Political Crossfire Forums

[Thrilla]

Quote: problem with homosexuality is its proven to be a genetic trait no.. i dont think it has been proven
got a link to that proof?

[Gdawg007]

RickyBear wrote: rxb fan wrote: why do people dislike the idea of gay marriage in the first place? honestly i haven't heard any valid answers as to why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. all i've heard is "it's just not natural" (let's get rid of vegetarians while we’re at it) and “our children shouldn’t be exposed to it." no answers to actually validate the decision. What i'm getting is that people just don't like it, even though all evidence points to there being no reason to disliking it. Or at least interfering with it rather than avoiding it. please restore my faith in society and somebody give me a good reason! :x from what i've seen on this forum the majority of the people here are against govt. interference, but there's bound to be somebody here...

You get your "it's not natural" answer for one reason, in reality it is not. 2 men can not have children, nor 2 women, thus in actuality it is not a natural act, now emotional it is a different story, I guess any 2 people of the same sex can love one another, I don't happen to agree with it and I would vote it down if it came to a vote, how ever you have to understand that by definition it is not natural, it is emotional, we are driven by our emotions more these days than in the past, way past that is, when natural instinct was the norm, I don't know man there are always going to be two side to every debate, I happen to be on the side you are not, thats natural.

there are women and men who can't have kids. The inability to have kids is not the definition of "natural." We are driven by our emotions as we always have. Afterall, back in the days when homosexuality was more of a taboo, we were suppressing it for a REASON, weren't we? Most likely because we were uncomfortable with it, which is an emotional response, not a "natural" one. Emotions are created by nature, they are engrained into our physiology, so therefore there's little about human behavior that is unnatural.

[GrowHydro]

Thrilla wrote: some people believe homosexuality is a sexual abomination...and nothing should be done to legitimize it

"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

As for homosexuality not being natural, monkeys do it to. Its not a human invention.

Quote: But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

[Ameriman]

Gdawg007 wrote: RickyBear wrote: rxb fan wrote: why do people dislike the idea of gay marriage in the first place? honestly i haven't heard any valid answers as to why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. all i've heard is "it's just not natural" (let's get rid of vegetarians while we’re at it) and “our children shouldn’t be exposed to it." no answers to actually validate the decision. What i'm getting is that people just don't like it, even though all evidence points to there being no reason to disliking it. Or at least interfering with it rather than avoiding it. please restore my faith in society and somebody give me a good reason! :x from what i've seen on this forum the majority of the people here are against govt. interference, but there's bound to be somebody here...

You get your "it's not natural" answer for one reason, in reality it is not. 2 men can not have children, nor 2 women, thus in actuality it is not a natural act, now emotional it is a different story, I guess any 2 people of the same sex can love one another, I don't happen to agree with it and I would vote it down if it came to a vote, how ever you have to understand that by definition it is not natural, it is emotional, we are driven by our emotions more these days than in the past, way past that is, when natural instinct was the norm, I don't know man there are always going to be two side to every debate, I happen to be on the side you are not, thats natural.

there are women and men who can't have kids. The inability to have kids is not the definition of "natural." We are driven by our emotions as we always have. Afterall, back in the days when homosexuality was more of a taboo, we were suppressing it for a REASON, weren't we? Most likely because we were uncomfortable with it, which is an emotional response, not a "natural" one. Emotions are created by nature, they are engrained into our physiology, so therefore there's little about human behavior that is unnatural.

I don't think anyone can argue that the human anus is naturally suited for the insertion of a penis...

But hey...whatever turns your crank...just don't expect it to become natural to others because it feels natural to you..nor should one expect that their lifestyle should change the way others feel about or view that lifestyle.

[Melchior]

Marriage: Legal contract between two consenting adults.

Excerpt from a Supreme Court case known as Hale .vs. Henkel, 201 US 43 (1905):

Quote: "The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."

Thrilla wrote: some people believe homosexuality is a sexual abomination...and nothing should be done to legitimize it

Do you think legalization means condoning?

[Thrilla]

GrowHydro wrote: Thrilla wrote: some people believe homosexuality is a sexual abomination...and nothing should be done to legitimize it

"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

As for homosexuality not being natural, monkeys do it to. Its not a human invention.

Quote: But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
not sure why the religion angle was brought up....but its a nice quote anyway :-D

im not sure you are going to sway many people who think its an abomination with the " monkeys do it too" argument :lol:
monkeys also eat their own feces... i dont consider that normal either

[Gdawg007]

righturnonred wrote: I am unaffected by any commitment that two homosexuals make between themselves, including marriage. But adoption is definitely inappropriate. Yes, I'm sure two gays are very capable of providing love for a child, but that is not enough in my estimation.

Such a situation is inherently dysfunctional simply for the fact such an arraignment is incapable of producing the same emotional dynamic found in a male/female team with the roles they play and represent. This in immensely important to the normal development of children.

Two mommies, or two daddies inevitably creates confusion and places significant, and unfair social pressures on a child. Bottom line is, it is too radical of a concept to warrant placing undeveloped children into such an unpredictable environment.

To be fair, many marriages end in divorce (nothing close to 50%, because many divorcees remarry and divorce multiple times), and that is bad for children. Single motherhood is bad for children. Single fatherhood is bad for children. Dysfunctional heterosexual marriages are bad for children. AND I wouldn't sanction that any of these instances provide suitable situations for adoption.

Unfortunately, the government cannot evaluate the relationships or family structures of ill-equiped or unsavory heterosexual couples who choose to have their own biological children, because basically, there own child is their own business, regardless of how inept they are, until the threshold of abuse is crossed of course.

When the government is charged with placing custody of children, they are required to make these evaluations, and I'm sorry to say that bizarre relationships don't qualify, hetero, homo, whatever.

Your definition of normal gender roles is very outdated. A man can promote the "accepted" gender roles for both a male and a female, so can two same sex parents. A mother and a father treat a son the same way. Their gender is not as big a factor as the gender of the child. Even most homosexual men grew up in a household where they were encouraged to play sports and be silent about their emotions. The stereotype of the gay male who's emotionally open is just that, a stereotype perpetuated largely by movies and TV. The gay men I know are just that, men. They watch football and other sports, they take jobs in construction, and they tend to bring on themselves all the traditional roles that a male in our society does. Except for being gay. I'm not expert on human behavior, but I have never seen a gay man who wants to fill the role of a woman in society. That's not part of being a homosexual, which is merely defined as having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. It doesn't mean that a gay man is going to provide any different set of gender roles for their child.

Now, one may argue that a mother is a nurturer and the father is not, and two gay men may not have this role in their family. I know some women who are far from nurturers. They are distant and push their kids to be self-reliant. Their fathers tend to be more nurturing than their mothers, and they are all normal and healthy adjusted people. Single parents can provide these same roles to their kids, the issue there is that if the parent is injured and cannot work, then how will the child survive? THAT'S why single parents cannot adopt a child, NOT because they cannot provide the child with an adequate parental representation. Two gay men or women don't have this lack of support issue if one of them gets sick, injured, or is killed.

We place too much emphasis on "normal" in this country, and in the world in general. We use terms like unnatural to hide the simple notion that we just don't agree or like it, which is what we should say.

[free thinking american]

Thrilla wrote: GrowHydro wrote: Thrilla wrote: some people believe homosexuality is a sexual abomination...and nothing should be done to legitimize it

"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

As for homosexuality not being natural, monkeys do it to. Its not a human invention.

Quote: But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
not sure why the religion angle was brought up....but its a nice quote anyway :-D

im not sure you are going to sway many people who think its an abomination with the " monkeys do it too" argument :lol:
monkeys also eat their own feces... i dont consider that normal either

I think he was trying to say it was natural because monkeys do it.

But the fece's argument is pretty strong :lol: .

BTW... weren't you chastised earlier about the series...of...dots. :wink:

[Melchior]

Honestly, using emotionalism, moral or religious arguments, it's bulls**t.

Is American principle conformity and fascism? I always thought it was liberty.

[Gdawg007]

Ameriman wrote: Gdawg007 wrote: RickyBear wrote: rxb fan wrote: why do people dislike the idea of gay marriage in the first place? honestly i haven't heard any valid answers as to why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. all i've heard is "it's just not natural" (let's get rid of vegetarians while we’re at it) and “our children shouldn’t be exposed to it." no answers to actually validate the decision. What i'm getting is that people just don't like it, even though all evidence points to there being no reason to disliking it. Or at least interfering with it rather than avoiding it. please restore my faith in society and somebody give me a good reason! :x from what i've seen on this forum the majority of the people here are against govt. interference, but there's bound to be somebody here...

You get your "it's not natural" answer for one reason, in reality it is not. 2 men can not have children, nor 2 women, thus in actuality it is not a natural act, now emotional it is a different story, I guess any 2 people of the same sex can love one another, I don't happen to agree with it and I would vote it down if it came to a vote, how ever you have to understand that by definition it is not natural, it is emotional, we are driven by our emotions more these days than in the past, way past that is, when natural instinct was the norm, I don't know man there are always going to be two side to every debate, I happen to be on the side you are not, thats natural.

there are women and men who can't have kids. The inability to have kids is not the definition of "natural." We are driven by our emotions as we always have. Afterall, back in the days when homosexuality was more of a taboo, we were suppressing it for a REASON, weren't we? Most likely because we were uncomfortable with it, which is an emotional response, not a "natural" one. Emotions are created by nature, they are engrained into our physiology, so therefore there's little about human behavior that is unnatural.

I don't think anyone can argue that the human anus is naturally suited for the insertion of a penis...

But hey...whatever turns your crank...just don't expect it to become natural to others because it feels natural to you..nor should one expect that their lifestyle should change the way others feel about or view that lifestyle.

Would you say the mouth is naturally suited for a penis? And yet heterosexuals use it all the time in sex play, now don't they.

For the record, I'm not gay, and I'll admit that I'm a little less comfortable around gays than I am around straight people, but I can't help but feel that this country is letting that same fear that I share with them overrule their sense of fairness.

Let's not forget that homosexual couples don't have the same rights you and I do. If they buy a house together, and even if they both have a wills stating that it goes to the other, their families can still contest it and get their share out of it. No will can stop that, and is that really fair? Afterall a will is a person's wishes. Giving a house to the person they love as a last wish is not illegal, and the law should protect them from families who just don't agree with certain lifestyle, should it not?

[Thrilla]

Quote: BTW... weren't you chastised earlier about the series...of...dots. yes.... i think.... i ...was....
it...seems...dots..are...unnatural... :lol:

[Thrilla]

Quote: Do you think legalization means condoning?
condoning?..maybe .. maybe not
legitimizing?..yes

[callous]

Thrilla wrote: Quote: problem with homosexuality is its proven to be a genetic trait no.. i dont think it has been proven
got a link to that proof?

Its information that is as old as air....... its amazing how solid a job religious organizations have done about burying it.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/10_22_97b.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3735668.stm

[rxb fan]

Ameriman wrote: callous wrote: the only reasons to keep gay marraige from being allowed are as follows.

Tradition.

Religious principles.


Neither of which apply in any Democracy where humans have personal freedoms of any realistic kind.

Isn't the definition of personal freedom the right to have tradition and religious principles among other things?

...like marriage?

[Gdawg007]

Thrilla wrote: GrowHydro wrote: Thrilla wrote: some people believe homosexuality is a sexual abomination...and nothing should be done to legitimize it

"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

As for homosexuality not being natural, monkeys do it to. Its not a human invention.

Quote: But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
not sure why the religion angle was brought up....but its a nice quote anyway :-D

im not sure you are going to sway many people who think its an abomination with the " monkeys do it too" argument :lol:
monkeys also eat their own feces... i dont consider that normal either

Do they? Most primates, apes, baboons, and chimps are very concious about feces and only use it as a weapon if angered or scared. Many primates use leaves to wipe themselves and most move from area to area to allow for dung beetles and other animals to clean up their feces before returning. Monkeys may be different though.

Natural is the term, not normal. Natural is defined as ocurring in nature. If monkeys eat their own feces, then clearly it's natural. The same would be said for homosexuality.

[FLea]

Let me break this down for you.

Organisims (most) all the way up the chain usually reproduce with the intent to produce offspring.

The hole you have bowel movements from was not intended for semen. Semen and sh!t do not make offspring.

Moving right along...

Some view a permiscuous lifestyle as what it is. An unhealthy lifestyle.
Some view it as you can do as you please.
Adultry used to be illegal to do.
Now you can have sex with whomever you want.

This is what I am getting at, nothing more nothing less.
A line is drawn, between what the public views as socially acceptable and not socially acceptable. Because in the end WE have to pay for the decisions we make.

I myself, chose a one girl kinda guy lifestyle. I think having meaningless sex with bar sluts is not healthy, dangerous and unwise. Hence bad for ones' soul. But I also agree people should have sex with whomever they want, its their choice. Once again, I dont push my views on others, i show up at the voting booth to put my 2 cents in. That is how I make a difference. Marriage is not a right, its a privilege.

I am not stopping gays from having sex, I am not stopping multiple people from having orgies.

What I am stopping is the recognition of it. See you people try to use the "moral" shot at gay marriage, saying Guy (A) loves guy (B). That will not work on morally religious folk. Remember marriage is a privilege not a right. It is NOT my right to have equal benefits for my little brother, its what it is, a benefit/privilege, Not a right.

What people have to understand is this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I drew my line there, respect it, argue it, lets vote on it. Its not discrimination. What right is being infringed upon?

[Melchior]

Why has no one addressed my post concerning Hale .vs. Henkel?

[GrowHydro]

Thrilla wrote: GrowHydro wrote: Thrilla wrote: some people believe homosexuality is a sexual abomination...and nothing should be done to legitimize it

"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

As for homosexuality not being natural, monkeys do it to. Its not a human invention.

Quote: But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
not sure why the religion angle was brought up....but its a nice quote anyway :-D

im not sure you are going to sway many people who think its an abomination with the " monkeys do it too" argument :lol:
monkeys also eat their own feces... i dont consider that normal either

Jefferson was saying that religion is between man and his god, and the public(government) shouldn't have anything to do with it. Making a law that forbids perfectly good citizens from marrying is showing favor to one religion, as people'a interpretation of god's will and laws differ.

Normal and natural are different. Normal refers to society, which can change. Natural means it occurs in nature, so in a way it is normal. Same with eating feces. If god created nature, and homosexuality occurs in nature, then he must have created homosexuality too. Thats what I'm trying to say.

[Gdawg007]

Thrilla wrote: Quote: Do you think legalization means condoning?
condoning?..maybe .. maybe not
legitimizing?..yes

It also allows for protection of certain legalities that you as a heterosexual (I'm assuming, so don't be offended if I misread you) take for granted.

[Melchior]

If anyone claims homosexuality is artifical and unnatural, not only are they attacking the fact that two men can fall in love, but they are clearly ignorant of non-traditional sex.

I would expect as much, for someone to condemn homosexuality would not bother to look into it...