Conservatives are so stupid, that they do not realize that allowing gay marriage will reduce the number of gays or even make them disappear.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

Conservatives are so stupid, that they do not realize that allowing
gay marriage will reduce the number of gays or even make them
disappear.

In fact, let's see if Liberals get the reasoning...

-Ramon

[Bill Graham]

You got me on that one.... I am for gay marriage, but I donlt see what
marriage has to do with the number of gays. They are, as near as I can tell,
born gay and not created by environmental circumstances. So they are what
they are, whether married or not.

[The truth will set you free]

Ramon believes that homos can have shit babies from fucking each other
in the rectum.

[mr_antone]

It's a well known fact among some conservatives, the legalization of
same-sex marriage will cause the divorce rate of traditional marriages
to explode.

mr_antone

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 07:04:48 -0500, mr_antone <ju...@not.here> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 19:05:18 -0700 (PDT), "Ramon F. Herrera"
><ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Conservatives are so stupid, that they do not realize that allowing
>>gay marriage will reduce the number of gays or even make them
>>disappear.
>>
>>In fact, let's see if Liberals get the reasoning...
>>
>

>It's a well known fact [..]

"Well, it's a well known fact, Sonny Jim, that there's a secret
society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as The
Pentavirate, who run everything in the world, including the
newspapers, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in
Colorado, known as The Meadows."
- Stuart McKenzie, " So I Married an Axe Murderer"

"It's a well-known fact that dogs love gin."
-http://www.dogslovegin.com/

"It's a well known fact that sasquatch are in short supply of day care
options."
"It's a well known fact that sasquatch had the second highest voter
turnout amongst primates in the 2012 election."
-https://twitter.com/SasquatchFacts

[Ramon F. Herrera]

Mrs. Graham, Antone and Schadenfreude:

I am sorry, but you have not figured out the reason behind this
statement:

Allowing widespread and respected gay marriages will reduce the
number of gays. They may even become extinct.

Why would I say such a thing? Am I going loco????

Note: in the CNN forums folks were very close, much closer than you
folks.

Are CNN readers smarter than those in Usenet????

-Ramon

[Bret Cahill]

> I am sorry, but you have not figured out the reason behind this
> statement:
>
>    Allowing widespread and respected gay marriages will reduce the
> number of gays. They may even become extinct.

Gay marriage could reduce the spread of AIDS which will increase the
number of gays.


Bret Cahill

[Ramon F. Herrera]

Nope. Assume a perfect prevention/cure for AIDS has been found.

Best answer so far, but no cigar.

-Ramon

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Jun 17, 8:30 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

The answer is here somewhere:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/16/us/gay-rights-immigration/

-Ramon

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Jun 17, 8:33 am, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 8:30 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> > > I am sorry, but you have not figured out the reason behind this
> > > statement:
>
> > >    Allowing widespread and respected gay marriages will reduce the
> > > number of gays. They may even become extinct.
>
>  > Gay marriage could reduce the spread of AIDS which will
>  > increase the number of gays.
>  >
>  > Bret Cahill
>

> Nope. Assume a perfect prevention/cure for AIDS has been found.
>
> Best answer so far, but no cigar.
>
> -Ramon

Hint:

We are working under the assumption that homosexuality is genetic and
hereditary.

-Ramon

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Jun 17, 8:36 am, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:

> Hint:
>
> We are working under the assumption that homosexuality is genetic and
> hereditary.
>
> -Ramon

I found the following study fascinating. Researchers have determined
that both baby boys and baby girls born TODAY (in modern times), have
a strong tendency to look WHEN THEY ARE YOUNG like their FATHER.

The reason is than along the centuries:

- Those babies who looked like the prince, king, rich man, whatever
were recognized by dad and welcome to the castle, home, food.

- Those who looked like mom were screwed, tended to be abandoned by
dad and those genes died off.

In later years, the babies may look like either parent.

-Ramon

[Bret Cahill]

> > > I am sorry, but you have not figured out the reason behind this
> > > statement:
>
> > >    Allowing widespread and respected gay marriages will reduce the
> > > number of gays. They may even become extinct.
>
>  > Gay marriage could reduce the spread of AIDS which
>  > will increase the number of gays.
>  >
>  > Bret Cahill
>
> The answer is here somewhere:
>
>  http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/16/us/gay-rights-immigration/

That seems to suggest the opposite. If immigration law included gay
couples then gays would move to the U. S.

Also 30K isn't a big % of the gay population. You'd think it would be
higher considering disposable income, travel to places with STDs, etc.


Bret Cahill

[Ramon F Herrera]

On Jun 17, 8:56 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > > > I am sorry, but you have not figured out the reason behind this
> > > > statement:
>
> > > > Allowing widespread and respected gay marriages will reduce the
> > > > number of gays. They may even become extinct.
>
> > > Gay marriage could reduce the spread of AIDS which
> > > will increase the number of gays.
> > >
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> > The answer is here somewhere:
>
> > http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/16/us/gay-rights-immigration/
>

> That seems to suggest the opposite.
> If immigration law included gay couples then gays
> would move to the U. S.

The answer is there somewhere IN THE COMMENTS, not in the article.
Look for a hypothesis posted by a certain Mr. Herrera (much debated,
maybe even approved by posters?), during the weekend.

Let's assume further that there is no population travel involved.

- Before gays are being *respected* by society, let's say that in the
US 10% of men are gay. That seems to be a universal constant across
countries, economic levels, etc.

- Decades or centuries later, after they get to marry freely and
homosexual couples become commonplace (*), that percentage
mysteriously goes down, and down and down, until gays become an
extinguishing species.

Why could that be? What force is in effect here?????

-Ramon

(*) Tip: With no STIGMA.

[Wayne]

"Ramon F. Herrera" wrote in message
news:526e845f-f05f-462b...@b2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

But Ramon, again you miss the point. It is entirely possible to be against
gay "marriage", and have absolutely nothing against gays.

Gays need domestic partnerships/civil unions/or whatever, that have the same
legal rights, and same legal treatment as heterosexual marriage.
Those legal rights can be easily conveyed without having government tamper
with marriage.

[Ramon F Herrera]

The reason is deceptively simple: Homosexual couples cannot produce
biological offsprings (duh!!!)

-Ramon

[Ramon F Herrera]

On Jun 17, 9:37 am, Ramon F Herrera <gopos...@jonjay.com> wrote:

>
> > (*) Tip: With no STIGMA.
>
> The reason is deceptively simple: Homosexual couples cannot produce
> biological offsprings (duh!!!)
>
> -Ramon

In Venezuela I saw cases, but this one is the most illustrative. A
well respected person married into my family and years later it turned
out that he was 100% homosexual, which brought shame, consternation,
etc. to the family.

Men obviously want to have CHILDREN (for companionship and take care
of them in older age, some kids to whom leave advice, inheritance,
etc.), right?

If there is an STIGMA, those men will go undercover and MARRY a WOMAN
(when they would have preferred to marry their beloved man) and
CONCEIVED biological children. Their gay gene hence multiplies, they
have gay babies.

OTOH, after gays marriages are commonplace gay couples ADOPT and
therefore their "vile seed" (not my words) does not spread.

Q.E.D.

-Ramon

[Bret Cahill]

> The reason is deceptively simple: Homosexual couples cannot produce
> biological offsprings (duh!!!)

Evolution doesn't work from the short term "every individualist for
himself" POV of a looneytarian. The collective is a or _the_ major
factor in evolution for the same simple reason it is a major factor in
human societies.

It's successful.

Nature doesn't recognize human constructs like equality and will often
"unjustly" sacrifice some members for the survival of the rest.
That's why the best arguments for gat rights isn't that it's
"natural." It's perfectly natural for a black widow to kill her
mate. It's also perfectly natural for humans to die of E. coli.

The one and only thing we humans have left to justify our
"superiority" over other life forms is that we do something
_unnatural_:

We invent.

The evolutionary reason homosexuality exists is because the larger
straight community, a flock of penguins or humans, must somehow
benefit from a few gays.

A lot of this is obvious. There is little question that the gay
fashion designer is encouraging straight sex. But there must be a
host of other underinvestigated ways too subtle or too complicated or
taboo to be widely understood, where it also promotes more or better
offspring.

They haven't done any studies yet but if you took a group of 20
straight penguins and another group of 19 straights and one gay
penguin, you'll find that the group with the one gay penguin would
somehow out perform the group of 20 straights, more eggs or more eggs
that hatch or the chicks could swim faster or huddle better.

Such a study would completely monkey wrench the looneytarian POV which
is the cause of all bigotry, not just homophobia.


Bret Cahill


"Yossairan was a willing victim of anything besides circumstance."

-- Joseph Heller _Catch-22_

[Nickname unavailable]

the real reason why "CONSERVATIVES" hate minorities, is because many
"CONSERVATIVES" find minority women hot, like good old GOP
"CONSERVATIVE" strom thurmond, he found one so hot, that he became a
daddy. they simply cannot control themselves. they have no self
control, so they try to drive minorities as far away as possible.
this goes for the gay thing also, most "CONSERVATIVES" are self
loathing homosexuals, and the reason why they fear gay marriage, is
because if it becomes legal and normal, they may leave their wives,
for the hot piece of male ass they see at the airport, you know, like
GOP "CONSERVATIVE" larry craig from idaho.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Or they could be stoned to death as the Muslims do in Iran.

Either way will have the same outcome for the gays but the Muslim's
solution may save millions of children from being led a stray into
homosexuals life style that has NOT been a success in nature.


There are no Societies that are primarily homosexual. In fact when
societies lend themselves to more homosexual behavior they tend to be
nearer collapse.

And that flies in the face of the liberals favorite constitutional
arguments.

"> legislate, tax, regulate, negate state law, mandate, tariff, to
> promote and provide for the general welfare,
"

"> to ensure domestic
> tranquility:)))
"

SO history and NATURE are telling us that Gay marriage is connected to
the opposite of General Welfare and domestic tranquility.... which
means that gay marriage is a threat to NOT just some children and their
psychological well being but it's a threat to the constitution and the
Nation. As much as any threatening ARMY marching up to our borders.


Because the end is the end, no matter how you get to the end.





--



*Rumination*
#52 - Socialism is a philosophy of mediocrity, a creed of intolerance,
and a feeling of malice towards the good fortune of others!

[deadrat]

On 6/17/13 10:51 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>> The reason is deceptively simple: Homosexual couples cannot produce
>> biological offsprings (duh!!!)
>
> Evolution doesn't work from the short term "every individualist for
> himself" POV of a looneytarian. The collective is a or _the_ major
> factor in evolution for the same simple reason it is a major factor in
> human societies.
>
> It's successful.
>
> Nature doesn't recognize human constructs like equality and will often
> "unjustly" sacrifice some members for the survival of the rest.
> That's why the best arguments for gat rights isn't that it's
> "natural." It's perfectly natural for a black widow to kill her
> mate. It's also perfectly natural for humans to die of E. coli.
>
> The one and only thing we humans have left to justify our
> "superiority" over other life forms is that we do something
> _unnatural_:
>
> We invent.
>
> The evolutionary reason homosexuality exists is because the larger
> straight community, a flock of penguins or humans, must somehow
> benefit from a few gays.

This isn't necessarily so. It's possible for traits to exist that are
merely contingent on other traits that are selected for. For instance,
suppose that sexual reproduction conveys such an high benefit that it is
strongly selected for, and concomitant with the physical equipment comes
opposite-sex attraction. It's possible that the mechanism for this
attraction could have evolved with a 10% failure rate because the 90%
success rate still conveyed such a large evolutionary benefit.

To take another example, it may be fruitless to look for an evolutionary
reason for musicality. Musical talent might simply be an inevitable
contingent trait of neural networks as complex as the human brain. It
might be that it's the complexity that's selected for and music just
comes along for the ride.

It's easy to make up evolutionary "just so" stories. The reason for the
evolution of certain traits requires careful study.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/17/2013 11:51 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>> The reason is deceptively simple: Homosexual couples cannot produce
>> biological offsprings (duh!!!)
>
> Evolution doesn't work from the short term "every individualist for
> himself" POV of a looneytarian. The collective is a or _the_ major
> factor in evolution for the same simple reason it is a major factor in
> human societies.
>
> It's successful.

You mean Procreation.... and lots of it. It's a numbers game.

So that when you produce sterile offspring you also produce many more
that are futile.

[deadrat]

Children aren't "led a stray [sic]" into homosexuality. Sexual
preference appears innate.

> There are no Societies that are primarily homosexual. In fact when
> societies lend themselves to more homosexual behavior they tend to be
> nearer collapse.

How do you "lend" homosexual behavior?

Could you name such collapsing societies? Please be sure to include
evidence that their collapse came about because of homoseuxality.

> And that flies in the face of the liberals favorite constitutional
> arguments.

Hardly. People retain their rights even when ignoramuses think they
don't deserve them because of "consequences."

>
> "> legislate, tax, regulate, negate state law, mandate, tariff, to
> > promote and provide for the general welfare,
> "
>
> "> to ensure domestic
> > tranquility:)))
> "
>
> SO history and NATURE are telling us that Gay marriage is connected to
> the opposite of General Welfare and domestic tranquility.... which
> means that gay marriage is a threat to NOT just some children and their
> psychological well being but it's a threat to the constitution and the
> Nation. As much as any threatening ARMY marching up to our borders.

Think about this a lot, do you?

>
>
> Because the end is the end, no matter how you get to the end.

Is that a double entendre?
>
>
>
>
>

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Gays are less than 2% and have no more RIGHTS than do RICH ELITES that
are the 1%.... see - if we can denigrate people for being only 1% then
it doesn't matter whether it's a gay 1% or a billionaire 1% they can
have their RIGHTS taken away. Liberals told us that. That's the beauty
of Liberalism, when someone is a minority you can attack them viciously
for the fact they are only 1%.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/17/2013 1:51 PM, deadrat wrote:

Appears innate?

Don's go all scientific on me with all those facts. And all at once.


If that is "lets say" mutant behavior out of the common or usual 99% of
our behavior then we have a RIGHT and need to take back what is ours
don't we? Just as you presume to take the money back from the rich 1%,
that means that the gay 1% has no right to dictate or monopolize our
Social wealth.

They have no more right to tell our society what we can or can't do than
do the 99%.

[Bret Cahill]

> >> The reason is deceptively simple: Homosexual couples cannot produce
> >> biological offsprings (duh!!!)
>
> > Evolution doesn't work from the short term "every individualist for
> > himself" POV of a looneytarian.  The collective is a or _the_ major
> > factor in evolution for the same simple reason it is a major factor in
> > human societies.
>
> > It's successful.
>
> > Nature doesn't recognize human constructs like equality and will often
> > "unjustly" sacrifice some members for the survival of the rest.
> > That's why the best arguments for gat rights isn't that it's
> > "natural."  It's perfectly natural for a black widow to kill her
> > mate.  It's also perfectly natural for humans to die of E. coli.
>
> > The one and only thing we humans have left to justify our
> > "superiority" over other life forms is that we do something
> > _unnatural_:
>
> > We invent.
>
> > The evolutionary reason homosexuality exists is because the larger
> > straight community, a flock of penguins or humans, must somehow
> > benefit from a few gays.
>
> This isn't necessarily so.  It's possible for traits to exist that are
> merely contingent on other traits that are selected for.

There is no homosexual gene. Idential twins can be one gay one
straight.

But there may be a gene common to both straights and gays that,
depending on environmental factors, determines sexuality.

This would explain why older brothers tend to be straight more often
than younger brothers.

Under the theory once there are enough straights for the family to
reproduce the gay younger brother appears to make sure the older
brothers do in fact reproduce.

Hillary Clinton popularized the African saying, "it takes a village to
raise a child."

Under this theory it may take a village, or at least a gay or two in
the village, to help some couples conceive children.

> For instance,
> suppose that sexual reproduction conveys such an high benefit that it is
> strongly selected for, and concomitant with the physical equipment comes
> opposite-sex attraction.  It's possible that the mechanism for this
> attraction could have evolved with a 10% failure rate because the 90%
> success rate still conveyed such a large evolutionary benefit.

That doesn't contradict the above. In fact it could easily be part of
that theory.

Supposing only female homosexulaity or only male homosexulity actually
helps the general population and the other [homosexual] sex is just
"going along for the ride." That could be the case if there is no
other way to separate the sexes as far as homosexuality.

> To take another example, it may be fruitless to look for an evolutionary
> reason for musicality.

Music is not incidental any more than humans liking brightly colored
food.

> Musical talent might simply be an inevitable
> contingent trait of neural networks as complex as the human brain.  It
> might be that it's the complexity that's selected for and music just
> comes along for the ride.
>
> It's easy to make up evolutionary "just so" stories.  The reason for the
> evolution of certain traits requires careful study.

It's surprising that so few formal studies have been done on gay
animals. It would also be useful, if possible, to compare straight
humans in communities with high concentrations of gays to straight
humans communities without any gays, in or out of the closet.

You never hear anything serious, just jokes or anecdotal evidence,
i.e., the straight couple that liked to smooch in a gay bar who were
eventually told to leave.

The lack of studies is especially curious considering the billions in
bandwidth devoted to gay issues and sex generally.


Bret Cahill

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/17/2013 10:37 AM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> On Jun 17, 9:08 am, Ramon F Herrera <gopos...@jonjay.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 8:56 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> I am sorry, but you have not figured out the reason behind this
>>>>>> statement:
>>
>>>>>> Allowing widespread and respected gay marriages will reduce the
>>>>>> number of gays. They may even become extinct.
>>
>>>> > Gay marriage could reduce the spread of AIDS which
>>>> > will increase the number of gays.
>>
>>>> > Bret Cahill
>>
>>>> The answer is here somewhere:
>>
>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/16/us/gay-rights-immigration/
>>
>> > That seems to suggest the opposite.
>> > If immigration law included gay couples then gays
>> > would move to the U. S.
>>
>> The answer is there somewhere IN THE COMMENTS, not in the article.
>> Look for a hypothesis posted by a certain Mr. Herrera (much debated,
>> maybe even approved by posters?), during the weekend.
>>
>> Let's assume further that there is no population travel involved.
>>
>> - Before gays are being *respected* by society, let's say that in the
>> US 10% of men are gay. That seems to be a universal constant across
>> countries, economic levels, etc.

Gays like to tell you all men are gay, we all have latent gay urges,
they tried that line on me all the time.....

But only 1% are actually gay. Then they turn around and tell you that
you hate gays and you're homophobic. So I pointed out their lies and
they seem to have dropped the lie that we are all gay. So I lost my
gayness and became a gay hater all in the blink of an eye.

>> - Decades or centuries later, after they get to marry freely and
>> homosexual couples become commonplace (*),

But the gays tell us they were always common place?

>> that percentage
>> mysteriously goes down, and down and down, until gays become an
>> extinguishing species.

The numbers are what ever they need to justify what ever argument they
are supporting at that moment.

>> Why could that be? What force is in effect here?????
>>

*Liberalism* It's like a black hole for intelligence.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/17/2013 9:36 AM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:


> We are working under the assumption that homosexuality is genetic and
> hereditary.
>
> -Ramon

Why would you assume that?

It's still the same outcome what ever the reason is for going into it.

I don't care what makes your boat float or whether God, Nature or the
charismatic leader of a gay cult programmed you.....

the outcome is identical isn't it?

The same goes for a pedophile. The why is NOT as important as the
resulting question of how to manage it.

The 99% that are "normal" hetero we don't see a need to manage but it's
the mutant "freaks of nature" show up that we begin to need to regulate.

Like the 99% of Americans that are NOT in prison they live by our
generally accepted lifestyle of the herd and only that 1% really live
outside the normal range and commit crimes against the other 99%.


So no one really regulates the normal so much as there is a need to
regulate the few that don't want to live like the rest of us.... Now I
don't say we should force them to live like us but we also shouldn't be
forced by them to accept their abnormal behavior as normal.

--



*Rumination*


.....to the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at
thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee.
?Moby-Dick, Chapter 135. "The Chase.?Third Day"

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/17/2013 9:33 AM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
> On Jun 17, 8:30 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>> I am sorry, but you have not figured out the reason behind this
>>> statement:
>>
>>> Allowing widespread and respected gay marriages will reduce the
>>> number of gays. They may even become extinct.
>>
>
> > Gay marriage could reduce the spread of AIDS which will
> > increase the number of gays.
> >
> > Bret Cahill

50% of all marriages fail and most men cheat on their spouse.


marriage isn't the cure for a failed society.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

And increase the number of failed marriages.

[deadrat]

Most polls show that about 10% of people identify themselves as
homosexuals, i.e., they are attracted to and have sexual relations only
with members of their own sex.

But maybe you know better. Been giving this a lot of thought, have you?

> and have no more RIGHTS than do RICH ELITES that are the 1%....

The rich elites (and I assume that includes the RICH ELITES) have so
many more rights (and RIGHTS) than losers like you.

> see - if we can denigrate people for being only 1%

Asking rich people to pay taxes isn't to "denigrate" them.

> then
> it doesn't matter whether it's a gay 1% or a billionaire 1% they can
> have their RIGHTS taken away. Liberals told us that. That's the beauty
> of Liberalism, when someone is a minority you can attack them viciously
> for the fact they are only 1%.

Relax, Sparky. The top 1% are grateful for the support of losers like
you. And when they laugh behind your back, they're laughing near you,
not at you. I promise.

But we're not talking about denigrating people. We're talking about
your absurd claim that children are somehow threatened by the existence
of gay people.

[deadrat]

Human behavior is complicated and specific behaviors are hard to
correlate with genetics. Experiments show that sucking, the startle
response, facial recognition, and fear of heights are nearly universal
behaviors present in infants. But beyond that, not much is sure.

Members of both orientations report the same experience -- the
attraction is known from adolescence at the latest and is unrelated to
any conscious choice. When did you choose to become heterosexual?

If you are.

No reliable methods are known for changing people's orientation.

If that's not good enough for you, you'll just have to take the word of
your fellow human beings.

> If that is "lets say" mutant behavior out of the common or usual 99% of
> our behavior then we have a RIGHT and need to take back what is ours
> don't we?

This doesn't parse in English, so I'm not sure what you mean. About 10%
of the population identifies itself as homosexual. So it's not uncommon
or unusual. It's just not the standard, which is defined by the other
90%. Homosexual behavior shouldn't concern you at all, although it
seems to. A lot. But homosexual behavior certainly doesn't take
anything away from you.

> Just as you presume to take the money back from the rich 1%,
> that means that the gay 1% has no right to dictate or monopolize our
> Social wealth.

I'll have to check my copy of the Gay Agenda, but I'm pretty sure
"dictating and monopolizing Social wealth" isn't on it. I'll get back
to you.

> They have no more right to tell our society what we can or can't do than
> do the 99%.

When was the last time a gay person told you what you can or can't do?

[deadrat]

On 6/17/13 1:31 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>> The reason is deceptively simple: Homosexual couples cannot produce
>>>> biological offsprings (duh!!!)
>>
>>> Evolution doesn't work from the short term "every individualist for
>>> himself" POV of a looneytarian. The collective is a or _the_ major
>>> factor in evolution for the same simple reason it is a major factor in
>>> human societies.
>>
>>> It's successful.
>>
>>> Nature doesn't recognize human constructs like equality and will often
>>> "unjustly" sacrifice some members for the survival of the rest.
>>> That's why the best arguments for gat rights isn't that it's
>>> "natural." It's perfectly natural for a black widow to kill her
>>> mate. It's also perfectly natural for humans to die of E. coli.
>>
>>> The one and only thing we humans have left to justify our
>>> "superiority" over other life forms is that we do something
>>> _unnatural_:
>>
>>> We invent.
>>
>>> The evolutionary reason homosexuality exists is because the larger
>>> straight community, a flock of penguins or humans, must somehow
>>> benefit from a few gays.
>>
>> This isn't necessarily so. It's possible for traits to exist that are
>> merely contingent on other traits that are selected for.
>
> There is no homosexual gene.

None we've found.

> Idential twins can be one gay one straight.

The mechanism of gene expression would explain that.

> But there may be a gene common to both straights and gays that,
> depending on environmental factors, determines sexuality.

Possibly.

> This would explain why older brothers tend to be straight more often
> than younger brothers.
>
> Under the theory once there are enough straights for the family to
> reproduce the gay younger brother appears to make sure the older
> brothers do in fact reproduce.

An amusing "just so" story.

> Hillary Clinton popularized the African saying, "it takes a village to
> raise a child."
>
> Under this theory it may take a village, or at least a gay or two in
> the village, to help some couples conceive children.

And how would they do that? Do you have pictures?

>> For instance,
>> suppose that sexual reproduction conveys such an high benefit that it is
>> strongly selected for, and concomitant with the physical equipment comes
>> opposite-sex attraction. It's possible that the mechanism for this
>> attraction could have evolved with a 10% failure rate because the 90%
>> success rate still conveyed such a large evolutionary benefit.
>
> That doesn't contradict the above. In fact it could easily be part of
> that theory.

My point isn't to contradict your just so stories. They may really be
just so. But without data, that's all they are -- stories.

>
> Supposing only female homosexulaity or only male homosexulity actually
> helps the general population and the other [homosexual] sex is just
> "going along for the ride." That could be the case if there is no
> other way to separate the sexes as far as homosexuality.

I have no idea what evolutionary point you're trying to make here.

>> To take another example, it may be fruitless to look for an evolutionary
>> reason for musicality.
>
> Music is not incidental any more than humans liking brightly colored
> food.

So you say, but didja miss the subjunctive in my statement? My point
isn't that music has to incidental, but that without data, you can't
assume it isn't.

<snip/>

> Bret Cahill
>

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Jun 17, 1:31 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> There is no homosexual gene.  Identical twins can be
> one gay one straight.

Identical twins have much higher chances of being gays, next fraternal
twins have a lower incidence and next regular siblings.

That positive correlation (the closer in genes, the closer in sexual
orientation) proves that there is a strong genetic component.

Experts estimate the homosexuality is somewhere between 30% to 70%
genetic, but they have not been studying the best familiar samples. I
would recommend researchers to travel to my hometown (Carora,
Venezuela) and study the PERERA-MELENDEZ family. After you see the
genealogy books and their tendency to homosexuality you will be
totally convinced about the genetic component. The evidence is
overwhelming.

IN FACT, the latest research indicates that homosexuality is
transmitted epigenetically.

-Ramon

"Scientists May Have Finally Unlocked Puzzle of Why People Are Gay"
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/12/11/scientists-may-have-finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay
http://goo.gl/T6szx

Older study:
The Real Story on Gay Genes
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay#.Ub9xVpzNk5Q

[Bret Cahill]

> > Music is not incidental any more than humans liking brightly colored
> > food.

> So you say, but didja miss the subjunctive in my statement?

. . .

> <snip/>

Why did you snip the most important part of the post?

<unsnip>

[BeamMeUpScotty]

It may be a hormone imbalance for all that they know. It could be diet.
Or just personal preference.

But what makes a pedophile?

[deadrat]

I have known a number of gay men. None of them has ever mentioned such
a thing. If "they" tried that line on you all the time, either they're
just messing with you, or they know something about you that you claim
not to.

> But only 1% are actually gay.

That's not what the studies say. Why is it so important for you to deny
this?

> Then they turn around and tell you that
> you hate gays and you're homophobic.

Who's they?

> So I pointed out their lies and
> they seem to have dropped the lie that we are all gay. So I lost my
> gayness and became a gay hater all in the blink of an eye.

This is a big part of your life, isn't it? Ever think about why that
might be?

>
>
>>> - Decades or centuries later, after they get to marry freely and
>>> homosexual couples become commonplace (*),
>
> But the gays tell us they were always common place?

I think anyone who studies the subject will tell you that homosexuality
appears in every society.

>
>>> that percentage
>>> mysteriously goes down, and down and down, until gays become an
>>> extinguishing species.
>
> The numbers are what ever they need to justify what ever argument they
> are supporting at that moment.

Numbers don't matter for rights. We don't vote on rights for minorities
in this country.

>
>>> Why could that be? What force is in effect here?????
>>>
>
> *Liberalism* It's like a black hole for intelligence.

It's always about the projection, isn't it, Sparky?

<snip/>

[deadrat]

On 6/17/13 2:01 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 6/17/2013 9:36 AM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
>
>
>> We are working under the assumption that homosexuality is genetic and
>> hereditary.
>>
>> -Ramon
>
>
> Why would you assume that?
>
> It's still the same outcome what ever the reason is for going into it.
>
> I don't care what makes your boat float or whether God, Nature or the
> charismatic leader of a gay cult programmed you.....
>
> the outcome is identical isn't it?
>
> The same goes for a pedophile. The why is NOT as important as the
> resulting question of how to manage it.
>
> The 99% that are "normal" hetero we don't see a need to manage but it's
> the mutant "freaks of nature" show up that we begin to need to regulate.
>
> Like the 99% of Americans that are NOT in prison they live by our
> generally accepted lifestyle of the herd and only that 1% really live
> outside the normal range and commit crimes against the other 99%.

It's necessary to regulate those who harm others, regardless of their
percentage of the population. Gay people don't harm others as a result
of their gayness. I know their gayness is an obsession for you, but
that doesn't count.

> So no one really regulates the normal so much as there is a need to
> regulate the few that don't want to live like the rest of us....

Our political system is built on the idea that the majority doesn't get
to regulate the minority because they're the minority.

> Now I don't say we should force them to live like us

Damned decent of you, Sparky.

> but we also shouldn't be
> forced by them to accept their abnormal behavior as normal.

Then don't accept it. Nobody really cares what you think is normal.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Here we go again, I'm gay and I don't know it.

Because all me are gay? Or just me?

You don't know how/why the tools nature gave you work, so I must also be
confused about mine?

BUT Your confusion can't be applied to me. I know what I like and why
I like it. And I know why Nature constructed it that way and it's for a
pretty good reason. I'm happy and satisfied that things are correct in
the universe. I don't need to look for or experiment with or hope
something better is out there.... I like what I have and the
instructions make sense.


You can keep all your assistance to yourself when it come to who I am.

If I play football and get hit in the head and get a concussion and
forget what sex I am, I'll call you.

[deadrat]

On 6/17/13 3:33 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>> Music is not incidental any more than humans liking brightly colored
>>> food.
>
>> So you say, but didja miss the subjunctive in my statement?
>
> . . .
>
>> <snip/>
>
> Why did you snip the most important part of the post?

Because it didn't have anything to do with the evolution of
homosexuality, and I wasn't interest in commenting on it. I'll leave it
if it makes you happy.

[deadrat]

Possibly. I've seen speculation that it's exposure in utero that counts.

> It could be diet.

Not likely.

> Or just personal preference.

Not what anyone reports about their orientation.

> But what makes a pedophile?

How is that relevant?

[Bret Cahill]

>  > There is no homosexual gene.  Identical twins can be
>  > one gay one straight.
>
> Identical twins have much higher chances of being gays, next fraternal
> twins have a lower incidence and next regular siblings.
>
> That positive correlation (the closer in genes, the closer in sexual
> orientation) proves that there is a strong genetic component.

None of that implies there is a gay gene, just a sexual orientation
gene that is common to all straights and all gays.

The environment, i.e., a lot of brothers, will tend to trigger that
gene one way just as a lot of sisters may tend to do the opposite.

Maybe too much of both causes bisexuality.

What is most surprising is that so few formal studies have been done
to resolve the matter.

First do gay animals and if possible, to compare straight humans in
communities with high concentrations of gays to straight communities

without any gays, in or out of the closet.

You never hear about any serious work, just jokes or anecdotal
evidence,

The lack of a serious effort is curious considering how cheap it would
be compared to the billions in bandwidth devoted to gay issues and sex
generally.


Bret Cahill

[deadrat]

Don't go all defensive on me, Sparky. I said that maybe they were just
messing with you.

> Because all me are gay? Or just me?

Repression and projection aren't mutually exclusive. But only you can
answer that last question.

> You don't know how/why the tools nature gave you work, so I must also be
> confused about mine?

I have no idea what you must be. You just seem awfully concerned about
gay people.

Just sayin'.

>
> BUT Your confusion can't be applied to me. I know what I like and why
> I like it.

Do you now? Not protesting a bit too hard, perhaps?

> And I know why Nature constructed it that way and it's for a
> pretty good reason.

I trust you've approached the appropriate journals with your results.

> I'm happy and satisfied that things are correct in the universe.

Are you sure? 'Cause I'm concerned that things might not be quite right
on Alpha Centauri.

> I don't need to look for or experiment with or hope
> something better is out there.... I like what I have and the
> instructions make sense.

Exactly what many gay people say. Odd, that, dontchathink?

> You can keep all your assistance to yourself when it come to who I am.

Geez, don't snap at me. I'm just trying to help.

> If I play football and get hit in the head and get a concussion and
> forget what sex I am, I'll call you.

You don't need to call. Just look inside your jock strap.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Jun 17, 3:57 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> What is most surprising is that so few formal studies
> have been done to resolve the matter.

Because the answer relies on EPIGENETICS, which is a very young
discipline.

-Ramon

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/01/16/epigenetics-a-turning-point-in-our-understanding-of-heredity/

http://goo.gl/WA0sE

[Bret Cahill]

>  > What is most surprising is that so few formal studies
>  > have been done to resolve the matter.
>
> Because the answer relies on EPIGENETICS, which is a very young
> discipline.

How would that change the fact that no one has bothered to do the
obvious:

Get a control group of 19 straight penguins + 1 gay penguin and
compare reproduction and survival rates to 20 straight penguins.

? ? ?


Bret Cahill

[Ramon F. Herrera]

For the same reason they have not send a research team to Carora,
Venezuela to study the Perera-Melendez folks.

The House baggers blocked the grants.

-Ramon

http://digitaljournal.com/article/299233

[Bret Cahill]

> > Why did you snip the most important part of the post?
>
> Because it didn't have anything to do with the evolution of
> homosexuality,

Studies on the reproduction and survival rates of communities with
homosexuals compared to communities w/o homosexuals don't have
anything to do with the evolution of homosexuality?

. . .

[Bret Cahill]

> >> The reason is deceptively simple: Homosexual couples cannot produce
> >> biological offsprings (duh!!!)
>
> > Evolution doesn't work from the short term "every individualist for
> > himself" POV of a looneytarian.  The collective is a or _the_ major
> > factor in evolution for the same simple reason it is a major factor in
> > human societies.
>
> > It's successful.
>
> > Nature doesn't recognize human constructs like equality and will often
> > "unjustly" sacrifice some members for the survival of the rest.
> > That's why the best arguments for gat rights isn't that it's
> > "natural."  It's perfectly natural for a black widow to kill her
> > mate.  It's also perfectly natural for humans to die of E. coli.
>
> > The one and only thing we humans have left to justify our
> > "superiority" over other life forms is that we do something
> > _unnatural_:
>
> > We invent.
>
> > The evolutionary reason homosexuality exists is because the larger
> > straight community, a flock of penguins or humans, must somehow
> > benefit from a few gays.
>
> This isn't necessarily so.  It's possible for traits to exist that are
> merely contingent on other traits that are selected for.

If you are going to try to sound "eruditated" and learned, at least
don't dangle prepositions.


Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

> > >  > What is most surprising is that so few formal studies
> > >  > have been done to resolve the matter.
>
> > > Because the answer relies on EPIGENETICS, which is a very young
> > > discipline.
>
>  > How would that change the fact that no one has bothered
>  > to do the obvious:
>  >
>  > Get a control group of 19 straight penguins + 1 gay penguin
>  > and compare reproduction and survival rates to 20 straight
>  > penguins.
>  >
>  > ?  ?  ?
>  >
>  > Bret Cahill
>
> For the same reason they have not send a research team to Carora,
> Venezuela to study the Perera-Melendez folks.
>
> The House baggers blocked the grants.

1. This study could have and should have been conducted back in the
1950s when the U. S. was awash in money from the high tax economic
boom.

2. What could be cheaper than 2 flocks of seagulls? A community
college could afford to do it.


Bret Cahill

[Ramon F. Herrera]

Mr. Cahill:

The fundamental problem is that scientists were trying to use a
thermometer, when the correct tool was a voltmeter.

Using traditional genetics, they bumped into a wall. Results were
inconclusive and contradictory.

Enter EPIGENETICS: the results now make a lot of sense and new ground
is being broken, a lot of older studies must be revised, guided by
this new tool.

-Ramon

[deadrat]

If this is some delicate joke of yours, then heh, heh.

If it's not, then I'll say I'm not trying to sound erudite. I'm telling
you facts from evolutionary biology. "Selected for" and "selected
against" are idiomatic terms of art in the field. (A field in which, by
the way, I claim no special erudition.) As far as popular works go, no
authors write "contingent on those traits for which evolution selects."
Feel free to check the technical literature for yourself.

>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
>

[BeamMeUpScotty]

> On 6/17/13 4:21 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>> The reason is deceptively simple: Homosexual couples cannot produce
>>>>> biological offsprings (duh!!!)
>>>
>>>> Evolution doesn't work from the short term "every individualist for
>>>> himself" POV of a looneytarian. The collective is a or _the_ major
>>>> factor in evolution for the same simple reason it is a major factor in
>>>> human societies.
>>>
>>>> It's successful.
>>>
>>>> Nature doesn't recognize human constructs like equality and will often
>>>> "unjustly" sacrifice some members for the survival of the rest.
>>>> That's why the best arguments for gat rights isn't that it's
>>>> "natural." It's perfectly natural for a black widow to kill her
>>>> mate. It's also perfectly natural for humans to die of E. coli.
>>>
>>>> The one and only thing we humans have left to justify our
>>>> "superiority" over other life forms is that we do something
>>>> _unnatural_:
>>>
>>>> We invent.
>>>
>>>> The evolutionary reason homosexuality exists is because the larger
>>>> straight community, a flock of penguins or humans, must somehow
>>>> benefit from a few gays.
>>>
>>> This isn't necessarily so. It's possible for traits to exist that are
>>> merely contingent on other traits that are selected for.
>>
>> If you are going to try to sound "eruditated" and learned, at least
>> don't dangle prepositions.

Is that spelled wrong? I'm not a genius and I still never heard of
that, and you do know people like the Rainman couldn't tie their shoes
but could tell you God Awful crazy things with numbers.....

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/17/2013 5:19 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>> Why did you snip the most important part of the post?
>>
>> Because it didn't have anything to do with the evolution of
>> homosexuality,
>
> Studies on the reproduction and survival rates of communities with
> homosexuals compared to communities w/o homosexuals don't have
> anything to do with the evolution of homosexuality?
>

Is gay marriage "good for the welfare of the Nation"? You Liberals put
a lot of store in that phrase....

If there is no positive need or aspect or it's a negative then the
States have total control as per Amendment 10. Because the welfare
clause doesn't "kick in" unless you can show a positive need.

What other claims are there that Gays need marriage.... there is NO
equal under the tax laws so the 14th amendment falls short. No need to
make tax credits equal is there. No one has so far.


And if I am forced to pay for women to get contraceptive that I can't
use that's NOT equal so again taxing people like ObamaCare TAX has no
need for equal. So far I see no constitutional basis for gay Marriage.


And what's funny is Liberals have created all the reasons and
"interpretation" that make gay marriage a non starter.




--



*Rumination*
#3 - Liberals live in fear of anyone that promotes the notion of
self-sufficiency and responsible behavior.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

>> Because all men are gay? Or just me?

But sex is NOT gender specific, I might suddenly believe I a gay
transvestite... No wait, that would make me straight wouldn't it?

I just explained to you that you and/or others seem confuse what their
tools are for, so having the equipment is only part of the story.

[deadrat]

On 6/17/13 5:46 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 6/17/2013 5:19 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>> Why did you snip the most important part of the post?
>>>
>>> Because it didn't have anything to do with the evolution of
>>> homosexuality,
>>
>> Studies on the reproduction and survival rates of communities with
>> homosexuals compared to communities w/o homosexuals don't have
>> anything to do with the evolution of homosexuality?
>>
>
> Is gay marriage "good for the welfare of the Nation"? You Liberals put
> a lot of store in that phrase....

There is no claim (by "Liberals" or anybody else) that gay marriage is
"good for the welfare of the Nation." The claim is that what's good for
heterosexuals should go for homosexuals as well.

>
> If there is no positive need or aspect or it's a negative then the
> States have total control as per Amendment 10. Because the welfare
> clause doesn't "kick in" unless you can show a positive need.

There is no need to show a need for equal protection.

> What other claims are there that Gays need marriage.... there is NO
> equal under the tax laws so the 14th amendment falls short. No need to
> make tax credits equal is there. No one has so far.

This isn't a tax issue. The 14th Amendment as interpreted by the
Supreme Court says that it's the government that must show a need for
treating different classes of people differently.

> And if I am forced to pay for women to get contraceptive that I can't
> use that's NOT equal so again taxing people like ObamaCare TAX has no
> need for equal.

You're not being forced to pay for contraceptives. In fact, when
insurance companies pay for contraceptives, their claims go down, and
thus, so should your rates. That's because the cost of contraceptives
is small compared to the medical cost of babies.

> So far I see no constitutional basis for gay Marriage.

There is no constitutional basis for marriage, gay or straight. Whether
states provide for marriage in their statutes is up to them. Of course,
they all do. And since they do, the argument is that they must do so in
a non-discriminatory manner according to the 14th Amendment via the
mechanics mandated by the Supreme Court.

> And what's funny is Liberals have created all the reasons and
> "interpretation" that make gay marriage a non starter.

Gay marriage is inevitable. Opposition is highly age-based, and as the
old farts die off, so will the opposition. 11 states and DC already
recognize marriage equality, so it's either just a matter of time or
just a matter of a Supreme Court ruling.

Why do you even care whether gay people get married?

[deadrat]

Yeah, I can see how that might worry you. But let me reassure you, if
you're comfortable with your current sexuality, which you claim is
straight, then there's no chance that you'll "suddenly" come to believe
that you're gay.

> No wait, that would make me straight wouldn't it?

A little joke, perhaps? Hard to tell since you're such an abyssal
ignoramus on most things. Just in case, the desire to cross dress is
independent of sexual orientation.

> I just explained to you that you and/or others seem confuse what their
> tools are for,

I'm not confused. You seem to be obsessed with others' perceived
confusion, though. Have you given any thought as to why that is?

> so having the equipment is only part of the story.

This is true. One part of the story is a the mental perception of sex
and the other is sexual attraction. Both can be independent of costume.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Which is why I'm all for having your own sex your own way, but sex ain't
marriage.


And all sex isn't all equal, point in case is Pedophilia or
necrophilia.... They also aren't "equal" to heterosexual marriage.

You can't marry a child or a dead person.....

You also can't marry a person that is the same *gender* as you. Well
not in the name of religions or most States.


If you want to accept gays as different than pedophilia and necrophilia
then do so, but don't call it the same as heterosexual Marriage. Why
shouldn't *Married Heterosexuals* be as offended by you saying you are
the same as them, as you are when they call pedophilia and necrophilia
the same as homosexual behavior?


If Homosexuals aren't the same pedophiles and necrophiliac why then is
homosexual behavior the same as Married Heterosexual behavior? Can you
explain that to me?

Because it isn't alike any more than homosexuals are like pedophiles and
necrophiliacs is it?



If gays can decide others aren't like them don't heteros have the SAME
RIGHT to decide who is like heteros?


--



*Rumination*
#13 - Being Liberal means, never knowing that, you are your own worst enemy.

[deadrat]

Is that why? Really? I'd have thought it was because it was none of
your business.

> but sex ain't marriage.

This is true. Marriage is a state-sanctioned contract that confers
certain benefits and demands certain responsibilities. So let's talk
about that contract.

> And all sex isn't all equal, point in case is Pedophilia or
> necrophilia.... They also aren't "equal" to heterosexual marriage.

> You can't marry a child or a dead person.....

Some are students of the obvious; you are a master.

> You also can't marry a person that is the same *gender* as you.

Technically you can't marry a person who's the same sex as you.

> Well not in the name of religions

The only thing under consideration is civil marriage, i.e., who gets a
marriage license from the state, not a blessing from a chruch.

> or most States.

39.

> If you want to accept gays as different than pedophilia and necrophilia
> then do so,

Well, of course, I do, assuming you mean accept gay sex as different.
Just like straight sex acts, gay sex acts generally take place between
consenting adults, which makes them different from sex acts with
children or corpses.

> but don't call it the same as heterosexual Marriage.

What's "it"? I thought we agreed that sex ain't marriage. Why are you
talking about sex instead of contracts?

> Why
> shouldn't *Married Heterosexuals* be as offended by you saying you are
> the same as them, as you are when they call pedophilia and necrophilia
> the same as homosexual behavior?

First of all, since I'm a married heterosexual, I *am* the same as
*Married Heterosexuals*, at least as far as the law is concerned.
Secondly, why would any married heterosexual be offended by married
homosexuals? Remember this ain't about sex. It's about having a
certain contractual status as outlined by state law. How is my marriage
affected by the marriages of others?

Even if married partners never have sex at all, the partners, straight
or gay, are adults who consent to enter into a certain state-sanctioned,
contractual relationship. Pedophiles and necrophiles can't do that.

> If Homosexuals aren't the same pedophiles and necrophiliac why then is
> homosexual behavior the same as Married Heterosexual behavior? Can you
> explain that to me?

I hate to break this to you, but many married heterosexuals engage in
the same sex acts as homosexuals. But that's really irrelevant.
Firstly, most gay sex, like most straight sex is between consenting
adults. That's different from all pedophiles and necrophiles.
Secondly, the sex lives of married people isn't an issue. As you say,
marriage ain't sex, and there's no mention of sex in marriage statutes.

>
> Because it isn't alike any more than homosexuals are like pedophiles and
> necrophiliacs is it?

Did you fail the analogies part of the SATs? Most sexually active
homosexuals are just like most sexually active heterosexuals: they have
sex with consenting adult partners. This is different from all
pedophiles and necrophiles, who don't.

But why are you still talking about sex? Didn't we agree that sex ain't
marriage? You should be talking about marriage, i.e, the civil contract
outlined by state statutes, none which even mention sex acts.

> If gays can decide others aren't like them don't heteros have the SAME
> RIGHT to decide who is like heteros?

Of course. Everyone, gay and straight, is free to decide how to
partition the population into same-as-me, different-from-me. But state
law must be applied equally per the 14th Amendment.

11 states and DC now allow marriage equality. How has that affected
anyone who was married before?

[Greegor]

Bret, do you actually intend to
marry anybody or to make and
raise any children?

Is the opinion of an Aspie tainted
at all by their being a sociopath
and in some cases a psychopath?

Discussing some issues on usenet
are about as rational as asking
these freaks about gun control.

Jared Lee Loughner
James Eagan Holmes
Adam Peter Lanza

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/01/03/Interactivity/Images/shooting-suspects.jpg

[Bill Graham]

mr_antone wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 19:05:18 -0700 (PDT), "Ramon F. Herrera"
> <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Conservatives are so stupid, that they do not realize that allowing
>> gay marriage will reduce the number of gays or even make them
>> disappear.
>>
>> In fact, let's see if Liberals get the reasoning...
>>
>
> It's a well known fact among some conservatives, the legalization of
> same-sex marriage will cause the divorce rate of traditional marriages
> to explode.
>
> mr_antone

Marriage in general is fast becoming obsolete. Most of the young couples I
know donlt even bother with it, unless they were both raised into some
religious discipline. Whaqt the government really needs to do is eliminate
the tax table for, "married couples" in the form 1040. It was lobbied in by
religious groups, and has been a big mistake from the beginning.

[Bill Graham]

Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
> Mrs. Graham, Antone and Schadenfreude:

>
> I am sorry, but you have not figured out the reason behind this
> statement:
>
> Allowing widespread and respected gay marriages will reduce the
> number of gays. They may even become extinct.
>

> Why would I say such a thing? Am I going loco????
>
> Note: in the CNN forums folks were very close, much closer than you
> folks.
>
> Are CNN readers smarter than those in Usenet????
>
> -Ramon

The real number of gays will remain the same, reguardless of any politican
considerations. Gays are born, and not made. You can drive them back into
the closet, perhaps, but you can't change their sexual preference.

[Greegor]

Zepp > Why do you even care whether
Zepp > gay people get married?

I asked you before how it was Constitutional
when the US states and the USA in general
banned polygamy?

Why should gays get the right to marry
when the polygamists were here first?

Does the definition of a sentient being
include people who are mentally
retarded or mentally ill as well?

Should retarded or mental case people
be allowed to get married?

What exactly is the reasoning for
preventing polygamous marriage?

The FCC banned ASCII text codes
and required Baudot code on Ham
TTY for decades ONLY because the
FCC didn't have ASCII equipment
for monitoring!

Is the real reason the government
is against polygamy because the
government regulation of it would
become more complex?

[Bill Graham]

Bret Cahill wrote:
>> I am sorry, but you have not figured out the reason behind this
>> statement:
>>
>> Allowing widespread and respected gay marriages will reduce the
>> number of gays. They may even become extinct.
>

> Gay marriage could reduce the spread of AIDS which will increase the
> number of gays.
>
>
> Bret Cahill

But this is assuming two things: Only gays get aids, and only single people
sleep around with other people. Its been my experience, (and I have been
married three times) that neither of these two things are true.

[Bill Graham]

Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
> On Jun 17, 8:33 am, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:

>> On Jun 17, 8:30 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I am sorry, but you have not figured out the reason behind this
>>>> statement:
>>
>>>> Allowing widespread and respected gay marriages will reduce the
>>>> number of gays. They may even become extinct.
>>
>>> Gay marriage could reduce the spread of AIDS which will
>>> increase the number of gays.
>>>
>>> Bret Cahill
>>

>> Nope. Assume a perfect prevention/cure for AIDS has been found.
>>
>> Best answer so far, but no cigar.
>>
>> -Ramon
>
>
> Hint:
>
> We are working under the assumption that homosexuality is genetic and
> hereditary.
>
> -Ramon

I don't work under that assumption. Gayness is not hereditary. Therefore, it
must not be genetic. It affects about 5% of the population, and that
includes animal populations as well as human populations. As I said, nothing
political, (like marriage) will change the percentage of gays in the
population.

[Bill Graham]

Wayne wrote:
> "Ramon F. Herrera" wrote in message
> news:526e845f-f05f-462b...@b2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

>
>
>> Conservatives are so stupid, that they do not realize that allowing
>> gay marriage will reduce the number of gays or even make them
>> disappear.
>
>> In fact, let's see if Liberals get the reasoning...
>

>> -Ramon
>
> But Ramon, again you miss the point. It is entirely possible to be
> against gay "marriage", and have absolutely nothing against gays.
>
> Gays need domestic partnerships/civil unions/or whatever, that have
> the same legal rights, and same legal treatment as heterosexual
> marriage. Those legal rights can be easily conveyed without having
> government
> tamper with marriage.

All true, except gopvernment has already, "tampered with marriage". Just
look at the special tax table for, "married couples" in the form 1040. thia
has been in existence for over 50 years now. (lobbied for by the religious
groups, I might add) Boy, are they sorry about that now...:^)

[BeamMeUpScotty]

It changes the requirements, just as letting pedophiles and
necrophiliacs marry their sex partners will.

All your silly-cute answers were just you side stepping reality and
trying to use those Alinskyite tactics of the Liberal Left. I can tell
you now it doesn't work so well any longer we are all wise to it.

You failed to convince me that I was wrong on any point I made. In fact
I'm more sure of myself this minute than when I wrote it. The simple
fact that you attacked me personally reaffirms that everything I said
was correct. Otherwise you would have attacked the points I made NOT
just me personally.

Maybe you're NOT helping the gays as much as you think and you should
quit responding on their behalf.....

If you could have answered any of the points with any credibility I
could see chiming in but you failed and it sort of bolsters what I
already said, so I don't need to repeat any of it or answer any of your
rhetoric.

But if you think you have any relevant point maybe we can go there some day.

[Bill Graham]

Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> On Jun 17, 9:08 am, Ramon F Herrera <gopos...@jonjay.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 8:56 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> I am sorry, but you have not figured out the reason behind this
>>>>>> statement:
>>
>>>>>> Allowing widespread and respected gay marriages will reduce the
>>>>>> number of gays. They may even become extinct.
>>
>>>>> Gay marriage could reduce the spread of AIDS which
>>>>> will increase the number of gays.
>>
>>>>> Bret Cahill
>>
>>>> The answer is here somewhere:
>>
>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/16/us/gay-rights-immigration/
>>
>>> That seems to suggest the opposite.
>>> If immigration law included gay couples then gays
>>> would move to the U. S.
>>
>> The answer is there somewhere IN THE COMMENTS, not in the article.
>> Look for a hypothesis posted by a certain Mr. Herrera (much debated,
>> maybe even approved by posters?), during the weekend.
>>
>> Let's assume further that there is no population travel involved.
>>
>> - Before gays are being *respected* by society, let's say that in the
>> US 10% of men are gay. That seems to be a universal constant across
>> countries, economic levels, etc.
>>

>> - Decades or centuries later, after they get to marry freely and
>> homosexual couples become commonplace (*), that percentage
>> mysteriously goes down, and down and down, until gays become an
>> extinguishing species.
>>
>> Why could that be? What force is in effect here?????
>>
>> -Ramon
>>
>> (*) Tip: With no STIGMA.

>
>
> The reason is deceptively simple: Homosexual couples cannot produce
> biological offsprings (duh!!!)
>

> -Ramon

But gayness is not an inherited trait. It appears randomly throughout the
population. It even appears randomly anong animal populations. It appears
among orphaned populations too, and some of these are adopted by gay
parents....

[Bill Graham]

Ramon F Herrera wrote:

> On Jun 17, 9:37 am, Ramon F Herrera <gopos...@jonjay.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> (*) Tip: With no STIGMA.
>>
>> The reason is deceptively simple: Homosexual couples cannot produce
>> biological offsprings (duh!!!)
>>
>> -Ramon
>
>

> In Venezuela I saw cases, but this one is the most illustrative. A
> well respected person married into my family and years later it turned
> out that he was 100% homosexual, which brought shame, consternation,
> etc. to the family.
>
> Men obviously want to have CHILDREN (for companionship and take care
> of them in older age, some kids to whom leave advice, inheritance,
> etc.), right?
>
> If there is an STIGMA, those men will go undercover and MARRY a WOMAN
> (when they would have preferred to marry their beloved man) and
> CONCEIVED biological children. Their gay gene hence multiplies, they
> have gay babies.
>
> OTOH, after gays marriages are commonplace gay couples ADOPT and
> therefore their "vile seed" (not my words) does not spread.
>
> Q.E.D.
>
> -Ramon

There is no such thing as a, "gay gene". Homosexuality is not an inherited
trait.

[Greegor]

BG > The real number of gays will remain
BG > the same, reguardless of any politican
BG > considerations.

What a strange presumption!
The likelyhood of anything staying the
same is negligibly small, actually.

There might be more people who
do it just because they can, but there
also might be people who would be
bored with the idea once it's no longer
taboo, novel or exciting.

Think of the cynical or sarcastic
jokes about the bad side of hetero
marriage and divorce, like
"What the hell, spread the joy!".

BG > Gays are born, and not made.

Sorry Bill, but that line is false and propagandistic.

The denial of concious choice and social
motivations is just plain hair brained.

Field observations disprove that mantra.

The sheer numbers of women who marry,
make babies and then "discover" at
MIDDLE AGE that they are Lesbians
is enough to disprove that old saw.

Mostly angry at men, BTW.

> You can drive them back into
> the closet, perhaps, but you can't
> change their sexual preference.

Being "out of the closet" is now so "in"
that there are even hetero or bi people
merely POSING as gay or lesbian just
to take advantage of the "coolness".

I question the value of discussing such
a social issue on usenet, among a
crowd so thick with Aspies, who are
by definition sociopaths, though quite
a few actually cross the line from
sociopath into psychopath?

Aspies and idealogues like Zepp are
about the LAST people to ask anything
about social behaviors, sex, marriage
or family life.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/01/03/Interactivity/Images/shooting-suspects.jpg

[Bill Graham]

Bret Cahill wrote:
>> The reason is deceptively simple: Homosexual couples cannot produce
>> biological offsprings (duh!!!)
>

> Evolution doesn't work from the short term "every individualist for
> himself" POV of a looneytarian. The collective is a or _the_ major
> factor in evolution for the same simple reason it is a major factor in
> human societies.
>
> It's successful.
>
> Nature doesn't recognize human constructs like equality and will often
> "unjustly" sacrifice some members for the survival of the rest.
> That's why the best arguments for gat rights isn't that it's
> "natural." It's perfectly natural for a black widow to kill her
> mate. It's also perfectly natural for humans to die of E. coli.
>
> The one and only thing we humans have left to justify our
> "superiority" over other life forms is that we do something
> _unnatural_:
>
> We invent.
>
> The evolutionary reason homosexuality exists is because the larger
> straight community, a flock of penguins or humans, must somehow
> benefit from a few gays.
>

> A lot of this is obvious. There is little question that the gay
> fashion designer is encouraging straight sex. But there must be a
> host of other underinvestigated ways too subtle or too complicated or
> taboo to be widely understood, where it also promotes more or better
> offspring.
>
> They haven't done any studies yet but if you took a group of 20
> straight penguins and another group of 19 straights and one gay
> penguin, you'll find that the group with the one gay penguin would
> somehow out perform the group of 20 straights, more eggs or more eggs
> that hatch or the chicks could swim faster or huddle better.
>
> Such a study would completely monkey wrench the looneytarian POV which
> is the cause of all bigotry, not just homophobia.
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
>
> "Yossairan was a willing victim of anything besides circumstance."
>
> -- Joseph Heller _Catch-22_

Well, there is no question that human music was enhanced by Tchaikovsky, who
was gay. But I believe that gayness is just the natural deviation in the
fact that peoplp;e are attracted to very strange things near the edges of
the bell curve. Marylin Monroe and those women of her ilk ate at the tip of
the curve, and some very "unattractive" women are at the edges, and men are
even less attractive than even those, but some small percentage of the male
population likes these.... IOW, homosexuality is just part of the natural
tendency of a few people to live out near the edge of the curve. Not
everyone is attracted to women who look like Marilyn....

[Greegor]

> I don't work under that assumption.
> Gayness is not hereditary. Therefore,
> it must not be genetic.

Generally true but not logically absolute.

All humans in utero start female.
Hormones cause the very gender itself
to switch some % to be male.

Stress (like war) during pregnancy
causes some % of those males to have
brains that react to other hormones
as if they are female. This does not
fully explain homosexuality though
it seems to be part of the picture.

There are also "switches" that turn on
or off entire big sections of DNA.

Playing with those can cause
chicken to develop teeth or lizards
to develop feathers, etc.

(Without actually changing the DNA itself!)

> It affects about 5% of the population,

Seems a bit high.

> and that includes animal populations
> as well as human populations.

Beware, gender and homosexual sex
in animals is not the great killer
argument for human homosexuality
that they once were.

For example, female dogs hump
human legs as if they have a penis.

Sex in many animals is basically rape.

A few animals actually switch genders
if there's a severe imbalance between males
and females, but they are not mere posers.

> As I said, nothing
> political, (like marriage) will change the percentage of gays in the
> population.

Bill, Most usenet Aspies are social misfits.
They can be idealogues but they don't really
know crap about people socially, sex,
or normal healthy family life.

Adult Aspies who have married,
made kids and stayed married are
rare and they cannot experience
joys of it the way neurotypicals do.

An Aspie would be a bad spouse
and a seriously bad parent.

Interestingly there are some gays
and lesbians who honestly think
gay marriage and gay parenting
are really bad ideas.

[Bill Graham]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 6/17/2013 1:51 PM, deadrat wrote:
>> On 6/17/13 11:54 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

>>> On 6/17/2013 10:45 AM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>>>> On Jun 17, 9:37 am, Ramon F Herrera <gopos...@jonjay.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> (*) Tip: With no STIGMA.
>>>>>

>>>>> The reason is deceptively simple: Homosexual couples cannot
>>>>> produce biological offsprings (duh!!!)
>>>>>

>>>>> -Ramon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In Venezuela I saw cases, but this one is the most illustrative. A
>>>> well respected person married into my family and years later it
>>>> turned out that he was 100% homosexual, which brought shame,
>>>> consternation, etc. to the family.
>>>>
>>>> Men obviously want to have CHILDREN (for companionship and take
>>>> care of them in older age, some kids to whom leave advice,
>>>> inheritance, etc.), right?
>>>>
>>>> If there is an STIGMA, those men will go undercover and MARRY a
>>>> WOMAN (when they would have preferred to marry their beloved man)
>>>> and CONCEIVED biological children. Their gay gene hence
>>>> multiplies, they have gay babies.
>>>>
>>>> OTOH, after gays marriages are commonplace gay couples ADOPT and
>>>> therefore their "vile seed" (not my words) does not spread.
>>>>
>>>> Q.E.D.
>>>>
>>>> -Ramon
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>> Or they could be stoned to death as the Muslims do in Iran.
>>>
>>> Either way will have the same outcome for the gays but the Muslim's
>>> solution may save millions of children from being led a stray into
>>> homosexuals life style that has NOT been a success in nature.
>>
>> Children aren't "led a stray [sic]" into homosexuality. Sexual
>> preference appears innate.
>>
>>> There are no Societies that are primarily homosexual. In fact when
>>> societies lend themselves to more homosexual behavior they tend to
>>> be nearer collapse.
>>
>> How do you "lend" homosexual behavior?
>>
>> Could you name such collapsing societies? Please be sure to include
>> evidence that their collapse came about because of homoseuxality.
>>
>>> And that flies in the face of the liberals favorite constitutional
>>> arguments.
>>
>> Hardly. People retain their rights even when ignoramuses think they
>> don't deserve them because of "consequences."
>>>
>>> "> legislate, tax, regulate, negate state law, mandate, tariff, to
>>> > promote and provide for the general welfare,
>>> "
>>>
>>> "> to ensure domestic
>>> > tranquility:)))
>>> "
>>>
>>> SO history and NATURE are telling us that Gay marriage is connected
>>> to the opposite of General Welfare and domestic tranquility....
>>> which means that gay marriage is a threat to NOT just some children
>>> and their psychological well being but it's a threat to the
>>> constitution and the Nation. As much as any threatening ARMY
>>> marching up to our borders.
>>
>> Think about this a lot, do you?
>
> Gays are less than 2% and have no more RIGHTS than do RICH ELITES that
> are the 1%.... see - if we can denigrate people for being only 1%
> then it doesn't matter whether it's a gay 1% or a billionaire 1% they
> can have their RIGHTS taken away. Liberals told us that. That's the
> beauty of Liberalism, when someone is a minority you can attack them
> viciously for the fact they are only 1%.

Yeah, and when they finally get rid of the constitution, 51% of the people
will be able to kill the other 49% and steal whatever they have.... (because
its an, "obsolete" document)

[Bill Graham]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 6/17/2013 9:33 AM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote:

>> On Jun 17, 8:30 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>>> I am sorry, but you have not figured out the reason behind this
>>>> statement:
>>>
>>>> Allowing widespread and respected gay marriages will reduce the
>>>> number of gays. They may even become extinct.
>>>
>>
>> > Gay marriage could reduce the spread of AIDS which will
>> > increase the number of gays.
>> >
>> > Bret Cahill
>

> 50% of all marriages fail and most men cheat on their spouse.
>
>
> marriage isn't the cure for a failed society.

And about 1/3 of women cheat on their spouse also. After all, it takes two
to tango. When I was young and married, I found quite a few neighbor ladies
with roving eyes....:^)

[deadrat]

On 6/17/13 9:32 PM, Greegor wrote:
>> Why do you even care whether gay people get married?

>
> I asked you before how it was Constitutional
> when the US states and the USA in general
> banned polygamy?

The USA made polygamy a crime under the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1872, in a
fight with the Mormon Church over polygamy, motivated by a combination
of politics and Victorian repugnance. The law was repealed in 1978, so
there is no country-wide ban anymore. Now polygamy, like all marital
matters, arise out of state law.

In practice, the only place where the issue came up was in the Utah
Territory, where the Church of the LDS allowed the practice, but they
saw the handwriting on the Tabernacle wall inscribed with the heavy
hands of the US marshals enforcing the Edmunds Act. They knew admission
to the Union would never come until they disavowed polygamy. Which they
did. And sure enough, one of the conditions for Utah's admission to the
Union was a clause in the its state constitution disallowing polygamy.
No objections were raised, and considering that Congress pretty much has
plenary powers over territories and matters of admission to statehood,
it's not clear what objections could have been made. The ban is still
there at the beginning of Article III. Changing that would require a
2/3 vote of each house of the legislature and a majority vote in a
referendum. And in the face of the later Mormon revelations banning the
practice, the issue never came up.

All of this happened decades before the Supreme Court codified how to
adjudicate equal protection.

> Why should gays get the right to marry when the polygamists were here first?

It's not a matter of precedence. It's a matter of the scrutiny required
in examining equal protection issues.

> Does the definition of a sentient being include people who are mentally
> retarded or mentally ill as well?

Are you asking whether the mentally retarded or the mentally ill can
understand the fact that they are conscious beings? Some can, I
suppose, and some can't.

> Should retarded or mental case people be allowed to get married?

The requirement is competence to understand the nature of the agreement.

> What exactly is the reasoning for preventing polygamous marriage?

The only place this has ever come up was in the Utah Territory in the
two decades before statehood. I'd say the reason was Victorian
sensibilities.
>
<snip/>

> Is the real reason the government is against polygamy because the
> government regulation of it would become more complex?

I have no idea what the "real" reason is. Polygamists would have to
bring a lawsuit parallel to the ones on gay marriage. The 9th Circuit
found that California's Prop 8 had to pass strict scrutiny, but that the
law couldn't even pass a rational basis test.

Strict scrutiny is reserved for classes that have experienced
discrimination on the basis of innate (the Court says "immutable")
characteristics that don't matter to government policy and don't affect
class members from contributing to society. Particularly if the class
is a minority that has traditionally been powerless. Society's
understanding of homosexuality has changed. Sexual orientation is now
seen an innate, and the rest of the rules certainly apply. We'll have
to wait for the Supreme Court to rule.

Polygamists are certainly a minority, and they have been discriminated
against and seen their political power stripped from them, but polygamy
isn't an innate human characteristic. So polygamists would have to
settle for the rational basis test -- the laws against polygamy must be
rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

[Bill Graham]

Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
> On Jun 17, 1:31 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> > There is no homosexual gene. Identical twins can be
> > one gay one straight.
>
> Identical twins have much higher chances of being gays, next fraternal
> twins have a lower incidence and next regular siblings.
>
> That positive correlation (the closer in genes, the closer in sexual
> orientation) proves that there is a strong genetic component.
>
> Experts estimate the homosexuality is somewhere between 30% to 70%
> genetic, but they have not been studying the best familiar samples. I
> would recommend researchers to travel to my hometown (Carora,
> Venezuela) and study the PERERA-MELENDEZ family. After you see the
> genealogy books and their tendency to homosexuality you will be
> totally convinced about the genetic component. The evidence is
> overwhelming.
>
> IN FACT, the latest research indicates that homosexuality is
> transmitted epigenetically.
>
> -Ramon
>
> "Scientists May Have Finally Unlocked Puzzle of Why People Are Gay"
> http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/12/11/scientists-may-have-finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay
> http://goo.gl/T6szx
>
> Older study:
> The Real Story on Gay Genes
> http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay#.Ub9xVpzNk5Q

They don;t define these "epi-marks" very well, so I can't figure out exactly
what they are saying. How does a father affect his dayghter's epi-marks, and
a mother affect her son's? Does the effect take place environmentally, or
before copulation?

[Bill Graham]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 6/17/2013 4:27 PM, deadrat wrote:

>> On 6/17/13 1:31 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>>> The reason is deceptively simple: Homosexual couples cannot
>>>>>> produce biological offsprings (duh!!!)
>>>>

>>>>> Evolution doesn't work from the short term "every individualist
>>>>> for himself" POV of a looneytarian. The collective is a or _the_
>>>>> major factor in evolution for the same simple reason it is a
>>>>> major factor in human societies.
>>>>
>>>>> It's successful.
>>>>
>>>>> Nature doesn't recognize human constructs like equality and will
>>>>> often "unjustly" sacrifice some members for the survival of the
>>>>> rest. That's why the best arguments for gat rights isn't that it's
>>>>> "natural." It's perfectly natural for a black widow to kill her
>>>>> mate. It's also perfectly natural for humans to die of E. coli.
>>>>
>>>>> The one and only thing we humans have left to justify our
>>>>> "superiority" over other life forms is that we do something
>>>>> _unnatural_:
>>>>
>>>>> We invent.
>>>>
>>>>> The evolutionary reason homosexuality exists is because the larger
>>>>> straight community, a flock of penguins or humans, must somehow
>>>>> benefit from a few gays.
>>>>

>>>> This isn't necessarily so. It's possible for traits to exist that
>>>> are merely contingent on other traits that are selected for.
>>>

>>> There is no homosexual gene.
>>

>> None we've found.
>>
>>> Idential twins can be one gay one straight.
>>
>> The mechanism of gene expression would explain that.
>>
>>> But there may be a gene common to both straights and gays that,
>>> depending on environmental factors, determines sexuality.
>>
>> Possibly.
>>
>
> It may be a hormone imbalance for all that they know. It could be
> diet. Or just personal preference.
>
> But what makes a pedophile?

Some people like older sex partners, and some younger. If the ones who like
them younger like them younger that where the law draws the line, then they
are defined as, "pedophiles". So its partley the choice bell curve, and
partly a matter of political definition.

[Bill Graham]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 6/17/2013 4:34 PM, deadrat wrote:
>> On 6/17/13 1:39 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> On 6/17/2013 10:37 AM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>>>> On Jun 17, 9:08 am, Ramon F Herrera <gopos...@jonjay.com> wrote:

>>>>> On Jun 17, 8:56 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am sorry, but you have not figured out the reason behind
>>>>>>>>> this statement:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Allowing widespread and respected gay marriages will
>>>>>>>>> reduce the number of gays. They may even become extinct.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Gay marriage could reduce the spread of AIDS which
>>>>>>> > will increase the number of gays.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Bret Cahill
>>>>>

>>>>>>> The answer is here somewhere:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/16/us/gay-rights-immigration/
>>>>>
>>>>> > That seems to suggest the opposite.
>>>>> > If immigration law included gay couples then gays
>>>>> > would move to the U. S.
>>>>>
>>>>> The answer is there somewhere IN THE COMMENTS, not in the article.
>>>>> Look for a hypothesis posted by a certain Mr. Herrera (much
>>>>> debated, maybe even approved by posters?), during the weekend.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's assume further that there is no population travel involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Before gays are being *respected* by society, let's say that
>>>>> in the US 10% of men are gay. That seems to be a universal
>>>>> constant across countries, economic levels, etc.
>>>

>>> Gays like to tell you all men are gay, we all have latent gay urges,
>>> they tried that line on me all the time.....
>>
>> I have known a number of gay men. None of them has ever mentioned
>> such a thing. If "they" tried that line on you all the time, either
>> they're just messing with you, or they know something about you that
>> you claim not to.
>>
>
>
> Here we go again, I'm gay and I don't know it.
>

> Because all me are gay? Or just me?

>
> You don't know how/why the tools nature gave you work, so I must also
> be confused about mine?
>

> BUT Your confusion can't be applied to me. I know what I like and

> why I like it. And I know why Nature constructed it that way and
> it's for a pretty good reason. I'm happy and satisfied that things
> are correct in the universe. I don't need to look for or experiment

> with or hope something better is out there.... I like what I have and
> the instructions make sense.
>
>

> You can keep all your assistance to yourself when it come to who I am.
>

> If I play football and get hit in the head and get a concussion and
> forget what sex I am, I'll call you.

Don't laugh. There was a woman in San Francisco who claimed she was turned
into a sex amniac by a cable car accident.... I never did find out what
happened in that case......

[Bill Graham]

Ramon F. Herrera wrote:
> On Jun 17, 4:12 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>>> What is most surprising is that so few formal studies
>>>> have been done to resolve the matter.
>>
>>> Because the answer relies on EPIGENETICS, which is a very young
>>> discipline.
>>
>
> > How would that change the fact that no one has bothered
> > to do the obvious:
> >
> > Get a control group of 19 straight penguins + 1 gay penguin
> > and compare reproduction and survival rates to 20 straight
> > penguins.
> >
> > ? ? ?
> >
> > Bret Cahill
>
> For the same reason they have not send a research team to Carora,
> Venezuela to study the Perera-Melendez folks.
>
> The House baggers blocked the grants.
>
> -Ramon

And thank God for that! I've got better things for them to do with my tax
dollars. - Like getting out from under that 16-1/2 trillion dollar debt.
(for example)

[Bill Graham]

The only reason poligamy is illegal is because the stupid government has
made laws respecting the institution of marriage. If the government were to
just take the word' Marriage" out of all their legal documents, things would
be so much better, and people would be so much free-er to do as they damn
well pleased.

[deadrat]

Not for people who are already married. They'll be just as married no
matter who else is allowed to marry. Not for any straight couples who
want to get married. The requirements will be the same -- two
consenting, competent adults, a marriage license, and a solemnization by
a competent authority before witnesses. Nothing changes.

> just as letting pedophiles and
> necrophiliacs marry their sex partners will.

Marriage is a contract. Only those who can give consent may enter into
it. Pedophiles and necrophiles are out. By definition. Why do you
keep bringing this up?

> All your silly-cute answers were just you side stepping reality and
> trying to use those Alinskyite tactics of the Liberal Left. I can tell
> you now it doesn't work so well any longer we are all wise to it.

You understand, I hope, that the above paragraph is practically insane.
And pathetic. What does Alinsky have to do with marriage equality?

> You failed to convince me that I was wrong on any point I made.

No doubt. It's impossible to use rational means to move anyone from a
position they didn't reach by rational means.

> In fact I'm more sure of myself this minute than when I wrote it.

Keep telling yourself that.

> The simple
> fact that you attacked me personally reaffirms that everything I said
> was correct.

Oh, Sparky, that's no way to go through life. What you say either makes
sense or it doesn't, regardless of who insults you. If you're wrong,
you're wrong whether you've been informed of that crudely or politely.

In any case, I haven't attacked you personally. You are an ignoramus.
That doesn't mean you're stupid, just that you're ignorant.

> Otherwise you would have attacked the points I made NOT
> just me personally.

I have demolished every point you've made. You insist on talking about
sex acts, when elsewhere even you concede that "sex ain't marriage."
You insist on talking about pedophiles as equivalent to gay people, when
that's clearly untrue. What more do you want from me?

> Maybe you're NOT helping the gays as much as you think and you should
> quit responding on their behalf.....

Gay people don't need my help, and I'm not responding "on their behalf."
I'm poking holes in your specious arguments.

> If you could have answered any of the points with any credibility I
> could see chiming in but you failed and it sort of bolsters what I
> already said, so I don't need to repeat any of it or answer any of your
> rhetoric.

OK, Brave Sir Robin. Run away, bravely run away. I can't force you to
make sense. Just look at your answers to my question of how married gay
partners affect other marriages. Completely empty.

>
> But if you think you have any relevant point maybe we can go there some day.

What haven't I answered? Marriage is a state-sanctioned contract. Like
all contracts, only consenting, competent adults may enter into them.
(With an exception for marriages between minors approved by their
parents.) This rule excludes pedophiles and necrophiles, which you
bring up constantly although they're clearly not relevant.

No state laws on marriage mention sex acts. Why do you bring sex into
the discussion at all?

Like all state laws, marriage laws must not violate equal protection.

You can't tell me any deleterious effect that a marriage between gay
partners would have on any marriage between straight partners. I'm
married. What changes should I look for in my marriage once Illinois
opts for marriage equality? Be specific.

[Bill Graham]

Sorry, but I lived in San Francisco for over 30 years, and I have known many
gay people. I have never met one who said thast they, "chose" to be gay. To
a person they have all told me that they have been gay for as far back as
they can remember. When they were barely able to walk, and were frightened,
they ran to their same sex parent for comfort and support. Not one has ever
told me that they made the choice to become gay.
As I've said on this forum before. I go with my own experience. This has
always worked well for me in the past, and I will continue to use it unless
I am faced with some field whare I have little or no experience, in which
case, I usually don't comment at all.

[Bill Graham]

I knew this was true of alligators, but I didn't know it was true of us
humans.....

[Greegor]

BMUS > 50% of all marriages fail and
BMUS > most men cheat on their spouse.
BMUS > marriage isn't the cure for a failed society.

Do you mean failed society or failed subculture?

BG > And about 1/3 of women cheat on their
BG > spouse also. After all, it takes two
BG > to tango. When I was young and
BG > married, I found quite a few neighbor
BG > ladies with roving eyes....:^)

A study of families in the 1980's where
the kids were all supposedly fathered
by the Dad found that 1 out of 4 kids
actually were fathered by another man.

DNA detected the bald faced lies.

Women seem to choose to marry men
who are boring stable steady bread
winners but then are tempted by some
flashy rich or beefy guy.

[Greegor]

deadrat > polygamy isn't an innate human characteristic.

in·nate
/iˈnāt/Adjective
1. Inborn; natural.
2. Originating in the mind.

Actually, I think polygamy is far more (1a and 1b)
than (2), and considering women and even
men ""discovering"" their gayness after
functioning as hetero into their mid 40's
casts serious doubt on (1a).

Would you like to argue about (1b)?

[Ramon F. Herrera]

Mr/Ms/Mrs Greegor:

In reference to your proposed marriage, which particular animal do you
have in mind?

In addition to being a consenting adult -in dog years- make sure to
have Fido's nails clipped.

The answer to your question of unfairness is below, from the
immigration activists: chop, chop!!!

-Ramon

--------------------------------------

MayorAndy • 11 hours ago

"If my brother robbed a bank, he would be doing something illegal.
When people sneak into our country, they are doing something illegal.
Why should one of these crimes be rewarded?"

I have great news for you and your criminal sibling!!

We can ACTUALLY forgive your brother... But there is one caveat:

Just make sure that you two cultivate and earn the support of:

• All US businesses

• All US churches

• The US military

• Public opinion (international, would be a plus).

Support from 1 1/2 parties would be additionally helpful.

So: Chop, chop!!! get off you rear ends and get busy!!!!

The members of the undocumented workforce already procured those
requirements.

-Ramon

[deadrat]

Marriage is a social construct; sexual orientation isn't.

[Greegor]

> > What exactly is the reasoning for
> > preventing polygamous marriage?
>
> > The FCC banned ASCII text codes
> > and required Baudot code on Ham
> > TTY for decades ONLY because the
> > FCC didn't have ASCII equipment
> > for monitoring!
>
> > Is the real reason the government
> > is against polygamy because the
> > government regulation of it would
> > become more complex?

> The only reason poligamy is illegal is because the stupid government has
> made laws respecting the institution of marriage. If the government were to
> just take the word' Marriage" out of all their legal documents, things would
> be so much better, and people would be so much free-er to do as they damn
> well pleased.

That sounds good for individual
freedoms but terrible for kids.

That heavy "commitment" part of
marriage seems to be all about
fidelity and responsibility for children.

I realize that many people could
not handle polygamy, but it seems
to be excellent for the kids.

It seems to require people to be
less selfish, less possessive,
less narcissistic...

I'd give them better odds against divorce.

Social workers seem to rage against polygamy.

[Greegor]

Interesting idea.

Have you ever looked at a photo
of a crowd of militant lesbians?

A few look attractive but an amazing
number are overweight and butt ugly.
Not just the "drag kings" either.

Some gay men look good,
some thin or effeminate
but a crowd of them similarly look
fat and butt ugly.
More "drag queens" tend to work
harder at keeping their weight down,
but some clearly lost that battle.

More lesbians overall seem way
more angry than gay men.

While lesbians tend to truly be
strictly homosexual, gay men
tend to be secretly bisexual.

I've seen way too much of a social
component to buy the old saw
about either being "born that way".

There is research about sexual
pliability in kids/teens that flies
in the face of the "born that way"
propaganda, too.

It's more concious choice and
environment than gay activists would
ever admit to. They're lobbyists!

[Greegor]

> >>> Gays like to tell you all men are gay, we all have latent gay urges,
> >>> they tried that line on me all the time.....

You should have called them bisexuals.
Almost every gay man is actually bisexual.

THAT is why they played that game on you.

> >> I have known a number of gay men.  None of them has ever mentioned
> >> such a thing.  If "they" tried that line on you all the time, either
> >> they're just messing with you, or they know something about you that
> >> you claim not to.

> > Here we go again, I'm gay and I don't know it.
>
> > Because all me are gay? Or just me?
>
> > You don't know how/why the tools nature gave you work, so I must also
> > be confused about mine?
>
> > BUT Your confusion can't be applied to me.   I know what I like and
> > why I like it.  And I know why Nature constructed it that way and
> > it's for a pretty good reason.  I'm happy and satisfied that things
> > are correct in the universe.  I don't need to look for or experiment
> > with or hope something better is out there.... I like what I have and
> > the instructions make sense.
>
> > You can keep all your assistance to yourself when it come to who I am.
>
> > If I play football and get hit in the head and get a concussion and
> > forget what sex I am, I'll call you.
>
> Don't laugh. There was a woman in San Francisco who claimed she was turned
> into a sex amniac by a cable car accident.... I never did find out what
> happened in that case......

"A guy walks into a psychiatrist's office and
says, hey doc, my brother's crazy!
He thinks he's a chicken. Then the doc
says, why don't you turn him in?
Then the guy says, I would but I need the eggs."

My libido is strong enough that
I used to dream of getting an actual
nymphomaniac, but when I learned
that most actual nymphomaniacs find
monogamy impossible I decided
they would only break my heart.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

In other words pedophilia is a choice like gay sex is a choice?

NO equal protection if it's a choice the reason for equal protection
under the law is for people that are given no choice like handicapped or
a gender or a skin color isn't it?


Those are things where "you" have no CHOICE then the decision is NOT
your to make. And you are covered under the equal protection part of
the constitution?


Otherwise a bank robber could simply say his JOB is robbing bank and
it's protected under the equal protection, and it's NOT because it was
their choice.




--



*Rumination*
#60 - "Our constitution protects criminals, sexual deviants and U.S.
Senators.... which at times are, one and the same."

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Or putting an ARMED GUARD in the schools..... Liberals said that was
too expensive.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/18/2013 12:48 AM, Bill Graham wrote:

Or putting an ARMED GUARDS in the schools..... Liberals said that was
too expensive.



But the funny thing is that when I lived in Miami they put armed guards
at all the trash dump stations to stop people from picking the trash....
A worthy project if there ever was one.

It was a roaring success, the only people picking the dump from that
point on were the black women they hired to carry the gun and their
friends (if there were any others I never saw them). Until that fateful
day when one of these "guards" (actually welfare queens hired by the
County) shot someone and they took all the guns away and then the guard
did nothing and everyone picked the trash again.

In the end they paid people to watch trash being tossed and picked over,
rather than watching the Oprah equivalent while sitting on the couch.

But the fact DEMOCRATS would pay someone to watch our trash and then
ignore our children in their schools *TELLS THE WHOLE STORY* .



--



*Rumination*
#13.0.1 - Governments are parasites that will grow until they kill their
host.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Why NOT?


sex can be a social pressure like we see among teens.... in fact
Liberal feminists say that we damage women by forcing them into a sexual
subservient role in our society.


As if mean old men force women to be their cooks and cleaners and sex
slaves through years of playing with dolls and it's all societies fault.


Women wanted sexual freedom, and that must include orientation freedom
also, which means that sexual orientation is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT....


Either that or the *FEMINIST MOVEMENT WAS ALL A LIE*




--



*Rumination*
#12 - It's what you learn, after you know it all, that counts.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

There are pedophiles that think hurting children is wrong, so they tell
themselves they're helping the kids by giving them love.


The world of human behavior is NOT a rational world.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

A Social and a moral contract as well as a legal contract....

You have vows that you take, they are like an oath is a contract but an
oath is more of an ethical type of contract. You know like the one
Obama broke NOT the one Clinton broke.


In review we have moral, ethical, Social, and legal contracts and any
combination thereof.


Marriage tells the community and your spouse what your intentions are
and ties you legally and financially to your spouse.


Being put in prison for pedophilia is a different sort of social
contract. And when you compare Gays with either of the previous two
scenarios, we find it is offensive to someone.

Gays and Liberals don't want to be offended or offend others do they?

[Wayne]

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
news:Q4mdnXY8Hc2SViLM...@giganews.com...

Wayne wrote:
> "Ramon F. Herrera" wrote in message
> news:526e845f-f05f-462b...@b2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> Conservatives are so stupid, that they do not realize that allowing
>> gay marriage will reduce the number of gays or even make them
>> disappear.
>
>> In fact, let's see if Liberals get the reasoning...
>
>> -Ramon
>
> But Ramon, again you miss the point. It is entirely possible to be
> against gay "marriage", and have absolutely nothing against gays.
>
> Gays need domestic partnerships/civil unions/or whatever, that have
> the same legal rights, and same legal treatment as heterosexual
> marriage. Those legal rights can be easily conveyed without having
> government
> tamper with marriage.

# All true, except gopvernment has already, "tampered with marriage". Just
# look at the special tax table for, "married couples" in the form 1040.
thia
# has been in existence for over 50 years now. (lobbied for by the religious
# groups, I might add) Boy, are they sorry about that now...:^)

But the "fix" is easy....a law declaring that recorded civil unions/domestic
partnerships/etc. will have the same benefits defined for legal marriage.
Of course, that will never happen since the whole hissyfit is not about
legal rights, but about forcing religion to sanction same sex "marriage".

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Get rid of all government interests in Marriage..... NO tax laws that
discriminate against Gays and Single persons.


They used to give tax breaks to marriage to make things FAIR since
raising children born to you was costly.


NO need for that any longer, the government raises their children these
days with Child credits and forced government schools and food programs.



Simply pass a sunset law that sunsets all Federal laws that pertain to
marriage.

[deadrat]

On 6/18/13 10:16 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 6/18/2013 2:53 AM, deadrat wrote:
>> On 6/18/13 1:45 AM, Greegor wrote:
>>> deadrat > polygamy isn't an innate human characteristic.
>>>
>>> in·nate
>>> /iˈnāt/Adjective
>>> 1. Inborn; natural.
>>> 2. Originating in the mind.
>>>
>>> Actually, I think polygamy is far more (1a and 1b)
>>> than (2), and considering women and even
>>> men ""discovering"" their gayness after
>>> functioning as hetero into their mid 40's
>>> casts serious doubt on (1a).
>>>
>>> Would you like to argue about (1b)?
>>>
>> Marriage is a social construct; sexual orientation isn't.
>>
> Why NOT?

Because that's the way it is?

> sex can be a social pressure like we see among teens....

Sex isn't "social pressure." Sex is a well-defined set of physical acts.

> in fact
> Liberal feminists say that we damage women by forcing them into a sexual
> subservient role in our society.

OK.

> As if mean old men force women to be their cooks and cleaners and sex
> slaves through years of playing with dolls and it's all societies fault.

Well, that's simplistic unto caricature, but you're not talking about
sexual orientation but what's called gender roles. The former is a
feeling of physical attraction; the latter, a set of social duties.

> Women wanted sexual freedom, and that must include orientation freedom
> also, which means that sexual orientation is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT....

One thing women wanted (and still want) is to control their own bodies.
Part of that includes deciding for themselves when to have sexual
relations and with whom. I think it's fair to call that sexual freedom.
Most people, gay and straight, do not report their sexual orientation
as a conscious choice. Is that your experience? Did you decide to
become heterosexual in response to the pressures of society or family or
peers? Our society has employed fierce social pressure on both gender
roles and sexual orientation. It worked pretty well for the former;
almost never for the latter.

In any case, I'm confused by the logic of your argument. Why would
women demanding whatever kind of freedom they wanted have any effect on
a biological phenomenon?

> Either that or the *FEMINIST MOVEMENT WAS ALL A LIE*

The feminist movement was about autonomy and equal treatment for women.
I'm not sure that falls anywhere on the true-false scale.

[Bill Graham]

Yeah, but we men do the same thing. I had a lot of flashy party girls on the
way up, but I married the ones I knew I could live with on a daily basis,
and who wouldn't take me for all I was worth when they got bored with me....

[Bill Graham]

Greegor wrote:
> deadrat > polygamy isn't an innate human characteristic.
>

> in·nate
> /iˈnÄ t/Adjective

> 1. Inborn; natural.
> 2. Originating in the mind.
>
> Actually, I think polygamy is far more (1a and 1b)
> than (2), and considering women and even
> men ""discovering"" their gayness after
> functioning as hetero into their mid 40's
> casts serious doubt on (1a).
>
> Would you like to argue about (1b)?

Sexual polygamy is natural, (at least among the primates in general) but
marriage is a different ball park altogether....

[deadrat]

Civil marriage is not a moral contract. The "have and to hold,
forsaking all others" is part of religious marriage.

> You have vows that you take, they are like an oath is a contract but an
> oath is more of an ethical type of contract.

But it's not one the state enforces.

<snip/>

> In review we have moral, ethical, Social, and legal contracts and any
> combination thereof.

You're mixing religious marriage and civil marriage. Marriage equality
affects only the latter. You will always be allowed to join and worship
at the Benighted Church of Christ, which has a doctrine that brands
homosexuality as a sin and refuses to perform its marriage rites for gay
partners.

> Marriage tells the community and your spouse what your intentions are
> and ties you legally and financially to your spouse.

That's the civil part. Which also includes things like paternity,
inheritance, marital privilege, and so on.

> Being put in prison for pedophilia is a different sort of social
> contract.

Imprisonment isn't anything like a contract. There's no mutual
agreement, for one.

> And when you compare Gays with either of the previous two
> scenarios, we find it is offensive to someone.

It's easy to understand why comparing gays to pedophiles is offensive.
Most gay people don't hurt the vulnerable; pedophiles do.

It's hard to understand why allowing gays to marry is offensive. Whom
do they hurt? There are now 11 states (and DC) that allow gay partners
to marry. How have any of those marriages hurt anyone else?

> Gays and Liberals don't want to be offended or offend others do they?

"Gays" and "Liberals" are collections of people. Collections of people
don't give or take offense. Individuals do. I'm sure they are gays,
liberals, and even gay liberals who don't want to be offended and don't
want to offend others. I'm sure there are others who don't take offense
readily and don't care if they offend others. What's your point?

It is certainly part of our Constitutional tradition that people may
demand their rights even when the majority is offended by that demand.

You might wish to ponder the legal fate of the ban on inter-racial marriage.