If Marriage Is a Fundamental Right, Then?

[Haggis_McMutton]

B.K. "Honibaz" Barunt, do you consider yourself to be homophobic? If yes/no, how do you know?

The word "homophobic" is a silly, misleading word concocted by the gays to imply that anyone who considers homosexuality to be unnatural is actually afraid of homosexuals. I believe it to be unnatural but i certainly don't fear them. I have friends who are openly gay and they know how i feel. The fact that they remain my friends speaks for itself. Because i believe it to be unnatural i don't believe a gay couple should raise children. For me to be denied schooling or anything else because of my beliefs is wrong - just as wrong as if a homosexual would be denied the same rights.


Honibaz

What about the fact that homosexuality can be observed in a wide variety of animals? (link)
Would that not make it "natural" ? If not, how do you define "natural" ?

I agree with the stuff about beliefs. I think it's just a phase where, because homosexuality has been repressed for so long, the tendency is to now swing the pendulum in the other direction.

[Phatscotty]

Haggis, with that example, isn't everything an animal does considered "natural" then? Can we say what is natural just by observing something?

For example, exhibit A in an isolated environment of only same sex, it would be natural. But the same exhibit, when given the opportunity to have their pick of whatever they want, would also be natural, no?

It's not like that case can be made similar to the way it's natural for a sperm to fertilize an egg.

I will grant your point, that if you hump on something, and it feels good, then it's natural. But that doesn't make the activity itself "natural", it means that rubbing your junk against something and getting a tingle is natural.

[Woodruff]

Haggis, with that example, isn't everything an animal does considered "natural" then? Can we say what is natural just by observing something?

For example, exhibit A in an isolated environment of only same sex, it would be natural. But the same exhibit, when given the opportunity to have their pick of whatever they want, would also be natural, no?

It's not like that case can be made similar to the way it's natural for a sperm to fertilize an egg.

I will grant your point, that if you hump on something, and it feels good, then it's natural. But that doesn't make the activity itself "natural", it means that rubbing your junk against something and getting a tingle is natural.

Keep your fantasies to yourself, Phatscotty.

[AAFitz]

Im not about to waste any time trying to educate baboons, but there is direct evidence that many gay males tend to process directions the same way women do, ie, their brains work differently when navigating and are attracted to males, and the evidence for this correlation is strong enough not to discount. I suppose one could argue that navigating is an environmentally influenced behavior and that gay males ended up being attracted to men, and process directions when driving for the same reasons, but I dont know...it seems pretty convoluted.

Agreed with the rest, but what's your source? Cuz I've never heard that before, and it looks suspicious.

Not sure the original source....but If I write some info that seems like Im either educated or making shit up...its probably from cracked, or at least originated there.

Also, I paraphrased based on my memory of the article read months ago, so I fully understand why it looks suspicious, but they usually cite enough sources to be believable overall. For the most part, I just take it for granted and believe them, and accept they probably make a mistake here or there.

Also, I should point out, that the statement is ridiculously simplified, and not every gay man gets lost, or are bad at directions... but simply that statistically, gay males do tend to process directions more often like women, than like hetero males. The full explanation is no doubt hundreds of pages though, but in general, women do seem to process navigation based on what they see as landmarks and such, whereas males more frequently use directions based more on a map basis. Again, this is very generalized, but there is enough of a difference that statistically it does stand out....or at least, I read it did at some point, somewhere.

Further, as I mentioned, even if we stipulate that gay males process directions like women, it doesn't necessarily fully prove a biological connection, though proving an environmental atmosphere that affected sexual preference and something as random as navigation, at least to me, seems pretty unlikely.

I am biased though. From what I have seen, I feel there is absolutely no question sexuality is biologically determined, and like any other trait, there is an infinite amount of degrees...and those pretending its a choice, simply block out the obvious cases, where there was almost no chance sexuality was ever going to be anything other than homosexual. But then, hatred, which is often very much fueled by fear, can very often be blinding.

[AAFitz]

Haggis, with that example, isn't everything an animal does considered "natural" then? Can we say what is natural just by observing something?

For example, exhibit A in an isolated environment of only same sex, it would be natural. But the same exhibit, when given the opportunity to have their pick of whatever they want, would also be natural, no?

It's not like that case can be made similar to the way it's natural for a sperm to fertilize an egg.

I will grant your point, that if you hump on something, and it feels good, then it's natural. But that doesn't make the activity itself "natural", it means that rubbing your junk against something and getting a tingle is natural.

Well, by that definition, it most certainly is natural. At the predicted 10% of the population that is homosexual, suggesting that it isnt, is just mathematically phatty.

[Phatscotty]

Haggis, with that example, isn't everything an animal does considered "natural" then? Can we say what is natural just by observing something?

For example, exhibit A in an isolated environment of only same sex, it would be natural. But the same exhibit, when given the opportunity to have their pick of whatever they want, would also be natural, no?

It's not like that case can be made similar to the way it's natural for a sperm to fertilize an egg.

I will grant your point, that if you hump on something, and it feels good, then it's natural. But that doesn't make the activity itself "natural", it means that rubbing your junk against something and getting a tingle is natural.

Well, by that definition, it most certainly is natural. At the predicted 10% of the population that is homosexual, suggesting that it isnt, is just mathematically phatty.

source?

[Phatscotty]

Can a boy be elected prom queen? Can a girl be elected prom queen?

Why or why not?

[BigBallinStalin]

Im not about to waste any time trying to educate baboons, but there is direct evidence that many gay males tend to process directions the same way women do, ie, their brains work differently when navigating and are attracted to males, and the evidence for this correlation is strong enough not to discount. I suppose one could argue that navigating is an environmentally influenced behavior and that gay males ended up being attracted to men, and process directions when driving for the same reasons, but I dont know...it seems pretty convoluted.

Agreed with the rest, but what's your source? Cuz I've never heard that before, and it looks suspicious.

Not sure the original source....but If I write some info that seems like Im either educated or making shit up...its probably from cracked, or at least originated there.

Also, I paraphrased based on my memory of the article read months ago, so I fully understand why it looks suspicious, but they usually cite enough sources to be believable overall. For the most part, I just take it for granted and believe them, and accept they probably make a mistake here or there.

Also, I should point out, that the statement is ridiculously simplified, and not every gay man gets lost, or are bad at directions... but simply that statistically, gay males do tend to process directions more often like women, than like hetero males. The full explanation is no doubt hundreds of pages though, but in general, women do seem to process navigation based on what they see as landmarks and such, whereas males more frequently use directions based more on a map basis. Again, this is very generalized, but there is enough of a difference that statistically it does stand out....or at least, I read it did at some point, somewhere.

Further, as I mentioned, even if we stipulate that gay males process directions like women, it doesn't necessarily fully prove a biological connection, though proving an environmental atmosphere that affected sexual preference and something as random as navigation, at least to me, seems pretty unlikely.

I am biased though. From what I have seen, I feel there is absolutely no question sexuality is biologically determined, and like any other trait, there is an infinite amount of degrees...and those pretending its a choice, simply block out the obvious cases, where there was almost no chance sexuality was ever going to be anything other than homosexual. But then, hatred, which is often very much fueled by fear, can very often be blinding.

Tis a shame.

[crispybits]

Can a boy be elected prom queen? Can a girl be elected prom queen?

Why or why not?

Yes to both

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archiv ... y/09052908

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... e-1.142475

http://culturecampaign.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... queen.html

[BigBallinStalin]

And to add:

Can a boy be elected prom queen? Can a girl be elected prom queen?

Why or why not?

Because gender identity != one's biological sex.

[thegreekdog]

Just curious, in your support for same-sex marriage, did you ever consider that prom and other casual high school dances would be redefined also? Or did you just say that was a stupid slippery slope argument that wouldn't happen and was just scaremongering?

Curiousity #2: do you think this stops at prom dances? Do you realize there are virtually unlimited other "slippery slope" areas as well? How far do you think this will go? Or is everything you called a slippery slope going to also be blown off by you when it comes to pass?

Hmm... Let me answer your questions and then pose some questions back at you.

(1) Curiousity #1, Part 1 - I did not consider that proms and other casual high school dances would be redefined by gay marriage since, way back in 1997, a gay couple came to my high school prom in central Pennsylvania, which caused quite a stir. I had no point of view on gay marriage in 1997 and I'm pretty sure it wasn't legal anywhere (and was not in Pennsylvania), so gay marriage did not redefine my prom. Rather, a gay couple redefined my prom.

(2) Curiousity #1, Part 2 - The use of "they ruined prom" as a slippery slope example of how the legality of gay marriage would ruin traditions is a poor one simply because gay couples go to proms regardless of whether gay marriage is legal or illegal. In sum, find a better example.

(3) Curiousity #2, Part 1 - No, I think we'll have gay couples on television, in movies, in politics, in... oh wait, we already have those things and gay marriage isn't legal.

(4) Curiousity #2, Part 2 - Yes, I do realize there are virtually unlimited slippery slope arguments, which is why they're stupid. For exampe, "If we allow gay people to get married, people will want to marry trees."

(5) Curiousity #2, Part 3 - I think gay marriage will be recognized by the federal government and our traditions relative to marriage will change, but not because gay marriage is recognized by the federal government. Frankly, gay couples are already recognized by most of society, so this is merely a financial and legal thing. Which is kind of what I've been trying to tell you. You guys already lost. Our culture and traditions already changed. Sorry.

(6) Curiousity #2, Part 4 - Most slippery slope arguments will be blown off by me, yes. I like direct causation or at least correlation. For example, if you told me that gay marriage recongition would result in additional government funds being paid out, that would be more concerning that whether or not proms (which already have the gay couple issue, long before gay marriage debates came to the forefront) would be "ruined."

My questions:

(1) Do you see any correlation at all between your slippery slope arguments and the arguments made by people against interracial marriage? To caveat, I'm not labelling you a racist or a bigot.

(2) Is your position that "traditions will change" if gay marriage becomes legal? Or is your position that "religious freedom will be violated" if gay marriage becomes legal? Or is it both? If it's the latter, please address my points. If it's the former, then please address the points in this post, namely that the traditions you mean to defend are already under assault and mostly gone without the recognition of gay marriage by the federal government.

(3) Other than slippery slope arguments, what, specifically, will happen negatively if gay marriages are recognized by the federal government?

[AndyDufresne]

Can a boy be elected prom queen? Can a girl be elected prom queen?

Why or why not?

Yeah! Women shouldn't wear pants either. Show 'dem legs. And men shouldn't have to be held to monogamy. We all know we're gunning for everything walking. Am I right. Or am I right. Or am I right. Right.


--Andy

[Haggis_McMutton]

Haggis, with that example, isn't everything an animal does considered "natural" then? Can we say what is natural just by observing something?

Seems so to me. By that definition, for instance, rape would be "natural". The fact that we view rape as something "bad" is a human construct. Similar judgements about homosexuality being "right" or "wrong" are also human constructs. Nature isn't right or wrong, it just is, and homosexuality is definitely a part of nature.

For example, exhibit A in an isolated environment of only same sex, it would be natural. But the same exhibit, when given the opportunity to have their pick of whatever they want, would also be natural, no?

It's not like that case can be made similar to the way it's natural for a sperm to fertilize an egg.

I will grant your point, that if you hump on something, and it feels good, then it's natural. But that doesn't make the activity itself "natural", it means that rubbing your junk against something and getting a tingle is natural.

Don't really know what you're trying to say here. I'll extend the same question I asked of BK to you as well.
Can you define what you mean by "natural"?

[b.k. barunt]

B.K. "Honibaz" Barunt, do you consider yourself to be homophobic? If yes/no, how do you know?

The word "homophobic" is a silly, misleading word concocted by the gays to imply that anyone who considers homosexuality to be unnatural is actually afraid of homosexuals. I believe it to be unnatural but i certainly don't fear them. I have friends who are openly gay and they know how i feel. The fact that they remain my friends speaks for itself. Because i believe it to be unnatural i don't believe a gay couple should raise children. For me to be denied schooling or anything else because of my beliefs is wrong - just as wrong as if a homosexual would be denied the same rights.


Honibaz

What about the fact that homosexuality can be observed in a wide variety of animals? (link)
Would that not make it "natural" ? If not, how do you define "natural" ?

This argument - the main one offered actually - amazes me. It suggests that there are no aberrations in the animal kingdom, whic is ridiculous. Animals are subject, the same as us, to diseases of the body and the mind. Animals have a natural fear of man, but occasionally you get a maneater.


Honibaz

[BigBallinStalin]

So, man-eating is natural--in more ways than one, amirite?

[AAFitz]

Im not about to waste any time trying to educate baboons, but there is direct evidence that many gay males tend to process directions the same way women do, ie, their brains work differently when navigating and are attracted to males, and the evidence for this correlation is strong enough not to discount. I suppose one could argue that navigating is an environmentally influenced behavior and that gay males ended up being attracted to men, and process directions when driving for the same reasons, but I dont know...it seems pretty convoluted.

Agreed with the rest, but what's your source? Cuz I've never heard that before, and it looks suspicious.

Not sure the original source....but If I write some info that seems like Im either educated or making shit up...its probably from cracked, or at least originated there.

Also, I paraphrased based on my memory of the article read months ago, so I fully understand why it looks suspicious, but they usually cite enough sources to be believable overall. For the most part, I just take it for granted and believe them, and accept they probably make a mistake here or there.

Also, I should point out, that the statement is ridiculously simplified, and not every gay man gets lost, or are bad at directions... but simply that statistically, gay males do tend to process directions more often like women, than like hetero males. The full explanation is no doubt hundreds of pages though, but in general, women do seem to process navigation based on what they see as landmarks and such, whereas males more frequently use directions based more on a map basis. Again, this is very generalized, but there is enough of a difference that statistically it does stand out....or at least, I read it did at some point, somewhere.

Further, as I mentioned, even if we stipulate that gay males process directions like women, it doesn't necessarily fully prove a biological connection, though proving an environmental atmosphere that affected sexual preference and something as random as navigation, at least to me, seems pretty unlikely.

I am biased though. From what I have seen, I feel there is absolutely no question sexuality is biologically determined, and like any other trait, there is an infinite amount of degrees...and those pretending its a choice, simply block out the obvious cases, where there was almost no chance sexuality was ever going to be anything other than homosexual. But then, hatred, which is often very much fueled by fear, can very often be blinding.

Tis a shame.

Which is the shame...that you are too lazy to look it up, or that I am too busy to do it for you?

I didnt sign on to be your educator... I simply posted what I read, and now that you know the info is out there, I fully encourage you to learn for yourself, or not...but, and again I am speculating from my general knowledge...there is a little thing called google, that will probably lead you to the information you seek, if you really want it....but...sorry, I have no source for that...its just a little tid bit I read somewhere...

[AAFitz]

Haggis, with that example, isn't everything an animal does considered "natural" then? Can we say what is natural just by observing something?

For example, exhibit A in an isolated environment of only same sex, it would be natural. But the same exhibit, when given the opportunity to have their pick of whatever they want, would also be natural, no?

It's not like that case can be made similar to the way it's natural for a sperm to fertilize an egg.

I will grant your point, that if you hump on something, and it feels good, then it's natural. But that doesn't make the activity itself "natural", it means that rubbing your junk against something and getting a tingle is natural.

Well, by that definition, it most certainly is natural. At the predicted 10% of the population that is homosexual, suggesting that it isnt, is just mathematically phatty.

source?

AAFitz is my source for the phrase, "mathematically phatty" which essentially means that it is mathematically illogical, bordering on stupid.

I believe he based that on this source...search.php?author_id=164512&sr=posts

[BigBallinStalin]

Im not about to waste any time trying to educate baboons, but there is direct evidence that many gay males tend to process directions the same way women do, ie, their brains work differently when navigating and are attracted to males, and the evidence for this correlation is strong enough not to discount. I suppose one could argue that navigating is an environmentally influenced behavior and that gay males ended up being attracted to men, and process directions when driving for the same reasons, but I dont know...it seems pretty convoluted.

Agreed with the rest, but what's your source? Cuz I've never heard that before, and it looks suspicious.

Not sure the original source....but If I write some info that seems like Im either educated or making shit up...its probably from cracked, or at least originated there.

Also, I paraphrased based on my memory of the article read months ago, so I fully understand why it looks suspicious, but they usually cite enough sources to be believable overall. For the most part, I just take it for granted and believe them, and accept they probably make a mistake here or there.

Also, I should point out, that the statement is ridiculously simplified, and not every gay man gets lost, or are bad at directions... but simply that statistically, gay males do tend to process directions more often like women, than like hetero males. The full explanation is no doubt hundreds of pages though, but in general, women do seem to process navigation based on what they see as landmarks and such, whereas males more frequently use directions based more on a map basis. Again, this is very generalized, but there is enough of a difference that statistically it does stand out....or at least, I read it did at some point, somewhere.

Further, as I mentioned, even if we stipulate that gay males process directions like women, it doesn't necessarily fully prove a biological connection, though proving an environmental atmosphere that affected sexual preference and something as random as navigation, at least to me, seems pretty unlikely.

I am biased though. From what I have seen, I feel there is absolutely no question sexuality is biologically determined, and like any other trait, there is an infinite amount of degrees...and those pretending its a choice, simply block out the obvious cases, where there was almost no chance sexuality was ever going to be anything other than homosexual. But then, hatred, which is often very much fueled by fear, can very often be blinding.

Tis a shame.

Which is the shame...that you are too lazy to look it up, or that I am too busy to do it for you?

I didnt sign on to be your educator... I simply posted what I read, and now that you know the info is out there, I fully encourage you to learn for yourself, or not...but, and again I am speculating from my general knowledge...there is a little thing called google, that will probably lead you to the information you seek, if you really want it....but...sorry, I have no source for that...its just a little tid bit I read somewhere...

Well, if you don't have a source, then I'm going to reject the position while keeping an ear out for it. It's too radical of a position to take on the basis of nothing. Thus, it's a shame.

As for further education: opportunity cost. I don't value the genetic v. choice debate enough to justify reading intensely into because it's more than genes and choices. It's about gender identity and wanting to love who you want to love--through a fun and costly trial-and-error process. That's about it.

Let's keep it optimistic too. The religious fundamentalists and not-so-religious Haters are dying out, and the younger generations are more tolerant/simply don't care--which is great. With this in mind:

[AslanTheKing]

exactly

the younger generations dont care for anything anymore

except for facebook, youtube and their apple iphone

they cant even wipe their own ass,

no discipline, no morals, no direction
its all about having fun, beeing cool, yeaaah

whats the end?

[Woodruff]

exactly

the younger generations dont care for anything anymore

except for facebook, youtube and their apple iphone

they cant even wipe their own ass,

no discipline, no morals, no direction
its all about having fun, beeing cool, yeaaah

whats the end?

Gotta be honest with you, that simply isn't true. The high schools are absolutely full of very interested, very idealistic, very engaged, very self-disciplined, very concerned young people. Anyone who complains about "kids these days" with any degree of seriousness (I like to joke about it myself) really is living in ignorance of the truth.

[Haggis_McMutton]

We live in a decaying age. Young people no longer respect their parents. They are rude and impatient. They frequently inhabit taverns and have no self control.

[AslanTheKing]

exactly

the younger generations dont care for anything anymore

except for facebook, youtube and their apple iphone

they cant even wipe their own ass,

no discipline, no morals, no direction
its all about having fun, beeing cool, yeaaah

whats the end?

Gotta be honest with you, that simply isn't true. The high schools are absolutely full of very interested, very idealistic, very engaged, very self-disciplined, very concerned young people. Anyone who complains about "kids these days" with any degree of seriousness (I like to joke about it myself) really is living in ignorance of the truth.

oh well, you didnt understand what i mean

schools are not what i meant, career neither, sport and self-discipline no,
the mayority of the young people has lost or never learned the touch of real discipline and respect,

old people dye alone in homes made for them
in the past , they lived at home and gave younger people something important
today u see them only at christmas for one hour<?

or, young people are more interested today in , what do i get if they die, lol

its a trap, its all about money today

[Woodruff]

exactly

the younger generations dont care for anything anymore

except for facebook, youtube and their apple iphone

they cant even wipe their own ass,

no discipline, no morals, no direction
its all about having fun, beeing cool, yeaaah

whats the end?

Gotta be honest with you, that simply isn't true. The high schools are absolutely full of very interested, very idealistic, very engaged, very self-disciplined, very concerned young people. Anyone who complains about "kids these days" with any degree of seriousness (I like to joke about it myself) really is living in ignorance of the truth.

oh well, you didnt understand what i mean

Ok...

schools are not what i meant, career neither, sport and self-discipline no,
the mayority of the young people has lost or never learned the touch of real discipline and respect,

No, I'm pretty sure now that I DID understand what you meant, and I disagree very strongly with it. Unless
you believe that "the younger generation" isn't in the schools?

old people dye alone in homes made for them
in the past , they lived at home and gave younger people something important
today u see them only at christmas for one hour<?

This has always been going on in small doses. It is still going on in small doses. The only difference
now is that there is more awareness of it happening by the public at large.

or, young people are more interested today in , what do i get if they die, lol

I have honestly never heard a young person say this, even in a joking manner.

its a trap, its all about money today

You've been trapped alright, but it's been by your misconceptions.

[AslanTheKing]

woodruff you may be different,
but for every young well mannered person, i show you 100 totally off track young people.

[Frigidus]

woodruff you may be different,
but for every young well mannered person, i show you 100 totally off track young people.

That can be said for people of any age, though. To be honest, unless you are in a position in which you are regularly interacting with people younger than you (and I don't mean just two or three of them) it isn't really possible to say anything about what a generation tends to be like. I would be hesitant to paint with broad strokes when talking about my own generation, let alone another one.