[quote]DOMK wrote:
The_Grim_Reaper wrote:
Oh please.It’s the same thing they do with cancer.They call it genetic so they cane call it a disease and sell drugs for that DISEASE. Homosexuality isn’t genetic,and it isn’t a disease. It’s just ABNORMAL.
If homosexuality is a sin and also abnormal, how come so many homosexuals have been allowed into priesthood? the “home” of God so to speak.
Anyone??
[/quote]
The Vatican just reiterated its position that practicing homosexuals are not supposed to be priests.
I thought it was silly that they had to say this because heterosexual priests must practice also abstinence.
[quote]DOMK wrote:
If this is the reaction to same sex marriages, just imagine the shock these politicians/campaigners will have when two lesbians/homosexuals can have children of their own using stem cells.[/quote]
I don’t think you quite understand the whole stem cell deal.
No, with all due respect you have not. What you have done, among other things, is go off on a “transgender bender.” (Roll?s off the tongue). Which has nothing at all to do with the real argument of gay marriage. Transgender people make up an even smaller percentage of the population than the 1-% or so of gays who want to get married.
talk about a silly tangent!
Why is it that social liberals are always claiming that the exception proves the rule? How illogical!
No, actually you have not done that either! Let’s take a look at Polygamy for example. Polygamy happens to be very much thriving in the state of Utah and other areas of the world. Did you not know this?
"Gov. Mike Leavitt (of Utah) indicated Thursday the state has not rooted out polygamy because that might infringe on freedom of religious expression.
(Religious expression! It seems that you too were trying to use religion as yet another (lame) excuse to accept homosexual behavior. Very interesting indeed!)
“It’s clear to me in this state and many others, they have chosen not to
aggressively prosecute it,” said the Republican governor, speaking to reporters at his monthly news
conference at KUED studios at the University of Utah.
“I assume there is a legal reason for that. I think it goes well beyond tradition.”
(A legal reason for Polygamy? Oh my…)
The governor mentioned arguments others have made that plural marriage may be an expression of
religion that is protected under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment."
Well…there you go. So much for this particular group being “out of the mainstream.” They are simply practicing their “faith” I guess. Yet, another “behavior” with special rights.
"Why aren’t all those polygamists jailed again?
A recent poll by the Salt Lake tribune found that 35% of Utah’s population think that polygamists should not be prosecuted. Many of the folks in Utah are descendants of polygamists, and don’t care to heap the same type of intolerant
(I like that word intolerant)
Abuse of their neighbors that the early Mormon people were subjected to. In addition, the laws that were written against polygamy are basically laws against consensual sensuality, which cannot be prosecuted in today’s legal climate."
Maybe you better read that last line over again: “CONSENSUAL SENSUALITY, WHICH CANNOT BE PROSECUTED IN TODAY’S LEGAL CLIMATE.”
The last Polygamy prosecution was in 1953!
By the way, it was not until 1975 that 46 out of 50 states had invalidated their laws on homosexuality! And it was not until 2003 that the Supreme Court invalidated all state laws against homosexuality.
Hey, I just thought of something: First the act of homosexuality was illegal. Then some states removed those laws. Then the Supreme Court removed all of the laws. Then some states began special rights for homosexuals. And now low and behold homosexuals want the right to marry.
Whether you dislike the idea of homosexuals marrying (like about 70% of the nation). Or, you like the idea of homosexuals marrying (like the social liberals) you have to admit the previous description does in fact represent the “slippery slope” theory pretty well.
I know you like links, so here you go:
It seems that they are having quite a time regarding Polygamy in the state of Utah.
But wait!
There are already certain groups popping up all over the country on behalf of those who want “special rights” for their own particular “behavior.”
The Mormons think that Polygamy is a fine “behavior.”
Here’s another link for you:
As far as Adult incest: do you know how many cases of adult incest have been prosecuted in the United States over the past few years? ZERO!
Now I wonder why that is? Could it be that governments care less and less what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home, even if they are brother and sister?
It seems Germany along with many other countries are moving in the direction that “two consenting adults” can pretty much do what they want.
What’s next?
You have not shown any benefits that society would reap if homosexual marriage were allowed. Not one!
What you tried to do was make a case that homosexual marriage has nothing to do with Polygamy or adult incest in that if one were given marital rights the others would not follow.
However, you failed to do that. As you can see clearly in my post it is not that much of a stretch to imagine adult incest as being accepted as well as Polygamist having their day at the alter. To think that sanctioning marriage for one group based upon “behaior” would not lead to other groups who wanting marital status based upon behavior is simply foolish!
Is there a “polygamist gene?” No doubt some are already claiming that.
(You also seem very much hung up on transgender people. And again that is the absolute nuttiest “reason” to legalize homosexual marriage. In fact, it’s quite funny
Again I ask where do we draw the line?
I will leave you with this:
In order to change a long standing societal tradition you must first give legitimate reasons for that change. You have not done this. In fact, you have not given any good (giving “a” reason is not autmatically a “good” reason) reasons why society must change to sanction homosexual marriage.
It seems to me that we are still in the infancy of trying to figure out why (or how) people become gay. As I have shown on another post homosexuality has not been proven to be genetic. In fact there are strong theories that it is something that can be reversed. A most unpopular topic among social liberals.
However, how do you explain the hundreds of people who have actually left the gay lifestyle because of “reparitive therapy?” How can anyone stop being homosexual if it were in fact genetic? It’s time that the social liberals open their eyes to this possibility!
Also, don’t let the social liberals fool you into thinking that homosexuality should be compared to the struggles of the early black and female population. It’s not! Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR. The other two are in fact GENETIC.
In fact, a recent poll shows that black americans are not in favor of two homosexuals marrying
Maggie Gallagher states: "At least 60 percent of African Americans oppose same-sex marriage. Many say they feel viscerally betrayed at the transfer of the civil-rights mantle to further this cause.
The Times reported on August 8, 2003, that since 2000, African-American identification with the Democratic party plunged 11 percentage points (from 74 to 63 percent). Could the increasing identification of same-sex marriage by Democratic interest groups as the civil-rights issue of our day be a contributing cause?"
America has become a very tolerant nation. The people in it tolerate all sorts of beahvior that is different than their own. I’m thankful for this, and the many freedoms that we enjoy.
Homosexuals can live together peaceably without fear of any sort of persecution. We have come a long way and I am pleased that we have. It’s a step in the right direction.
However, America is not ready to overhaul the institution of marriage in order to please about 1% of the population. In fact, the more Americans find out about homosexuality the less likely that they are to want to change the institution of marriage to accomodate one particular groups behavior.
Whenever it is on the ballot voters rush to soundly defeat gay marriage. This is important as it shows that the citizens of our country are not in favor of such a societal overhaul. Could it be that they have not been given one good reason for such a sweeping change?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
DOMK wrote:
The_Grim_Reaper wrote:
Oh please.It’s the same thing they do with cancer.They call it genetic so they cane call it a disease and sell drugs for that DISEASE. Homosexuality isn’t genetic,and it isn’t a disease. It’s just ABNORMAL.
If homosexuality is a sin and also abnormal, how come so many homosexuals have been allowed into priesthood? the “home” of God so to speak.
Anyone??
The Vatican just reiterated its position that practicing homosexuals are not supposed to be priests.
I thought it was silly that they had to say this because heterosexual priests must practice also abstinence.[/quote]
Keep in mind too, in the very early days Christian priests were allowed to marry. Just one of many things for many uninformed Bible-thumpers/zombies who recite ‘BUT,the Bible says-blah blah/this and that…’, to munch on if they thought the ‘Church’ never deviates off its ‘traditions’. http://www.futurechurch.org/fpm/history.htm
ZEB, I had hoped that you would be more more explicit in refuting my many points. To dismiss their relevance in the off-hand manner as you have, is very discouraging–I had hoped that you would have taken me more seriously to task, but perhaps the amount of material I had procured was simply too overwhelming for you to take apart.
You continue to ignore many of my points, preferring instead to restate your questions as if I hadn’t made any attempt to answer them, when, in fact, I had given what were very logical and plausible indications to the contrary.
Perhaps you are too busy fending off attacks from all sides, but I sincerely think that I have already pierced many holes in your argument, especially in regards to how wrong it is for any of us to assume we even know who is a man and who is a woman.
This is not to say that I am right, but that there are many points which have been left sorely unaddressed.
The question I think people need to ask themselves is, in this day and age of plastic/reconstructive surgery, and genetic manipulation, how can people prove that they are the gender that they say they are? How can you prove that the person you are getting married to is of the gender that you think they are?
These might seem like ludicrous questions to ask oneself, but there are hundreds of thousands (if not MILLIONS of people!) in the USA alone who already defy any of the definitions put forth by the courts to this date.
Before the courts can solidify marriage as being solely between one man and woman, they must be able to say with certainty what the definition of a man is, and what the definition of a woman is, without failing to address every single citizen in the process.
If they fail to address people born with chromosome sets such as XXY, XXYY, XXXY, XO, etc. then the law fails because there is no way it can be logically applied to such individuals. And if a judge takes it upon herself or himself to make a judgement based on appearances (presence of gender specific organs) then are acting in violation of previous court rulings… if not common sense (see also: hermaphrodites, transexuals, intersexuals).
If only having to save people from going through the absolutely ridiculous and humiliating exercise of having to prove their gender publicly in a court of law, I say allow same-sex marriages to occur.
The reason why minorities (whether they be minorities of .01% or minorities of 40%) must be protected from discrimination so carefully is to prevent a democratic system from simply becoming a “tyranny of the majority.”
Pure democracy isn’t the necessarily best way, especially when it comes to establishing and ensuring the rights of minorities, to determine what is right and what is wrong.
If a pure democracy (where only a majority of votes is used to decide, and all people vote) was the only thing needed to determine what’s right and what’s wrong, then the people who wrote the US Constitution would have written it in vain–an individual’s rights must be protected even from the will of an entire nation in certain cases.
Look at the case of Terri Schiavo–her husband’s right to pull the plug on her life-support was his alone, and that had to be protected by a Supreme Court ruling. The President, the Republican majority, and massive public outcry spearheaded a move to prevent him from exercising his legal right as Terri’s spouse. Thank goodness!
The definition of marriage as provided by tradition may be correct… but it is currently incomplete in how it’s described.
The definitions of ‘man’ and of ‘woman’ are both lacking.
ZEB, or anyone, if you can adequately define what is a man, and what is a woman, without creating a third gender or category for those who aren’t definitively male or female to fit under (essentially, a non-traditional way to describe people), then I would support the traditional definition of marriage.
For the life of me, I can’t figure out how people can apply the definition of a law that depends on “one man and one woman” to prove the positive case, equally and without personal prejudice in all cases–there are too many exceptions where people don’t have a choice (those born without the ‘normal’ set of genes) are discriminated against wrongly.
I just want to know how to apply that definition of marriage to the real world.
So, first tell me how to define someone who is born with XXY genes–what’s their gender?
That’s not a hard one. Assuming that homosexuality is a sin (which I’m not personally aying) the Catholic Church, throughout history, has hardly always done the right thing and properly upheld the tenants of Christianity. (As far as the conduct and handling the matter of pedophile priests, I think you would be hard-pressed to not find significant fault. Even some of the devout Catholics I know agree). As far as the Bible goes, I don’t think it refers to the sexual orientation of homosexuality a sin. It considers acting on it a sin. I think there are only two places (don’t know exactly where)in th Bible that explicitly address the issue and that is the stance in both of them. Bible scholars correct me if I’m wrong. If so, please cite the specific areas in the Bible where it’s addressed.
[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
ZEB, I had hoped that you would be more more explicit in refuting my many points. To dismiss their relevance in the off-hand manner as you have, is very discouraging–I had hoped that you would have taken me more seriously to task, but perhaps the amount of material I had procured was simply too overwhelming for you to take apart.[/quote]
LOL…yes in your view I’m sure it was “over whelming.” But, in reality your points have been refuted one by one. Over and over and over again…(yawn).
Name one point that was not refuted.
I am really trying not to offend you “Jimmy.” But, quite honestly that one point happened to be the most asinine argument that I have ever heard for gay marriage. Seriously, even folks on your side (and I have talked to a few in the last few days) find it irrelevant.
Every point was addressed and refuted!
You are doing it again, and it’s getting really hard to read without laughing. I apologize for the candor.
Millions? Prove it!
Um…you are so, so out of touch…
I’m serously worried about those hrmaphrodites myself. I know you went on a transgender bender in your last post…sheesh…
Sometimes I wish someone would have saved me the humiliating experience of having to read your off the wall argument. Please stop…I’m begging you.
Yes, I know. Can you imagine a world gone crazy with people who believe in God and are heterosexual running around? Maybe we can sell a tape series: “Hetersexual majority gone wild.”
You make a valid point. I think we should leave it up to radical feminists who are gender confused. Do you know any?
Finally, a real point (thank you). that’s why we have the courts. As long as they don’t attempt to “rewrite” the constitution as some social liberal Judges have done.
[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
The definition of marriage as provided by tradition may be correct… but it is currently incomplete in how it’s described.
The definitions of ‘man’ and of ‘woman’ are both lacking.[/quote]
No, I think one man and one woman covers it nicely. Would you prefer one hermaphrodite and one transexual?
No, I think we will be leaving the definition alone for a long time to come. Thank God! oops…didn’t mean to offend you with the “God” remark.
[quote]ZEB, or anyone, if you can adequately define what is a man, and what is a woman, without creating a third gender or category for those who aren’t definitively male or female to fit under (essentially, a non-traditional way to describe people), then I would support the traditional definition of marriage.
For the life of me, I can’t figure out how people can apply the definition of a law that depends on “one man and one woman” to prove the positive case, equally and without personal prejudice in all cases–there are too many exceptions where people don’t have a choice (those born without the ‘normal’ set of genes) are discriminated against wrongly.
I just want to know how to apply that definition of marriage to the real world.
So, first tell me how to define someone who is born with XXY genes–what’s their gender?[/quote]
Look “Jimmy” I think you need to turn your computer off, take a deep breath and relax. The world has been operating under certain guidelines for a long time and it will continue to operate under those same rules for a long time to come.
Even Japan (which is about 10 years behind the States and 10 times more traditional) has recognized that there IS a substantial transgendered population. Or at least enough of one to require that the family registry (government records of population/marriage/age statistics) can now be permentently changed after one has gone through a sex-change operation.
If you know anything about Japanese bureaucracy then you understand just how HUGE this is. The Government is recognizing that there are simply more genetic options than man/woman.
Even as a casual resident you can see the prominence of the man purse. Quite possibly one of the most androgenous societies. I am convinced metrosexual actually began here a very long time ago.
Just to lighten this thread a bit… In University I saw a kid selling back his bible. As a religion major, I thought I would have a little fun with him by saying, You know you are going to hell for that? in the most serious tone possible. He didnt think I was so funny…especially since it was in the bible belt…
DOMK wrote:
I can only assume you live a very isolated existance. I can tell you now as fact that most all men i know have had sexual relationships without their wife knowing.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Jimmy, I HIGHLY doubt that there are millions of transgendered people running around. On what basis do you conclude that?[/quote]
I was referring to those who were transgendered and/or intersexed. There aren’t that many transgendered people alone, but the stats on intersexed is quite boggling:
Given that the population of the US according to the US Census Bureau as of 28-NOV-2005 is 297,764,205 and the American Journal of Law and Medicine says that 1.7 to 4 percent of the population is intersexed…
297,764,205 * .017 = 5,061,991.485
Hmmm… and that’s the minimum? Do I need to explain how to do multiplication?
These are people who do not fit within the commonly accepted XX = woman, XY = man paradigm… the same paradigm currently adopted by many, if not all, of the courts in the US as being the final say in determining whether a human being is a man or a woman.
Now, only an idiot would continue to say that the definition of marriage being “a man and a woman” is flawless. You can’t say just “man” and then think that it’s obvious, no matter how much people say that I’m being asinine.
You can’t ignore five million people. You can’t ignore the facts. Medical science has gone way beyond the point where tradition can used alone to determine the definition of marriage.
Welcome to the 21st century, folks! Human knowledge and understanding of the world around us has increased geometrically in the last one hundred years alone. If God has created people who have unexpected genotypes when compared to their phenotypes, and medical science has now revealed their true nature to us, then our old way of classifying them is flawed… not God.
If the tradition of marriage can somehow expand to embrace the capabilities of medical science, then no one should fret.
But I personally do not see how that can be done right now.
I’m still waiting for someone to address this problem posed by the existence of the intersexed population. They too are created in God’s image, yet those defending tradition would deny them the same legal rights and priviledges because they don’t fit our flawed human method of interpretation?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You justify your personal attacks on those of faith because you don’t think their faith is real. However, someone who practiced tolerance, the same tolerance they want for their gay friends, would restrain their nasty remarks. But then social liberals feel empowered toward bigotry if it is not something that they think is correct.[/quote]
I feel empowered to call bullshit on your fake-ass beliefs when they are being used to oppress and deny, instead of encourage and uplift. And that goes for anything being used negatively. When your beliefs are used as a tool to separate and look down upon others who do not deserve your scorn, then I will stand up and call you on it. Every time. The fact that I have friends who are disparaged by the common attitudes held by those of your faith just adds to my vehemence in defending those you guys target for derision.
Back in my day… you are a broken record. And when you get your fingers out of your ears, you might realize that gay marriage is not the same as hetero marriage, and therefore is its own institution separate but equal in the eyes of the law (but not your religion, for obvious reasons). We change hetero marriage when we pass laws that weaken it, like making fasttrack divorce laws.
GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT CHANGING HETERO MARRIAGE!!! (three exclamation points)
Maybe if I write it all in caps, it might sink in. We are changing societal standards, we are changing our mores, we are adding a few new rules and regs when we accept gay marriage as a valid option for relationships which are recognized by the government. Societal standards and social mores change constantly… this is just one more bend in the river, ZEB.
Hey, call me all the names you want, buddy. I won’t whine about it. And what you see as limiting I see as “open to learning”. Having a fresh mind unburdened by years of crappy attitudes has done wonders for me being able to call a duck a duck. Besides, it’s not the years, it’s the mileage… but of course you already realized that, being so wizened by your “advanced age”. LOL
Wrong again, my friend. Just like how the war in Iraq is a painful but necessary thing, the greater good IS served by adopting gay marriage… you just don’t see it because you’re, well, you’re old and tired by your travails upon this cold unforgiving earth. LOL Just playin’ man… But seriously now, maybe you think you’ve earned the right to cling to home base while the rest of us run around trying not get tagged out. I’m just trying to tell you that your way is a very lame way to play tag, that’s all. Just like I was admonishing everybody not to get old and make excuses like “back in my day” and “you’re all a bunch of heathens”, that’s my whole point here. You’re being lame, ZEB.
Don’t be lame. Just because it sucks.
C’mon, the guy who’s “it” can’t even run that fast. Let go of the rock, man! Look past your own insecurities and try to imagine an America with gay marriage (for example). OH!!! THE HORROR!!!
Yes, it will be the final knoll of the bell as our civilization slowly collapses on itself, causing widespread havok and death and destruction everywhere. Gays everywhere rejoice as the entire world implodes, destroying all life on the planet. And the cries of “I told you so!” echo from the dying lips of TV evangelists everywhere.
Gay marriage will truly suck.
[quote]Wow, you are so enlightened…I have to put on sun glasses to even read your posts!
You need to grow up![/quote]
Maybe you need to get your head out of your ass. There’s a great big world out there, buddy. I don’t pretend to understand it all, and neither should you. But wait! What do I know? Being so naive and all… LOL
I’m not knocking life experience. I’m just saying that there’s more than one way to skin a cat. You can get life experience without being an dusty old fart.
LOL “the kool-aid that the world has sold…” yeah what a tragedy to BELIEVE IN WHAT IS REAL. More LOL’s man… you’re killing me!
I will always call bullshit on shit that parades around as reality, telling folks to look down on others, when it quite obviously isn’t reality, and is full of shit. Yes, that’s a lot of "shit"s, but well… there ya go.
I like your metaphor though… hitching my horse to a moving post. That’s good. But the nifty part about MY belief system is when the horse takes off on me, there’s a corvette with the keys in it sitting there, and I realize that I would rather have a car than a stinky old horse after all. Out with the old, in with the new. Discard that which has no more value and is a hindrance. Kind of like being able to do more chins because you lose some body fat. Yeah, you have fewer stored calories walking around with you, but you’re not scared of winter coming to starve you to death, ya know?
But my point is that there is ample evidence that it has genetic roots (like so much of everything in our lives), and it is not ENTIRELY a simple choice to be gay or not. The links I provided proved that it is not ENTIRELY nurture, so there you have it, the reasonable conclusion: it is some of both. Just like all the articles stated. Which, of course, flies in the face of the “just a sinful behavior” crap you and other christian naysayers have been spouting from day one. Get over yourselves.
OOOO I’M SO SCARED!!! When will you guys knock it off with the “be weak like me or go to hell” crap? I’m sorry… that was uncalled for, mostly. It just gets to me that y’all’s holier than thou attitude makes you pathetic and you don’t see it.
I am wrong about something every single day of my life. And that’s okay… I’m not trying to be a dick like life is a contest to see who’s more “righter” that the other. My mistakes are an opportunity to get better, and I will rue the day that I don’t make mistakes any more. I guess it’s a good thing that this kind of day will never come, isn’t it?
So they are normal enough to work for you, but not normal enough to get married to each other? Well… it’s a start, I guess.
The science bears my hypothesis out nicely, as I have stated numerous times. Gayness is not just a simple choice. Just like me hating beets is not just a choice. I cannot fucking stand beets, they are nasty as hell no matter how many times I try to like them. Oh well.
AUGGH!!! THE HORROR!!! Get over yourselves. You act like making this one concession to the gay community is like taking one in the pooper. This is not prison rape, ZEB, it’s just common fucking sense. The rules we have now are being needlessly discriminatory, they are ponderous and holding us all back as a culture. We can do better than this! We can improve. We just don’t have the will to yet… and I think I know why.
Let’s not forget how inflexible I also am when discussing the realities of winged flying pigs, Elton John’s tremendous stash of “Hustlers”, and how Michael Jackson never got plastic surgery.
[quote]Well in that case let’s meet up and have that beer!
Intersexuals - current medical estimates state approx. 5 to 12 million people cannot be classified by the definition of XX chromosomes for females or XY chromosomes for males.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Here is an argument for society as a whole: we are better off as a nation and in keeping with our principles of liberty and equality when every non-criminal citizen has the same legal rights. [/quote]
ZEB does not see that as a good reason. I pointed that out more than once. He just poopoos it. He’s never said what he thinks a good reason would be. I think there is no reason he would view as good, just so he can continue to be “right”.
I like how he doesn’t get “personal” in his debates. He just calls people silly, confused, illogical and liberal, like that is a dirty word. He just mocks everyone who does not agree with him. But it isn’t personal.
You don’t seem to get it. The constitution allows any man and woman to marry. The law currently allows anyone to marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no discrimination in that. Allowing same sex to marry would require a change to the law to give special rights. Not allowing special rights is not discrimination.
[/quote]
Aw, you wanna take the constitutional route eh? lets do it.
“congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” I’d like to see a dispute against this.
So whaaaaaat?? You mean the supreme court probably wouldn’t favor my religion over yours if push came to shove? It’s like a lot of society favors christianity huh? GOD on DOLLARS, “under god” being put into the national anthem during one of the world wars…", How come most people don’t work sundays, but then throw a hissy when someone is pardoned to pray to allah 5 times a day? As if theyre getting special rights for “their” religion… as christians, we get a whole day! ohh, dont talk like that… you’ll go to hell…
“this country was founded on christianity…”
*true - while the founding fathers were god fearing people, to strive to maintain this christian base goes directly against the first ammendment. And you wanted to go constitutional…
dis?crim?i?na?tion - (4) Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice
So I can only marry a woman if I am a man? Discrimination by sex is the phrase. Right now the law says to marry a woman, I MUST be a man. I’m trying to break it down as far as possible for myself. If a man can marry a woman, why can’t a woman marry a woman? why does she not have the SAME RIGHTS to marry a woman?
n : a voluntary union for life (or until divorce) of adult parties of the same sex; “parties to a civil union have all the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities under Vermont law as spouses in a marriage”
"
Christians, have your marriage. have it. take it. It’s CIVIL UNION, and the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities as men/women marriage, that are being oppressed. not the ritual of a man and a woman by the church.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
You don’t seem to get it.
[/quote]
Your point of view? I do see it, recognize it, understand it, hell even appreciate it, but I’ll never “get it.” talk s’more and we’ll go from there.
[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Jimmy, I HIGHLY doubt that there are millions of transgendered people running around. On what basis do you conclude that?
I was referring to those who were transgendered and/or intersexed. There aren’t that many transgendered people alone, but the stats on intersexed is quite boggling:
[/quote]
What is intexsexed? People that don’t fit the XX or XY pattern? People that subjectively feel themselves to be a different gender. Not everyone with chromosomal abnormalities feels themselves to be a different gender. Men with XYY chromosones don’t feel themselves to be women for example (although evidence suggests they are significantly more likely to engage in criminal activity). I’m not saying there are not plenty of intersex people out there. Who knows how many. Maybe even the number those studies cite. But I do think they’re suspect from a research perspective. It seems like something that would be extremely hard to test. How do they do it-surveys? Random sampling? How to they get their study group together? Self-selected individuals? Newspaper ads. Self-selection bias can be a tremendous problem for particular areas of psychological reserach and dramatically throw off reasults. If I had time, I’d like to review the methodologies. But I don’t.
n : a voluntary union for life (or until divorce) of adult parties of the same sex; “parties to a civil union have all the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities under Vermont law as spouses in a marriage”
"
Christians, have your marriage. have it. take it. It’s CIVIL UNION, and the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities as men/women marriage, that are being oppressed. not the ritual of a man and a woman by the church.
[/quote]
Your argument is just going to be brushed aside without any justification. They will just quasi-legitimate, impractical, unfeasible alternatives to achieving those same benefits a civil union would grant without actually providing any arguments about what’s wrong with a civil union itself.
