Same-Sex Adoption = Child Abuse

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
It is only by the activist rulings of judges and other officials, never at the behest of voters, that the radical crusade for same-sex marriage has advanced this far. [/quote]

Except that Vermont has now approved gay marriage through legislation, effective September 1.

Other major advancements in civil rights, whether for blacks or for women, have similarly been accosted by Henny Pennys crowing about the demise of the world as we know it…yet somehow, inexorably, the balance continues to shift toward true equality. I’m just glad it is happening in my lifetime.

282

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Why do you think that there is such stiff opposition to gay marriage across the country? Do you think it’s because 87% of heterosexual men find it possible to have sex with other men? No my very confused gay friend, it’s because the overwhelming majority of heterosexual men find sex with other men pretty much repulsive.

It’s true that most straight men in our culture find same sex relationships repulsive. Nobody argued otherwise.

My point was that just because our current culture demonizes same sex relationships doesn’t mean all cultures have done so. Nor does it mean that it is impossible for all heterosexual men to have a sexual experience with another man. You’re overreaching here, and I think you know it as well as I do.

Sure some of the elite in Greek society may have been pedo’s but what does that have to do with our discussion? Not much actually.

It has a lot to do with the current discussion, because it shows that when cultural norms support same sex relationships, the incidence of these relationships goes up, even among men who consider themselves heterosexual.

Wiki says that most Greek men had same sex experiences. You deny this, and insist that this was true only for the Greek elite. Even if you’re right, you still have disproven your own claim that it is impossible for straight men to have same sex relationships, regardless of cultural norms. Obviously, not all of the Greek elite were bisexual/homosexual, and yet pederasty was commonplace due to the cultural norms at the time.

Intamacy shmintacy, gay men seem to have it both ways don’t they?

Maybe your relationship with your wife is so shallow that you define it by the quality of the sex alone, but I doubt it. Most people actually value emotional/romantic intimacy in our relationships.

[/quote]

You don’t need to go as far back as ancient Greece to find straight men seeing some homosexual experience as the norm. You just need to look at the British public school system. (translators note Public Schools in the UK are expensive schools with controlled entrance.)

283

[quote]forlife wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Personally, I see homosexuality as a narcissistic personality disorder. It is worth noting that Forlife has, as far as I can tell, the only avatar where he’s gazing at himself, lovingly and seemingly impressed. Sorry, I really don’t mean to offend anyone, but that really is the way I see it.

Lol, I hadn’t thought about it but I can see why you might think that. Oh well, was thinking about updating my avatar pic anyway :)[/quote]

lol! yeah, well, lets see some nice tits in the next one, eh? :wink:

284

[quote]forlife wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Personally, I see homosexuality as a narcissistic personality disorder. It is worth noting that Forlife has, as far as I can tell, the only avatar where he’s gazing at himself, lovingly and seemingly impressed. Sorry, I really don’t mean to offend anyone, but that really is the way I see it.

Lol, I hadn’t thought about it but I can see why you might think that. Oh well, was thinking about updating my avatar pic anyway :)[/quote]

But, if the flaw is self love, aren’t we all guilty of that to varying degrees. Does that make us all partially gay?

285

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Those men are called “bisexual”. But in reality 87% of all homosexuals are “bisexual”.

Lol, I’m still waiting for an answer to my last post, Zeb.

Really? I’m still waiting for you, or anyone who is “gay” to answer my question. How is it that 87% of homosexual men are able to have sex with women and do so regularly? In fact I’ve been waiting for that question to be answered for a few years now still no answer. Are 87% of “Heterosexual” men able to have sex with other men? No, not at all.

So, what’s up with that forlife?

You are drifting your stat like a politician in the run up to polling day.

You have quoted 87% of Gay men have some sexual experience with a woman. Not sure of the source for this stat however it includes any guy who had a drunken fumble with a girl in high school before coming out of the closet.[/quote]

CDC stat regarding “men who have sex with men”.

Um, no that’s NOT what I would expect. You see if you are a “homosexual” man that means that youa re only attracted to other men, or at least that’s what it’s supposed to mean. You know as in heterosexual men pretty much only being attracted to women. That’s called “heterosexual”. There is no “norm” that can make a typical hetero man become aroused by another man.

But then we’ve beaten this to death right?

But what does that have to do with my point? In fact, it is the reverse. Many hetero men would have to classify themselves as “gay” in order to twist the statistic to make it look like more gay men are having sex with women.

I don’t believe that this is an example of “evil gay culture”. It’s an example of weak human beings and there are plenty of them both straight and gay.

Hold on, that would have been a good place to bring up the fact that about 70% of all new HIV cases are gay males. Also, the rise in STD’s and the many other physical and mental diseases that homosexual men seem to attract, but I won’t get into that on this thread.

Bye.

286

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Those men are called “bisexual”. But in reality 87% of all homosexuals are “bisexual”.

Lol, I’m still waiting for an answer to my last post, Zeb.

Really? I’m still waiting for you, or anyone who is “gay” to answer my question. How is it that 87% of homosexual men are able to have sex with women and do so regularly? In fact I’ve been waiting for that question to be answered for a few years now still no answer. Are 87% of “Heterosexual” men able to have sex with other men? No, not at all.

So, what’s up with that forlife?

You are drifting your stat like a politician in the run up to polling day.

You have quoted 87% of Gay men have some sexual experience with a woman. Not sure of the source for this stat however it includes any guy who had a drunken fumble with a girl in high school before coming out of the closet.

CDC stat regarding “men who have sex with men”.

Given that straight is seen as the norm, this is what you would expect.

Um, no that’s NOT what I would expect. You see if you are a “homosexual” man that means that youa re only attracted to other men, or at least that’s what it’s supposed to mean. You know as in heterosexual men pretty much only being attracted to women. That’s called “heterosexual”. There is no “norm” that can make a typical hetero man become aroused by another man.

But then we’ve beaten this to death right?

Also, from talking to a promiscuous gay guy that I was working with last year, a lot of the guys that he was sleeping with would have classed themselves as straight on any survey (sneaking out from their wives to have sex.)

But what does that have to do with my point? In fact, it is the reverse. Many hetero men would have to classify themselves as “gay” in order to twist the statistic to make it look like more gay men are having sex with women.

Before you jump on this as an example of evil gay culture, there are plenty of guys sneaking out from their wives to have an affair with another woman. Think about it

I don’t believe that this is an example of “evil gay culture”. It’s an example of weak human beings and there are plenty of them both straight and gay.

Hold on, that would have been a good place to bring up the fact that about 70% of all new HIV cases are gay males. Also, the rise in STD’s and the many other physical and mental diseases that homosexual men seem to attract, but I won’t get into that on this thread.

Bye.

[/quote]

Zeb, you seem to be totally clueless. A young kid as he is growing up won’t for sure know he is gay from birth, instead he will start out following the norms but realise slowly that he is gay. At some point he admits it to himself, though maybe he continues in the closet for a long time due to the pressures from his family and friends.

On the flip side, if a straight man can’t get it up for a bloke, what about prison sex? How would you explain that?

287

[quote]ZEB wrote:
There is no “norm” that can make a typical hetero man become aroused by another man.[/quote]

You can’t make a fair comparison between hetero and gay men unless you control for other variables.

The flaw in your logic is that you look at the behavior of hetero and gay men in a culture where homosexuality is disparaged and discriminated against.

To be fair, you would have to look at the behavior of hetero and gay men in a culture where homosexuality is more generally accepted.

You completely fail to account for the significant social/religious pressures on people not to engage in same sex behavior. Until you do so, your conclusions are worthless.

Except that, as you know very well, worldwide the majority of new HIV cases are among heterosexual women.

288

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

You don’t need to go as far back as ancient Greece to find straight men seeing some homosexual experience as the norm. You just need to look at the British public school system. (translators note Public Schools in the UK are expensive schools with controlled entrance.)[/quote]

This is the part that pisses me off the most about the whole thing.

You chastise ZEB for fudging the number to 87%, but then turn around and, completely without any merit or validation, propose homosexuality as the norm of the British public school system.

Personally, the whole ‘Greeks were Gay’ argument is fundamentally flawed to begin with. The society rotted long ago and even some of the greatest minds and most influential people of the day are partially recorded and vaguely remembered (prove that Jesus existed). To pretend that they kept the records to know what was norm and how well it was tolerated to any real degree of certainty is folly.

Seriously, this thread has degraded (maybe I have the false presumption that it was high brow to begin with) to the point that a Ph.D. is using Wikipedia as his source for ‘hard’ data and random forumite X is asserting that the normal British public school student is gay, without even the slightest bit of evidence.

289

Back to quoting my credentials, eh? Why do you keep bringing this up? My degree is irrelevant, and unless you have a degree in ancient history so is yours.

290

[quote]forlife wrote:
Back to quoting my credentials, eh? Why do you keep bringing this up? My degree is irrelevant, and unless you have a degree in ancient history so is yours.[/quote]

Hell yes. It’s pretty poor of a Ph.D., who started off citing legal briefs and primary literature to switch to, admittedly, the loosest online reference document in existence. Either you’ve run out of original thoughts, facts and figures that support your position, or both.

As for your credentials and the relevance to this argument, I don’t doubt your credentials at all, you clearly identify as homosexual and I fully believe that almost without question. You’re a homosexual arguing in support of homosexuals, there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that your lifestyle is biasing your judgement.

Go back to your ‘homophobes are really homosexuals’ argument, at least, absurd as it may be, you were citing original work (even if it was old and largely debunked).

291

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

You don’t need to go as far back as ancient Greece to find straight men seeing some homosexual experience as the norm. You just need to look at the British public school system. (translators note Public Schools in the UK are expensive schools with controlled entrance.)

This is the part that pisses me off the most about the whole thing.

You chastise ZEB for fudging the number to 87%, but then turn around and, completely without any merit or validation, propose homosexuality as the norm of the British public school system.

Personally, the whole ‘Greeks were Gay’ argument is fundamentally flawed to begin with. The society rotted long ago and even some of the greatest minds and most influential people of the day are partially recorded and vaguely remembered (prove that Jesus existed). To pretend that they kept the records to know what was norm and how well it was tolerated to any real degree of certainty is folly.

Seriously, this thread has degraded (maybe I have the false presumption that it was high brow to begin with) to the point that a Ph.D. is using Wikipedia as his source for ‘hard’ data and random forumite X is asserting that the normal British public school student is gay, without even the slightest bit of evidence.[/quote]

Try reading my post again. I did not say that homosexuality was the norm I stated that some homosexual experience was the norm.

If you take a group of pubescent males and put them in a confined space living together then yes there will likely be a degree of homosexual experimentation between guys who go on to class themselves as straight in later life.

This is and has been pretty normal in the British public school system.

I would not be at all surprised if claims of pederasty in Greek society are exagerated. Shocking sexual ideas from history tend to get amplified due to the dusty nature of historic acedemia. There seems to be no doubt however that these practices were there to some degree.

This all goes back to countering the claims by Zeb that a straight man could never have a homosexual experience. He is clearly wrong on that.

292

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Hell yes. It’s pretty poor of a Ph.D., who started off citing legal briefs and primary literature to switch to, admittedly, the loosest online reference document in existence.[/quote]

What does my education have to do with anything, and why do you keep bringing it up? My arguments stand or fall on their own merits, the same as yours.

You’re trying to set me up as a self-proclaimed authority, on the basis of my education. Sorry, but that won’t fly. You know as well as I do that I have never even mentioned my education, except to ask why YOU keep bringing it up.

It’s a petty tactic, and is beneath someone claiming to have a sincere interest in the topic. Stick with the subject instead of resorting to ad hominem insinuations, and you’ll score more points.

[quote]Go back to your ‘homophobes are really homosexuals’ argument, at least, absurd as it may be, you were citing original work (even if it was old and largely debunked).
[/quote]

It wasn’t my argument, I only provided the reference that was being asked for. I don’t believe all homophobes are gay, by any stretch.

293

[quote]forlife wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Hell yes. It’s pretty poor of a Ph.D., who started off citing legal briefs and primary literature to switch to, admittedly, the loosest online reference document in existence.

What does my education have to do with anything, and why do you keep bringing it up? My arguments stand or fall on their own merits, the same as yours.

You’re trying to set me up as a self-proclaimed authority, on the basis of my education. Sorry, but that won’t fly. You know as well as I do that I have never even mentioned my education, except to ask why YOU keep bringing it up.

It’s a petty tactic, and is beneath someone claiming to have a sincere interest in the topic. Stick with the subject instead of resorting to ad hominem insinuations, and you’ll score more points.

Go back to your ‘homophobes are really homosexuals’ argument, at least, absurd as it may be, you were citing original work (even if it was old and largely debunked).

It wasn’t my argument, I only provided the reference that was being asked for. I don’t believe all homophobes are gay, by any stretch.

[/quote]

No, you’re desperate.

Your rational brain is trying to tell you to go home to your wife and kids, and quit using sex as a pleasure-toy. Your rational brain knows that you’ve been tricked into all of this gay stuff by our Elite, who think population control can be done bt increasing homosexuality (Planned Parenthood promotes this evil agenda.)

294

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Those men are called “bisexual”. But in reality 87% of all homosexuals are “bisexual”.

Lol, I’m still waiting for an answer to my last post, Zeb.

Really? I’m still waiting for you, or anyone who is “gay” to answer my question. How is it that 87% of homosexual men are able to have sex with women and do so regularly? In fact I’ve been waiting for that question to be answered for a few years now still no answer. Are 87% of “Heterosexual” men able to have sex with other men? No, not at all.

So, what’s up with that forlife?

You are drifting your stat like a politician in the run up to polling day.

You have quoted 87% of Gay men have some sexual experience with a woman. Not sure of the source for this stat however it includes any guy who had a drunken fumble with a girl in high school before coming out of the closet.

CDC stat regarding “men who have sex with men”.

Given that straight is seen as the norm, this is what you would expect.

Um, no that’s NOT what I would expect. You see if you are a “homosexual” man that means that youa re only attracted to other men, or at least that’s what it’s supposed to mean. You know as in heterosexual men pretty much only being attracted to women. That’s called “heterosexual”. There is no “norm” that can make a typical hetero man become aroused by another man.

But then we’ve beaten this to death right?

Also, from talking to a promiscuous gay guy that I was working with last year, a lot of the guys that he was sleeping with would have classed themselves as straight on any survey (sneaking out from their wives to have sex.)

But what does that have to do with my point? In fact, it is the reverse. Many hetero men would have to classify themselves as “gay” in order to twist the statistic to make it look like more gay men are having sex with women.

Before you jump on this as an example of evil gay culture, there are plenty of guys sneaking out from their wives to have an affair with another woman. Think about it

I don’t believe that this is an example of “evil gay culture”. It’s an example of weak human beings and there are plenty of them both straight and gay.

Hold on, that would have been a good place to bring up the fact that about 70% of all new HIV cases are gay males. Also, the rise in STD’s and the many other physical and mental diseases that homosexual men seem to attract, but I won’t get into that on this thread.

Bye.

Zeb, you seem to be totally clueless. A young kid as he is growing up won’t for sure know he is gay from birth, instead he will start out following the norms but realise slowly that he is gay. [/quote]

He’ll realize slowly? Yes, but why? How does that happen? It’s NOT genetic, at least there’s no proof that it is. There is some evidence that it is more nurture than nature. I posted a study a while ago that showed early abuse, a distant father son relationship and an overbearing mother as three possibilities. Is it after all of that that they realize that they are attracted to other men?

Who knows? Certainly you and I can only speculate.

I’ve covered this until I wanted to puke. (deep breath)Show me all of the statistics which prove that a majority of those incarcerated have homosexual sex? Majority? Forget that, how about a large minority?

Do some have homosexual sex? Sure, but how many? Have you been watching too many movies? Perhaps, but either way it’s a insignificant percentage.

Why can’t you just admit that homosexual men are exceptionally horny and seem to go after both sexes, but prefer other men? What’s the harm in that? Would it perhaps harm the potential for “special rights”? Ah, yes it would.

Okay, case closed.

295

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Okay, case closed.
[/quote]

Lol.

Ok Zeb, let’s assume that your case is 100% iron clad as you claim. You’ve unequivocably proven that the majority of gays are in fact bisexuals who only prefer to have sex with someone of the same gender. In truth, they would be equally happy and emotionally fulfilled with either gender.

So what is your point?

What right do you have to tell a bisexual man what gender he is allowed to marry? Why do you think you can make that choice for him, instead of allowing him to choose for himself?

How is that any different from telling a black man what race he is allowed to marry? Let’s assume that the evidence proved a black man could be equally happy with a black woman or with a white woman. Who are you to insist that he only be allowed to marry a black woman? After all, he should be equally happy with a black wife, so not require him to marry one?

Do you see any problem with that?

296

[quote]forlife wrote:

You’re trying to set me up as a self-proclaimed authority, on the basis of my education. Sorry, but that won’t fly. You know as well as I do that I have never even mentioned my education, except to ask why YOU keep bringing it up.

It’s a petty tactic, and is beneath someone claiming to have a sincere interest in the topic. Stick with the subject instead of resorting to ad hominem insinuations, and you’ll score more points.[/quote]

You’re right, I set you up by making you go get a Ph.D., divorce your wife, post on the forums…

On the contrary, you’re gay, you have a clear bias towards yourself when you argue issues of homosexuality. Normally, an education would impart some objectivity and formalism to your thought. Either your bias is so great as to obviate any objectivity your education imparted, your education is too poor to obviate your bias, or both.

No one asked. If they asked for the reference, you posted in reply to a statement. You were using it as evidence to support your arguments against Zeb (or other). And, as I said, it’s a decent defense against Zeb’s rather extreme/exclusive assertions. Pretty poor evidence of much else, but still largely superior to you other arguments.

297

[quote]forlife wrote:

How is that any different from telling a black man what race he is allowed to marry? Let’s assume that the evidence proved a black man could be equally happy with a black woman or with a white woman. Who are you to insist that he only be allowed to marry a black woman? After all, he should be equally happy with a black wife, so not require him to marry one?

Do you see any problem with that?[/quote]

Yes, legislation on the basis of happiness is very problematic. Legislation on the basis of equality of happiness is even more contradictory…

Or were you asking about the problems with your particular scenario? Only if the black man slowly realizes over the course of his life that he is black or if he was truly black but identified as white or discovered at puberty that most black people liked to be black most of the time, but he preferred to be white instead would the comparison make sense. Homosexuals are ‘denied’ their ‘right’ to marry as their defining character trait is a malleable state of action or behavior rather than a rigid state of being or inheritance. Since people are overwhelmingly black/white from birth whether they realize it or not, it’s a false association/false dichotomy. One that you keep making. If only there were a way to train people not to make mistakes. And maybe a way to certify that they had been trained…

298

[quote]lucasa wrote:
You’re right, I set you up by making you go get a Ph.D.[/quote]

No, you set me up by constantly bringing up my education as if I believe it has any relevance to the discussion, which I don’t.

Of course I have a bias, just as any minority would who wants to have equal rights.

None of that invalidates the fact that every major medical and mental organization agrees with me on homosexuality. Of course, in your pristine neutrality, all of these organizations are definitionally biased and incorrect because they disagree with you.

Wrong, someone did ask for the specific reference to that study, and I provided it. I never claimed that every homophobe is a closeted gay, because I don’t believe that to be the case.

299

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Only if the black man slowly realizes over the course of his life that he is black or if he was truly black but identified as white or discovered at puberty that most black people liked to be black most of the time, but he preferred to be white instead would the comparison make sense.[/quote]

So Michael Jackson shouldn’t be allowed to marry a white woman?

The point directly relevant to Zeb’s “logic” is not about whether or not the origin of the characteristic is malleable, but whether or not the application of the characteristic is malleable.

Zeb is arguing that gay men can be happy with either men or women, and thus they should be denied the right to marry men.

It is identical to arguing that black men can be happy with either white or black women, and thus they should be denied the right to marry white women.

Whether gayness or blackness is a choice or not is irrelevant to the specific logic being discussed. According to Zeb, as long as a person can be equally happy under both conditions, we are justified in denying them access to one of those conditions.

Of course, the idea that gays are equally happy with men or women is ridiculous, but I don’t even need to argue that point. Even if you accept Zeb’s assertion that all gays are bisexuals, and there is no such thing as a true homosexual, the natural conclusion of his logic is flawed.

300

[quote]forlife wrote:

So Michael Jackson shouldn’t be allowed to marry a white woman?[/quote]

Michael Jackson, WOW. The guy is almost fictional. So, the crystallization of homosexuality as transferred to race is Michael Jackson? Really? That’s the black/white equivalent of being gay? You’re really reaching for obscure and almost irrelevant examples. Honestly, I give homosexuals more credit in general than you do, Michael Jackson is really fucked up and is in no way representative of any norm in any way shape or form. Your average homosexual is no more an aberration than your average smoker and certainly no more than your average alcoholic. I wouldn’t say they’re the norm, but they certainly aren’t the whacked out spectacle that is Michael Jackson.

Less tangentially. While everyone pretty much recognizes that Michael Jackson has white skin, no one would deny his birth as a black man. Race has very little to do with and is often determined much in spite of a person’s actions. Homosexuality is almost diametrically opposite this in that no matter how many generations of straight or gay parents there have been little to none of that is conferred on the offspring. Indeed, someone can identify as straight/gay and perform as such for the majority of their life, but only through action can they reverse said notoriety and such action can reverse that notoriety exceptionally quickly wrt to a character trait like race.

Come back with a better example next time.

First, nowhere in any part of any law is happiness guaranteed to everyone or even offered as a goal for the gov’t to strive toward or a standard to be held up to. The closest anyone gets guaranteed in any way to them is the pursuit. Even at that, all ‘equal happiness’ options cannot be guaranteed or offered by anyone. The idea that just because two options provide equal happiness and must therefore be held in equal regard by the State is lunacy. I would be equally happy marrying my wife every day. No ceremonies, no divorce, no annulments, one man, one woman, and every day we collect witnesses and get a judge to take the time signing off on the paperwork and the taxpayer should carry the burden. It’s complete idiocy using happiness as the meter stick for law.

Second, from your stance, I would infer that without support from the state, there is little value to homosexual marriage. That ‘equal happiness’ only truly exists if the gov’t offers equal sanctions. Thus, only by active support by the gov’t is gay marriage not ‘denied’. In your opinion, if state and federal gov’ts stopped honoring joint returns, immigration ‘rights’, hospital visits, etc., for everyone equally, would they be denying heterosexual marriage? Would they be denying marriage altogether? Would heterosexual marriage cease to exist? Would families suddenly dissolve or cease to exist?