Civil Rights for Gays, Women, Blacks

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
265

Brother Chris wrote:
202? That is about as reliable as my dozen. So, out of all the gay people I know (which is much less than 202, and the ones I know that have gone through therapy, much less than 202, I know more people that have turned to a heterosexual life than this study. Where did they go for this study Castro?

forlife wrote:
Have you ever taken a course in statistics? Many experimental designs are based on similar sample sizes. I had around the same n when I did my dissertation. More importantly, this was a peer reviewed article, published in a respected scientific journal, and it meets scientific standards.

Now why do you think that you are more qualified to draw conclusions on homosexuality than the major medical and mental health organizations, all of whom have conducted 40 years of research and reached unanimous conclusions that contradict your own?

I gotta ask forlife since when is sucking on a feces covered johnson scientific progress? Even NORMAL little kids know you need to wash your hands after going to the bathroom to prevent disease! Your minority ha ha ha,has a whole different take on that. Its no wonder your minority ha ha ha dies from so many strange diseases,but then if you consider sucking on a feces cover Johnson NORMAL,then what else does your minority ha ha ha consider normal. If I was a woman,or black I would throw up at the thought that your minority ha ha ha is NORMAL,and equal to me!

268

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Troll28 wrote stuff:

Keep your eye on the prize troll!

I think that that is a very nice, affordable bridge.

No, really, a classy bridge for a gentleman country troll.

Horion you’re upset because little Dusty took your spot over as chief ass clown of T-Nation trying to debate with the adults. He has become more entertaining than you with his little boy PC talk, oh well…that’s the way it goes. If it’s any consolation most of us still think of you as our favorite austrian douche bag.

But then, you might be an ambitious troll.

I do not know how trolls are remunerated, unless they own their own bridge that is, but if you are compensated for the sheer amount of idiocy you post, you are aiming for something bigger.

Go for it Mick, you are the little troll that could!

Poor little horion caught up in a world of Internet message board lingo…bridges and trolls. How the hell much time do you spend on the Internet anyway? No seriously…I bet you’re all over the net like smell on shit.

You austrian asshole why don’t you at least try to get a life outside of Internet…Ha ha…wow.
[/quote]

269

Hey Gramps, some basic sex ed for you:

  1. Heteros have anal and oral sex

  2. Women can be gay too (we call them lesbians)

272

[quote]super saiyan wrote:
Even if you take religion out of the equation, an argument against homosexuality can be found in nature itself. Humans and animals cannot produce offspring. There is a high risk of birth abnormalities with offspring of close relatives. And two humans of the same sex cannot reproduce. That’s just ONE reason why all of the above should not be allowed to marry.

You have officially been PWNED by nature.
[/quote]

This would be a great post if the world wasn’t already overpopulated (and particularly the USA).

273

[quote]OBoile wrote:

  1. I’m not convinced that someone shouldn’t be allowed to marry their sister. As unappealing as that sounds to me, I’m not sure it should be denied to two consenting adults.[/quote]

I take this position to think you have lack of seriousness on the subject, but at least you recognize - unlike Dustin - that the principle underpinning gay marriage opens up a broader discussion that cannot be ignored.

To your first question, as has been said repeatedly, the “equalization” of alternative relationhips does away with the entire point of marriage…that we exalt one relationship above others because of all the good things it produces. “Equalization” essentially destroys the public institution of marriage.

To your second question, why exactly would homosexuals suddenly start observing monogamy with the availability of gay marriage when they didn’t before? Was the threat of death - because of the proliferation of sexually transmitted diseases - not incentive enough, but gay marriage would be?

Is the public validation of their relationships really a stronger incentive to maintain monogamy than death?

I suspect not.

But more to your question, gay marriage is a solution in search of a problem. Society doesn’t gain much from gay marriage - there just isn’t a large set of pending problems that gay marriage would cure for Society - and stands to lose a great deal more by “equalizing” one of the most funamental social institutions out of existence.

The gay marriage movement is about cultural validation - the rest of the arguments in favor of it are just backfilling.

274

[quote]OBoile wrote:
super saiyan wrote:
Even if you take religion out of the equation, an argument against homosexuality can be found in nature itself. Humans and animals cannot produce offspring. There is a high risk of birth abnormalities with offspring of close relatives. And two humans of the same sex cannot reproduce. That’s just ONE reason why all of the above should not be allowed to marry.

You have officially been PWNED by nature.

This would be a great post if the world wasn’t already overpopulated (and particularly the USA).
[/quote]

His post is absolute nonsense and substitutes his judgement of what is “natural” for natures judgement.

I am waiting for Super Saiyans explanation of bees and worker ants that are sterile.

If it must be mammals he could use colonies of mole rats and how they fit in his idea of how nature is supposed to work according to Super Saiyan.

275

[quote]orion wrote:
OBoile wrote:
super saiyan wrote:
Even if you take religion out of the equation, an argument against homosexuality can be found in nature itself. Humans and animals cannot produce offspring. There is a high risk of birth abnormalities with offspring of close relatives. And two humans of the same sex cannot reproduce. That’s just ONE reason why all of the above should not be allowed to marry.

You have officially been PWNED by nature.

This would be a great post if the world wasn’t already overpopulated (and particularly the USA).

His post is absolute nonsense and substitutes his judgement of what is “natural” for natures judgement.

I am waiting for Super Saiyans explanation of bees and worker ants that are sterile.

If it must be mammals he could use colonies of mole rats and how they fit in his idea of how nature is supposed to work according to Super Saiyan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_mole_rat[/quote]

What do bees, worker ants, and mole rats have to do with the form and function of the human reproductive system. And, with how we procreate? Are we talking about mole rat nature?

276

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

But more to your question, gay marriage is a solution in search of a problem.
[/quote]

Why don’t you just admit that you want the government to legislate morality.

You have spent this entire thread attempting to validate, through the “law”, your notion that gay marriage is “bad”.

You contend that allowing gay marriage will lead to other alternative marriages. There is, of course, no evidence for this. We can see states within the US that have legal gay marriage. Canada also allows gay marriage and in both instances we see no evidence of your nightmare scenario.

Apparently, society isn’t gaining much from heterosexual marriages either, at least the half that doesn’t get a divorce. Turn on your TV and see for yourself.

[quote]
The gay marriage movement is about cultural validation - the rest of the arguments in favor of it are just backfilling.[/quote]

I don’t see it as gays wanting validation, they just want to have some of the same benefits heterosexual marriages have.

277

[quote]Dustin wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:

But more to your question, gay marriage is a solution in search of a problem.

Why don’t you just admit that you want the government to legislate morality.

You have spent this entire thread attempting to validate, through the “law”, your notion that gay marriage is “bad”.

You contend that allowing gay marriage will lead to other alternative marriages. There is, of course, no evidence for this. We can see states within the US that have legal gay marriage. Canada also allows gay marriage and in both instances we see no evidence of your nightmare scenario.

Society doesn’t gain much from gay marriage - there just isn’t a large set of pending problems that gay marriage would cure for Society

Apparently, society isn’t gaining much from heterosexual marriages either, at least the half that doesn’t get a divorce. Turn on your TV and see for yourself.

The gay marriage movement is about cultural validation - the rest of the arguments in favor of it are just backfilling.

I don’t see it as gays wanting validation, they just want to have some of the same benefits heterosexual marriages have.
[/quote]

You really don’t want marriage recognized at all, do you?

278

[quote]Dustin wrote:

Why don’t you just admit that you want the government to legislate morality. [/quote]

What is to admit? Shouldn’t it be painfully obvious since I am not hiding it?

You are just now figuring this out?

Sure there is evidence of it - polygamist are having a field day with shoehorning the gay marriage movement into their own arguments.

And, what you posit suffers from a flaw - you rule out the possibility just because other alternatives didn’t occur overnight.

Take the long view, and defend your principle that the state shouldn’t favor one relationship over another for public policy purposes - even you see where it leads and, even more importantly, you like where it leads: witness your adolsecent giddiness of government getting out of the marriage business entirely.

That is, if you took the time to defend the principle you raised that applies to all consenting adults relationships. You ducked out of that earlier because you “didn’t have time”. Still waiting.

That isn’t marriage failing Society - that is a result of people failing marriage. Marriage has been under attack as an outmoded, oppressive institution ever since the genius principle of “if it feels good, do it” and “it’s all about me, all the time” began taking the place of the goals and responsibilities of marriage.

Millions of children have suffered under this devaluation of one of history’s most venerated social institutions - all the more reason to protect and strengthen it, not dissemble it in the name of sentimentalism.

No, they don’t - they want the state to ultimately tell them their relationship is just as good as a traditional relationship. We could legislate away every single government benefit that marriage gets - affording no one a subsidy, tax break, or goodie - but still keep government recognitition of marriage and gay marriage advocates would still be pressing for the validation.

The benefits are secondary - first thing is to have “society” validate their relationships.

279

[quote]Sloth wrote:

You really don’t want marriage recognized at all, do you?[/quote]

No, by his own admission, he is an “anarchist!”. Maybe when he gets to the 10th grade, he’ll grow out of it.

280

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Troll28 wrote stuff:

Keep your eye on the prize troll!

I think that that is a very nice, affordable bridge.

No, really, a classy bridge for a gentleman country troll.

Horion you’re upset because little Dusty took your spot over as chief ass clown of T-Nation trying to debate with the adults. He has become more entertaining than you with his little boy PC talk, oh well…that’s the way it goes. If it’s any consolation most of us still think of you as our favorite austrian douche bag.

[/quote]

And most of us think of you as a living, breathing mistake of nature, reduced to a life of solitude and shame under a rock.

282

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Dustin wrote:

Why don’t you just admit that you want the government to legislate morality.

What is to admit? Shouldn’t it be painfully obvious since I am not hiding it?
[/quote]

I guess it’s okay to legislate morality as long as you share those morals. Such is the mindset of the statist…and the religious.

You’re right, these marriages occur all the time. 20 years time and the West will be non-existent.

What more is there to say? You want to legislate morality, I don’t.

It isn’t moral or fair for your government to tell people what to do.

I have a life outside the internet, you apparently don’t.

And what more do I need to say? Take the government out of legislating marriages and privatize it.

How would gay marriage or any other alternative marriage prevent individuals from taking responsibility of their own lives in creating strong family units?

What evidence are you basing this off of? Stop guessing and attempting to read minds.

283

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
OBoile wrote:
super saiyan wrote:
Even if you take religion out of the equation, an argument against homosexuality can be found in nature itself. Humans and animals cannot produce offspring. There is a high risk of birth abnormalities with offspring of close relatives. And two humans of the same sex cannot reproduce. That’s just ONE reason why all of the above should not be allowed to marry.

You have officially been PWNED by nature.

This would be a great post if the world wasn’t already overpopulated (and particularly the USA).

His post is absolute nonsense and substitutes his judgement of what is “natural” for natures judgement.

I am waiting for Super Saiyans explanation of bees and worker ants that are sterile.

If it must be mammals he could use colonies of mole rats and how they fit in his idea of how nature is supposed to work according to Super Saiyan.

What do bees, worker ants, and mole rats have to do with the form and function of the human reproductive system. And, with how we procreate? Are we talking about mole rat nature?[/quote]

Obviously nature very often produces creatures that are not intended to produce offspring, they are not even able to.

So, the idea that creatures that do not procreate are somehow “unnatural” is obviously prima facie wrong.