NationStates Jolt Archive

Rev. James Dobson is scary because morons will flock to any idiot that talks as if he actually has a clue about the subject matter.
And America is about 52% moron according to the last election.

James Dobson, on how to rear a non-fag son:

"[T]he boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger."

Yes, the way to rear a good, heterosexual, manly son is to take showers with him where he can check out your package. Oh, and be sure to teach him all the boy stuff that girls can't do (like wrestling around, throwing balls, and pounding in pegs), because if you don't he'll be a queer.

Insert massive eye-rolling here.

It is a disgrace to the professional psychological community that Dobson holds a degree at all, and the University of Southern California should be ashamed to have to recognize this man as an alum. His every work displays clear and unambiguous failure to grasp even the most basic concepts in developmental psychology, despite the fact that he supposedly holds a higher degree in that subject. He's an embarassment to anybody who has earned a doctoral degree in the US.
er, so raising your son to be a man will not help prevent him from subconsciously going gay? got any proof of that.

er, so raising your son to be a man will not help prevent him from subconsciously going gay? got any proof of that.

"Raising your son to be a man"? "Subconsciously going gay"?

Excuse me while I laugh. Or cry. I'm not sure which is more appropriate.

er, so raising your son to be a man will not help prevent him from subconsciously going gay? got any proof of that.

what

I think it'll result in very "butch" Leather Bar homosexuals, at most...

Mainly as waving your dick in your child's face won't change hair color or eyer color...

Cthulhu-Mythos;11599792']Rev. James Dobson is scary because morons will flock to any idiot that talks as if he actually has a clue about the subject matter.
And America is about 52% moron according to the last election.

Or blinded by hope for something that they know isn't going to happen, but still hope it will happen because they're pirates!

Or blinded by hope for something that they know isn't going to happen, but still hope it will happen because they're pirates!

It all comes back to pirates. I like you for this.

Or blinded by hope for something that they know isn't going to happen, but still hope it will happen because they're pirates!

And doing their part to prevent global warming.

Cthulhu-Mythos;11600822']I think it'll result in very "butch" Leather Bar homosexuals, at most...

Mainly as waving your dick in your child's face won't change hair color or eyer color...

Well, hypothetically if you whack them in the face hard enough you could change their eye color to red.

Or blinded by hope for something that they know isn't going to happen, but still hope it will happen because they're pirates!

Pirates will MUTINY if led by a lousy captain.
These don't seem to be doing that and thus make for lousy pirates and might even be an insult to pirates to compare them...

Well, hypothetically if you whack them in the face hard enough you could change their eye color to red.

That's not as much changing their eye colour as it is covering it with blood.

Well, hypothetically if you whack them in the face hard enough you could change their eye color to red.
And a baby that is shaken long enough might have its eyes milk over...
Which isn't at all helpful.

from the Catholic Chruch;Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states:

"Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials." Section 2354

From psychologist James Dobson;
* Become desensitized to the material, no longer getting a thrill from what was once exciting
* Fantasize about acting out various pornographic scenes
* Become callous towards ordinary sexual relationships
* Become reclusive and attempt to hide the habit from family and friends
* View the opposite sex as sex objects
* View sex as being solely for the pleasure of himself or herself[1]

Dr. Dobson also believes that pornography leads to premarital sex, unprotected sex, prostitution, affairs and problems during marriage. Once married, Dobson believes that men who were or are addicted to pornography will be unable to be satisfied with their sexual partner, causing marital problems and even divorce. Dobson believes that pornography should be illegal because of its addictive effects.

[cries quietly in a corner] What has the state of debate on this forum come to when someone uses the Catholic catechism and the statements of Jim Dobson as their only evidence?! I think I know how the characters of Atlas Shrugged feel when they ask who John Galt is.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is religious dogma. It is evidence of nothing except that the Church doesn't like anything to do with sex. A religious document written based on theistic faith and millenia-old allegorical myths is the farthest thing from real, objective evidence in a rational debate.

"Dr. James Dobson" is a political lobbyist whose claims are tossed as evidence purely based on the massive religious bias and spin built in to everything he and his organization say. He is associated with the Christian Reconstructionist movement, a fascist-theocratic political movement that wants to establish the Christian version of the Taliban in the United States. None of the biased, faith-based, totally political claims he makes are acceptable as real evidence. If you want to cite a psychologist, cite one who doesn't run a lobbyist organization or base his views on evangelical religion.

So you can't speak out against the government. Big whoop, who cares.

...so can we strip you of the franchise and your right to freedom of expression and assembly, then? Fine. Get out of the forum. If you personally consider your rights to be of no consequence, then I order you not to post.

See how important it is to be able to speak freely? That's the problem with Americans, and Westerners in general as well, I think, today: they take their freedom for granted.

China is a very open society, shocking I know to anyone fed the propaganda of west. I know this having actually been there. People are free to live their lives, go where they like when they like.

You've "been there". So you haven't actually lived there, tried to access a large portion of the heavily censored Internet while there, or tried to speak out or conduct unapproved meetings or business? Reality check: having been a tourist says absolutely jack shit about actual conditions.

And for the record: I speak Mandarin and have fairly extensively studied the sociopolitical history, both ancient and contemporary, of China.

As far as I'm concerned anyone stupid enough to cause a scene in a place they know they shouldn't gets what they get if they are imprisoned.

Why? Because you don't agree? Because it inconveniences you? Do you have any respect for the rights of other whatsoever?

I never said we should do everything like China. And China is not facist, not even close and I have no idea where you get that from.

A government that dramatically curtails the rights of citizens and attempts to control their thoughts, speech, or behavior is fascist. If you prefer totalitarian, that's fine too. Autocratic isn't quite sufficient, though: it applies, but it's not the entirety of the situation.

The US is far more facist than China.

Can you provide some support or evidence for this assertion? I'm not saying that I think the US is much of a democracy anymore, but it's far superior to China.

China is official communist, although not really in practice.

Socialist, actually. And no, it hasn't been that way for a couple of decades now. It just retains the restriction of civil and political rights; they've loosened up on the economy.

And what is so wrong about wanting a society that is friendly, respectful, not materialist or selfish, is healthy and has low crime. I mean is that really so bad?

Chinese culture has been based on respect and politeness, and has included healthy diets and lifestyles, for thousands of years. Their current political system has nothing to do with it at all. The idea that they are not "materialist or selfish" is based on no real evidence, as made obvious by their sweatshops, booming economy, and manufacturing craze. And low crime...ROFLOL. Definitely not.

Any other baseless statements and assertions to make?

check one of my other posts for this one.

I have. It's all unsupported assertions and morally judgemental bs that takes a maximally negative view not supported by known facts. Your only evidence presented thus far has been the religious dogma of the Catholic Church and the American Protestant religious right political movement.

No one does care about my personal preferences and they should not be law. However what states decide and what the people of the states decide should be respected.

Not when it violates rights, or the Constitution. Democracy, contrary to popular belief, has two pillars, only one of which is majority rule. The other is protection of the minority. That means that everyone has a certain set of absolute rights, and that the majority-ruled government lacks the authority to contravene those rights.

On the topic of the Constitution, you seem to be completely ignoring the gross violations in that department....

I see no difference in allowing the gov. to ban drugs, porn, abortions, and gay marriage. Yet you see only two acceptable. They are all the same.

I consider all of them acceptable, with the possible exception of abortion, because it may arguably involve two people, not just one. Porn, drug use, and gay marriage involve or affect no one else, and are thus not the province of the government.

Think about it though. Elections in the US. Every 4 years you can pick between two unqualified people. Once those people are in office they don't effect your life. Can you give one example about how your life has changed as I direct result of a President's decision?

I have a family member with cystic fibrosis, and another who is at risk for Alzheimer's, for whom a stem-cell-based cure could be too late because of the Monkey Man's first executive order. I have friends whose parents were killed in Iraq because of a war the President started. My parents' tax burden is less because of the legislation of democratically elected representatives. The economy may be headed for a hard landing and second recession because of a President-appointed Fed Chairman's monetary policies. These things all affect me.

Idiot.

The Government has no effect on gas prices

My headache just became a migraine. I know what medicine to prescribe myself, but here's your fix: read Part One of American Theocracy: The Politics and Peril of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money by Kevin Phillips. Unlike you, he provides endless evidence, statistics, and compelling, factual arguments. The entire first section is about the enormous role oil and government each play in the other's business.

But I'll give you some quick hint keywords: OPEC, ANWR, subsidies, Gulf War, Iraq War, Baltic alliances, Central Asian alliances, dollar standard, oil industry lobbyists.

If you don't like the constitution, vote with your feet, and leave America. For Iran.

You win the thread.

[cries quietly in a corner] What has the state of debate on this forum come to when someone uses the Catholic catechism and the statements of Jim Dobson as their only evidence?! I think I know how the characters of Atlas Shrugged feel when they ask who John Galt is.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is religious dogma. It is evidence of nothing except that the Church doesn't like anything to do with sex. A religious document written based on theistic faith and millenia-old allegorical myths is the farthest thing from real, objective evidence in a rational debate.

"Dr. James Dobson" is a political lobbyist whose claims are tossed as evidence purely based on the massive religious bias and spin built in to everything he and his organization say. He is associated with the Christian Reconstructionist movement, a fascist-theocratic political movement that wants to establish the Christian version of the Taliban in the United States. None of the biased, faith-based, totally political claims he makes are acceptable as real evidence. If you want to cite a psychologist, cite one who doesn't run a lobbyist organization or base his views on evangelical religion.
Just because their views are religiously based does not make them any less valid.


...so can we strip you of the franchise and your right to freedom of expression and assembly, then? Fine. Get out of the forum. If you personally consider your rights to be of no consequence, then I order you not to post.
If you had any power to punish me for posting then I would, but seeing as you don't...
See how important it is to be able to speak freely? That's the problem with Americans, and Westerners in general as well, I think, today: they take their freedom for granted.
I don't take them for granted, I think they are overrated.


You've "been there". So you haven't actually lived there, tried to access a large portion of the heavily censored Internet while there, or tried to speak out or conduct unapproved meetings or business? Reality check: having been a tourist says absolutely jack shit about actual conditions.
I have actually "lived there" thank you. I went to parts of China where I was the 1st foreigner people had seen in years, if they had seen any before at all. I have seen the actually conditions and talked with the locals. I did access the internet often which is not censored heavily at all. You know nothing about me or what I've seen and done. Considering this, I suggest you keep quiet, you make yourself seem less stupid that way.


Why? Because you don't agree? Because it inconveniences you? Do you have any respect for the rights of other whatsoever?
Political freedoms are not basic rights


A government that dramatically curtails the rights of citizens and attempts to control their thoughts, speech, or behavior is fascist. If you prefer totalitarian, that's fine too. Autocratic isn't quite sufficient, though: it applies, but it's not the entirety of the situation.
Thats not what fascist means at all, you described authortarian which is similar to N.Korea, not fascism or the PRC.






Chinese culture has been based on respect and politeness, and has included healthy diets and lifestyles, for thousands of years. Their current political system has nothing to do with it at all.
right, I don't think I said their culture is a result of their current political system

The idea that they are not "materialist or selfish" is based on no real evidence,
Its based in the idea that they value society as a whole and the collective ideal above that of greedy individuals.

And low crime...ROFLOL. Definitely not.
its lower than ours
Any other baseless statements and assertions to make?
I don't know, do you?


I have. It's all unsupported assertions and morally judgemental bs that takes a maximally negative view not supported by known facts. Your only evidence presented thus far has been the religious dogma of the Catholic Church and the American Protestant religious right political movement.
keep in mind that I am an atheist


Not when it violates rights, or the Constitution. Democracy, contrary to popular belief, has two pillars, only one of which is majority rule. The other is protection of the minority. That means that everyone has a certain set of absolute rights, and that the majority-ruled government lacks the authority to contravene those rights.
the right to marry or watch porn is not among those rights




I consider all of them acceptable, with the possible exception of abortion, because it may arguably involve two people, not just one. Porn, drug use, and gay marriage involve or affect no one else, and are thus not the province of the government.
Oh really. Tell that to the kid that has to be raised by two dads and can't figure out why he's not normal like everyone else. Or the wife that had to leave her husband because he was addicted to porn and couldn't continue a healthy relationship. Or about the family of a druggy that has to watch as they slowly kill themselves.

Perhaps the jolt server is moving at relativistic speeds. :)

Relative to the speed of digestion :(

Tell that to the kid that has to be raised by two dads and can't figure out why he's not normal like everyone else.

"Tell that to the kid that has to be raised by parents of different races and can't figure out why he's not normal like everyone else."

"Tell that to the kid that has to be raised by parents in the racial/political/religious minority and can't figure out why he's not normal like everyone else."

"Tell that to the kid that has to be raised by puritanical religious Christians and can't figure out why he's not normal like everyone else."

Just because their views are religiously based does not make them any less valid.

Sure it does. To be valid, views must be based on logic and fact. Religious dogma is not based on either.

ERROR: INVALID ARG

If you had any power to punish me for posting then I would, but seeing as you don't...

Why don't I? Because I'm not the government? What makes the government special? It wouldn't be the military and police, would it? Because that sounds to me like you're saying you would consider it right for me to force you to submit if I had the power to beat you senseless or lock you up for years.

Tell me: if you've read 1984, did you like the idea of living in that kind of society?

I don't take them for granted, I think they are overrated.

And when you find you're no longer allowed to have a conversation like this, that attitude will leave a large bite mark on your ass.

I have actually "lived there" thank you. I went to parts of China where I was the 1st foreigner people had seen in years, if they had seen any before at all.

So the parts which have the least government oversight because there's no money for corrupt officials to steal?

I have seen the actually conditions and talked with the locals. I did access the internet often which is not censored heavily at all.

Because there were no big ACCESS DENIED signs blaring at you at every turn? Face it: Google itself admits to the enormous breadth of the filtering regime. They are in a better position to know than you, seeing as it is their search engine. End of story.

Political freedoms are not basic rights

How not? Each individual has an essential right called self-ownership; this guarantees them freedom from coercion of their actions, whether these actions be thoughts, words, or actual physical actions. This right ends where the rights of another begin. Governments, in their legitimate form, are contracts between groups of individuals that provide for a cooperative mechanism of enforcement of individual rights. Political rights are rights to participate in your government and to prevent it from unethically coercing you. A society which has a government, but not these rights, is not legitimate: it is a logically and ethically illegitimate engine of coercion which exists and holds power arbitrarily and does not respect the rights of its citizenry.

Thats not what fascist means at all, you described authortarian which is similar to N.Korea, not fascism or the PRC.

Fascism, v.: A governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

http://www.dictionary.com

Dictatorial leadership: Check
Forcible suppression of criticism and opposition: Check
Regimentation of industry and commerce: Used to be check, now kinda-check.
Aggressive nationalism: Check
Racism: Uncheck

That's close enough for me.

right, I think I said their culture is a result of their current political system

....which is totally incorrect. Confuscianism, Buddhism, and Legalism all established these cultural norms millennia before the rise of Marxism.

Its based in the idea that they value society as a whole and the collective ideal above that of greedy individuals.

A society is merely a collection of individuals with something in common. It has no rights. It has no powers beyond what the individuals who make it up give it. Individuals, on the other hand, being conscious volitional actors, have rights.

its lower than ours

Not in the higher forms - corruption, bribery, etc. Incidentally, these forms of crime also cast government-issued estimates of lower forms of crimes untrustworthy. Interesting.

I don't know, do you?

Please attempt not to be childish. It isn't tolerable in a debate among grownups.

keep in mind that I am an atheist

Then why in hell do you consider the claims of religious evangelicals fact?

the right to marry or watch porn is not among those rights

The rights to equal protection before the law, freedom of expression, and privacy are.

Oh really. Tell that to the kid that has to be raised by two dads and can't figure out why he's not normal like everyone else.

They don't really care. Trust me, I know a couple. They wouldn't care at all if homophobes outside of their healthy, stable families weren't rude and abusive to them because of it.

And lest you think I rely on anecdotal evidence, studies have shown that families with gay parents are at least as stable as "normal" ones, and that the kids in such families actually have HIGHER ratings for emotional stability and general well-being.

Or the wife that had to leave her husband because he was addicted to porn and couldn't continue a healthy relationship.

And this is supposed to be representative of the majority of people who look at porn with any significant frequency? Can you back that up? I very much doubt it.

But I will certainly admit that such examples exist. That, though, is not a reason to prevent others from viewing porn. A similar example is Myspace: some small number of incredibly stupid kids have fucked up their lives via Myspace. Does that mean it should be shut down? No.

Or about the family of a druggy that has to watch as they slowly kill themselves.

It's that person's perogative. It is also the perogative of the wife to divorce and take all the money, which she'll almost certainly get. And again, while such cases exist, they provide no actual rationale for preventing everyone from using drugs.

"Tell that to the kid that has to be raised by parents of different races and can't figure out why he's not normal like everyone else."

"Tell that to the kid that has to be raised by parents in the racial/political/religious minority and can't figure out why he's not normal like everyone else."

"Tell that to the kid that has to be raised by puritanical religious Christians and can't figure out why he's not normal like everyone else."
Being raised by two parents of different races(which theres nothing wrong with) is completely different than be raised by two parents of the same sex.

Being raised by two parents of different races(which theres nothing wrong with) is completely different than be raised by two parents of the same sex.

Why? Because you say so? Because homophobic idiots think there's something wrong with it?

Well, you know, bigots thought there was something wrong with interracial marriage too. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

Being raised by two parents of different races(which theres nothing wrong with) is completely different than be raised by two parents of the same sex.

What makes it different? Does a child need a mother and a father to grow up healthy and normal?

Being raised by two parents of different races(which theres nothing wrong with) is completely different than be raised by two parents of the same sex.
But, WHY should it be different.

At one point in time, having an "interracial" relationship was deemed "crude" and "immoral" (like back before the Civil Rights Era of the 60s/70s) and people LAMENTED about the "poor" child of such a situation.

Maybe eventually, unrecognized BIGOTRY will be negated from this as well.

What makes it different? Does a child need a mother and a father to grow up healthy and normal?

Its different because a mother can provide all the things a women is supposed to give to her child regardless of her race. Same goes for men. But if you have to people of the same sex regardless of race, the child loses what both sexes bring to the upbringing. Of course you don't have to have a mother and father to grow up normal, but this is the best situation.

Being raised by two parents of different races(which theres nothing wrong with) is completely different than be raised by two parents of the same sex.

Longitude studies have shown that children raised by two members of the same gender are no different than kids raised by two parents of different genders. The only difference is that a child raised by a homosexual couple is likely to experience more teasing and bullying in school.
It is only the insensitivity of other people that make it different.

Cthulhu-Mythos;11601044']But, WHY should it be different.
check my other post

At one point in time, having an "interracial" relationship was deemed "crude" and "immoral" (like back before the Civil Rights Era of the 60s/70s) and people LAMENTED about the "poor" child of such a situation.

thats stupid and racist. There is no reason that me and my girlfriend for example couldn't raise a child to be happy and healthy.

Maybe eventually, unrecognized BIGOTRY will be negated from this as well.

how am I a bigot?

Its different because a mother can provide all the things a women is supposed to give to her child regardless of her race. Same goes for men. But if you have to people of the same sex regardless of race, the child loses what both sexes bring to the upbringing. Of course you don't have to have a mother and father to grow up normal, but this is the best situation.

Ah, I see. We must indoctrinate children into gender roles, lest (gasp!) they go gay or (double gasp!) they become independent people who don't do things just because others think they should.

how am I a bigot?
Homophobia springs to mind.

Longitude studies have shown that children raised by two members of the same gender are no different than kids raised by two parents of different genders. The only difference is that a child raised by a homosexual couple is likely to experience more teasing and bullying in school.
It is only the insensitivity other people that make it different.

Which causes unnecessary mental truama to the child that they would not encounter if not in the situation. This could hurt the child for the rest of their life.

Homophobia springs to mind.

I'm not homophobic

Its different because a mother can provide all the things a women is supposed to give to her child regardless of her race. Same goes for men. But if you have to people of the same sex regardless of race, the child loses what both sexes bring to the upbringing. Of course you don't have to have a mother and father to grow up normal, but this is the best situation.

Your going to have to lose the abstractions here. What is a woman supposed to bring, or for that matter a man? What is so unique about either sex that makes it so important to the upbringing of a child?

Which causes unnecessary mental truama to the child that they would not encounter if not in the situation. This could hurt the child for the rest of their life.
That isn't the fault of the parents. It is the fault of intolerant people like you.

I'm not homophobic

Being in denial does not change the facts.

When you say things like:

er, so raising your son to be a man will not help prevent him from subconsciously going gay?

you are demonstrating your homophobia.

Which causes unnecessary mental truama to the child that they would not encounter if not in the situation. This could hurt the child for the rest of their life.

Bullying is a problem regardless of who raises a child. The only difference parenting makes is how well the child reacts to the bullies.

That isn't the fault of the parents. It is the fault of intolerant people like you.

Face it, like it or not we live in an intolerant society. Homosexuality is not acceptable as of now. It is the fault of the parents and that of the people that allow them to raise kids.

Face it, like it or not we live in an intolerant society. Homosexuality is not acceptable as of now. It is the fault of the parents and that of the people that allow them to raise kids.

And this did not apply to interracial marriage because...?

Your going to have to lose the abstractions here. What is a woman supposed to bring, or for that matter a man? What is so unique about either sex that makes it so important to the upbringing of a child?

the woman generally brings the caring, emotional, soft touch side of things where as the man brings the protection, strength, and tough love. The two elements help raise a healthy child.

check my other post

thats stupid and racist. There is no reason that me and my girlfriend for example couldn't raise a child to be happy and healthy.



how am I a bigot?

Hmmm....
I hadn't decided to single you out but you DO realize that interracial couples were deemed "OFFENSIVE" and "IMMORAL" in the EXACT SAME WAY that same sex couples are deemed TODAY.
If you aren't willing to see beyond your own successful struggle for ultimate acceptance, that CAN BE deemed bigotry.
The "I got mine, they DON'T DESERVE theirs" belief is an example of very ugly thinking.

Face it, like it or not we live in an intolerant society. Homosexuality is not acceptable as of now. It is the fault of the parents and that of the people that allow them to raise kids.

Don't act as though intolerance is acceptable, either. It's just as much the fault of the people that raise their children to be intolerant bullies.

And this did not apply to interracial marriage because...?

Because interracial marriages are far more acceptable than those of same sex. At least I hope they are or I'm in trouble.

Well, I for one find the idea that pornography being a kind of "speech" is pretty amusing.

It is. It tells a lot about a person...

Because interracial marriages are far more acceptable than those of same sex.
Not when the decision in Loving vs. Virginia was handed down.

the woman generally brings the caring, emotional, soft touch side of things where as the man brings the protection, strength, and tough love. The two elements help raise a healthy child.

A man can provide both, as can a woman. People are much more than traditional gender roles, after all. Is there something about being a male that makes me incapable of being caring, emotional, or soft, or being equally incapable of teaching those qualities?

Don't act as though intolerance is acceptable, either. It's just as much the fault of the people that raise their children to be intolerant bullies.

No its not. It's natural is our society for children to fear or mock homosexuality.

Because interracial marriages are far more acceptable than those of same sex. At least I hope they are or I'm in trouble.

Hence "did." Without the reforms, the current state of relative tolerance would never have been achieved.

No its not. It's natural is our society for children to fear or mock homosexuality.

And it's "natural" in our society for many children to "fear and mock" other races, too.

A man can provide both, as can a woman. People are much more than traditional gender roles, after all. Is there something about being a male that makes me incapable of being caring, emotional, or soft, or being equally incapable of teaching those qualities?
No not really. I just can't imagine a man being able to have or teach those qualities as effectively as women.

He is a doctor and he is credible whether you want to listen to him or not.

(Dobson) believes homosexuality can be cured in adults and prevented in children.

I think you just shot yourself in the foot, eh?

And it's "natural" in our society for many children to "fear and mock" other races, too.

no its not

No not really. I just can't imagine a man being able to have or teach those qualities as effectively as women.
And that is why you fail.

No not really. I just can't imagine a man being able to have or teach those qualities as effectively as women.

Then you have let your perceptions of gender be unduly influenced by our societal prejudices.

I think you just shot yourself in the foot, eh?

Why is it that when someone even suggests homosexuality can be fixed, they lose credibility?

Why is it that when someone even suggests homosexuality can be fixed, they lose credibility?

Because it's utterly discredited lunacy.

Edit: "Fixed"?

no its not
It might as well be...
After all we should have left everything the way it was, just like you want to do RIGHT NOW.

Then you have let your perceptions of gender be unduly influenced by our societal prejudices.

gender roles are vital to a healthy society. There is differences between the sexes and to ignore them is dangerous.

No its not. It's natural is our society for children to fear or mock homosexuality.

It's natural in our society for children to be mocked for a lot of things. Hairstyle, beliefs, parents, clothing, height, the way they speak, etc. However, unless I missed something in public school, not everyone is a bully. Only the people who learn that is it acceptable to bully someone because of any of those qualities will do so. Bullies make the decision to take their views to abuse, and I blame them for their actions, not the people who get bullied for not meeting the bully's standard of normal.

Should I blame the kids that shoved me into lockers in middle school because I was short and acted like a "nerd"? Or should I blame my parents for raising me in a way the bullies didn't like?

gender roles are vital to a healthy society.

No, they aren't. They are an immoral imposition.

There is differences between the sexes

Then they should be left to develop naturally, not indoctrinated into people.

gender roles are vital to a healthy society. There is differences between the sexes and to ignore them is dangerous.


Gender roles are bullshit. The only real gender roles are the ones physically assigned at birth; which is to say that most women can't lift as much as most men.

There is no reason that a woman can't do 99% of the things 99% of men can do, except the judgement of small minded petty-totalitarians.

No not really. I just can't imagine a man being able to have or teach those qualities as effectively as women.

What makes a woman so special that she teaches those qualities more effectively? What is about a man that makes him teach those qualities less effectively?

What makes a woman so special that she teaches those qualities more effectively? What is about a man that makes him teach those qualities less effectively?

because it is natural for women to have those qualities, not for men.

because it is natural for women to have those qualities, not for men.

You mean no men are gentle, loving, and compassionate? And no women are capable of tough love?

:rolleyes:

No, they aren't. They are an immoral imposition.


why are they immoral

Then they should be left to develop naturally, not indoctrinated into people.

so you admit there are differences

because it is natural for women to have those qualities, not for men.

Is it something in the physical makeup? The mental makeup? The balance of female hormones? The way women are raised?

Some dickbag Utah legislator has proposed a bill that would place new Utah anti-porn legislation above the constitutional protection for free speech by rendering it immune to being reviewed and overturned by any court including the US Supreme Court.

If Utah really wants to be free from the US constitution they should secede. I would be happy to see them go. They want a Mormon theocracy? Let 'em have their mormon theocracy. Let them also do without federal funding as well.

http://www.xbiz.com/article_piece.php?cat=40&id=16615

The law would be struck down quicker than it was passed simply because you can't defy the US Constitution.

It's natural in our society for children to be mocked for a lot of things. Hairstyle, beliefs, parents, clothing, height, the way they speak, etc. However, unless I missed something in public school, not everyone is a bully. Only the people who learn that is it acceptable to bully someone because of any of those qualities will do so. Bullies make the decision to take their views to abuse, and I blame them for their actions, not the people who get bullied for not meeting the bully's standard of normal.

Should I blame the kids that shoved me into lockers in middle school because I was short and acted like a "nerd"? Or should I blame my parents for raising me in a way the bullies didn't like?
your missing the point.

Is it something in the physical makeup? The mental makeup? The balance of female hormones? The way women are raised?

all of the above

why are they immoral

Because they are oppressive. They deny people the freedom to define themselves.

so you admit there are differences

No. I don't know if there are differences. What I am saying is that if there are differences, they should be left to develop naturally. The fact that our society tends to suppress the tendencies of people who do not fit into the traditional gender roles is indicative that we do not have them exactly right, if they exist at all.

your missing the point.

I thought your point was that bullying is the fault of the people who fit roles that bullies naturally mock.

Soviestan still clings to the belief that he should be allowed a right denied to someone else.

That there is lousy mindset.

all of the above

I'm going to have to ask for studies here, because I have never heard of anything that has shown that kind of relation between physical makeup and the qualities you mentioned. About the only one I can accept without some sort of proof is that women are better at teaching those qualities because of the way they are raised. But that is only because it's a consequence of gender roles, a societal imposition, not a natural cause.

Cthulhu-Mythos;11601395']Soviestan still clings to the belief that he should be allowed a right denied to someone else.

That there is lousy mindset.
gay marriage and porn are not rights. nor is gay adoption

gay marriage and porn are not rights. nor is gay adoption

To be fair, neither is heterosexual marriage or heterosexual adoption. But, since those exist and are protected by law, despite not being rights, we may as well act on the principle of equal treatment and allow homosexuals to marry and adopt.

And that is why you fail.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Yoda.png!

After reading through 8 pages of this thread à 40 posts each, this one really stuck out and I thank you for that.

Not that I didn't have enough reasons for a (stifled) laugh now and then.

As for you, Soviestan - I pity you and pray to the God whose biggest organization you quote as "evidence" but in whom you do not believe, that should you ever have children, you will refrain from raising them with "tough love" and eventually try to "cure" them should they turn out to be homosexual. For their sake, of course.

As for you, Soviestan - I pity you and pray to the God whose biggest organization you quote as "evidence" but in whom you do not believe, that should you ever have children, you will refrain from raising them with "tough love" and eventually try to "cure" them should they turn out to be homosexual.

I and my wife will raise our children properly. This means providing them with tough love from time to time. And don't worry, my kids won't turn out gay.

I and my wife will raise our children properly. This means providing them with tough love from time to time. And don't worry, my kids won't turn out gay.
I'm actualy hoping they will just so that you might LEARN.

Cthulhu-Mythos;11601542']I'm actualy hoping they will just so that you might LEARN.

I'm hoping they won't. No gay child should have to cope with intolerant parents.

I'm hoping they won't. No gay child should have to cope with intolerant parents.

Maybe hope for IMPOTENCE then...
NO child of any sort deserves INTOLERANT parents.

gay marriage and porn are not rights. nor is gay adoption

marriage and freedom of the press aren't rights?

I and my wife will raise our children properly. This means providing them with tough love from time to time. And don't worry, my kids won't turn out gay.

Wanna bet? You're gonna have a gay kid. :)

Cthulhu-Mythos;11601542']I'm actualy hoping they will just so that you might LEARN.
Evil me was thinking along those lines and refrained from giving it voice.
I'm hoping they won't. No gay child should have to cope with intolerant parents.
Caring me cannot agree with you more!

I'm hoping they won't. No gay child should have to cope with intolerant parents.

Y'know, I'd suggest fixing that on YOUR side, not the kid's.

I and my wife will raise our children properly. This means providing them with tough love from time to time. And don't worry, my kids won't turn out gay.
You mean your wife and you.
I hope not.
And like you had a say in that. I can clearly picture you pulling the Stan Marsh on your future homosexual kids: "Now, don't be gay! Don't be gay, spork! Don't be gay!"

*shakes head and wanders off to bed because it's 06:00 in the morning and yet again a whole night was spend on NSG*
Maybe I should watch some porn and masturbate to it before I go to sleep? http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/wankingsmiley.gif

Y'know, I'd suggest fixing that on YOUR side, not the kid's.

So would I, but I cannot control Soviestan's opinions.

Wanna bet? You're gonna have a gay kid. :)

If there's any justice in the world he will.
Too bad all he has is a random chance.
Hope he's Catholic or something so he gets a lot of tries.
BTW, does anyone find that ironic to you? Religious Catholics who would oppose gayness most would also have the largest amount of gay children, simply due to chance.
Man, that sucks.
I take back my first statement then.

If there's any justice in the world he will.
Too bad all he has is a random chance.
Hope he's Catholic or something so he gets a lot of tries.
BTW, does anyone find that ironic to you? Religious Catholics who would oppose gayness most would also have the largest amount of gay children, simply due to chance.
Man, that sucks.
I take back my first statement then.

Actually, I had a conversation with God. It's all been arranged. :)

If there's any justice in the world he will.
Too bad all he has is a random chance.
Hope he's Catholic or something so he gets a lot of tries.
BTW, does anyone find that ironic to you? Religious Catholics who would oppose gayness most would also have the largest amount of gay children, simply due to chance.
Man, that sucks.
I take back my first statement then.

I'm not Catholic and I'm not having any gay kids.

I'm not Catholic
Eh.
and I'm not having any gay kids.
The problem is that you don't get to choose this, your genes do.
Do you happen to have a few gay uncles?

Eh.

The problem is that you don't get to choose this, your genes do.
Do you happen to have a few gay uncles?

no one in my family is gay.

no one in my family is gay.

That you know of. So no one is openly gay. That doesn't mean no one is.

Playing with the troll is getting boring.
Bye guys.

That you know of. So no one is openly gay. That doesn't mean no one is.

Considering the attitudes he has expressed, I doubt he would know.

er, so raising your son to be a man will not help prevent him from subconsciously going gay? got any proof of that.

I'm back, just had to feed the troll some more.
Have you ever heard of the stereotype of the gay bodybuilder?
It's more common then you'd think, really.

Which causes unnecessary mental truama to the child that they would not encounter if not in the situation. This could hurt the child for the rest of their life.

So the solution is to ban homosexual partnerships and adoption, rather than combat homophobic attitudes? You may claim not to be homophobic, but it sure looks like it to me.

Also, totally ignoring the entirety of my superpost of rebuttals - in a thread of the argument you consented to intially respond to - is tantamount to admitting everything I said in it.

no one in my family is gay.

Are you so sure? If I was related to you I certainly can't imagine admitting I was gay...

I'm not Catholic and I'm not having any gay kids.

You really don't have a choice. If you have a gay kid, you have a gay kid. Now, you may have a gay kid who is too afraid to tell you because he or she knows you can't stand homosexuality, or a gay kid whom you teach to hate himself/herself and who becomes psychologically unbalanced, possibly leading to suicide, but you have just as high a chance as anyone else to have a homosexual child.

I pity them. May your wife be kinder than you are.

Well, I for one find the idea that pornography being a kind of "speech" is pretty amusing.

What I find to be so amusing is that everyone seems to be getting so worked up about it and actually even consider it to be a valid and tangible threat to their constitutionally right to free speech.

Paranoia, methinks.

What I find to be so amusing is that everyone seems to be getting so worked up about it and actually even consider it to be a valid and tangible threat to their constitutionally right to free speech.

Paranoia, methinks.

It's a few mighty small steps from banning porn because the moral majority dislikes it to banning gay pride parades because they dislike it to banning non-Christian religious speech because they dislike it. And if they can have things they don't find acceptable banned, it's small step from that to other groups - such as government agencies and political parties - getting the same kind of treatment of their concerns. You'd recognize that a lot better - it's anarchist or libertarian websites, political rallies, and non-mainstream-party political speech that start to get banned then.

It's a few mighty small steps from banning porn because the moral majority dislikes it to banning gay pride parades because they dislike it to banning non-Christian religious speech because they dislike it. And if they can have things they don't find acceptable banned, it's small step from that to other groups - such as government agencies and political parties - getting the same kind of treatment of their concerns. You'd recognize that a lot better - it's anarchist or libertarian websites, political rallies, and non-mainstream-party political speech that start to get banned then.

I'd buy that argument if you could come up with any pre-existant example of some sort or another. Where is it in America where these parades have been banned? Where has anti-Christian speech been banned? I know of no such state having ever taking any of those steps you mentioned. Since it has not occurred, I must conclude that it is just more suspicion without substance. Smoke and mirrors. I'm afraid I have to side with Utracia. If a majority of the population votes it to be so, then so be it. Live with it for thr time being or move. One law in one state does not a trend make. Particularly when it is a predominantly Mormon state such as Utah. They are, by anyone's definition, a very unique state. It remains, even in a worst case scenario, just one state. And if it is then judged to be a violation of federal law, and discriminatory, then it will be an extremely short lived law. It wouldn't be the first time a federal court has overturned a state law. Won't be the last, either.

You guys are sooooo paranoid. Every law or thing that happens you do not like is not an automatic slippery slide to a fascist state. If it were so, all Christians would have been long since banished overseas long ago after the Warren court began their transformation of the pre-existing law of the seventies to a much, much more liberal America. They wrought many changes in the law, and not very many of them were good ones. Without a popular vote. Or a referendum of any kind.

Let them make their own mistakes. Laws should be written by the people and by the elected officials duly voted into office. Judges should interpret pre-existing law.

The rights of the Porn Industry must be taken into matter. They have as much right to produce there material as Mormans do to make they're Watch Tower magazine. If any laws should be passed concerning Mormans is that it should be classified as Harassment when they come to your door and won't take no for an answer. Back to the fact. If you do not like pron there is a simple solution...Don't read it. Utah has no right to try and make laws that overide the laws of the national constitution. Any unconstitutional laws they make should force the population of Utah to be taken to National trial. Utah needs to learn that just because they find something undecent does not give them the right to try and change it and take away anyone's constitutional freedom. If you do not like porn just stay away from it. Knock it off with this bullshit and move on. There are more important things then "This is offensive material that ruins our youth." The only thing ruining your youth is the fact that most of them kids in Utah...are having sex with there cousins.

That you know of. So no one is openly gay. That doesn't mean no one is.

everyone is in or has been in relationships with the opposite sex. So like I said, no one in my family is gay.

everyone is in or has been in relationships with the opposite sex. So like I said, no one in my family is gay.

Still doesn't prove it. Lots of gay people are in or have been in relationships with the opposite sex.

So the solution is to ban homosexual partnerships and adoption, rather than combat homophobic attitudes? You may claim not to be homophobic, but it sure looks like it to me.
If you want to fight homophobic attitudes, fine more power to you. However it would be best for the well fair of children to remove those attitudes before allowing them to be subjected to the abuse of being raised by same sex couples would bring.

Also, totally ignoring the entirety of my superpost of rebuttals - in a thread of the argument you consented to intially respond to - is tantamount to admitting everything I said in it.
I'll get around to replying to your long post when I feel like it, don't worry I will do it.


Are you so sure? If I was related to you I certainly can't imagine admitting I was gay...
Why? I would really care if anyone in my family was gay just more like shocked


You really don't have a choice. If you have a gay kid, you have a gay kid. Now, you may have a gay kid who is too afraid to tell you because he or she knows you can't stand homosexuality, or a gay kid whom you teach to hate himself/herself and who becomes psychologically unbalanced, possibly leading to suicide, but you have just as high a chance as anyone else to have a homosexual child.
I don't think I have a problem with homosexuality. If my kid was gay I would still love them and help them.

I pity them. May your wife be kinder than you are.

Well if I marry my current girlfriend in the future, then yes my wife would be nicer than I. My girlfriend makes me a nicer and happier person than if I were not with her so you get your wish.

Still doesn't prove it. Lots of gay people are in or have been in relationships with the opposite sex.

Well if they can be relationships with the opposite sex than they aren't gay. They are just choosing to be gay because they are more comfortable that way or something. That doesn't make them gay.

Well if they can be relationships with the opposite sex than they aren't gay. They are just choosing to be gay because they are more comfortable that way or something. That doesn't make them gay.

They aren't in relationships with the opposite sex because "they aren't gay" or because they're only "a little gay" or because they're bisexual.

They're in relationships with the opposite sex because of the social pressure to appear heterosexual.

And if that were a facade, judging by the attitudes you have expressed here, they would probably never tell you.

They aren't in relationships with the opposite sex because "they aren't gay" or because they're only "a little gay" or because they're bisexual.

They're in relationships with the opposite sex because of the social pressure to appear heterosexual.

And if that were a facade, judging by the attitudes you have expressed here, they would probably never tell you.

If I was related to him and gay I certainly wouldn't. I wouldn't want you to try and 'help' me.

everyone's a little gay. :)

Sure it does. To be valid, views must be based on logic and fact. Religious dogma is not based on either.

ERROR: INVALID ARG
Views are valid to whoever hold them to be true whether they have religious or factual backing.


Why don't I? Because I'm not the government? What makes the government special? It wouldn't be the military and police, would it? Because that sounds to me like you're saying you would consider it right for me to force you to submit if I had the power to beat you senseless or lock you up for years.
Yes, the government is special. If the government(which has power unlike you) told me to stop posting I'd stop posting and go on with my life.

Tell me: if you've read 1984, did you like the idea of living in that kind of society?
I don't think I'd prefer to live in that society but I could if I had to. I'd just keep quiet, go along with the program and laugh at all the people who get punished for speaking out.
I

And when you find you're no longer allowed to have a conversation like this, that attitude will leave a large bite mark on your ass.
No, I would just adapt and move on


So the parts which have the least government oversight because there's no money for corrupt officials to steal?
If you want to pull at straws to try to discredit what I've seen and done, fine. I'm not going to waste my time.



How not? Each individual has an essential right called self-ownership; this guarantees them freedom from coercion of their actions, whether these actions be thoughts, words, or actual physical actions. This right ends where the rights of another begin. Governments, in their legitimate form, are contracts between groups of individuals that provide for a cooperative mechanism of enforcement of individual rights. Political rights are rights to participate in your government and to prevent it from unethically coercing you. A society which has a government, but not these rights, is not legitimate: it is a logically and ethically illegitimate engine of coercion which exists and holds power arbitrarily and does not respect the rights of its citizenry.
Governments whether democratic or not must provide for and respect citizen rights at least a little or the people would get fed up and over throw them.


Fascism, v.: A governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

http://www.dictionary.com

Dictatorial leadership: Check
Forcible suppression of criticism and opposition: Check
Regimentation of industry and commerce: Used to be check, now kinda-check.
Aggressive nationalism: Check
Racism: Uncheck

That's close enough for me.
"Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism."- Wiki
China is not corporatism, nationalistic, anti-communist, nor militaristic. They aren't fascist. The US on the other hand is very much those things I mentioned

....which is totally incorrect. Confuscianism, Buddhism, and Legalism all established these cultural norms millennia before the rise of Marxism.
right, in my error of typing I forgot to add "Not"



Not in the higher forms - corruption, bribery, etc. Incidentally, these forms of crime also cast government-issued estimates of lower forms of crimes untrustworthy. Interesting.
corruption and bribery are not higher crimes than things like murder and rape.


Please attempt not to be childish. It isn't tolerable in a debate among grownups.
You started the attempt at being childish, I just returned the favor.


Then why in hell do you consider the claims of religious evangelicals fact?
because some of what they say makes sense


The rights to equal protection before the law, freedom of expression, and privacy are.
same-sex marriage and porn do not fall into these



And lest you think I rely on anecdotal evidence, studies have shown that families with gay parents are at least as stable as "normal" ones, and that the kids in such families actually have HIGHER ratings for emotional stability and general well-being.

I doubt it




It's that person's perogative. It is also the perogative of the wife to divorce and take all the money, which she'll almost certainly get. And again, while such cases exist, they provide no actual rationale for preventing everyone from using drugs.
All the things I mentioned you were ok with. So you do like seeing society be destroyed?

If I was related to him and gay I certainly wouldn't. I wouldn't want you to try and 'help' me.

My family could tell me if they were gay. I wouldn't hate them.

My family could tell me if they were gay. I wouldn't hate them.

Would you try to "fix" them?

Would you try to "fix" them?

I don't think that would be my place. If they wanted help however, I would try to help them if I could.

They aren't in relationships with the opposite sex because "they aren't gay" or because they're only "a little gay" or because they're bisexual.

They're in relationships with the opposite sex because of the social pressure to appear heterosexual.


Do you have proof of that?

Do you have proof of that?

What kind of "proof" would satisfy you? What I can offer is the fact that a very great number of self-identified gay people have had relationships with the opposite sex, and that this was most true back before the gay liberation movement got off the ground. That is, we can look at the testimony of people who have gone through it, and come to a perfectly sensible explanation based on that evidence.

Or, we can trust stereotypes that don't rely on facts and would rather seize every opportunity to reinforce themselves - even if doing so is completely contrary to the indications of evidence and reason.

Which do you prefer?

Views are valid to whoever hold them to be true whether they have religious or factual backing.
So if I hold the view that the sky is blue because it's full of little blue pixies, all named Concepta, that view is valid, simply because I hold it to be true?


Yes, the government is special. If the government(which has power unlike you) told me to stop posting I'd stop posting and go on with my life.
The government's power comes from the people. If the the people of China(or any other country) rebelled against the government, the government would lose.

And what can the government do to you? Kill or imprison you. You are aware that any mob of people that could physically overpower you can do the same thing, do you sumbit to everyone stronger than you?

I hope the government tells you to be gay.

I don't think I'd prefer to live in that society but I could if I had to. I'd just keep quiet, go along with the program and laugh at all the people who get punished for speaking out.
This reeks of cowardice. You must be good with a shovel, what with all the burying your head in the sand.


No, I would just adapt and move on
Of course.

If you want to pull at straws to try to discredit what I've seen and done, fine. I'm not going to waste my time.
So we shouldn't try to argue with you? :confused:

Governments whether democratic or not must provide for and respect citizen rights at least a little or the people would get fed up and over throw them.
At least you make sense now and then.

"Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism."- Wiki
China is not corporatism, nationalistic, anti-communist, nor militaristic. They aren't fascist. The US on the other hand is very much those things I mentioned
I trust a dictionary more than wiki for a word definition.

right, in my error of typing I forgot to add "Not"
:) fair enough.


corruption and bribery are not higher crimes than things like murder and rape.
They take place in higher position, there's not a whole lot of point bribing a poor homeless man.


You started the attempt at being childish, I just returned the favor.
Which really demonstrates your maturity. :rolleyes:

because some of what they say makes sense
I haven't seen anything even similar to sense in what's been quoted of Rev. Dr. Dobson.

same-sex marriage and porn do not fall into these
Porn falls under freedom of expression. Same-sex marriage falls under equality for minorities, either nobody can get married or any adult can get married.


I doubt it
Which doesn't make it any less true.



All the things I mentioned you were ok with. So you do like seeing society be destroyed?
Just beacause some people abuse and become addicted to drugs does not mean if they were made legal tomorrow that everyone would. I think the Myspace example used earlier was very apt.

I don't think that would be my place. If they wanted help however, I would try to help them if I could.

Do you mean help turning straight? Because I don't think that would become an issue.

I don't think that would be my place.

Good. I hope you would think the same for any gay children you may have.

If they wanted help however, I would try to help them if I could.

And the best way to help them in that circumstance would be to help them accept their homosexuality, rather than finding the best tactic for forcibly suppressing it - which can have all sorts of awful consequences.

If you want to fight homophobic attitudes, fine more power to you. However it would be best for the well fair of children to remove those attitudes before allowing them to be subjected to the abuse of being raised by same sex couples would bring.
You have yet to provide any valid proof for that argument of yours, from a reliable source, that is. Being raised by loving parents, be they same sex couples or not, does not in any way result in any kind of abuse.

Why? I would really care if anyone in my family was gay just more like shocked
Exactly: Why? They'd still be same person. How come that their sexual preference should make you regard them in a different light?
I don't think I have a problem with homosexuality. If my kid was gay I would still love them and help them.
While I think that you do have a big issue with homosexuality, I sure hope that you'd love your kid as much should they be the way they are, gay or straight.
I simply hope that by "help them" you mean support them and love them unrestrictedly - and not anything that would put pressure on them to change their sexual orientation. Or "tough love", for that matter... http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/arsespank.gif
Well if I marry my current girlfriend in the future, then yes my wife would be nicer than I. My girlfriend makes me a nicer and happier person than if I were not with her so you get your wish.
Then let he take over. It'd be best for all ;)
Well if they can be relationships with the opposite sex than they aren't gay. They are just choosing to be gay because they are more comfortable that way or something. That doesn't make them gay.
:headbang: Homosexuality is not a choice, nor an infection of any kind, nor can or should it be cured. It's just a different orientation, that is all.

So if I hold the view that the sky is blue because it's full of little blue pixies, all named Concepta, that view is valid, simply because I hold it to be true?
Yes. Its makes it a valid view though perhaps not correct.




And what can the government do to you? Kill or imprison you.
Yeah they can. And thats why I would listen to them seeing as I wouldn't want to be killed or imprisoned.

You are aware that any mob of people that could physically overpower you can do the same thing, do you sumbit to everyone stronger than you?
It would depend on the situation. I wouldn't stand up to them putting myself at risk unless I had a good reason.



This reeks of cowardice. You must be good with a shovel, what with all the burying your head in the sand.
Its not being a coward, its surviving. Why the hell would I speak out and be stupid if I knew all it was going to get was pain or death.


So we shouldn't try to argue with you? :confused:
I don't care if people argue with me. I have a problem with people who don't know me thinking they know more about what I've seen and done than I.

At least you make sense now and then.
I always make sense;)




They take place in higher position, there's not a whole lot of point bribing a poor homeless man.
true


Which really demonstrates your maturity. :rolleyes:
I'm only mature when I feel like it.



Porn falls under freedom of expression. Same-sex marriage falls under equality for minorities, either nobody can get married or any adult can get married.
well hell. Let's let people marry animals and kids then



Just beacause some people abuse and become addicted to drugs does not mean if they were made legal tomorrow that everyone would. I think the Myspace example used earlier was very apt.
But how many people have to abuse and get hurt by these things before everything decides its gotten out of hand?

You have yet to provide any valid proof for that argument of yours, from a reliable source, that is. Being raised by loving parents, be they same sex couples or not, does not in any way result in any kind of abuse.
The abuse I was talking about comes not from the parents but from the child's peers
Exactly: Why? They'd still be same person. How come that their sexual preference should make you regard them in a different light?
I don't think I would regard them differently

While I think that you do have a big issue with homosexuality, I sure hope that you'd love your kid as much should they be the way they are, gay or straight.
I simply hope that by "help them" you mean support them and love them unrestrictedly - and not anything that would put pressure on them to change their sexual orientation. Or "tough love", for that matter...
I would help them in any way they would want me to help them. If they want me to support them being gay I will or if they want me to help them to be normal I'd do that as well.
http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/arsespank.gif

Then let her take over. It'd be best for all ;)
Thats what she thinks too;)
:headbang: Homosexuality is not a choice, nor an infection of any kind, nor can or should it be cured. It's just a different orientation, that is all.
Its not a conscious choice.

The abuse I was talking about comes not from the parents but from the child's peers
Maybe if their peers were raised better they wouldn't tease children for having two parents of the same sex.

I don't think I would regard them differently
Good :)

I would help them in any way they would want me to help them. If they want me to support them being gay I will or if they want me to help them to be normal I'd do that as well.
http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/arsespank.gif

Normal = ?
Thats what she thinks too;)
:p

Its not a conscious choice.
Nor is it a subconscious choice, one is simply gay or they are not.

Porn falls under freedom of expression. Same-sex marriage falls under equality for minorities, either nobody can get married or any adult can get married.
well hell. Let's let people marry animals and kids then
How about adressing what has been said, for a change? :rolleyes:

Its not a conscious choice.

Not a choice AT ALL. Considering that you don't know a single openly homosexual person, and that I know many, many gays and lesbians, I'm gonna allow myself to say that my empirical evidence is much more credible than your complete lack of evidence.

How about adressing what has been said, for a change? :rolleyes:
I did. It seems like its ok for any adult to have no resrictions on marriage so why don't we let them marry animals or kids.

Not a choice AT ALL. Considering that you don't know a single openly homosexual person, and that I know many, many gays and lesbians, I'm gonna allow myself to say that my empirical evidence is much more credible than your complete lack of evidence.

I know a few gay people, I just don't have any in my family.

I did. It seems like its ok for any adult to have no resrictions on marriage so why don't we let them marry animals or kids.

Because adults are neither animals nor kids.

And that neither animals nor kids have the legal capacity to consent. Since marriage, among other things, is also a legal contract, they will never be allowed to marry.

That slippery slope thing was used in the days where interracial marriage was being opposed, you know. It was bullshit then, and it's still bullshit today.

I know a few gay people, I just don't have any in my family.
Please, by all means, tell me how many of them consider their sexual orientation a "choice". :rolleyes:

Maybe if their peers were raised better they wouldn't tease children for having two parents of the same sex.
Perhaps but we aren't at that point


Normal = ?
Normal as in straight



Nor is it a subconscious choice, one is simply gay or they are not.
Dr. Dobson says otherwise.

I did. It seems like its ok for any adult to have no resrictions on marriage so why don't we let them marry animals or kids.

No it was quite clear that what he meant was any consenting adult should be able to marry another consenting adult.

1)The abuse I was talking about comes not from the parents but from the child's peers
2)I don't think I would regard them differently
3)I would help them in any way they would want me to help them. If they want me to support them being gay I will or if they want me to help them to be normal I'd do that as well.
4)Thats what she thinks too;)
5)Its not a conscious choice.
1) Sad enough - but how does that diminish the parent/kid relationship in any way? That are outside things that - while they might have an impact on the family - do not give reason as to why same sex marriages are bad to children per se.
2) Good to know. :)
3) If one is homosexual, there is nothing anyone can do about it. They simply are. And "normal" is a lousy discription.
4) :D:D:D
5) Then, tell me - how can one make an unconscious choice, huh?!? Choice always requires consciousness. Otherwise it wouldn't be a choice...

Dr. Dobson says otherwise.

Dr. Dobson is a cabage.

Please, by all means, tell me how many of them consider their sexual orientation a "choice". :rolleyes:

I know a few. One has told me it was a choice, the others have told me are just gay but they don't know why.

Dr. Dobson says otherwise.
Dr. Dobson lacks credibility, because the overwhelming majority of psychologists both in the US and everywhere around the civilized world consider homosexuality to be neither a disease nor a choice.

Of course, if you prefer to believe Dr. Dobson over thousands of other serious psychologists, I'd have to say you're choosing sources with which your emotional reactions and learned prejudices agree, not looking at what science and reasearch objectively shows.

Yes. Its makes it a valid view though perhaps not correct.
Blue fairies FTW!


Yeah they can. And thats why I would listen to them seeing as I wouldn't want to be killed or imprisoned.

It would depend on the situation. I wouldn't stand up to them putting myself at risk unless I had a good reason.
So why not stand up to the government? If they can kill or imprison you just like the angry mob then why obey one blindly and maybe stand up to the other?



Its not being a coward, its surviving. Why the hell would I speak out and be stupid if I knew all it was going to get was pain or death.
To overthrow the system that prevents you from speaking out and excercising free will.

I don't care if people argue with me. I have a problem with people who don't know me thinking they know more about what I've seen and done than I.
If you don't tell us what you've done then we're going to make assumptions.

I always make sense;)
Of course you do.



true
Yup



I'm only mature when I feel like it.
Which is a real sign of maturity ;)



well hell. Let's let people marry animals and kids then
Remember:RTR, Read the post, Think about what it says, then, and only then Reply to the post.


But how people have to abuse and get hurt by these things before everything decides its gotten out of hand?
:confused: I cannot make any sense of this.

I know a few. One has told me it was a choice, the others have told me are just gay but they don't know why.
So, one of your friends telling you it's a choice makes it a choice, despite many more testimonies otherwise?

Methinks you're choosing to believe what suits you better.

Dr. Dobson says otherwise.

Dobson also thinks wives should submit to their husbands, and lots of other nonsense.

I'll trust the American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html) before a crazed fundamentalist like him.

I did. It seems like its ok for any adult to have no resrictions on marriage so why don't we let them marry animals or kids.

Have you ever heard of Six degrees of Kevin Bacon? It involves the same kind of leaps of logic you just demonstrated.

Perhaps but we aren't at that point
Who is we?

Normal as in straight
Why is Straight normal and gay isn't?



Dr. Dobson says otherwise.
Rev. Dr. Dobson is full of shit.

Who is we?
society

Why is Straight normal and gay isn't?
Because 90% of people if not more are straight, thus making it normal.



Rev. Dr. Dobson is full of shit.

thats what a lot of people think

society
Well the sooner we get to that point then, the better.

Because 90% of people if not more are straight, thus making it normal.
Then you should have used the majority instead of normal, since saying one thing is normal implies that there's something wrong with the opposite, e.g. if straight is normal then gay is wierd/crazy/wrong/etc


thats what a lot of people think
And with good reason.

Blue fairies FTW!

yay:fluffle:

So why not stand up to the government? If they can kill or imprison you just like the angry mob then why obey one blindly and maybe stand up to the other?
Ok, I would stand up to both depending on the situation. If it was just about me I wouldnt do shit since I don't really care what happens to me. However I would to protect someone I care about.



To overthrow the system that prevents you from speaking out and excercising free will.
Thats not a good enough reason for me to want to put my life on the line.

Which is a real sign of maturity ;)
sure is:)



Remember:RTR, Read the post, Think about what it says, then, and only then Reply to the post.
gotcha


:confused: I cannot make any sense of this.
I know, sorry. I fixed the errors

Because 90% of people if not more are straight, thus making it normal.


No, that makes it the norm, not normal.

It's normal for roughly 10% of the human population to be gay. It's normal for roughly 60% of the human population to be straight. It's normal for roughly 30% of the human population to be bisexual in some form or other.

Straight is the norm. Straight, bi, and gay are all equally normal.

yay:fluffle:
:fluffle:

Ok, I would stand up to both depending on the situation. If it was just about me I wouldnt do shit since I don't really care what happens to me. However I would to protect someone I care about.
This doesn't fit with

Thats not a good enough reason for me to want to put my life on the line.
You wouldn't stand up to the government so that your family could have those things, if not yourself.

sure is:)
:rolleyes:



gotcha
See, learning is fun.


I know, sorry. I fixed the errors
Who's to say things would get out of hand?

do you have proof it doesn't? For instance would you show porn to children?
1. I'm sure I can find some.
2. Yes.

I think the whole idea of introducing a bill that has no possibility of review by the Supreme Court quite childish. I'm suprized they didn't end the draft of the bill with "triple stamp, no erasies".

1. I'm sure I can find some.
2. Yes.
why? are you a pedophile? I really want to know because I think most rational people wouldn't show porn to kids.

why? are you a pedophile? I really want to know because I think most rational people wouldn't show porn to kids.

Paedophiles are sexually attracted to children, I don't think they'd gain any satisfaction from showing porn to children. Though I wouldn't know.

Paedophiles are sexually attracted to children, I don't think they'd gain any satisfaction from showing porn to children. Though I wouldn't know.
I imagine they would, but then I again I'm not a pedophile.

everyone is in or has been in relationships with the opposite sex. So like I said, no one in my family is gay.

:rolleyes: And it's not like gays get married to opposite sex to conceal their orientation and conform to society on a regular basis....

Well if they can be relationships with the opposite sex than they aren't gay. They are just choosing to be gay because they are more comfortable that way or something. That doesn't make them gay.

You can have relations to someone without being attracted to them. If you are sexually attracted to people of the same sex, but to hide that trait and conform marry a person of the opposite sex and force yourself to have relations with them, you remain homosexual - just in denial.

I'd buy that argument if you could come up with any pre-existant example of some sort or another. Where is it in America where these parades have been banned? Where has anti-Christian speech been banned?

a) You'd be horrified at how many states and local government have laws to precisely that effect still on the book - they're just not enforced, because people like me who worry about that sort of thing are around to ring the alarms and tell the courts and federal government that it's time to enforce the Constitution.
b) The very reason that more such examples don't occur is because people stop them dead every step of the way. Give them an inch, they take a mile. The only reason theofascist policies aren't rampant now is because their earliest precursors were opposed decades ago.
c) I just thought of one very good practical example - the Scopes trial.

I know of no such state having ever taking any of those steps you mentioned. Since it has not occurred, I must conclude that it is just more suspicion without substance. Smoke and mirrors. I'm afraid I have to side with Utracia. If a majority of the population votes it to be so, then so be it. Live with it for thr time being or move. One law in one state does not a trend make. Particularly when it is a predominantly Mormon state such as Utah. They are, by anyone's definition, a very unique state. It remains, even in a worst case scenario, just one state. And if it is then judged to be a violation of federal law, and discriminatory, then it will be an extremely short lived law. It wouldn't be the first time a federal court has overturned a state law. Won't be the last, either.

So it's the responsibility of everyone who lives in Utah who isn't a militan Mormon to get up and move, rather than the responsibility of their government to respect rights, protect the minority, and uphold the law?

You guys are sooooo paranoid. Every law or thing that happens you do not like is not an automatic slippery slide to a fascist state. If it were so, all Christians would have been long since banished overseas long ago after the Warren court began their transformation of the pre-existing law of the seventies to a much, much more liberal America. They wrought many changes in the law, and not very many of them were good ones. Without a popular vote. Or a referendum of any kind.

a) They removed rampant Constitutional violation and institutionalized discrimination. Individual rights and basic liberties are not subject to a majority vote - not in a democracy anyway. Protection of the minority goes hand-in-hand with rule of the majority.
b) Liberalization would never result in Christians being shipped off. Obviously. Liberalization removes Christian theocratic elements in policy and law, rendering the government neutral and equal for all religious beliefs or lack thereof. If, on the other hand, an Islamic form of government similar to the Taliban (spiritual brothers of the Christian Reconstructionists) was set up in the United States, their particular deliberalizations would include getting rid of Christians, just like Christian deliberalization would not tolerate Muslims. Liberalization does not favor any such actions - it fundamentally a policy of plurality.

Let them make their own mistakes. Laws should be written by the people and by the elected officials duly voted into office. Judges should interpret pre-existing law.

And they do - the Constitution. This country's government is not a tyranny of the majority. It is a constitutional democracy. A law or policy that conflicts with the Constitution is rendered null and void, and the courts are the only body suited to deciding whether a law conflicts with the Constitution.

I've gotta ask, was the pun intentional?

Hah! Stole the OP!

Anyways, the answer is simple. Tell them they can't do that. If they continue to try, send in the troops to enforce it.

how did yuo do that?

Because adults are neither animals nor kids.

And that neither animals nor kids have the legal capacity to consent. Since marriage, among other things, is also a legal contract, they will never be allowed to marry.

That slippery slope thing was used in the days where interracial marriage was being opposed, you know. It was bullshit then, and it's still bullshit today.

I thought I'd quote this to try and bring it back to Soviestan's attention, so hopefully he'll address this.

how did yuo do that?

The forums are screwing up lately. More so than normal, anyway.

Yes. Its makes it a valid view though perhaps not correct.


Do you have any fucking clue what the word "valid" means?

Do you have any fucking clue what the word "valid" means?

Hooray! :D

I don't care. But why should you care if a state and its people do not want porn?

Because the Constitution of the United States of America prevents them from making that choice, without first altering that said constitution.

Wow. 27 pages. I choose not to read all of them.

Has anyone mentioned that the Supreme Court has deferred regulation of pornography from the Federal government to the States?

If not, that's pathetic.

So Utah wants to rid itself of pornography? Well, as a libertarian I disagree with it, but they do have the authority.

Keep in mind that I am a man who loves his pornography, and I see it as free speech. I don't think Utah should ban it, I'm just reminding everyone that they can.

Wow. 27 pages. I choose not to read all of them.

Has anyone mentioned that the Supreme Court has deferred regulation of pornography from the Federal government to the States?

If not, that's pathetic.

So Utah wants to rid itself of pornography? Well, as a libertarian I disagree with it, but they do have the authority.

Keep in mind that I am a man who loves his pornography, and I see it as free speech. I don't think Utah should ban it, I'm just reminding everyone that they can.

Yes....but no. States only have the power to regulate such things that appeal to “prurient interest”, that which lacks literary, artistic, political, and scientific value. if it HAS literary, artistic, political, and/or scientific value, 1st amendment comes in, and tough shit for the state. Miller v. California.

According to the article quotes, the law is aimed at a "law [that] restricts a depiction, description, or display of nudity or sexual conduct."

Nothing about artistic, political, and/or scientific values. Simply those that have nudity and sexual conduct. States only have the power to internally regulate that which is OBSCENE (prurient interest, etc etc), but you can't blanketly restrict that which contains nudity, soley because it has nudity.

Yes....but no. States only have the power to regulate such things that appeal to “prurient interest”, that which lacks literary, artistic, political, and scientific value. if it HAS literary, artistic, political, and/or scientific value, 1st amendment comes in, and tough shit for the state. Miller v. California.

According to the article quotes, the law is aimed at a "law [that] restricts a depiction, description, or display of nudity or sexual conduct."

Nothing about artistic, political, and/or scientific values. Simply those that have nudity and sexual conduct. States only have the power to internally regulate that which is OBSCENE (prurient interest, etc etc), but you can't blanketly restrict that which contains nudity, soley because it has nudity.

Then things that pass the Miller test will be allowed, and things that don't will be banned. It won't get past the District Court.

Then things that pass the Miller test will be allowed, and things that don't will be banned. It won't get past the District Court.

Law don't work that way.

Void for vagueness.

Law don't work that way.

Void for vagueness.

Mm, good point. But then they'd probably just draft a new law banning the obscene. Either way, it won't make it past the District Court, Haha.

Has anyone mentioned that the Supreme Court has deferred regulation of pornography from the Federal government to the States?


Utah is doing this at the federal level, which you would have known if you bothered to read the thread.

Utah is doing this at the federal level

¿Que? How does that even work? From what I read, all I saw was that the law said that the Supreme Court couldn't invalidate the law (to which the SCUS would say, "Aww, how cute"). But that's FAR from the State of Utah stopping my right as an Oregonian to look at pornography. Unless the law is being passed by the United States Congress, it's not on the federal level.

Kapsilan, it is the Utah Representative putting forward legislation in Congress to make pornography a state decided issue. The title of the thread is misleading.

Some dickbag Utah legislator has proposed a bill that would place new Utah anti-porn legislation above the constitutional protection for free speech by rendering it immune to being reviewed and overturned by any court including the US Supreme Court.

If Utah really wants to be free from the US constitution they should secede. I would be happy to see them go. They want a Mormon theocracy? Let 'em have their mormon theocracy. Let them also do without federal funding as well.

http://www.xbiz.com/article_piece.php?cat=40&id=16615

I've never visited the place, and they'd probably burn me at the stake for being all foreign if I did, but I love utah for all the wankery they come up with. They're almost as fun as scientologists.

I don't see why people are so opposed to the idea of a community (or state in this case) deciding, by a fair democratic process, that they don't want pornography in thier community.

It's a rather absurd stretch to protect pornography under freedom of the press anyway. The stuff is destructive, addictive, not informative in the least, and serves no constructive purpose what-so-ever.

And if you don't like the law, vote with your feet, move out of Utah.

I think the problem is a state legislature deciding that it is above the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Of course, all this accomplishes is two lawsuits to get the law overturned. One to sue for the right to sue, then the lawsuit.

Gotham City State;11606666']Kapsilan, it is the Utah Representative putting forward legislation in Congress to make pornography a state decided issue. The title of the thread is misleading.

If states can't decide to allow marijuana, why should they get to ban porn.

Porn is a multi-billion dollar industry that creates products shipped all over the world. If anything ever fell under the commerce clause, this would be it.

well hell. Let's let people marry animals and kids then

Honestly, do people really not grasp the concept of "consent"? Or are you just so busy trying to force people to conform to your made-up gender stereotypes that you've forgotten that consent matters?

Adults can give legal consent. Adults can choose to enter legally-binding contracts. Children cannot consent. Animals cannot consent. What the fuck is so hard to understand about this?

It honestly sounds like we've got one side saying, "Consenting adults should be allowed to make choices about what they do with their own genitals," and another side saying, "If we allow consenting adults to make choices about their own genitals, then we'll all have to start raping children and fucking our dogs!!!!"

Honestly, do people really not grasp the concept of "consent"? Or are you just so busy trying to force people to conform to your made-up gender stereotypes that you've forgotten that consent matters?

Adults can give legal consent. Adults can choose to enter legally-binding contracts. Children cannot consent. Animals cannot consent. What the fuck is so hard to understand about this?

It honestly sounds like we've got one side saying, "Consenting adults should be allowed to make choices about what they do with their own genitals," and another side saying, "If we allow consenting adults to make choices about their own genitals, then we'll all have to start raping children and fucking our dogs!!!!"

Im curious what about the right for 1 adult male to marry 20 adult females? And 7 of those females married to 15 other males?

Im curious what about the right for 1 adult male to marry 20 adult females? And 7 of those females married to 15 other males?
What about it?

Im curious what about the right for 1 adult male to marry 20 adult females? And 7 of those females married to 15 other males?

No problem with it, as long as the first adult male is also married to those 15 others. A family unit is a family unit.

They all fall within the legal age of consent contract doctrine, should it be allowed?

No problem with it, as long as the first adult male is also married to those 15 others. A family unit is a family unit.

And is the employer that is partially responsible for paying for your familys healthcare required to subsidize the small nation you could amass? And could i write off 475 kids on my taxes?

They all fall within the legal age of consent contract doctrine, should it be allowed?
Why not?

If we aren't going to trust consenting adults to make decisions about who they fuck, then why the hell do we trust them to vote? Or opperate heavy machinery?

Why not?

If we aren't going to trust consenting adults to make decisions about who they fuck, then why the hell do we trust them to vote? Or opperate heavy machinery?And i ask you the same questions...

And is the employer that is partially responsible for paying for your familys healthcare required to subsidize the small nation you could amass? And could i write off 475 kids on my taxes?

And is the employer that is partially responsible for paying for your familys healthcare required to subsidize the small nation you could amass?

Partially. Iin a family with at least 15 males and 20 females there should be multiple incomes.

And could i write off 475 kids on my taxes?
The family could, yes. But not more than once total. It evens out.

And is the employer that is partially responsible for paying for your familys healthcare required to subsidize the small nation you could amass? And could i write off 475 kids on my taxes?
I don't know how to tell you this, but people can produce children even if they aren't married to one another. And you can have a child as your dependent even if you never married the kid's biological mother/father. And there are monogamous marriages which produce 15 children, even when their parents know they cannot financially support their progeny.

If you object to people having larger families than they can support, that's a whole other topic. If you object to having your money used to support other people's families, that's a whole other topic.

The more i think about it the more my mind boggles. If Social Security pays death benefits, if i die does the government have to send checks to 650 beraved women?

The more i think about it the more my mind boggles. If Social Security pays death benefits, if i die does the government have to send checks to 650 beraved women?
If you could get 650 women to enter into marriage contracts with you, sure. Of course, the government would have to send out the exact same dollar amount, it would just have to be split into 650 shares.

The more i think about it the more my mind boggles. If Social Security pays death benefits, if i die does the government have to send checks to 650 beraved women?

No, they should pay a percentage of your income to the family.

If you object to people having larger families than they can support, that's a whole other topic. .

Who says anything about difficulty supporting anything? With 500 or 600 wives im sure labor is in no short supply.And as the legal father i could still write all 800 of the kids off and make the goverment subsidize my lifestyle. You could create your own legal commune all under the protection of marrige laws. You could have entire communities that would be immune from testifying against each other because they are married, the mess that would be created im just beginning to think of the ramifications of. It would be a disaster. What insurance company would even cover you with 600 expensive dependends?

Who says anything about difficulty supporting anything? With 500 or 600 wives im sure labor is in no short supply.And as the legal father i could still write all 800 of the kids off and make the goverment subsidize my lifestyle. You could create your own legal commune all under the protection of marrige laws. You could have entire communities that would be immune from testifying against each other because they are married, the mess that would be created im just beginning to think of the ramifications of. It would be a disaster.
Golly, you're right! If we completely changed the legal definition of marriage to extend to an infinite number of partners, then we might have to...change the legal aspects of marriage! SHOCK!

Of course, none of this has the least thing to do with this topic.

Who says anything about difficulty supporting anything? With 500 or 600 wives im sure labor is in no short supply.And as the legal father i could still write all 800 of the kids off and make the goverment subsidize my lifestyle.

Again: the 800 kids would only be written of once. And you are probably not the only one in the commune who needs to pay taxes.

You could have entire communities that would be immune from testifying against each other because they are married

So ?

So ?

If it was a right we wanted the entire society to have we wouldnt have created a marrige exemption.

Because the Constitution of the United States of America prevents them from making that choice, without first altering that said constitution.
If thats the case then they should fix or get rid of the constitution.

Of course, none of this has the least thing to do with this topic.

In the words of John Stewart (responding to the question, "What do you say to the polygamists?"):

"You don’t say anything to the polygamists. That is a choice to get three or four wives. That is not a biological condition that I gots to get laid by three or 4 women that I’m married to. That’s a choice. Being gay is part of the human condition. There’s a huge difference."

In the words of John Stewart (responding to the question, "What do you say to the polygamists?"):

"You don’t say anything to the polygamists. That is a choice to get three or four wives. That is not a biological condition that I gots to get laid by three or 4 women that I’m married to. That’s a choice. Being gay is part of the human condition. There’s a huge difference."

The argument could be made that being gay is not part of the biological condition and it to is a choice.

The argument could be made that being gay is not part of the biological condition and it to is a choice.
That argument has been made in the past and has been shot down by the evidence at hand.

If thats the case then they should fix or get rid of the constitution.

Yeah? You find me a congressman willing to make a motion to get rid of the constitution, and I'll give you a cookie.

The argument could be made that being gay is not part of the biological condition and it to is a choice.
The argument could also be made that being left-handed is not part of the biological condition, and it too is a choice. Of course, that argument will be swiftly defeated by mountains of evidence to the contrary, but why should we let a silly thing like fact get in our way?

The argument could be made that being gay is not part of the biological condition and it to is a choice.

It could be made but the evidence isn't supporting that.

The argument could also be made that being left-handed is not part of the biological condition, and it too is a choice. Of course, that argument will be swiftly defeated by mountains of evidence to the contrary, but why should we let a silly thing like fact get in our way?

Where is this "evidence"?

Yeah? You find me a congressman willing to make a motion to get rid of the constitution, and I'll give you a cookie.

Perhaps not get rid off, but it should be fixed to allow more states rights.

If thats the case then they should fix or get rid of the constitution.

......

BWAHAHAHAHA

Oh, that was good, I needed that. Now please enlighten my as to why a nation should "get rid" of their fundamental legal doctrine or "fix" one of its fundamentally gaurenteed freedoms?

I don't think the First Amendment should be disregarded because of your outdated sense of morality.

Perhaps not get rid off, but it should be fixed to allow more states rights.

No, no it should not. It does not need "fixing". To say it needs fixing is to say there is something wrong with it. States are afforded all the rights that they were meant to be afforded, which is to say, they are afforded all rights that the constitution does not grant to the federal government, excluding the right to limit the constitutional rights of the citizens.

States can not, should not, and absolutly must not, be allowed to limit national rights. To do so would defeat the very purpose of what the constitution is.

Where is this "evidence"?

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~kripston/homosexuality/Genetic.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06181/702448-115.stm

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~kripston/homosexuality/Genetic.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06181/702448-115.stm

Oh. I see

It could be made but the evidence isn't supporting that.

Watched a cool interview on 60 Minutes last night and they now say that it may be hormonal as well as a host of other facters. Scientists injecting testosterone in the fetus of developing mice at a certain point in its development causes males to exhibit female mating tendencies. They also said that the more older brothers you have the more likely to become gay, also left handed people tend to be more likely to be gay. They also showed a series of children 5 or 6 years and adults who rated children as gay turned out that for a vast majority its how they actually turned out when they grew up. So before children even developed thier sexuality they gave off the "gay" vibe or had those tendencies in thier behavior. Research also indicated that people could fairly accuratly determine who was in fact gay. Not saying any earthshattering conclusions but was interesting nonetheless

Where is this "evidence"?
Crack open any peer-reviewed journal that addresses the subject.

Or, better yet, explain why the hell it matters anyhow. Even if we assume that homosexuality is 100% choice, why does that matter? It's a choice to want to marry somebody who is not the same race as you, yet we've still struck down laws that ban a black man from marrying a white woman.

Back when interracial marriage was against the law, the racists told us all about how unnatural it was to mix the races. They told us that black had the right to marry their own kind, just as whites did, which meant that everybody was nice and equal. They told us all about how society would collapse if we let the unnatural practice of miscegenation take root in our country.

In the US, if you want to take away somebody's rights then it is up to YOU to provide a reason why. They don't have to provide a reason why they should be treated equally under the law; you have to provide a reason why they shouldn't. So, why should a man have the right to enter a marriage contract with a woman, but a woman should be denied the right to enter into the same contract? What about being a man makes somebody unable to fulfill the duties of being a spouse to another man? Which responsibilities of a married partner am I unable to meet if I marry somebody of the same gender? And what state interest is so pressing that I should be denied equal rights under the law when it comes to being able to enter into this form of legal contract?

Mm, good point. But then they'd probably just draft a new law banning the obscene. Either way, it won't make it past the District Court, Haha.

All that would do is basically say that states have the right to bar material judged obscene by the Miller test.

But they already have that right as defined in...well.....Miller. That would just be putting statutory polish on already established law.

Quite right, Bottle, it's a matter of civil rights. I've heard the argument made, "Well, if gay marriage is allowed, gays will start suing churches that won't marry them on the grounds that the refusal is a political statement, and the churches could lose their tax-exempt status." Without going into the tax-exempt status of religious organizations, a simple answer is that the Catholic Church refuses to marry divorced people now and no one has sued them over that. I don't much care about being married in church, what I want are my rights as a citizen of the United States. Or I want an opponent of gay marriage to stand up and say, "Sorry, but by being gay you do not qualify for full citizen rights." Just say it out loud, so we know where you stand.

No, no it should not. It does not need "fixing". To say it needs fixing is to say there is something wrong with it. States are afforded all the rights that they were meant to be afforded, which is to say, they are afforded all rights that the constitution does not grant to the federal government, excluding the right to limit the constitutional rights of the citizens.

States can not, should not, and absolutly must not, be allowed to limit national rights. To do so would defeat the very purpose of what the constitution is.

As an ardent supporter of states' rights, I agree completely with this. States can add rights (as long as they are consistent with the US Constitution) but cannot take them away.

Quite right, Bottle, it's a matter of civil rights. I've heard the argument made, "Well, if gay marriage is allowed, gays will start suing churches that won't marry them on the grounds that the refusal is a political statement, and the churches could lose their tax-exempt status." Without going into the tax-exempt status of religious organizations, a simple answer is that the Catholic Church refuses to marry divorced people now and no one has sued them over that. I don't much care about being married in church, what I want are my rights as a citizen of the United States. Or I want an opponent of gay marriage to stand up and say, "Sorry, but by being gay you do not qualify for full citizen rights." Just say it out loud, so we know where you stand.
The entire slippery slope argument is so silly, since you can simply point out that Biblical marriage is far closer to polygamy than is gay marriage. If we are so worried about a slippery slope into polygamy, we ought to ban Biblical marriage ASAP!

Quite right, Bottle, it's a matter of civil rights. I've heard the argument made, "Well, if gay marriage is allowed, gays will start suing churches that won't marry them on the grounds that the refusal is a political statement, and the churches could lose their tax-exempt status." Without going into the tax-exempt status of religious organizations, a simple answer is that the Catholic Church refuses to marry divorced people now and no one has sued them over that. I don't much care about being married in church, what I want are my rights as a citizen of the United States. Or I want an opponent of gay marriage to stand up and say, "Sorry, but by being gay you do not qualify for full citizen rights." Just say it out loud, so we know where you stand.

Not to mention that this kind of lawsuit would run into a heaping pile of first amendment issues so large that it would doom any success

The entire slippery slope argument is so silly, since you can simply point out that Biblical marriage is far closer to polygamy than is gay marriage. If we are so worried about a slippery slope into polygamy, we ought to ban Biblical marriage ASAP!
Absolutely! :p And then we can switch over to the "Is Christianity Under Attack in the US?" thread.

Im curious what about the right for 1 adult male to marry 20 adult females? And 7 of those females married to 15 other males?

What about it?

They all fall within the legal age of consent contract doctrine, should it be allowed?

Yes.

Where is this "evidence"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

The wiki on this is extremely thorough and well-cited.

Perhaps not get rid off, but it should be fixed to allow more states rights.

I'll agree with you that states' rights are of great importance, and that the federal government is too powerful, but the agreement stops when you specify what area you want to abolish national standards in.

Individual rights is one of the only things that has absolutely no place being heterogenously decided by simple majority rule across the states. The rule of the majority is tempered and limited by protection of the rights of individuals from unethical coercion by others, whether those others are a majority or whatever. Taking, as you appear to be proposing, the 1st, maybe the 4th, 9th, and 16th amendments out of the Constitution in order to allow states to legislate coercive traditional morality into law at the expense of consistent and universal possession of fundamental individual rights across the United States is the last area in which unchecked local rule-by-majority should be applied.

We have the Constitution for a reason - because every law made my a majority vote is not just or ethical, and a legitimate government that respects the rights and freedoms of its people must be bound and constrained by rules that are to normal law what those laws are to the people of the nation - thus the Constitution. Governments are not omnibenevolent entities of natural, arbitrary power who are always legitimate - they are necessary evils who must be carefully limited and controlled to prevent tyranny, whether of the minority or the majority. To this end we have checks and balances, separation of powers, the Bill of Rights, and the overall Constitution itself.

People should not be afraid of their government; governments should be afraid of their people. - V for Vendetta

Taking, as you appear to be proposing, the 1st, maybe the 4th, 9th, and 16th amendments out of the Constitution in order to allow states to legislate coercive traditional morality into law at the expense of consistent and universal possession of fundamental individual rights across the United States is the last area in which unchecked local rule-by-majority should be applied.


The 16th amendment allows for a federal income tax, which doesn't seem to be at issue here. Do you perhaps mean the 14th?

Which causes unnecessary mental truama to the child that they would not encounter if not in the situation. This could hurt the child for the rest of their life.

As a student of psychology, I'mma have to call shenanigans. Give me research from peer-reviewed scholarly journals that prove this, and I'll agree with you.

As a student of psychology, I'mma have to call shenanigans. Give me research from peer-reviewed scholarly journals that prove this, and I'll agree with you.
Here's the thing:

We have substantial evidence to support the theory that bullying can actually have a profound effect on the mental state and psychological health of children. Children who are consistently victimized and bullied DO show lasting ill effects in a great many cases.

We also know that the children of gay parents are more likely to face bullying and harassment.

Thus, it is true that the children of gay parents are at higher risk for the kind of "mental trauma" that is inflicted by peer abuse.

So are children of mixed ethnicity.

So are children whose parents move around a great deal, forcing the children to move frequently.

So are children born to poor families.

So are children who have obese parents.

Soviestan appears to prefer a world in which bullies are rewarded. To solve the problem of abuse, he proposes to give the abusers exactly what they want, while punishing the victims for daring to exist.

He decides that because the children of gay parents are frequently the targets of peer abuse, we should forbid gay parenting. By his logic, we must also forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites. We must ban parents from ever moving. We must forbid the poor to have children. And we must pass laws that ban procreation for all obese individuals. (This last one has fascinating possibilities when you consider the weight gain most women experience during pregnancy.)

This is the typical kind of laziness and irresponsibility that is usually advocated by the anti-gay crowd. It is far too much trouble to dicipline one's children and teach them to stop being such bullying little twits. No, better that we should claim that GAY parents are the ones at fault, so that we don't have to entertain the possibility that bullying is a product of failed parenting in the first place.

What about it?
The whole polygamy red herring is very popular these days. It's a convenient boogyman for the people who believe that the purpose of government should be to peer through our bedroom curtains.

Here's the thing:

We have substantial evidence to support the theory that bullying can actually have a profound effect on the mental state and psychological health of children. Children who are consistently victimized and bullied DO show lasting ill effects in a great many cases.

We also know that the children of gay parents are more likely to face bullying and harassment.

Thus, it is true that the children of gay parents are at higher risk for the kind of "mental trauma" that is inflicted by peer abuse.

So are children of mixed ethnicity.

So are children whose parents move around a great deal, forcing the children to move frequently.

So are children born to poor families.

So are children who have obese parents.

Soviestan appears to prefer a world in which bullies are rewarded. To solve the problem of abuse, he proposes to give the abusers exactly what they want, while punishing the victims for daring to exist.

He decides that because the children of gay parents are frequently the targets of peer abuse, we should forbid gay parenting. By his logic, we must also forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites. We must ban parents from ever moving. We must forbid the poor to have children. And we must pass laws that ban procreation for all obese individuals. (This last one has fascinating possibilities when you consider the weight gain most women experience during pregnancy.)

This is the typical kind of laziness and irresponsibility that is usually advocated by the anti-gay crowd. It is far too much trouble to dicipline one's children and teach them to stop being such bullying little twits. No, better that we should claim that GAY parents are the ones at fault, so that we don't have to entertain the possibility that bullying is a product of failed parenting in the first place.


So to save me the 5 seconds it took to respond to him, I should have just linked a picture of a crying baby on a horse instead?

I agree:http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c220/Jeffhh/Xathan33.jpg

Because that's what he is.
For reals.

So to save me the 5 seconds it took to respond to him, I should have just linked a picture of a crying baby on a horse instead?

I agree:http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c220/Jeffhh/Xathan33.jpg

Because that's what he is.
For reals.
Pretty much, yeah.

I really crack up when people try to use bullying as proof that gay people shouldn't parent. Yes, we should set our social policies and our laws based on what a bunch of 3rd graders yell at each other on the playground! :rolleyes:

Pretty much, yeah.

I really crack up when people try to use bullying as proof that gay people shouldn't parent. Yes, we should set our social policies and our laws based on what a bunch of 3rd graders yell at each other on the playground! :rolleyes:

Wow, dude, if that were true then I could have been Super King of the World no-taksies backsies a LONG time ago.

WHY GOD WHY?!

Wow, dude, if that were true then I could have been Super King of the World no-taksies backsies a LONG time ago.

WHY GOD WHY?!
Pfft, as if. I'm Super King Of The World with no-takesies backsies times infinity. Not to mention the fact that I am rubber while you are clearly glue.

Pfft, as if. I'm Super King Of The World with no-takesies backsies times infinity. Not to mention the fact that I am rubber while you are clearly glue.

You win THIS round, but tommorow at three I WILL BE KING OF THE MOUNTAIN!

Which is clearly better than the whole world.

Pfft, as if. I'm Super King Of The World with no-takesies backsies times infinity. Not to mention the fact that I am rubber while you are clearly glue.

I have to invoke the 'infinity plus one' clause. Now I'm Super King Of The World etc.

I have to invoke the 'infinity plus one' clause. Now I'm Super King Of The World etc.

CURSES. Foiled again.

Crack open any peer-reviewed journal that addresses the subject.

Or, better yet, explain why the hell it matters anyhow. Even if we assume that homosexuality is 100% choice, why does that matter? It's a choice to want to marry somebody who is not the same race as you, yet we've still struck down laws that ban a black man from marrying a white woman.

Back when interracial marriage was against the law, the racists told us all about how unnatural it was to mix the races. They told us that black had the right to marry their own kind, just as whites did, which meant that everybody was nice and equal. They told us all about how society would collapse if we let the unnatural practice of miscegenation take root in our country.

In the US, if you want to take away somebody's rights then it is up to YOU to provide a reason why. They don't have to provide a reason why they should be treated equally under the law; you have to provide a reason why they shouldn't. So, why should a man have the right to enter a marriage contract with a woman, but a woman should be denied the right to enter into the same contract? What about being a man makes somebody unable to fulfill the duties of being a spouse to another man? Which responsibilities of a married partner am I unable to meet if I marry somebody of the same gender? And what state interest is so pressing that I should be denied equal rights under the law when it comes to being able to enter into this form of legal contract?

You ask about what things you can't provide as a spouse. Off the top of my head, children would be something you can not produce and a responsibility you can not take on. having children is in many ways what marriage is about, to have a family. Interracial couples on the other hand, can produce children. This is one of the reasons why comparing interracial marriage with gay marriage is flawed.

Here's the thing:

We have substantial evidence to support the theory that bullying can actually have a profound effect on the mental state and psychological health of children. Children who are consistently victimized and bullied DO show lasting ill effects in a great many cases.

We also know that the children of gay parents are more likely to face bullying and harassment.

Thus, it is true that the children of gay parents are at higher risk for the kind of "mental trauma" that is inflicted by peer abuse.

So are children of mixed ethnicity.

So are children whose parents move around a great deal, forcing the children to move frequently.

So are children born to poor families.

So are children who have obese parents.

Soviestan appears to prefer a world in which bullies are rewarded. To solve the problem of abuse, he proposes to give the abusers exactly what they want, while punishing the victims for daring to exist.

He decides that because the children of gay parents are frequently the targets of peer abuse, we should forbid gay parenting. By his logic, we must also forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites. We must ban parents from ever moving. We must forbid the poor to have children. And we must pass laws that ban procreation for all obese individuals. (This last one has fascinating possibilities when you consider the weight gain most women experience during pregnancy.)

This is the typical kind of laziness and irresponsibility that is usually advocated by the anti-gay crowd. It is far too much trouble to dicipline one's children and teach them to stop being such bullying little twits. No, better that we should claim that GAY parents are the ones at fault, so that we don't have to entertain the possibility that bullying is a product of failed parenting in the first place.
In a perfect world your scenario is great where everyone loves gay people. But this is the real world and homophobia isn't going away any time soon, so prevent the harm to children it would be best not to allow same-sex adoption until this is more accepted in society.

CURSES. Foiled again.
ph34r my 1337 sk1llz.




Sorry.

You ask about what things you can't provide as a spouse. Off the top of my head, children would be something you can not produce and a responsibility you can not take on. having children is in many ways what marriage is about, to have a family. Interracial couples on the other hand, can produce children. This is one of the reasons why comparing interracial marriage with gay marriage is flawed.
What about infertile heterosexual marraiges?
In a perfect world your scenario is great where everyone loves gay people. But this is the real world and homophobia isn't going away any time soon, so prevent the harm to children it would be best not to allow same-sex adoption until this is more accepted in society.

Why isn't homophobia going to go away? If there are many more people like you who would rather get rid of gay people that work at gaining them rights and acceptance into society then it might not, but I sincerely hope there aren't.

You ask about what things you can't provide as a spouse. Off the top of my head, children would be something you can not produce and a responsibility you can not take on. having children is in many ways what marriage is about, to have a family.

...which is why we ban infertile individuals from getting married, as well as women who are past menopause. It's also why we forbid couples to choose to adopt instead of producing their own biological children. And why we require that all married couples produce biological offspring lest their unions be declared null and void.

Or wait. No, we don't.

See, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the marriage contract which requires that biological offspring be produced. Nothing at all. Plenty of married heterosexual couples never produce biological children. A great many CHOOSE not to produce biological children. They're still legally married.

There is also nothing in the definition of "family" which requires biological procreation.

There is also absolutely nothing about being homosexual which makes an individual inherently less capable of being a parent. Homosexuals can (and do) produce biological children all the time, and they adopt children all the time as well. Gay people are parents. Gay couples rear children together.

So, by your logic, gay parents should be allowed to wed while infertile heterosexuals should not.

In a perfect world your scenario is great where everyone loves gay people. But this is the real world and homophobia isn't going away any time soon, so prevent the harm to children it would be best not to allow same-sex adoption until this is more accepted in society.
Yes, because banning same-sex adoption will help it become more accepted in society.

Or something.

Honestly, did you sleep through the history class where they covered the integration of schools? Or the fight for women's right to vote?

If we waited for "society" to accept things, blacks would still be slaves and women would still be property.

It's very generous of you to offer to sacrifice other people's civil rights so that "society" can take its time growing up, of course, and I'm sure gay families appreciate the sacrifice you have decided they get to make for you. But, frankly, I think we'd all be a bit better off if we didn't constantly stoop to the lowest common denominator.

If the Supreme Court is impotent, I'm sure they can take some Viagra.

Not sure what Ginsburg would do - would that really be a problem for her?

Yes, because banning same-sex adoption will help it become more accepted in society.

Or something.

Honestly, did you sleep through the history class where they covered the integration of schools? Or the fight for women's right to vote?

If we waited for "society" to accept things, blacks would still be slaves and women would still be property.

It's very generous of you to offer to sacrifice other people's civil rights so that "society" can take its time growing up, of course, and I'm sure gay families appreciate the sacrifice you have decided they get to make for you. But, frankly, I think we'd all be a bit better off if we didn't constantly stoop to the lowest common denominator.
Marriage and adoption is not a civil right nor is it a right at all. Society will accept gays and their lifestyle in time.

Marriage and adoption is not a civil right nor is it a right at all. Society will accept gays and their lifestyle in time.
Why wait? Why not actively try to change society and make it more tolerant rather than sit on our asses?

'and their lifestyle'?
You do know apart from the gay sex, homosexuals tend to be like everyone else. They don't all go around giving people fashion advice and redecorating their homes.

See, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the marriage contract which requires that biological offspring be produced. Nothing at all. Plenty of married heterosexual couples never produce biological children. A great many CHOOSE not to produce biological children. They're still legally married.

There is also nothing in the definition of "family" which requires biological procreation.

right, but they still could produce children if they wanted to. Same with infertile couples, there are treatments available.
There is also absolutely nothing about being homosexual which makes an individual inherently less capable of being a parent. Homosexuals can (and do) produce biological children all the time
If this is the case then they arent gay. They had sex with someone from the opposite sex and enjoyed(or they wouldn't get it up).

, and they adopt children all the time as well. Gay people are parents. Gay couples rear children together....
...in an unhealthy environment

Why wait? Why not actively try to change society and make it more tolerant rather than sit on our asses?
thats fine, but dont let adopt in the mean time.
'and their lifestyle'?
You do know apart from the gay sex, homosexuals tend to be like everyone else. They don't all go around giving people fashion advice and redecorating their homes.
I didn't say they weren't

'and their lifestyle'?
You do know apart from the gay sex, homosexuals tend to be like everyone else. They don't all go around giving people fashion advice and redecorating their homes.

Many, yes. Many (or at least enough to make it seems like all) do... the problem is when the more popular 'exception' becomes the standard... like with the whole 'Mafia' thing with Italians, the tacos and tequila with Mexicans, and Asians and bad driving. (Don't yell at me about this. i did not say any racist comments. I just pointed out stereotypes.)

If this is the case then they arent gay. They had sex with someone from the opposite sex and enjoyed(or they wouldn't get it up).

Artificial insemination?

thats fine, but dont let adopt in the mean time.

Because you'll change the standards of society by maintaining them?

If this is the case then they arent gay. They had sex with someone from the opposite sex and enjoyed(or they wouldn't get it up).

That's an awful conclusion that just doesn't follow from the premise.

right, but they still could produce children if they wanted to. Same with infertile couples, there are treatments available.

So could gay parents. Your point?

If this is the case then they arent gay. They had sex with someone from the opposite sex and enjoyed(or they wouldn't get it up).

One, I'll refer you to the first part of your post.
Two, you don't have to enjoy the sex to have children, you just have to do it.

...in an unhealthy environment

No, and I think it's about time to go find the study which proves this.
EDIT: Here we go. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_by_same-sex_couples)
Note that it isn't a study, but it does list its sources at the bottom of the article, and there you can find a study proving it.

The 16th amendment allows for a federal income tax, which doesn't seem to be at issue here. Do you perhaps mean the 14th?

[horrified] Thank you so much. I feel *so retarded*....

Marriage and adoption is not a civil right nor is it a right at all.

This is true. But what are rights are freedom of commerce, which covers adoption, and equal protection under the law, which covers gay marriage.

Society will accept gays and their lifestyle in time.

It never will if people who at best don't really care sit around waiting for it to happen, discriminating against sexual minorities "in the interests of the children" in the meantime. It's called proactive change.

right, but they still could produce children if they wanted to. Same with infertile couples, there are treatments available.

Believe it or not, the same is true of gays. Removal of the genetic-material-carrying nucleus from one parent's sex cell, reinsertion into a "hollowed-out" sex cell of the opposite kind, and union with the second parent's unmodified sex cell would result in an embryo that was genetically the child of two same-sex parents. Lesbians could only have girls (XX+XX=>XX) and males would have to have this process repeated and then screened a la IVF to weed out possible YY embryos, and would have to make use of a volunteer surrogate mother, but the principle is the same.

A male could even be impregnated. Theoretically, surgical implantation combined with the right cocktail of hormones, with a C-section in place of normal birth, would be possible for a male. Why any guy would want to I can't imagine, (and I say this as a gay male) but it's definitely possible.

And that's all besides the more normal, everyday contemporary practices of surrogate motherhood, artificial insemination, etc. etc.

A few things (don't know if it's already been mentioned- could only manage to read the first half of the replies):

No. 1, this proposed law- a U.S. federal bill- may incapacitate the Supreme Court's right to strike down an anti-pornography bill but it's not going to incapacitate a challenge to this specific bill. Even if the bill passes it can- and probably will- be challenged. The Court won't want anyone stepping on their toes and this does.

No. 2, this furthers my own personal theory that the U.S. and Canada are well on their way to becoming 63 sovereign countries bound in a European Union-type arrangement. There's way too many ideological and cultural differences in each country's borders for the people to agree on anything- except that economically they all need each other- so the inevitable result is a dissolution into a more manageable and autonomous organization. Chris Cannon is already acting like Utah is independent so this dissolution really is just a matter of time.

Marriage and adoption is not a civil right nor is it a right at all.

The right in question is the right to be equal under the law. IF heterosexuals are permitted to enter into legally-binding marital contracts, then homosexuals must be granted the same right or there is a violation of civil rights.


Society will accept gays and their lifestyle in time.
Irrelevant to this discussion.

right, but they still could produce children if they wanted to.

So can gay couples.


Same with infertile couples, there are treatments available.

The same treatments will work equally well on gay individuals and straight individuals. And there are many infertile couples for whom no treatments will work, or for whom such treatments are not at all available (due to financial constraints). These couples WILL NEVER have biological children. Should they be banned from marriage, too?


If this is the case then they arent gay. They had sex with someone from the opposite sex and enjoyed(or they wouldn't get it up).

Oy. So many things wrong with this.

1) "Getting it up" does not indicate what you seem to think. Men have been shown to become physically aroused even during rape, just as female rape victims sometimes experience lubrication. This does not in any way indicate that they "enjoy" the encounter. It means that the human body can respond physically even if the individual is not enjoying himself/herself.

2) Having had sex with a person of the opposite sex doesn't make you "straight," even if you enjoyed it. There are plenty of gay individuals who are in straight marriages, and produce plenty of kids, before coming out and admitting that they are gay.

3) You are, of course, aware that female homosexuals exist. Right?

4) You are, of course, aware of the fact that pregnancy can occur even if NEITHER partner achieves orgasm. Right?

5) You are, of course, aware that biological children can be produced without any sexual contact between the parents. Right? You advocate the use of various treatments to help heterosexuals conceive if they cannot do so naturally, so why should it be any different if homosexuals use the exact same treatments?

...in an unhealthy environment
Provide your sources.

Saying the same lie over and over will not make it become truth.

thats fine, but dont let adopt in the mean time.

Why not?

Are you aware that gay couples are far more likely that straight couples to adopt "unwanted" children? Children who are HIV positive, or born addicted to crack, or who are already 10 or 12 years old? These are the children that heterosexuals made, but will not care for. These are the children who will spend their entire lives bouncing through foster care or living in under-funded group homes. These are children who will never have families.

Do you really want to look those kids in the face and tell them they are better off with no family at all? Do you really want to try to convince them that having two loving fathers is WORSE than having no home and no family?

Do you really want to tell them to just wait a few more years to see if some hetero family will take them in? Do you really want to tell them to wait until society completely embraces homosexual families? Just a few more years, kids, of no family. Just a few more years of no home. And sure, with every passing year you are less likely to ever be adopted. But hey...better than having *gasp* two mommies! That would be an "unhealthy environment" for you!

No, no, better you stay in the foster care system, where you have a 25% chance of being raped and a 60% chance of being physically abused.

Kids are better off adopted than not. That's what the stats show us. The stats also show us that there aren't enough heterosexuals adopting kids. The data also show us that kids who are adopted by homosexuals do every bit as well as kids adopted by heterosexuals.

Basically, there is only one reason to deny homosexuals the right to adopt: because gay families make homophobes uncomfortable. And, forgive me, but the feelings of homophobes are worth exactly zip when compared to the welfare and safety of children.

They can't. To try to make a state law exempt from the constitution is unconstitutional. :p

Yeah, the court would first throw out this "law", and then proceed on.

I have to invoke the 'infinity plus one' clause. Now I'm Super King Of The World etc.

You can be Super King Of The World if you want to, but I'm Supream Emperor of the Cosmos.

You ask about what things you can't provide as a spouse. Off the top of my head, children would be something you can not produce and a responsibility you can not take on. having children is in many ways what marriage is about, to have a family. Interracial couples on the other hand, can produce children. This is one of the reasons why comparing interracial marriage with gay marriage is flawed.

So infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry?

Why wait? Why not actively try to change society and make it more tolerant rather than sit on our asses?

'and their lifestyle'?
You do know apart from the gay sex, homosexuals tend to be like everyone else. They don't all go around giving people fashion advice and redecorating their homes.

Queer Eye you've lied to me again! :p

So infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry?
And what about couples who are childless by choice? If the point of marriage is to have children and rear children, why do we allow people to marry if they openly choose to never produce or rear children?

I am allowed to include in my wedding vows, "I swear to never produce biological children with my partner, nor to rear any children in our home together." It would be a bit odd to include this, granted, but I am legally allowed to enter into a marital contract even if I have sworn to NEVER include children in my married family. So, if children are the purpose of marriage, why is this permitted?

Basically, there is only one reason to deny homosexuals the right to adopt: because gay families make homophobes uncomfortable. And, forgive me, but the feelings of homophobes are worth exactly zip when compared to the welfare and safety of children.

Or when compared to a steaming pile of dog poo.

Why not?

Are you aware that gay couples are far more likely that straight couples to adopt "unwanted" children? Children who are HIV positive, or born addicted to crack, or who are already 10 or 12 years old?

As a minor nitpick i suspect this is because hetero couples are given first preference to the "more desirable" children and the children you describe end up being "whats left over" for the gay couples. I dont think your suggesting that gay couples want less healthy babies or older children any more or less then hetero couples do. But beyond that i agree with your sentiments.

Are you aware that gay couples are far more likely that straight couples to adopt "unwanted" children? Children who are HIV positive, or born addicted to crack, or who are already 10 or 12 years old? These are the children that heterosexuals made, but will not care for. These are the children who will spend their entire lives bouncing through foster care or living in under-funded group homes. These are children who will never have families.

so?

Do you really want to look those kids in the face and tell them they are better off with no family at all? Do you really want to try to convince them that having two loving fathers is WORSE than having no home and no family?

Do you really want to tell them to just wait a few more years to see if some hetero family will take them in? Do you really want to tell them to wait until society completely embraces homosexual families? Just a few more years, kids, of no family. Just a few more years of no home. And sure, with every passing year you are less likely to ever be adopted. But hey...better than having *gasp* two mommies! That would be an "unhealthy environment" for you!
I think they would rather be in a caring foster home than being raised in an unhealthy environment that is the gay lifestyle

No, no, better you stay in the foster care system, where you have a 25% chance of being raped and a 60% chance of being physically abused.
In today's climate same-sex adoption is a form of abuse.

Kids are better off adopted than not. That's what the stats show us. The stats also show us that there aren't enough heterosexuals adopting kids. The data also show us that kids who are adopted by homosexuals do every bit as well as kids adopted by heterosexuals.
says who

Basically, there is only one reason to deny homosexuals the right to adopt: because gay families make homophobes uncomfortable. And, forgive me, but the feelings of homophobes are worth exactly zip when compared to the welfare and safety of children.
If you cared about welfare and safety of children you wouldn't support gay adoption.

As a minor nitpick i suspect this is because hetero couples are given first preference to the "more desirable" children and the children you describe end up being "whats left over" for the gay couples. I dont think your suggesting that gay couples want less healthy babies or older children any more or less then hetero couples do. But beyond that i agree with your sentiments.
I'm not trying to paint homosexuals as being inherently any better than heterosexuals. Homosexuals are able to be great parents, and they're also able to be really lousy parents...just like heterosexuals. They are no more or less likely to be either kind of parent. Your point is well taken.

My point was that homosexuals currently make room in their homes for children who heterosexuals have made and then discarded, and who other heterosexuals refuse to adopt. It disgusts me to hear somebody suggest that these children should be made to do without families and homes simply because there are ignorant twits in our country who can't stand the thought of Jenny having two Dads.

Believe it or not, the same is true of gays. Removal of the genetic-material-carrying nucleus from one parent's sex cell, reinsertion into a "hollowed-out" sex cell of the opposite kind, and union with the second parent's unmodified sex cell would result in an embryo that was genetically the child of two same-sex parents. Lesbians could only have girls (XX+XX=>XX) and males would have to have this process repeated and then screened a la IVF to weed out possible YY embryos, and would have to make use of a volunteer surrogate mother, but the principle is the same.

A male could even be impregnated. Theoretically, surgical implantation combined with the right cocktail of hormones, with a C-section in place of normal birth, would be possible for a male. Why any guy would want to I can't imagine, (and I say this as a gay male) but it's definitely possible.

And that's all besides the more normal, everyday contemporary practices of surrogate motherhood, artificial insemination, etc. etc.

This doesnt make it right. If you have to twist science that much to produce a child then it is unnatural and shouldn't be allowed.

I still don't see how these laws would keep Scalia from getting a hardon. I mean, it sounds like it would be more likely, not less likely.

I think they would rather be in a caring foster home than being raised in an unhealthy environment that is the gay lifestyle

If we could guarantee safe and caring foster homes for all the kids who need them, then this wouldn't be a problem, would it?

The FACT is that we can't. Children who are bouncing through foster care are far more likely to be sexually and physically abused than children who are adopted into families with gay parents. That's simple reality.


In today's climate same-sex adoption is a form of abuse.

Provide sources to document this abuse.


says who

I've already been over this with you. If you want to claim that kids suffer "abuse" simply by being in gay families, you get to provide data to back that up. If you want to actually concern yourself with fact, feel free to consult any legitimate peer-reviewed journal of psychology. They will all tell you the same thing.


If you cared about welfare and safety of children you wouldn't support gay adoption.
Funny, that's exactly what the racists say about letting blacks adopt.

Bottle, maybe we should ask this:

It's a fairly common thing for orphaned children to be raised by nuns.

Celibate (or secretly lesbian) women who live together, and raise the children together.

Sort of a "Julian has 60 mommies" thing.

No one has ever said, "being raised by nuns is a bad thing" (well, maybe some of the kids).

Are you against kids being raised in Catholic orphanages run by nuns or friars?

If we could guarantee safe and caring foster homes for all the kids who need them, then this wouldn't be a problem, would it?

The FACT is that we can't. Children who are bouncing through foster care are far more likely to be sexually and physically abused than children who are adopted into families with gay parents. That's simple reality.

I'd rather be abused in a foster home than be raised by gays

Provide sources to document this abuse.


I've already been over this with you. If you want to claim that kids suffer "abuse" simply by being in gay families, you get to provide data to back that up. If you want to actually concern yourself with fact, feel free to consult any legitimate peer-reviewed journal of psychology. They will all tell you the same thing.
You've already agree with me on this one about how those children are bound to be teased and bullying leading to them being abused.

Funny, that's exactly what the racists say about letting blacks adopt.
rubbish

For the record, my mother is infertile. She had her ovaries removed because of a potential tumor. I'd like to see what treatment Soviestan recommends for that.

I'd rather be abused in a foster home than be raised by gays
How do you know you weren't? Maybe one of your parents is gay and only got married to hide that fact, or never even realised that he/she was gay until after he/she was married?

You've already agree with me on this one about how those children are bound to be teased and bullying leading to them being abused.
Teased=/=bullying, teased=/=abused. Almost every child is teased about something.

I really can't believe that you'd rather stop gay people have children than try and get other people to raise their children to be tolerant of kids with two dads/mams.

rubbish
Way to prove her wrong. You rock.

No. 2, this furthers my own personal theory that the U.S. and Canada are well on their way to becoming 63 sovereign countries bound in a European Union-type arrangement. There's way too many ideological and cultural differences in each country's borders for the people to agree on anything- except that economically they all need each other- so the inevitable result is a dissolution into a more manageable and autonomous organization. Chris Cannon is already acting like Utah is independent so this dissolution really is just a matter of time.

Don't I wish.....

Of course, I believe that in this sort of arrangement the Federal government should still ensure that the states enforce civil rights.

Cthulhu-Mythos;11594959']Let them do so without an ocean access PORT as well...
The idiots are landlocked.
Let them do without sweet life ITSELF!!!:sniper:

*wipes away froth*