Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
http://www.reddit.com/user/christophers8…
And well referenced. You could argue that it's formulaic and unoriginal, but the beginning of Up is about as good a capsule of a simple life well-lived as you could ask for.
Fuck, I'm crying all over my lab notebook. I must be getting senile.
Yeah, Jesuits really are more intellectually rigorous than other Catholics/Xtians.
I take issue with his "founding fathers" statement. To be true to that belief, one has to encompass the incredible amount of disagreement and compromise the drafters of the constitution had, their desire for it to be a living document, and the lack of consistent (or any) religious faith across them.
Nicely done.
They will catch up eventually. They WILL catch up!
pretty ironic that he cites a scripture
that unambiguously defines marriage
as a 'man-woman' institution.....
and
"the two of them become one body”,
literally,
when they make a child together....
This does not speak, of course, to the question of whether it's even relevant, so far as we're discussing civil marriage, what texts founded on subjective metaphysical views (and moral systems derived therefrom) have to say on the matter.
Of course, you avoid offering any insight (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you just might have some on hand) by not really addressing the question he poses. Do you maintain that infertile couples do not "become one body"--that, in essence, childless marriages are not valid marriages? What of elderly couples or couples known before marriage to be unable to conceive--should they not be allowed to marry (or, more precisely, should whatever commitment rituals they undergo anyway not be recognized as marriages)?
Yeah!
I'm actually surprised he went there, though. While that's a tenet of my Quaker faith, I was thinking that he was going to make a secular argument. Awesome!
We noted that the scripture he cites does not support homosexual 'marriage' in any way and poetically alludes to the reproductive potential of marriage; totally opposite of the argument he was attempting to make.
Perhaps a way in which Jesuits are a bit like the Special Ed kids of Christianity?
The bit about becoming as one body is explicitly NOT about bearing children together, but instead refers to Eve being created from Adam's rib.The imagery is of two split halves returning to each other in perfect complementation and unity. (In fact, it's reminiscent of the story put forward by Aristophanes in the Symposium, in which humans were originally bound in pairs as two-sided beings, and were divinely split and set to wander the earth waiting for their other half.)
Any more than arguing that it is a means for man and dog to become 'one body'.
It could have.
But it didn't.
But,
yeah,
we see your point that is has NOTHING to do with homosexual 'marriage'.
Most folks already get that Catholicism is Fucked Up.
What took Kent so long?
Aside from the quickly diminishing fun of actually trying to get you to express an idea (the capacity for which is all that separates us significantly from the cockroach), it's all rather beside the point, for all the reasons I mentioned. There are passages in the Lotus Sutra that say bodhisattvas should not associate with practitioners of combat sports--a matter which many orders that follow said sutra violate by practicing such sports themselves. Scholars and followers of religion and religious texts spend considerable time trying to separate the necessary and absolute at the heart of what they study from the conditional, from that which arose as a function of the time and place in which these texts were written.
Please try to keep up.
@23: You said it was about reproduction. I showed you how it WASN'T about reproduction. You said, in effect, "HA! It's not about gay marriage!"
Huh? Numbers 15:37-41 isn't about gay marriage either. So fucking what?
One can step back from the factual, and say that from a unitive standpoint, there is no difference between a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual one. I'm not sure that's any more (or less) relevant than anyone's beliefs to the contrary, since such things cannot be empirically measured.
Animals other than humans cannot vote, own property, change careers of their own volition, or enter into any kinds of human contracts. Since marriage was first recognized by any kind of tribe, the nature of marriage has been contractual. At the risk of adding zoological confusion to your list of intellectual maladies, your dog is a red herring.
I don't think that's correct. It's endemic to monotheistic fundamentalism - like evangelical Christianism, Islamism, and some strands of Jewish Orthodoxy.
The major strands in Christianity - Catholicism, mainstream Lutheranism - and Judaism - Conservative, Reform, Reconciliation - don't believe in literalism. In Islam literalism is unfortunately more widespread, I don't know much about that, though, beyond the fact that I guess it's connected to the story of how the Q'ran was dictated to Mohamed.
In any case, your point is well taken. I'll chew on it for a while.
A string of assumptions.
False assumptions.
Confused Wishful BullShit raised to the sixth power......
:23
We pointed out that the passage is literally fulfilled when a man and woman create a child.
You regurgitated one of your tired formulaic interpretations that were stale and meaningless 2000 years ago.
And,
yes,
you agree that it has nothing to do with homosexual 'marriage'.....
Also, your use of the word "literally" needs a bit of help. Do a man and a woman LITERALLY become one piece of flesh when they have a kid? And what does reproduction have to do with those verses? It's not mentioned ANYWHERE in Genesis 2. (And for the record, I've before never heard the interpretation I delivered to you. I took the theme of unification vs. reproduction that Mr. Hickey brought up and looked for Scriptural support on my own. Judaism has a strong tradition of encouraging critical and independent thinking, which is more than Christianity can say.)
I respectfully disagree, venomlash. While there are a fair number of loud absolutists calling themselves Christian. The practice of literalism and infallibility became popular in the nineteenth century. There are a fair, number of Christians who consider the practice of Christianity to be a "wisdom tradition". And, as you know, wisdom and knowledge are not identical. Hence, there is a strong tradition of encouraging critical thinking and questioning in many denominations. Unfortunately it does not seem that you happen to be engaged in conversation with one.
Kind regards.
Thank you to the posters who actually KNOW that verse and where it comes from.
yes junior.
literally.
a 'piece' of a man joins with a 'piece' of a woman and create a new unique 'body'.
the two of them become one body.
it is quite a miracle.
but don't worry.
for $300 you can pay a noble healer to rip it out and throw it in the trash.......
Wisdom is knowing who/what to question and who/what to obey.
Momma told three year old Sally not to touch the pretty blue flame on the gas stove because it would burn her.
But Sally is a questioning little dear.
The doctors think the skin grafts have a good chance of sticking.
If there was an all knowing benevolent god who shared with mankind the secret of happiness it would be unwise to doubt and question.
but that would require one to have a knowledge of and relationship with that all knowing benevolent god.
of course another option is to wander in the wilderness of vain ignorance and worship the process of questioning for its own sake and to wonder in awe of our own wisdom.
when a golden calf is unavailable one's navel can do in a pinch.
28
Heterosexual relationships frequently and consistently result in children.
And result in handy little social structures that teach little humans how to grow up to be productive contributing (reproducing) grownup humans.
Marriage is a means to regulate that social structure.
Were there no children marriage would never have been invented.
True.
Not every heterosexual marriage produces children(! the homosexuals wail....)
But historically the overwhelming majority did.
Homosexual relationships will NEVER produce children.
The best they can do is a pale shallow imitation of heterosexual marriage.
A poodle,
dressed in a skirt,
walking on its hind legs,
pushing a baby pram.....
Maintaining the species is serious business.
Best left to the adults.
If the envious and bitter want to adjust social marriage policy to reduce or eliminate the subsidies given married people who do not have children they could advance that proposal.
But trying to pretend their barren pairings are Just As Good as heterosexual marriage is false and poor social policy.
I don't care what the Bible says, that's not the law. And I don't care how children are produced, since I'm not having any. All I care about is that my relationship (and so many others) will be legally recognized, as they should be.
And yes, we WILL win this.
which is why it is as useless to claim the bible supports homosexual marriage as to claim it opposes it.....
@38 - *citation needed.
Using The Bible to prove that marriage is about unity is just the other side of the coin of using The Bible to prove that homosexual marriage is Wrong.
Luckily, this is America and
We are free from Kent forcing HIS interpretation of what The Bible teaches about marriage, whatever the fuck he decides that is, into OUR laws.
@36: You're jumping through all these rhetorical hoops to try and make it about reproduction, when it's right there in the previous verse. Eve was taken from Adam's side, therefore they are missing part of themselves. By finding his/her "other half", a person can achieve unity. It's right there, simple as anyone could wish for. The rationale for Eve's creation is even laid out as Adam needing a partner or helper, not because there needed to be more of him.
And in case you care, reproduction doesn't exist at this point in the creation narrative. It's only after humanity is expelled from Eden that women are cursed with childbirth and men with hard work.
@39: Society's interest in supporting marriage is not reproduction, but rather parenting. Single people can have kids just as well as married people; where marriage helps is in raising those kids to be thoughtful and productive members of society. And two gay men or two gay women can parent JUST AS WELL as a straight couple.
It would be even nicer to see them stepping forward to a greater extent and kicking the extremists out to the fringes where they belong. Perhaps then the perpetual "Christians vs Atheists" slap-fight could finally wind down.
he must be so proud
"And two gay men or two gay women can parent JUST AS WELL as a straight couple."!
OMG!
This is NEWS!
please cite your sources.
Because so far the studies show that kids raised by their married mom and dad do WAY better than kids raised under any other circumstances.
So cite your sources....
(wait a minute. you're not one of Mitt's 5 rat bastard sons who just repeat lies and shit over and over hoping someone will eventually believe it just because you vomited it out your piehole, are you?....)
But before you post any links or studies go back and read the "John Corvino: "Debunking the Regnerus Study"" post, especially the comments.
And any study you cite needs to meet the standards of sample size and selection etc laid down there.
K?
darn junior if you are going to bore folks with your stone age myths at least get them right.
do you recall the first commandment given to Adam and Steve?
hint...."said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply"
true, they didn't get busy until they were evicted
(you know, when your monotheistic deity said:
"Behold, the man is become as one of US....")
but every parent knows you have to kick the little moochers out of the basement before they'll make anything out of themselves.
like children.....
And when folks go searching for this
Mystical Magical Missing Piece (of Themselves)
(his/her "other half")
so they can achieve unity
what happens when two faggots hook up?
All they find is another poor slob missing a rib.
Not much Unity in that.......
WRONG! Children raised by married parents do way better than those raised by a single parent. The evidence so far indicates that there is no significant difference between gay parenting and straight parenting (sources here, here, here, here, and here). No matter how much evidence stacks up against your viewpoint, you seem determined to ignore it. (And you advocating for statistical rigor is pretty rich, considering that you don't know how to properly infer causality or construct a reasonable null hypothesis.)
@51: There are TWO creation stories at the beginning of Genesis. The quote I've been explaining comes from the second one. The commandment you quoted comes from the first one.
More importantly, though, it's not connected to the issue of unification. We are commanded to be fruitful and multiply, yes. But the FUNDAMENTAL REASON for marriage is given elsewhere, and is very clearly not for the purposes of reproduction. Enough mental gymnastics, Alleged; I know that book a lot better than you do.
@52: ...you know that men aren't actually missing ribs, right? The ancient Israelites knew that too. Have you ever heard of an allegory?
Currently, less than half of all marriages have progeny at any one time. You can account for some of that by factoring in new marriages that don't have children yet and marriages where infertility is discovered later, but then you also have to account for declining rates of marriage overall.
What is the empirically demonstrable value or state interest in "maintaining the species?"
wow.
You're not very bright at all, are you.
Maintaining the species IS serious business.
Societies that do not maintain a sufficient birth rate
see their pension and social security systems implode.
Additionally,
over time the population shrinks and gets older,
creating a succession of social and economic crises.
Japan is in that process, Europe verging on it.
Another aspect of the problem
is that the rate of babies born may be high enough to sustain the population
but the quality of people produced deteriorates
and the rising generations do not take their place in the economy
and contribute
but instead add to the burden of society
by taking more social services than they contribute in economic activity.
Your typical hipster moocher over-educated under-skilled Slog fanboy, in other words....
Perhaps you have a point.
Perhaps homosexual pairings ARE Just As Good,
as long as we only compare them to the infirm, the lame, the halt, the feeble.....
There is as much evidence that god exists as there is that humans are attracted to people of their own gender.
Did Moses talk to god in a burning bush?
Seems we just have to take his word for it. Or not....
Is Danny attracted to boys?
Who knows.
He has had sex with icky girls, after all.
Seems we just have to take his word for it.
Is Meredith Baxter a lesbian?
She says so.
Who are we to question a woman who was married three times. To Men.
"Homosexuality"
As an innate biological condition?
Please cite any testable evidence that such a thing exists.....
So why is Danny posting some Bozo quoting from The Bible?
It seems Danny doesn't care for The Bible
except when someone tells him it agrees with him...
Don't like the science? Okay, facts have a well-known liberal bias anyway. Consider the following. ASSUMING that all individuals are actually heterosexual, and CONSIDERING the extensive social bias against homosexual behavior, WHY would people actively choose to act gay? Even where being gay is a capital offense, some people still are gay. What possible reason can you propose to explain this choice if the analysis is so heavily stacked against it? Is there any possible explanation other than that some people are just neurologically wired to be gay?
@59: So okay, gays are just as good as infertile people, and gay marriage is just as good as straight marriage between infertile people. I'll take that.
Those devices measure sexual arousal, not sexual orientation.
.
Everything you assert about homosexuality applies much more so to religious belief.
Lets apply it to the assertion in @54 and see:
ASSUMING that there is no 'god', and CONSIDERING the extensive social bias against religion in many modern 'enlightened' humanist societies, WHY would people actively choose to practice religion? Even where belonging to some religions is a capital offense, people still practice religion. What possible reason can you propose to explain this choice if the analysis is so heavily stacked against it? Is there any possible explanation other than that some people have encountered 'god'? (and we haven't even broached the thousands of years of religious persecution and the millions of people who have willingly died for their religious convictions...)
clarification: by 'boys' we meant 'males'; not minors......
And as for your religion distraction, I've got an explanation right here. Many religions promise a reward in the afterlife to the faithful, and punishment to the wicked. Therefore, their adherents are willing to let themselves be martyred because eternity in paradise is worth it. Duh.
I'm not trying to prove that God doesn't exist, Alleged. (In fact, it's impossible to prove God's existence or non-existence.) You're attempting to deny the reality that some people are gay. What's your evidence? I've given you mine.
Sexual arousal is not the same as sexual orientation.
And is susceptible to cultural and environmental conditioning.
Perhaps you could read up on it.....
We are pointing out that sexual 'orientation' is just as fleeting and subjective and unverifiable as religious feeling.
Not to mention the collection of physiological differences in the brain that have been recorded and studied, and demonstrated to actually determine sexual orientation.
If it seems subjective and unverifiable to you, that's only because you selectively ignore all evidence that doesn't support your opinions. And that's your problem, not mine.
Solution: bitch/butch only relationships. The holy union of Ish and Isha are there. And anti-gay discrimination is shown for what it is, gender discrimination.
Do you know what percentage of women yield a positive vaginal photoplethysmograph response to seeing animals copulating?
Are they some bestial sexual orientation?
Don't change the subject, now. Admit that some people just happen to be wired for gayness, or show me your evidence against it. You don't win debates by asking questions instead of answering them.
Yes.
That study.
That found that "women responded genitally to bonobo copulation".
Did you even read the abstract you linked?
At any rate, you should read the actual study.
It duplicates findings by Chivers and Bailey in 2005; "heterosexual female participants showed a significant increase in vaginal responses to depictions of bonobo chimpanzee copulation compared with responses to control films".
And what of men who become aroused viewing lesbians having sex?
Are they lesbians also?
Of course, you're not going to care about the science, so let me lay out for you what the evidence supports. Women demonstrate genital arousal based on the acts they see performed. Men demonstrate genital arousal based on the gender(s) of the actor(s). Therefore, straight men become aroused when looking at naked women. Are you mentally defective?
Clearly, you don't know how to science or statistic. You cherry-pick data, interpret absence of evidence as evidence of absence, and improperly infer causality. Do you even lift?
Now Junior.
Don't go thrashing at us just because you can't read....
You linked the ABSTRACT of the study.
The Abstract that said "women responded genitally to bonobo copulation".
Our quotation was from the 2007 study.
The authors of which asserted that their results duplicated those of the 2005 study; finding that "heterosexual female participants showed a SIGNIFICANT increase in vaginal responses to depictions of bonobo chimpanzee copulation compared with responses to control films".
Of course, we realize you are uncommonly precocious.
And know more about AIDS that the CDC.
So perhaps you should explain to Chivers, Seto, and Blanchard (and the editors of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) the little thingy about the overlapping bars and explain to them that they got their conclusions wrong.
But then, this could explain why your GF spends so much time at Brookfield Zoo.....
Read the second-to-last paragraph in my previous post.
on our computer the link goes to the abstract only with the option to: ADD TO CART $11.95
We appreciate your comments.
and one more clarification; we use 'Dan' as a hypothetical representative of individuals who identify as homosexual but have a history of heterosexual behavior and relationships.
So let's sum things up. I read the study. You read the abstract. I have formal training in statistical analysis and biology. You do not. My argument (that sexual orientation is real and innate) is supported by the APA. Yours is not. And you still think you're winning this argument?
You're not making any points. You're just making me explain mine in minute detail so you're capable of understanding them.
Thanks.
But we've already read the whole study.
Years ago.
82
No doubt.
Innate biological traits are not something one slips into and out of, or experiments with.
Behaviors, on the other hand.....
One may slip into and out of, or experiment with, any of a number of behaviors in order to determine what one's inclinations are. I would never have known that I loved Sleepytime Gorilla Museum or hated the Eagles had I not listened to both; I would never know that I can effectively box and use scissors as if right-handed had I not attempted such, just as I would never know that I can write and use chopsticks more effectively with my left hand had significant effort not been made to use each for the sake of comparison. My wife and I each had homosexual experiences before we married, and, indeed, experience enough interest in our own respective sexes that one may call us bisexual, or at least bisexually responsive; that said, we were able to determine that our primary interests were in the opposite sex, broadly speaking, and in each other, narrowly speaking, and this determination was made because we "experimented" first with others and then with one another.
Proclivities differ from behavior, but they're not unrelated.
Do you have any explanation of the consistent differences observed in the brains of heterosexuals and homosexuals?
We cited it to demonstrate arousal is not orientation;
that women may be aroused by seeing animals copulate
and yet not have an affinity for fucking apes.
(your GF excluded....)
And we never said the gay isn't real.
We said it is real in the same way that religious conviction is real.
We certainly are open to the concept that a neurological defect could confer deviant sexual desire.
If that is what you are suggesting.
We just don't think society is compelled to subsidize or promote the condition.
Do you have any explanation of the consistent differences observed in the brains of psychopaths?
Until you admit that you lied here, there's really no point in trying to convince you of anything further. (Protip: there is no scientific evidence for or against the existence of supernatural forces. There is a great body of scientific evidence suggesting that some people are exclusively attracted to persons of their own gender.)
I'm not contesting that there is a neurological basis to psychopathy. I will, however, correct "neurological defect" and "deviant sexual desire" to "neurological variation" and "atypical sexual desire".
You also err in comparing homosexuality to psychopathy. They are NOTHING alike. A more accurate comparison would be to left-handedness. Do you have any compelling reason why left-handed people shouldn't have the same rights and opportunities as right-handed people? Or homosexuals the same as heterosexuals? (Careful how you answer, I'm dating an ambidextrous bisexual.)
And again: do you concede that you lied by claiming a lack of evidence that homosexuality is real?
That said, as venomlash points out, your statement was about attraction. Arousal does have a pretty explicit relationship with attraction, which in turn is an important component of orientation.
Happy to grant that arguendo . . . But then, we do recognize, protect, and even subsidize (through various tax exemptions) religious practice in the U.S. We even license ministers of various churches to confer certain civic contracts--marriage, for instance. Indeed, we could suggest that the inability of those pastors who would want to bless same-sex unions (or plural marriages, for that matter) are inhibited in their free exercise by current marital law.
Venomlash already corrected this very nicely, but it bears repeating: variation is not defect; that which is atypical is not deviant.
It isn't even necessarily compelled to subsidize or promote the norm--in this case, the heterosexual family unit. Breeding within that context is preferable to breeding outside of it--that is, children of two parents fare statistically better than children within it--but the objective value of more humans is no more and no less than the objective value of more termites. Societal valuation of life is borne of the need to protect life once it exists. Rights do not exist in nature; they can only be yielded by individual or group. Thus no right to life exists until that right is enumerated; life, in turn, is a foundational right without which no other rights can exist. That's a formula for protecting life, though, not a mandate for manufacturing it.
Thus the "condition" of heterosexuality, or of heterosexual union, isn't really worth promoting for what differentiates it from homosexual unions. What's worth promoting is the social stability it provides even in the absence of children--the lower crime rates, higher levels of productivity, and lesser reliance on social services among committed, co-habitating family units.
Do you have any explanation of the consistent differences observed in the brains of psychopaths?
We did not compare homosexuality to psychopathy.
Did you?
How would you compare pedophilia to psychopathy?
Homosexuals currently have the same rights and opportunities as heterosexuals.
They can marry someone of the opposite sex. Or not.
Why are you afraid of words?
A 'variation' that renders those afflicted with it incapable of reproducing is a defect.
'Atypical' desires deviate from the typical.
If you do not couch your language in PC approved jargon
do you fear the reaction of your UberLiberal peers in academia?
An education should send you fearlessly in search of The Truth,
not leave you guarding your words and cowering in fear
of sanction from the Forces of NarrowMinded Bigotry and Intolerance....
An ambidextrous bisexual?
That sounds like the punch line for a good joke.
See what you can come up with.
Society has a huge interest in seeing enough babies grow up to be contributing functional adults.
Unless you expect termites to pay SS and Medicare taxes and change your diapers when you are in the nursing home.
And childless 'marriages' have no need of subsidy or 'promotion' by society.
Childless couples will find pairing up to be in their financial and emotional best interest without the need of social subsidy.
But Society recognizes the high cost of raising children and has recognized its interest in seeing that that happens to the extent that it was willing to financially subsidize childrearing households.
As we have said before, when those policies were developed most marriages produced children.
That is much less so now, and an argument that family policy needs to be revised to take benefits from childless marriages has much merit.
Much more merit that granting 'marriage' status to homosexual pairings.
You make a common mistake. Explanations for why homosexuality is at least partially biological are arguments against it being thought of as volitional or unnatural; they are not arguments for why it should be tolerated or accepted, or why homosexuals should be allowed to form unions comparable to heterosexual unions and have those recognized via the same civic contract. Those arguments are separate. Whether homosexuality is natural or biological is only relevant when its allegedly volitional or unnatural status is used as an argument against such allowances or recognitions.
Homosexuality is indeed more like left-handedness than like psychopathy, but let's take a step in your direction, just to keep things simple enough for you to follow along. All of these things--along with pedophilia, alcoholism, a sweet tooth, an interest in redheads, a taste for art-films, color-blindness, type-A vs. type-B personality variations--represent seemingly natural, arguably immutable conditions in which the individual may find him-/herself. Only the actions associated with are regulable (that is, even in the case of the pedophile, we do not regulate pedophilia--the attraction of the adult to minors--but the act of an adult having sex with a minor).
When looking at whether to tolerate homosexual or left-handed behavior, we measure the potential harm to any non-consenting participant, or any participant whose consent is compromised by age, drugs, or level of competence. In these cases, I just don't see any such harm.
Marriage goes further than that, of course, in that it's a contract with certain "perks," though, in most cases, a tax penalty that seems to more than make up for it, most years. That said, in comparing homosexual behavior with heterosexual behavior, BOTH are neutral in the terms outlined above (that is, they can be dangerous when practiced irresponsibly, less so when practiced responsibly). One may produce children, but that in itself is a moral and social neutral--it's just another organism that could come to offer good or ill, like any other organism.
So does atypical dexterity. Do you also call the left-handed "deviant?"Precisely why I reject and oppose quasi-literate ramblings from a miscreant typing missives in his mother's basement.That explains why we would prefer married parents raising children to single parenting. That doesn't really explain why we would prefer breeding to non-breeding.
Moreover, considering that homosexuality occurs at nigh identical rates in places like Iran as in places like the Netherlands, there's no indication whatsoever that greater acceptance of homosexuality, or recognition of homosexual unions via legal contracts, would increase its incidence or affect the breeding pool at all. Thus recognizing same-sex marriage would have no more effect on the birth rate than recognizing childless heterosexual unions.
I expect to break into the basement apartments of aging, underemployed rednecks and shit on their carpets. I'm a fierce being; they're gonna have to put me down with an elephant gun.And yet they (we) receive it. You seem to think that's just an oversight. It seems far more likely to me that the myriad other socially stabilizing benefits of marriage are recognized by those who offer and oversee the contract.
Darwin would be disappointed at your dismissive attitude toward reproduction.
He would tell you that creating enough functional mature contributing (breeding) members
is The Prime Directive of any species that plans to survive.
Traditional Heterosexual Marriage is the Ideal social unit for accomplishing that.
Homosexual pairings are just wastage.
And as long as that wastage is kept to a small percentage the species can overcome it.
But, alas, too many homosexuals would spell the end of the race.
That said, in comparing homosexual behavior with heterosexual behavior, both are emphatically NOT neutral.
Or equal.
Or Just As Good.....
Heterosexuality must be practiced in order for the species to continue,
and the race will thrive or suffer to the extent that it 'responsibly' practices Traditional Heterosexual Marriage.
Homosexuality,
as practiced in the Real Word,
exacts a cruel toll in emotional and physical disease.
Practiced in a hypothetical ideal 'responsible' manner it is at best a waste of those involved.
.
94
'Sinister' is derived from 'left handed', so, maybe you are on to something....
.
Rates of homosexuality are difficult to measure and you do not know what you claim is true.
(We concede,
however,
that genetic defects often occur at fixed percentages across racial and especially cultural boundaries.)
Furthermore no culture has any multigenerational experience with promoting homosexuality and homosexual pairings as Just As Good as heterosexuality and Traditional Heterosexual Marriage.
Younglings are very susceptible to cultural influences and pressures.
After all, Hitler was able to create a generation of loyal Nazis from one of the most educated and enlightened societies on earth in a mere decade.
So, there's that.....
Blacks also had the same marriage rights as whites under miscegenation laws. And yet nobody would argue that such laws were not racist in intent and in action.
And if you were not comparing homosexuality to psychopathy, why did you even mention it? (In the above paragraph, I make no mention of the illegalization of same-sex marriage, and yet anyone with two cerebral hemispheres to rub together can tell that I'm comparing it to miscegenation laws. It's called connotation, Alleged.)
My girlfriend is indeed an ambidextrous bisexual. Not even joking.
@92: Our society DOES reward couples that have children over those that don't. It's called a child tax credit; people caring for children don't have to pay as much in taxes. Problem solved. Do you really expect people to stop having kids if gay marriage is legalized?
@95: As someone with a background in evolutionary biology, I can tell you you're more full of shit than a factory farm fecal lagoon.
One, the human race is no longer operating under natural selection. Two, NOT reproducing often leads to higher fitness under certain common conditions. Three, homosexuality's incidence shows no signs of changing, so your specter of "too many gays not enough straights" is laughable. Four, homosexuality does not cause any adverse effects.
And with regard to your comments about Nazism, I see you haven't studied any history either.
Yes, they are. Or, at least, you have failed ever so miserably to illustrate otherwise. In an advanced society, making more is no longer the paramount virtue; homosexuals have actually contributed disproportionately to such fields as art, medicine, and technology. What they "waste" in breeding potential, they often make up for in cultural contribution. You, on the other hand, are contributing . . . what, exactly?
If the caliber of organisms by which are species survives is equivalent to you, there's more value in promoting the survival of the ebola virus.
Studies that show the numbers tend to be based on self-reporting, so you're right. If anything, they probably underestimate the numbers in places like Saudi Arabia. Which makes even the appearance of statistical equality frightfully compelling.
Junior: How would you compare pedophilia to psychopathy?
other guy: so you think the gay is a self limiting genetic defect? a hopeful thought.
In other words, you don't have any counterarguments. That's match.
Of course not.
Inconvenient truths and all....
96
You raise an interesting point.
"Homosexuals" are not sterile, or in any way at all incapable of reproducing just like everyone else.
Were there ACTUALLY a 'homosexual' state of being those creatures would/could not reproduce.
Because homo sapiens reproduces heterosexually.
Of course, we all know that "gay" is just a set of behavior and lifestyle choices.
The Defect lies not in DNA or anatomy.
Just in the choices......
"NOT reproducing often leads to higher fitness under certain common conditions."
Those conditions being the potential reproducers are defective goods whose genes are best kept out of the gene pool.
Darwin. And all that.
Homosexuals can reproduce, sure. Same way left-handed people can use their right hands for things. Clearly, if there was really a left-handed state of being, those creatures couldn't use their right hands for anything. So obviously anyone who's left-handed just chose to be that way. According to your logic, that is. I wonder if it's even possible to know less about biology than you do. And if gay is just a set of choices people make, why do gay people's brains differ anatomically from those of straight people?
You definitely don't understand natural selection either. Nice guess, but you're wrong here. I'm talking about INDIVIDUAL fitness, where it can be in an individual's OWN best interests not to reproduce. Guess away, worm.