriage assets upon divorce.
> > There are those that will disagree and point to one or two court cases
> > ruled upon by a few unelected court members that ignore their oaths of
> > office, but like a science-created child with two homosexual dads or two
> > homosexual mothers, these are abnormalities and not the will of the
> > majority of society.
Women judges are the best thing that happened to society. They are the
balance the universe has needed since the beginning of time. Remember,
churches/religion allows women to cook, clean, pray, sew, do book
keeping, teach, childcare, but leading or being a pastor or priest is
not an option in most cases. Women know heterosexual men like the back
of their hand. Bullshit is not acceptable to the ears of women and
neither is stupidity.
Heterosexual men have never been in more trouble than when women fought
long and hard for the right to vote and the right to an education.
anonymous
> the majority of society in the united States. My conclusions are based
> on the fact I'm of the majority opinion of that society.
I agree that in most of the world the heterosexual society believes that
equality rights should not be granted to homosexuals. But that same
world also
thought that equal rights should not be granted towomen or people of
colour.
> The continuation of the species and the fact that to date, the united
> States is the only remaining superpower on earth. Notice the majority
> of the world continue to come TO the US, not FROM the US.
There are many complex reasons for that. North America contains new
countries
with new freedoms and fewer racism and sexism. Most countries are over
populated
and have a varity of governments where personal freedoms may not exist
or be significantly reduced compared to North America.
> It's
> social fabric however, has been declining since the 1960s, due,
> IMNSHO, to the shredding of the social fabric by the progressive
> movement that promotes this nonsense and tries to emulate like-minded
> societies that have declining social values.
>
Well, being perhaps somewhat bias as a Canadian, I understand that
Canadian society is looking decent or better than decent these days and
Canada has equality on all levels including equality for homosexuals and
homosexual marriage.
> I'm agree with the majority opinion of the united States citizenry.
> Others are free to go to those areas of the world that already meet
> their criteria, unlike the majority of those in the united States that
> oppose to homosexual marriages.
I don't know that the majority of Americans oppose homosexual marriage,
but that those that do are very organized and have wealthy to support
their cause. That was true in Canada, too, the churches are wealthy and
have a source of endless wealth to draw upon.
But the Canadian charter supported equal rights for all citizens and
that permitted the highest courts in the country to rule in favour for
equality of all citizens including homosexuals.
huge
Of course not! I'm just saying that the offspring are rased
completely by caretakers of the same sex. Duh!
> Tell us: How long do
> drone bees live and take care of their homosexual partner in raising
> immature bees after they've mated with the queen bee? How can you tell
> which ants are heterosexual? I do hope you realize how far your foolish
> you seem by trying to stretch human behavior to the ridiculous and imply
> it's normal in other spieces....as if the behavior of ants and bees is
> comparble to the rational berhavior of humans.
>
>>Who are you to just assume that only one pattern of
>> raising children is of benefit to society?
>
> This is not about *me* nor is it *my* assumption, but the opinion of the
> majority of society in the united States.
And you opinion is based on the old bandwagon, not on
the facts of the matter.
> My conclusions are based on
> the fact I'm of the majority opinion of that society.
Bandwagon mentality. Not evidence of fact.
>
>>What actual evidence
>> do you have of such a thing?
>
> The continuation of the species and the fact that to date, the united
> States is the only remaining superpower on earth.
WTF does that prove? Is the unspoken assumption also that the U.S.
is _also_ the least homosexual in the world???
> Notice the majority of
> the world continue to come TO the US, not FROM the US. It's social
> fabric however, has been declining since the 1960s, due, IMNSHO, to the
> shredding of the social fabric by the progressive movement that promotes
> this nonsense and tries to emulate like-minded societies that have
> declining social values.
>
>>Certainly not Sparta, which did very
>> well for a long period of time. Who raised their children?
>
> Non-sequitur as Sparta is not the united States. OTOH, as a once major
> force in the world, how is Sparta doing now? Do they retain the same
> allegedly *tried-and-true* methods of raising children as they did eons
> ago? Why not?
All societies eventually fall. It lasted a lot longer than the U.S. has so far.
>
>> And just whose society are you talking about? It may very well be that
>> people who want new kinds of lifestyles are not interested in being
>> members of _your_ society.
>
> I'm agree with the majority opinion of the united States citizenry.
You agree with the majority of bible thumping nut cases.
You are _not_ a member of my society.
--
Info Junkie
> > This is not about *me* nor is it *my* assumption, but the opinion of
> > the majority of society in the united States. My conclusions are based
> > on the fact I'm of the majority opinion of that society.
>
> I agree that in most of the world the heterosexual society believes that
> equality rights should not be granted to homosexuals. But that same
> world also
> thought that equal rights should not be granted towomen or people of
> colour.
This is again oft-claimed, but fallacious argument. (Why some
Canadians believe they understand "rights" as defined by the founders
of the US better than US citizens is beyond my understanding)
Marriage is a civil right, not an inalienable right. In the past, when
women and "people of colour" were denied their civil rights, it was
done so based on immutability factors, i.e., gender and color. This
was corrected by amending the US Constitution. Someone claiming
homosexuality may be their feeling, but does not equate to being an
immutability factor,. Some will disagree, but they will also not show
the evidence of a "gay gene"...as it doesn't exist.
> > The continuation of the species and the fact that to date, the united
> > States is the only remaining superpower on earth. Notice the majority
> > of the world continue to come TO the US, not FROM the US.
>
> There are many complex reasons for that. North America contains new
> countries
> with new freedoms and fewer racism and sexism. Most countries are over
> populated
> and have a varity of governments where personal freedoms may not exist
> or be significantly reduced compared to North America.
First you claim the denial for homosexual marriages is based on racism
and gender , now your claiming part of the "complex reasons" why
people flock TO the US is "few racism and sexism", Both can’t be true
or your just fooling yourself.
> > It's
> > social fabric however, has been declining since the 1960s, due,
> > IMNSHO, to the shredding of the social fabric by the progressive
> > movement that promotes this nonsense and tries to emulate like-minded
> > societies that have declining social values.
>
> Well, being perhaps somewhat bias as a Canadian, I understand that
> Canadian society is looking decent or better than decent these days and
> Canada has equality on all levels including equality for homosexuals and
> homosexual marriage.
Good for Canada...if that's what the Canadian people want. I'm posting
from alt.politics.usa.constitution, not Canadian politics. The
majority of US society does NOT want homosexual marriages and
"spinning" it into tales of racism or sexism has no merit.
> > I'm agree with the majority opinion of the united States citizenry.
> > Others are free to go to those areas of the world that already meet
> > their criteria, unlike the majority of those in the united States that
> > oppose to homosexual marriages.
>
> I don't know that the majority of Americans oppose homosexual marriage,
> but that those that do are very organized and have wealthy to support
> their cause. That was true in Canada, too, the churches are wealthy and
> have a source of endless wealth to draw upon.
The evidence is pretty conclusion, i.e., 41 states that have statutes
or amended their state constitution to against homosexual marriages.
> But the Canadian charter supported equal rights for all citizens and
> that permitted the highest courts in the country to rule in favour for
> equality of all citizens including homosexuals.
Again, based on the United States Constitution, not the "Canadian
charter", marriage is not about "equality" as an inalienable right for
individuals. It is a civil right acknowledged by the majority of
society that determines the criteria in the best interests of the
society in which they live.
Those pushing/promoting/following such "equality" nonsense regarding
individuals are free to go and live in Canada where they do not, and
have no obligation to, meet the criteria for the majority of the US
society.