Civil Rights for Gays, Women, Blacks

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
284

[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]

Yeah when you can fit everyone in the state of Texas, we are really over populated.

285

[quote]Dustin wrote:
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.[/quote]

Wrong again, and you fall back on your childish paradigm that there exists two - and only two - political types: anarchists and statists. Doesn’t work like that, never has.

And another mistake - I have never made a religious argument. I have made a cultural argument.

You keep relying on this pathetic Straw Man that I said that Western civilization would be no more if we enact gay marriage. I never said that, of course, and more importantly, I don’t believe - like Tocqueville,

I believe our society has a tremendous self-correcting mechanism, and would reprioritize traditional marriage, just as it has already done. The in-between time, however, would not be good, and worth avoiding.

Fantastic, then I will be battling it out with others who want to legislate their version of morality, and you can sit on the sidelines and watch.

The government is the people’s agent, and the people decide. As long as that process in taking place, it’s moral and fair on this particular issue.

Sure I do, but you are back at it on the internet - and still not defending it.

A ridiculously bad choice. Anarchists rarely have good ideas on improving society, so I am not surprised.

Nearly every post made by a pro-gay marriage advocate on this board and the arguments made in current politics. I don’t have to read minds - only to be able to read.

Gay marriage is not a solution to a pressing social problem - no one sanely tries to defend that it is at its core. It is about “equality” - the formal recognition of a relationship that currently does not enjoy it.

286

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sloth wrote:

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

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

[/quote]

Ah, I see. So, why the deception? Why not admit they intend to undermine traditional marriage so it starts down a path of mutations? Until a point is reached when “marriage” means, well, anything. Therefore, meaning nothing. And, meaning nothing, the “state’s” recognition of “marriage” means nothing. An empty state gesture. Those damn statists.

Is it only be coincidence that the anarchists in this case support further government recognition, and rewarding, of private lifestyles? I don’t think so. While they may deny the “slippery slope,” I think they’re counting on it. Stretch it so thin, it won’t be missed when it’s gone. We’ll all have lawyers and contracts, and such. No social upheaval to worry about, either.

287

[quote]orion wrote:
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?

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.

[/quote]

Well blindess is “natural” too, in that case. And I guess, we could go even further and say that shoving one’s leg up to the hip, into anothers rectum is natural. We’re all born with legs and rectums, after all. Well, most of us. We’re obviously capable of screwing our siblings, too.

Since nature gave us various limbs and appendages, and our dear sisters and brothers a number of orifices, what the hell? And since nature obviously led to the development of more than two people, 50 person marriages?! Yessir.

But in the sense of recognizing the basic smallest unit capable of naturally reproducing and raising it’s own offspring in a committed household…yeah, one woman and one man. Blame nature.

288

[quote]orion wrote:
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?

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.

[/quote]

“Intended.” Does nature “intend” anything?

289

[quote]Brother Chris 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).

Yeah when you can fit everyone in the state of Texas, we are really over populated.[/quote]

If you pack them 500 feet high and feed them soylent green, so that is not really a valid argument.

290

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Ah, I see. So, why the deception? Why not admit they intend to undermine traditional marriage so it starts down a path of mutations? Until a point is reached when “marriage” means, well, anything. Therefore, meaning nothing. And, meaning nothing, the “state’s” recognition of “marriage” means nothing. An empty state gesture. Those damn statists.

Is it only be coincidence that the anarchists in this case support further government recognition, and rewarding, of private lifestyles? I don’t think so. While they may deny the “slippery slope,” I think they’re counting on it. Stretch it so thin, it won’t be missed when it’s gone. We’ll all have lawyers and contracts, and such. No social upheaval to worry about, either.[/quote]

Every bit, well said. This is and always has been one of the reasons those who want no government involvement in marriage are supportive of the gay marriage movement - they sense where it leads.

As such, the crocodile tears over “unfairness” or lack of “equality” don’t impress.

291

[quote]orion wrote:
Brother Chris 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).

Yeah when you can fit everyone in the state of Texas, we are really over populated.

If you pack them 500 feet high and feed them soylent green, so that is not really a valid argument.
[/quote]

500 feet high, in what year is this? Texas can easily hold everyone inside its borders. I am talking hypothetical not an actual plan.

Social scientist say we are over populated, we are not over populated, we are just urbanised, with 93% of people living in cities of 50,000 or more. The entire world be coming urbanised (majority of the world living in urban settings, instead of rural), I can understand how people would think the world is over populated.

It still does not make it true, we have vast lands that still have room to be lived on, it is just everyone needs to live with a fast paced life, with their big city, with their home, and with a high paying job.

This misconception, even if it were true, would not explain the reasoning behind homosexual acts.

292

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
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?

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.

Well blindess is “natural” too, in that case. And I guess, we could go even further and say that shoving one’s leg up to the hip, into anothers rectum is natural. We’re all born with legs and rectums, after all. Well, most of us. We’re obviously capable of screwing our siblings, too.

Since nature gave us various limbs and appendages, and our dear sisters and brothers a number of orifices, what the hell? And since nature obviously led to the development of more than two people, 50 person marriages?! Yessir.

But in the sense of recognizing the basic smallest unit capable of naturally reproducing and raising it’s own offspring in a committed household…yeah, one woman and one man. Blame nature.[/quote]

Blindness is absolutely natural for some species, yes, we have evolved defenses against incest that work pretty well most of the time and when you think that a “committed household” was part of “natures” plan I honestly do not know how to respond.

293

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
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?

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.

“Intended.” Does nature “intend” anything? [/quote]

If you want to argue it that way, there is no “unnatural” anyway.

Things just are and so are gay people.

If you want to argue that genes tend to use us to replicate, which comes as close as anything possibly can to “wanting” as patterns of digital information can get, it often uses non procreating members of a species to do that.

294

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
orion wrote:
Brother Chris 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).

Yeah when you can fit everyone in the state of Texas, we are really over populated.

If you pack them 500 feet high and feed them soylent green, so that is not really a valid argument.

500 feet high, in what year is this? Texas can easily hold everyone inside its borders. I am talking hypothetical not an actual plan.

Social scientist say we are over populated, we are not over populated, we are just urbanised, with 93% of people living in cities of 50,000 or more. The entire world be coming urbanised (majority of the world living in urban settings, instead of rural), I can understand how people would think the world is over populated.

It still does not make it true, we have vast lands that still have room to be lived on, it is just everyone needs to live with a fast paced life, with their big city, with their home, and with a high paying job.

This misconception, even if it were true, would not explain the reasoning behind homosexual acts.[/quote]

In order to not only house them for an imaginary second but really do it you would also have to use all of Texas land, and only Texas land, to feed, clothe and shelter those 6 billion people, otherwise it is just cheating.

295

[quote]orion wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
orion wrote:
Brother Chris 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).

Yeah when you can fit everyone in the state of Texas, we are really over populated.

If you pack them 500 feet high and feed them soylent green, so that is not really a valid argument.

500 feet high, in what year is this? Texas can easily hold everyone inside its borders. I am talking hypothetical not an actual plan.

Social scientist say we are over populated, we are not over populated, we are just urbanised, with 93% of people living in cities of 50,000 or more. The entire world be coming urbanised (majority of the world living in urban settings, instead of rural), I can understand how people would think the world is over populated.

It still does not make it true, we have vast lands that still have room to be lived on, it is just everyone needs to live with a fast paced life, with their big city, with their home, and with a high paying job.

This misconception, even if it were true, would not explain the reasoning behind homosexual acts.

In order to not only house them for an imaginary second but really do it you would also have to use all of Texas land, and only Texas land, to feed, clothe and shelter those 6 billion people, otherwise it is just cheating.
[/quote]

We do not have 6 billion people in the United States, unless I am mistaken. Which I am not.

296

[quote]orion wrote:

Blindness is absolutely natural for some species, yes, we have evolved defenses against incest that work pretty well most of the time and when you think that a “committed household” was part of “natures” plan I honestly do not know how to respond.

[/quote]

This is a case of taking one thing and putting it together with another. Say, wanting to promote the propogation and raising of our citizenry by the smallest unit possible, with bio parents present. That would be, naturally, one man and woman.

But honestly, anyone who seriously opposes a welfare state would enthusiastically promote this arrangement, and guard it ferociously.

297

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:

Blindness is absolutely natural for some species, yes, we have evolved defenses against incest that work pretty well most of the time and when you think that a “committed household” was part of “natures” plan I honestly do not know how to respond.

This is a case of taking one thing and putting it together with another. Say, wanting to promote the propogation and raising of our citizenry by the smallest unit possible, with bio parents present. That would be, naturally, one man and woman.

But honestly, anyone who seriously opposes a welfare state would enthusiastically promote this arrangement, and guard it ferociously.
[/quote]

Maybe, but that was not the point.

The point was that some people have a very arbitrary and uninformed view of what is “natural”.

298

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Dustin wrote:
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.

Wrong again, and you fall back on your childish paradigm that there exists two - and only two -political types: anarchists and statists. Doesn’t work like that, never has.
[/quote]

Maybe there is more than two, but you certainly don’t fit in the “none of the above” category.

I never said that you did. You are a Christian, correct? It is pretty typical of Christians to project or force their morality on others.

I would prefer people take personal responsibility in their own marriages and lives. Leave the government out of it.

“Battle” away there, internet General!

Were you present when your state drafted its constitution? What say do we actually have?

Any process that allows the mob to speak for the individual is the opposite of moral and fair. Your statement could not be further from the truth.

What, personal freedom, individuals determining their own destiny without government interference? You’re right bad choice.

[quote]
Gay marriage is not a solution to a pressing social problem - no one sanely tries to defend that it is at its core. It is about “equality” - the formal recognition of a relationship that currently does not enjoy it.[/quote]

No one said it was a solution to any problem. That is beside the point.

299

[quote]orion wrote:
Brother Chris 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).

Yeah when you can fit everyone in the state of Texas, we are really over populated.

If you pack them 500 feet high and feed them soylent green, so that is not really a valid argument.
[/quote]

Beat me to it. The USA is considered by many to be the MOST overpopulated country in the world.

300

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
orion wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
orion wrote:
Brother Chris 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).

Yeah when you can fit everyone in the state of Texas, we are really over populated.

If you pack them 500 feet high and feed them soylent green, so that is not really a valid argument.

500 feet high, in what year is this? Texas can easily hold everyone inside its borders. I am talking hypothetical not an actual plan.

Social scientist say we are over populated, we are not over populated, we are just urbanised, with 93% of people living in cities of 50,000 or more. The entire world be coming urbanised (majority of the world living in urban settings, instead of rural), I can understand how people would think the world is over populated.

It still does not make it true, we have vast lands that still have room to be lived on, it is just everyone needs to live with a fast paced life, with their big city, with their home, and with a high paying job.

This misconception, even if it were true, would not explain the reasoning behind homosexual acts.

In order to not only house them for an imaginary second but really do it you would also have to use all of Texas land, and only Texas land, to feed, clothe and shelter those 6 billion people, otherwise it is just cheating.

We do not have 6 billion people in the United States, unless I am mistaken. Which I am not.[/quote]

Good luck providing enough food, water, timber, oil, steel, cotton etc. in Texas to support the American standard of living for 300,000,000 people. You currently can’t come close to accomplising this with all of the USA’s land, what makes you think you could do it in Texas.

301

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
It’s not unanimous, nice try.[/quote]

Oh really? Name a major professional medical/mental health organization that has drawn different conclusions on homosexuality than those reached by:

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Medical Association
American Psychological Association
American Psychiatric Association
American Counseling Association
National Association of School Psychologists
American Association of School Administrators
American Federation of Teachers
American School Counselor Association
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Education Association
School Social Work Association of America
National Association of Social Workers
Surgeon General

The above organizations have conducted 40 years of research on homosexuality, and have reached unanimous conclusions on homosexuality. You disagree with them based on…what? Knowing two “ex-gay” people that joined the Catholic church because they consider being gay to be wrong, yet are still attracted to the same gender?

Thanks, but I’ll take the conclusions of these professional organizations, along with my personal experience, over your flawed case studies.

302

The whole notion that somehow gay people have some sort of struggle for rights vs. the civil rights struggle for blacks in this country is not even in the same ball park; hell it’s not even the same game. What color you are born vs. where you like to stick your dick are not comparable in any way, shape or form.

Gay people have the exact same rights as non-gay people, this was not the case for blacks. The whole notion that gays somehow deserve special treatment because they are gay is beyond absurd to me. Lots of people are born lots of different ways, it doesn’t mean they all deserve some special consideration. Gays do not lack any rights, period. To say otherwise is flat dishonest.

If I were black, I would be highly insulted by this comparison. Hell, I am insulted by it and I am not black.

Just because obama says it, doesn’t make it right.

303

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why not admit they intend to undermine traditional marriage so it starts down a path of mutations? Until a point is reached when “marriage” means, well, anything. Therefore, meaning nothing. [/quote]

Not quite. Extending marriage rights to gays doesn’t change the fact that marriage constitutes a specific set of legal responsibilities and benefits, which many people are unwilling to assume. It is legally and qualitatively a different state compared to people who are unmarried.