Dumping gay marriage prop in California is getting intense

[??????????]

If it is genetic and their were a test to prove that would you support abortions if the women did it for that reason? I would still say HELL NO of course, but just curious as to what the pro-infanticide folks think.

[Brittain33]

If it is genetic and their were a test to prove that would you support abortions if the women did it for that reason? I would still say HELL NO of course, but just curious as to what the pro-infanticide folks think.

Leave the baby on a hillside to die of exposure. Duh.

[Earth]

If it is genetic and their were a test to prove that would you support abortions if the women did it for that reason? I would still say HELL NO of course, but just curious as to what the pro-infanticide folks think.

Since abortions don't involve infants, it makes no difference what the reason for an abortion is. It's intellectually dishonest of you to use such loaded language.

[??????????]

If it is genetic and their were a test to prove that would you support abortions if the women did it for that reason? I would still say HELL NO of course, but just curious as to what the pro-infanticide folks think.

Since abortions don't involve infants, it makes no difference what the reason for an abortion is. It's intellectually dishonest of you to use such loaded language.

Fine, then I'll just use murder then, ok?

[Brittain33]

Since abortions don't involve infants, it makes no difference what the reason for an abortion is. It's intellectually dishonest of you to use such loaded language.

I'm frankly disappointed in the quality of the anti-same-sex-marrriage posts here, although I am sure that many people are holding their tongues because they have no wish to get into this discussion. 

[Alcon]

If it is genetic and their were a test to prove that would you support abortions if the women did it for that reason? I would still say HELL NO of course, but just curious as to what the pro-infanticide folks think.

I don't understand why we're bringing abortion into this topic, other than maybe to play Moral One-Up or something?

[riceowl]

If it is genetic and their were a test to prove that would you support abortions if the women did it for that reason? I would still say HELL NO of course, but just curious as to what the pro-infanticide folks think.

I don't understand why we're bringing abortion into this topic, other than maybe to play Moral One-Up or something?

btw, fur is murder!

Now Brittain, I don't know what environmental factors may have induced you to your choice

Again, what "choice" did I make? Please explain. I want to learn from you. Thanks.

would like answer on this one as well.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Heterosexuality is intrinsically part of the survival mechanism for the human race.

No sh**t. What does that have to do with being gay? I'm very happy that lots of people aren't gay. I'm glad my brother and sisters are having kids. I've seen  _Children of Men_ and that is not really the goal of the gay marriage movement, in my view. One could posit evolutionary arguments why I didn't get made that way, or one doesn't have to, but it doesn't matter, because it is how I was made and it's the only way I can lead my life without being an emotional cripple.

I feel like I have to make the anti-gay-marriage arguments on your behalf, because you're floundering around on such a low level. Yes, heterosexual intercourse is important for human survival. The next argument made is that this is why marriage is important--to make sure people have kids. This argument goes before courts, and it fails because a) lots of people get married who don't or can't have kids, and b) same-sex couples are raising children through adoption, artificial insemination, and step-parenting and it hurts those kids for their adoptive parents not to have legal protections. Try proposing a law that bans marriage for people who can not have children because of age or medical sterility--do you think that's a good idea?

Maybe you're opposed to adoption in general because "they aren't real parents", but God, I hope not, because I want to have some respect for your humanity.

First, I cited that heterosexuality is intrinsicly part of the survival mechanism of the human race in response to prior posts challenging my assertion  (Alcon and others).  

Second, I am sorry that you feel you must demand others endorse your lifestyle.  If you feel this is necessary to lead your life without being an emotional cripple, then I am sorry for you.  

Third, you really should check out the area of Family Law.  I have a copy of Arizona Legal Forms: Domestic Relations, in front of me and the single largest area covered is concerning children (support of Family  Child Custody and Visitation, Paternity and Maternity and Termination of Parental Rights).  The only other large area is procedural (Motions, Discovery, Attorney Fees, Post Decree Follow-Up, and Enforcement).

Fourth, as I previously noted, I have no problem with civil unions for those who are unable to naturally have children.  I though I was very plain about this matter.

Fifth, inasmuch as I continue to contend that homosexuality is environmentally caused, it seems quite appropriate to me that homosexuals should not be given custody of children.  However, I am not opposed to adoption "in general," just adoption by homosexuals.

Oh, and BTW, every study of which I am aware indicates that homosexual activities are more prevelant among prisoners in penitentiaries than among the general adult population outside prison.  Now, either that's an indication that homosexuals are significantly more likely to commit felonies (for which I have no evidece, if you do, please advise) or that lacking heterosexual contact, some prisoners engage in homosexual activities (i.e. NOT intrinsic).

[CARLHAYDEN]

Alcon and Brittain,

Perhaps you missed your biology courses, but, whereas some primitive life form propagate asexually, more advanced life forms propagate sexually, with there being two different sexes necessary for the propagation.

Heterosexuality is intrinsically part of the survival mechanism for the human race.  There are a number of treatises which will explain this is more detail.

Now Brittain, I don't know what environmental factors may have induced you to your choice, and, frankly, really don't care. (although, I hope you were not molested as a child).  Its your life. 

Carl, perhaps you missed yours. Please explain the prevailance of homosexuality in material human society and in the 'dog eat dog' animal kingdom from whales to hedgehogs. Please explain why homosexuality has not died out in humans in the past few hundred thousand years or in crocodiles for the past few hundred million.

A never make an pass remark about child molestation, whether real or imagined in any context on this forum at any time.

Most of your post is rather incoherent, but I will tentatively assume that you mean "prevalance," as in widespread.

As to why homosexuality existed thousands of years ago as well as today, I note that actions such as Burgularly, Arson, Robbery Rape and Murder have existed throughtout human history.  There is no cogent evidence that these offenses/actions are biologically based either.

As to you attempt to tell me what I may and may not post, I am not suprised that you take that approach.  Is it because you were molested as a child, and find bringing up that matter emotionally taxing?

[??????????]

If it is genetic and their were a test to prove that would you support abortions if the women did it for that reason? I would still say HELL NO of course, but just curious as to what the pro-infanticide folks think.

I don't understand why we're bringing abortion into this topic, other than maybe to play Moral One-Up or something?

Someone brought up the silly notion that homosexuality was genetic.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

If it is genetic and their were a test to prove that would you support abortions if the women did it for that reason? I would still say HELL NO of course, but just curious as to what the pro-infanticide folks think.

I don't understand why we're bringing abortion into this topic, other than maybe to play Moral One-Up or something?

Someone brought up the silly notion that homosexuality was genetic.

As if that is really relevant.

[Brittain33]

Second, I am sorry that you feel you must demand others endorse your lifestyle.  If you feel this is necessary to lead your life without being an emotional cripple, then I am sorry for you. 

Thanks for making your dishonesty so clear in this discussion. I'll try not to waste your time or mine in the future.

[Alcon]

CARL, can you point out where I challenged that heterosexuality was part of the human race's survival mechanism?

You've also now changed your assertion from "lifestyle choice" to "environmentally caused."  Since the relevant debate was that race is not a choice, while homosexuality is, "environmentally caused" does not sufficiently back up Winfield's point.

Finally, are you asserting that the only reason homosexuals exist is because they're heterosexuals who are just desperate for sex?  And you reach this conclusion because sexually-deprived prisoners may engage in homosexual sex acts?

Someone brought up the silly notion that homosexuality was genetic.

I don't see what that has to do with your comment, and again, the debate is not "genetic" but "choice or not."  Winfield claimed that it was not comparable to racial rights because homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice."

[CARLHAYDEN]

CARL, can you point out where I challenged that heterosexuality was part of the human race's survival mechanism?

You've also now changed your assertion from "lifestyle choice" to "environmentally caused."  Since the relevant debate was that race is not a choice, while homosexuality is, "environmentally caused" does not sufficiently back up Winfield's point.

Finally, are you asserting that the only reason homosexuals exist is because they're heterosexuals who are just desperate for sex?  And you reach this conclusion because sexually-deprived prisoners may engage in homosexual sex acts?

Someone brought up the silly notion that homosexuality was genetic.

I don't see what that has to do with your comment, and again, the debate is not "genetic" but "choice or not."  Winfield claimed that it was not comparable to racial rights because homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice."

First, "lifestyle choice," was a bad choice of words.  My bad.

Second, you are doing you Nixon impression again.  I did NOT say that you challenged that heterosexuality was a part of the human race's survival mechanism, but I did say that it was in response to the argument as to whether heterosexuality was INTRINSIC.

Third, you really twist things out of shape.  I pointed out (as evidence that homosexuality is NOT intrinsic)  that the rate of homosexual acts in prison is higher than among the general population.  No reasonable person (I guess that excludes Alcon) would try to interpret that as an assertion that all homosexuals acts are exclusively or primarily a result of imprisonment.

[Earth]

If it is genetic and their were a test to prove that would you support abortions if the women did it for that reason? I would still say HELL NO of course, but just curious as to what the pro-infanticide folks think.

Since abortions don't involve infants, it makes no difference what the reason for an abortion is. It's intellectually dishonest of you to use such loaded language.

Fine, then I'll just use murder then, ok?

We can't have a mature discussion until you leave the emotionally loaded aside.

[Alcon]

CARL,

I see what's going on.  We're debating two parallel issues, which was unapparent of your mis-phrasing.  I was responding to Winfield, who argued:

Alcon, you continue to compare issues of race to issues of sexual orientation.  One does not choose their race.  One does choose their sexual orientation.  Sexual orientation is a lifestyle.  I know some do not believe that sexual orientation is a choice, rather something they were born with, however, that is a whole other issue, which I will not be getting into, at all.

...a statement that, for some reason, he apparently refuses to substantiate, even though it's central the moral distinction he's forwarding.

It appeared that you agreed with him because you echoed his exact phrasing:

Once again, Alcon indulges in presumption.

There is a difference between intrinsic characteristics and choices of 'lifestyle.'

I see now that you are backing up on your previous statements.  However, your contributions are now not relevant responses to the points I was making to Winfield.  He was arguing choice; you are arguing genetics.

Third, you really twist things out of shape.  I pointed out (as evidence that homosexuality is NOT intrinsic)  that the rate of homosexual acts in prison is higher than among the general population.  No reasonable person (I guess that excludes Alcon) would try to interpret that as an assertion that all homosexuals acts are exclusively or primarily a result of imprisonment.

My question was, and I'll repeat it:  Why did you bring up the higher rates of homosexual sex acts among prisoners?  What were you trying to imply?

I was asking you what you meant, which you failed to answer, not dictating to you what you meant.  If I had been dictating what you were implying, the only way I could "twist [it] out of shape," it would not have been in the form of a non-rhetorical question.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Alcon,

While you are often devious, an ignorant of essential points, I have never alledged you are stupid.

I don't know how to dumb it down any further,

The rate of homosexual acts is dependent upon environmental factors, not intrinsic orientation.

The example I cited is classic.

[Alcon]

Alcon,

While you are often devious, an ignorant of essential points, I have never alledged you are stupid.

I don't know how to dumb it down any further,

The rate of homosexual acts is dependent upon environmental factors, not intrinsic orientation.

The example I cited is classic.

Nothing in my post indicated any confusion about what you were arguing, or any desire for clarification.  The only confusion, which has been resolved, resulted because you used "lifestyle choice" when you apparently meant neither "lifestyle" nor "choice."  You backtracked, which made your comments irrelevant to the exchange I was having with Winfield.

I'm not sure I agree that your example is a particularly good one (I don't think sexual orientation identity and sexual arousal are really the same thing, and neither do most people in fields related to psychology of sexuality, but whatever) but it doesn't contradict anything I've said.

I'm glad that you find me devious, by the way.  That's so cool.

[Lunar]

[Lincoln Republican]

Alcon, clearly the reason I did not choose to elaborate on sexual orientation and lifestyle, was because I did not want this discussion about same sex marriage to get sidetracked into a protracted discussion about born gay, chose gay, etc.

My instincts proved to be correct, as that is exactly what has happened.

[Alcon]

Alcon, clearly the reason I did not choose to elaborate on sexual orientation and lifestyle, was because I did not want this discussion about same sex marriage to get sidetracked into a protracted discussion about born gay, chose gay, etc.

My instincts proved to be correct, as that is exactly what has happened.

But you've said it's the foundation of how you defend the morality of your position.  It's not a sidetrack.  You said that the anti-miscegenation laws were unacceptable because race is not a choice, but sexual orientation is.

The abortion thing certainly was a distraction, but let's get this thing back on the rails.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yes, many young people of a more liberal bent do become more conservative as they get older.

People who were socialists in their 20s' suddenly find themselves raising children and paying bills and realise a 65% tax rate doesn't really work.

But this is different - the annecdotal evdience is that people tend to become more economically conservative - but I don't see why they would make a 180 on their social views.

My thinking is - one key problem with this thread is how you actually view this scenario. Personally I see it as a civil right issue - and on that front the youth generally were WAY ahead of the general population on race rights, gender equality etc etc. I don't see why this issue is any different.

Look at the exit polling.
                     Y       N
18-24 (11%) 36% 64%       
25-29 (9%) 41% 59%       
30-39 (17%) 52% 48%

Average of people between 18 and 39 is 57% No.

Curious why is it that sexuality cannot be seen as anything  besides the sexual act? Are you really that dense.

[Reluctant Republican]

Wow… This is a pretty heated discussion, ha ha.

Not that anything I say will matter, but I of course don’t really see the problem with Gay marriage. And I don’t see how anyone can argue that it’s a conscious choice. It’s only so much  a choice in that you chose to act on your true sexual desires or not. But that’s really no choice at all, as I believe Britain already brought up. We’re not asexuals, we want and crave relationships and all that that definition entails just like everybody else. Now, as to what causes it, I tend to believe it differs from person to person. Without getting too personal, I’ve had a bit of traumatic sexual experience in my past. It was nothing severe or even particularly scaring, but could that have “pushed” me into homosexuality? Sure, I guess. But I also know many gay people who had perfectly normal childhoods, grew up in loving Christian homes with devoted parents and were filled with absolute self loathing when they started to feel an attraction to the same gender. So I really don’t understand from my admittedly biased point of view how anyone could be thought to consciously chose a “lifestyle” that in many cases will give them nothing but scorn and hatred from the majority.  Not to mention the obvious argument as to how it is that a straight person can’t choose to become aroused by fooling around with the same sex yet somehow we’re supposed to be able to choose to be gay. It boggles the mind.

But as for the subject at hand, I suppose I see this, reluctantly, as a case where the tyranny of the majority needs to be overturned. I’d prefer for there to be public support for gay marriage, certainly. Indeed, if we just go ahead and legalize it now, it might create more problems in the long run, what with the resentment a court overturning the voters might cause. But there are times when the public need to be pushed forward, and I think this is one of them. But again I’m biased, so I might be missing a compelling argument the other side has. I’ve just not heard any of them yet.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think Reluctant illustrates the point well.

Obviously is a CHOICE to engage in homosexual Acts - no more than it is for a straight person to CHOOSE to sleep with a person of the opposite sex. If sexuality is only about the Act. But sexuality is about what drives you to want to make those choices, not only who you do it with. 

So you're cheaping all sexualities to lower it to only "get in, get off, get out". 

[Lincoln Republican]

Alcon, clearly the reason I did not choose to elaborate on sexual orientation and lifestyle, was because I did not want this discussion about same sex marriage to get sidetracked into a protracted discussion about born gay, chose gay, etc.

My instincts proved to be correct, as that is exactly what has happened.

But you've said it's the foundation of how you defend the morality of your position.  It's not a sidetrack.  You said that the anti-miscegenation laws were unacceptable because race is not a choice, but sexual orientation is.

The abortion thing certainly was a distraction, but let's get this thing back on the rails.

Whether one chooses the gay life style, or, in the view of some, whether one comes to the conclusion that they are gay, then they should be prepared to accept the realities that go along with the gay life style, one of those realities being that gay marriage is not a legal entity in 48 of the 50 states.

Quit crying about it, and live with it.

Just be happy that in some jurisdictions gays can be granted civil unions, with the same legal and financial rights afforded to opposite sex marriages.

The entire nation should not have to cow tow to the radical gay agenda.