Gay Marriage Down in Flames!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]rainjack wrote:Not genetic proof. It may satisfy you, but unless it is unique, ie - a genetic marker that only homosexuals possess, it is not proof.

This discussion has been beat to death. And when the smoke cleared, there is still no definitive genetic proof. IF you feel the need to drag this out even further, take it up in the original thread. There is no need to go over the same stupid shit in this thread.

[/quote]

Since when did the criterion become “genetic” proof, and why this condition? Is it because earlier you demanded evidence, and you got it, so now you’re trying to backpedal and qualify things so as to exclude these findings?

There’s a consistent anatomical and physiological difference right there. The fact that you’re choosing to bury your head in the sand does not invalidate the evidence. Besides, these anatomical and physiological phenotypes are controlled by, gues what, genes.

Or did you sleep through freshman biology? I shouldn’t be surprised, though, as conservatism has an unwavering anti-science tradition.

Also, if you insist on “proof,” you’ll never get it, and so we can throw this argument out. We can also throw out gravity, modern atomic theory, and many other things because, as I’m sure you know, proper science can never supply proof, it can only disprove things.

I’m also curious to know what exactly you’re losing by allowing homosexuals to marry? What rights of yours are being infringed upon?

202

The word “marriage” has a certain amount of sanctity to it, that has been attributed to the word and earned by the actual act through not only religious history, but traditional history as well.

Now, as shown in California (an undeniably a liberal state), the people do not want to give up this sanctity, by changing what has always been the definition of marriage, being between a man and a woman.

Bottom line, however, this is not discrimination. Perhaps if it were put in a different frame of light, such as to extend the rights that married couples (men and women) share to the civil unions that are entered into between same-sex couples.

As a conservative, I cannot argue against equal rights. But I can, and will, argue for the upholding of the sanctity of a certain word and tradition that I believe in. But that does not make me some kind of insensitive bigot.

I have my beliefs, and other people have theirs. I don’t support or approve of homosexuality, but I am not going to just deny rights for the sake of doing so, when I think there are other, more important issues for this country at this point of time.

And if you can’t come to that realization, then it doesn’t matter which side you are on, you have some serious thinking to do.

203

I’ve noticed that this is a major trend among conservatives. If they “feel” something is right, it doesn’t matter that the people with the degrees, who work on the stuff every day think. That doesn’t mean they know more about it!

204

I think, God has got better things to do than get involved in this one. Homophobes that realized a new terror attack wasn’t that imminent just needed a new cause to rally 'round.

205

[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I always have the option of civil disobedience in the event that laws are passed that I find conflict with my religious beliefs.

And gays have the right to oppose laws that are passed which impinge on their basic civil rights.

[/quote]

Like I said, you and your homosexual co-religionists don’t know when to quit. I would expect a backlash.

206

I think gay people have just as much right as straight people to be miserable.

I only wish everyone would’ve voted years ago to make it illegal for me to get married, it would have saved me a ton of money!

207

I don’t really give a fuck about gay marriage, but what in the flying fuck is wrong with the people in Massachusetts? They voted themselves to be taxed? OMG! How dumb are these people? They keep reelecting Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and vote to stay taxed…Unbelievable.

208

Fact:

95% of Republicans are closet queens and/or pedophiles.

This explains their vehement opposition to faggotry in general.

209

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
rainjack wrote:Not genetic proof. It may satisfy you, but unless it is unique, ie - a genetic marker that only homosexuals possess, it is not proof.

This discussion has been beat to death. And when the smoke cleared, there is still no definitive genetic proof. IF you feel the need to drag this out even further, take it up in the original thread. There is no need to go over the same stupid shit in this thread.

Since when did the criterion become “genetic” proof, and why this condition? Is it because earlier you demanded evidence, and you got it, so now you’re trying to backpedal and qualify things so as to exclude these findings?

There’s a consistent anatomical and physiological difference right there. The fact that you’re choosing to bury your head in the sand does not invalidate the evidence. Besides, these anatomical and physiological phenotypes are controlled by, gues what, genes.

Or did you sleep through freshman biology? I shouldn’t be surprised, though, as conservatism has an unwavering anti-science tradition.

Also, if you insist on “proof,” you’ll never get it, and so we can throw this argument out. We can also throw out gravity, modern atomic theory, and many other things because, as I’m sure you know, proper science can never supply proof, it can only disprove things.

I’m also curious to know what exactly you’re losing by allowing homosexuals to marry? What rights of yours are being infringed upon?

[/quote]

Holy Crap! That avatar of yours is just like the old Soviet era posters from Stalin and Lenin!

210

So sry Repubs, but yes, it is that obvious.

211

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
rainjack wrote:People talking is not proof. I don’t care how smart they are.

I’ve noticed that this is a major trend among conservatives. If they “feel” something is right, it doesn’t matter that the people with the degrees, who work on the stuff every day think. That doesn’t mean they know more about it!

[/quote]

Evidently, you don’t have a very good reading comprehension. If you want to start a thread on this - please do. I can easily ignore your idiocy if it is in its own thread.

But - it has nothing to do with FEEL. Show me where the fuck I said that. I stated very clearly my burden of proof.

Why is it impossible to go off the words I write? Is it too much to ask for you left wing fuckwads not make up fake fucking arguments? How about you actually read what is written?

212

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Since when did the criterion become “genetic” proof, and why this condition? Is it because earlier you demanded evidence, and you got it, so now you’re trying to backpedal and qualify things so as to exclude these findings?
[/quote]

Try reading the fucking threads. This has been discussed to death.

214

[quote]pat wrote:Holy Crap! That avatar of yours is just like the old Soviet era posters from Stalin and Lenin!
[/quote]

Holy crap! Your president acts a lot like Stalin and Lenin!

215

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
rainjack wrote:People talking is not proof. I don’t care how smart they are.

I’ve noticed that this is a major trend among conservatives. If they “feel” something is right, it doesn’t matter that the people with the degrees, who work on the stuff every day think. That doesn’t mean they know more about it!

Evidently, you don’t have a very good reading comprehension. If you want to start a thread on this - please do. I can easily ignore your idiocy if it is in its own thread.

But - it has nothing to do with FEEL. Show me where the fuck I said that. I stated very clearly my burden of proof.

Why is it impossible to go off the words I write? Is it too much to ask for you left wing fuckwads not make up fake fucking arguments? How about you actually read what is written?
[/quote]

Wow, I think it’s really fucking funny that YOU are accusing me of not reading and making shit up when that’s very clearly your department.

Just what the hell did you mean when your wrote that, if not “I’m right no matter who disagrees with me”? Did you ever think that maybe your zippy one-liners aren’t as clear to others as they are to you?

Here’s a deal, I’ll work on my reading comprehension if you work on your ability to express yourself in a semi-intelligent manner. It’d be nice if you could defend some of your views without resorting to childish name-calling, but I’m not going to hold my breath.

216

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Since when did the criterion become “genetic” proof, and why this condition? Is it because earlier you demanded evidence, and you got it, so now you’re trying to backpedal and qualify things so as to exclude these findings?

Try reading the fucking threads. This has been discussed to death.

[/quote]

Nice dodge.

217

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Since when did the criterion become “genetic” proof, and why this condition? Is it because earlier you demanded evidence, and you got it, so now you’re trying to backpedal and qualify things so as to exclude these findings?

Try reading the fucking threads. This has been discussed to death.

Nice dodge.

[/quote]

Uh, we discussed this at length in previous threads guy. Homosexuality has a variety of causes, including a gene linked to maternal fecundity on the y chromosome, the environment in the womb, and social and psychological causes.

Every time forlife and makkun show up on these threads, they bring up plenty of papers supporting the former. Unfortunately, those papers don’t account for all of the homosexuals, as the papers plainly admit. The psychological and social causes are yet unexplored, and are unlikely to be for quite.some.time.

218

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
[…]

Uh, we discussed this at length in previous threads guy. Homosexuality has a variety of causes, including a gene linked to maternal fecundity on the y chromosome, the environment in the womb, and social and psychological causes.

Every time forlife and makkun show up on these threads, they bring up plenty of papers supporting the former. Unfortunately, those papers don’t account for all of the homosexuals, as the papers plainly admit. The psychological and social causes are yet unexplored, and are unlikely to be for quite.some.time.[/quote]

That’s a remarkably fair assessment of the status of our debate.

I’d argue though that the psychological (Freudian) and social routes followed in the early days (leading to some unfortunate therapeutic disasters) just don’t seem to yielded much in terms of results - but in general yeah, I can live with that statement. Certainly better than just claiming that it’s a only life-style choice.

Makkun

219

[quote]makkun wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
[…]

Uh, we discussed this at length in previous threads guy. Homosexuality has a variety of causes, including a gene linked to maternal fecundity on the y chromosome, the environment in the womb, and social and psychological causes.

Every time forlife and makkun show up on these threads, they bring up plenty of papers supporting the former. Unfortunately, those papers don’t account for all of the homosexuals, as the papers plainly admit. The psychological and social causes are yet unexplored, and are unlikely to be for quite.some.time.

That’s a remarkably fair assessment of the status of our debate.

I’d argue though that the psychological (Freudian) and social routes followed in the early days (leading to some unfortunate therapeutic disasters) just don’t seem to yielded much in terms of results - but in general yeah, I can live with that statement. Certainly better than just claiming that it’s a only life-style choice.

Makkun[/quote]

Freudian analysis isn’t the only game in town.

220

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
[…]Freudian analysis isn’t the only game in town.[/quote]

I know.

Makkun