VanillaGorilla
Active member
Actually there is because a recent poll found that 2/3 of Americans are against gay marriage. Most politicians wouldn't go against 3/3 of the people because they would have to get a real job.
goldylight
***** Vampire
I saw even in whacked out Cali 2/3 of the people oppose homo marriage.VanillaGorilla said:
VanillaGorilla
Active member
You guys who support this keep reverting back to the civil rights defense which simply doesn't work. I'll post why yet again.
Are gay people owned and treated like property? Are they murdered when they run away from their owners? Are they considered separate but equal and not allowed to go in to a straight only grocery stores? Are they not allowed to vote or drive a car?
The answer to all of the questions is NO! How can you even compare gay marriage to a person being lynched for going into a white only restaurant. The argument not only doesn't make any since it insulting to anyone who went threw the civil rights movement. Since it's your argument please tell me how gay people are slaves, in suffrage, and segregated.
I will also post this again, if the labrad definition of discrimination is on the basis of simply because they can't get married and wanting to, than polygamist ect. are being discriminated against too. If marriage is a "equal right" than everyone who wants to get married should be able to. This would include NAMBLA marrying boys, 3 men and a woman, 3 women and a man, a woman and her dog.
It's not a double standard. I could give a **** what people do in the privacy in their own home. However, there is a difference between that and forcing everyone to accept it. Homosexuality is not normal and not healthy. If someone wants to live like that that's fine with me but don't promote it to kids in schools or legitimized it by allowing them to marry.
.....and the average gay male has 500 to 1000 sexual partners in their life time. They have a life expectancy of 35 to 40 yrs old. They are 2% of the population and have 20 to 30 % of STDs. The divorce rate is about 50 %...what does that have to do with anything? If you want to debate why that is, we can but it has nothing to do with gay marriage.
Again this doesn't go to religion. It goes to if being homosexual is normal or not. We weren't designed to be gay. Even if you go with the gay party line that it's genetic, than it's a genetic dysfunction.
size
Well-known member
VanillaG....
People just can''t seem to seperate the difference between a right and a priviledge. Consequently, I quit arguing in this thread, but I am glad to see you are still at it.
I think the valid and fundamental agruments against homosexual marriage have been laid properly in this thread. However, arguments in favor of homosexual marriage truly have not.
People just can''t seem to seperate the difference between a right and a priviledge. Consequently, I quit arguing in this thread, but I am glad to see you are still at it.
I think the valid and fundamental agruments against homosexual marriage have been laid properly in this thread. However, arguments in favor of homosexual marriage truly have not.
GIJoe
Pat Tillman, American HERO
I don't know, but just a guess...
If you want to use this argument, you use it to your detriment; Marriage was "created" and instituted by the "church"; The state has no right to take this institution from the church and make it their own issue. The fact that marriage is a recognized legal status is the state's way of respect for the church in my opinion. But as far as re-writing a definition that has been clearly defined as a man and a woman for thousands of years, oh my.... the state ought to stay the heck out of that one (separation of church and state, you know).
So therefore I am assuming as well, you are for state control of the church; the church according to you can have no say in what happens in this country (after all, you are for altering their creation, the institution of marriage), and if you disagree with me, all you have to do to discredit me is say "separation of church and state" instead of addressing issues. Seems like yet another form of discrimination for someone using discrimination to bolster their argument. If one can eliminate one's viewpoints as to their validity by just stereotyping a person's viewpoint as religious, I fear we will step into the dark ages of years past where a person was eventually put to death for what he believed, often just by the witness of someone else's word against theirs.
I hope I'm not reading too much into what you were saying
VanillaGorilla
Active member
Thanks size........They keep falling back to the church, civil rights, and the 50% divorce rate. When someone addresses these points they go away for awhile and when they come back they say the same thing. I'm sorry but that's not how you debate.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
Damn good points GIJoe.
jjjd
Active member
one should also note that the 50% divorce rate is skewed by people who have multiple divorces. iow, the average first marriage has WELL over 50% chance of succeeding w/o divorce. over 60% iirc. however, there are many people who get divorced multiple times which skews the overall %age of marriages that end in divorce.
thus, the # is somewhat misleading.
some would conclude (based on the 50% #) that if one gets married for the first time, that this marriage has a 50% chance of ending in divorce. which is not true.
the fact is that a much higher %age than 50% of first marriages will not result in divorce.
thus, the # is somewhat misleading.
some would conclude (based on the 50% #) that if one gets married for the first time, that this marriage has a 50% chance of ending in divorce. which is not true.
the fact is that a much higher %age than 50% of first marriages will not result in divorce.
PC1
Guest
VanillaGorilla said:
Vanilla......
Thanks for all of your posts here, really, really great contributions. The news snippets from across Massachusetts are deeply disturbing. And people need to understand this is only going to continue here and elsewhere in our country.
What really is the job of our elected officials? Are they supposed to vote on issues in such a way that it reflects the thinking of the electorate? Or does the electorate choose politicians to make informed decisions based on their own judgment?
We'd like to think the former. My deepest concern on this issue is that even when the voters overwhelmingly pass a referendum question (like the recent referendum here in Mass whereby voters approved that ENGLISH be the primary language taught in public schools, not catering to the lazy Spanish speaking students who won't learn English) the damned legislature killed it. This seems to be happening selectively but increasingly around the country.
I don't know what it's going to take to get us really good and pissed off enough to get off our fat little asses and actually research what we should be doing to stop this. But this is the kind of crap that should really have people up in arms, I mean so pissed off as to start rumblings of a REVOLT.
PC1
Guest
GIJoe said:Just tryin' to contribute a little to the book you're workin' on
I think you have a good one in you wanting to be written as well
PC1
Guest
labrad said:
But it is EXACTLY what is at issue. Once marriage is weakend by homosexuals, legal precedent has formed. If one can't "discriminate" against homosexuals, one also cannot discriminate against the other groups you cite.
PC1
Guest
goldylight said:
......Why am I not surprised?!
size
Well-known member
I honestly do not think this should be allowed either.labrad said:
However, I am yet to read any valid reasons(in my opinion) in favor of homosexual marriage. If the USA is going to institute a drastic change, then a concrete foundation of reasons should be evident. The idea of "love" is not justifiable and will result in landslide of problems. The term "rights" just does not apply.
labrad
Member
Size/PC1 et al., I honestly respect your opinion, but personally all I hear from y'all is "queers shouldn't be married". Which is fine. I stated my point.
Final thoughts. I feel I am old at the great old age of 33(I have been thru a lot). Life is too short to be petty. Who gives a f*ck if gays are married? More chicks for us straight guys right? Have fun enjoyed the debate.
Final thoughts. I feel I am old at the great old age of 33(I have been thru a lot). Life is too short to be petty. Who gives a f*ck if gays are married? More chicks for us straight guys right? Have fun enjoyed the debate.
PC1
Guest
labrad said:
Putting aside for a minute how a judge may or may not interpret our constitution, at least originally, it never anticipated carving out specific rights for a group of people based soley on their SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, what we now call "preference" or worse still, "orientation". So there is no true legal precedent for our courts to grant rights to homosexuals. Homosexuals otherwise, have "equal protection" under the law in the full sense that anyone else has, just not anything additionally because of their sexual behavior.
Secondly, for thousands of years now our society has flourished under the existing definition of marriage between a man and a woman. Traditionalists and conservatives see the homosexual movement as an attack on the moral fiber of our society. Thirdly, about 2 out of 3 americans want to keep it that way, not because it's "discriminatory", but because homosexuality is still held to be immoral behavior. And we don't want our government cramming this issue down our throats, and using our taxpayer dollars to fund bullshit educational "programs" that encourage our children to engage in immoral sexual behavior. If someone can't grasp this very basic idea, they're lost. What BUSINESS do the public schools have trying to pass ANYTHING about sexual BEHAVIOR off on our children?! This is the most deeply outrageous act any "educator" could commit against our children short of physically molesting them. And I, along with many others, hold that it IS an act of molestation against our children!
With due respect, and I mean that because I've read many good posts here at am.com and on other boards by you labrad, I know you're a good guy. But honestly, I've not heard anyone put forward any logical and consistent argument as to why homosexuals, a group distinguished SOLELY by their sexual behavior, should be granted ANY particular legal right SOLELY based on their SEXUAL PRACTICES. The very idea is both preposterous and disgraceful to who we are as a society. The best anyone can seem to muster is that "we shouldn't discriminate against gays".
I can't envision a more important moral fork in the road that we're now at, and in fact, appear to be heading down the WRONG fork.
Last edited:
VanillaGorilla
Active member
Labrad you keep ignoring the points every one has made. Now your trying to compare homosexual marriage to a serial killer who is in jail? That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Bundy is locked away until he dies. You are comparing apples and oranges. Hell your comparing apples to a car. A better analogy would be letting Ted Bundy out of prison and pretending he is normal to gay marriage.
You also didn't address and ignored the questions I asked you. If the state allows homosexuals to get married what they are essentially saying is a group of people who have a mental or genetic disorder are normal when they are not. I asked you how gay people are being discriminated against other than not being able to get married which you didn't answer. Until you addresses this, your definition of discrimination is simply anyone who wants to get married in can't. By that definition polygamist, incest and every freak show who wants to get married and can't in this country is being discriminated against.
Third
A lot of people made some damn good points. Either your not reading them or maybe you should.
PC1
Guest
I heard some great comments on this topic today from Jay Severin, a conservative radio talk show host on 96.9 fm based in Boston.
First: Homosexuals like ALL other people most certainly DO have the right to marry in each and every State in our union. One CANNOT therefore say they are being denied equal protection under the law. What they DON'T have is the right to marry other homosexuals, just as I don't have the right to marry another man, etc. So our marital rights are already of equal status and proportion. I have no more and no less rights than any homosexual man or woman on this very issue, period. I like that one
Smart guy that Jay Severin.
2nd. If homosexuals are granted extra rights beyond the rest of us, e.g. the legal right to marry each other, what happens when a homosexual couple approach a church, parish, synogogue, etc. and request (demand) to be married? Severin's point was that initially the organization would be allowed to say no since it violates religious principle. But what happens after 5 years..... 10 years. At some point, homosexuals will start filing suit against religious organizations demanding each organization respect their new legal right. Religious organizations become guilty of hate speech, and eventually are accused of hate crimes. (The analogy he made was to point to the TV show, "A queer eye for the straight guy". It's one thing to use the expression "queer" in that sense, but NOT to say, for example, the show is hosted by a "queer"). Their demise is just around the corner and that truly will be the beginning of the end of society as we know it.
Lastly, and I hate to admit he's right on this one but he probably is..... he doesn't think Bush has it in him to actually expend the pollitical capital and do the "herculean" work necessary to amend our constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman, only. He'll say so publicly a few times, to garner conservative voters, but that will be as far as it goes.
Ugh.
Damned spineless polliticians.
Where the heck is Pat Buchanan these days?
First: Homosexuals like ALL other people most certainly DO have the right to marry in each and every State in our union. One CANNOT therefore say they are being denied equal protection under the law. What they DON'T have is the right to marry other homosexuals, just as I don't have the right to marry another man, etc. So our marital rights are already of equal status and proportion. I have no more and no less rights than any homosexual man or woman on this very issue, period. I like that one
Smart guy that Jay Severin.2nd. If homosexuals are granted extra rights beyond the rest of us, e.g. the legal right to marry each other, what happens when a homosexual couple approach a church, parish, synogogue, etc. and request (demand) to be married? Severin's point was that initially the organization would be allowed to say no since it violates religious principle. But what happens after 5 years..... 10 years. At some point, homosexuals will start filing suit against religious organizations demanding each organization respect their new legal right. Religious organizations become guilty of hate speech, and eventually are accused of hate crimes. (The analogy he made was to point to the TV show, "A queer eye for the straight guy". It's one thing to use the expression "queer" in that sense, but NOT to say, for example, the show is hosted by a "queer"). Their demise is just around the corner and that truly will be the beginning of the end of society as we know it.
Lastly, and I hate to admit he's right on this one but he probably is..... he doesn't think Bush has it in him to actually expend the pollitical capital and do the "herculean" work necessary to amend our constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman, only. He'll say so publicly a few times, to garner conservative voters, but that will be as far as it goes.
Ugh.
Damned spineless polliticians.
Where the heck is Pat Buchanan these days?
goldylight
***** Vampire
I like Pat sometimes - ever read his book - death of the west - excellent book(if not i will mail it to you if you like - i get free shipping thru work). Also i thought congress can limit what judges rule on - why not just limit there rights to rule on marriage instead of opening us up to a constitutional convention?PC1 said:I heard some great comments on this topic today from Jay Severin, a conservative radio talk show host on 96.9 fm based in Boston.
First: Homosexuals like ALL other people most certainly DO have the right to marry in each and every State in our union. One CANNOT therefore say they are being denied equal protection under the law. What they DON'T have is the right to marry other homosexuals, just as I don't have the right to marry another man, etc. So our marital rights are already of equal status and proportion. I have no more and no less rights than any homosexual man or woman on this very issue, period. I like that one
2nd. If homosexuals are granted extra rights beyond the rest of us, e.g. the legal right to marry each other, what happens when a homosexual couple approach a church, parish, synogogue, etc. and request (demand) to be married? Severin's point was that initially the organization would be allowed to say no since it violates religious principle. But what happens after 5 years..... 10 years. At some point, homosexuals will start filing suit against religious organizations demanding each organization respect their new legal right. Religious organizations become guilty of hate speech, and eventually are accused of hate crimes. (The analogy he made was to point to the TV show, "A queer eye for the straight guy". It's one thing to use the expression "queer" in that sense, but NOT to say, for example, the show is hosted by a "queer"). Their demise is just around the corner and that truly will be the beginning of the end of society as we know it.
Lastly, and I hate to admit he's right on this one but he probably is..... he doesn't think Bush has it in him to actually expend the pollitical capital and do the "herculean" work necessary to amend our constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman, only. He'll say so publicly a few times, to garner conservative voters, but that will be as far as it goes.
Ugh.
Damned spineless polliticians.
Where the heck is Pat Buchanan these days?
The judiciary is dependent, however, on the executive branch to obey and carry out its orders.
1.05 Judicial Dependence [11-12]
The judiciary is dependent, however, on the executive branch to obey and carry out its orders.
It also is dependent on Congress which has some control over federal jurisdiction. This raises important questions regarding the extent to which Congress can restrict the jurisdiction of federal courts. The Constitution gives Congress some power regarding creating and presumably abolishing federal courts. Marbury ,on the other hand, states that the structural principle of the rule of law requires that there be judicial remedies for violation of rights. Can Congress reduce federal jurisdiction in a way which denies remedies for some rights?
1.06 Court Organization [12-14]
The Constitution provides for the existence of a Supreme Court in Art. III sec. 1 but Congress can control its composition, when it meets and its rules.
Under the Exceptions Clause (Art. III, sec.2 cl. 2) Congress can make exceptions to and regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Does this clause confer broad power to restrict the Court’s appellate jurisdiction or simply to make limited exceptions?
Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1868), held that Congress had power to remove the Court’s appellate jurisdiction regarding habeas appeals conferred by an 1867 Act. Still, appellate jurisdiction remained as conferred by the Judiciary Act of 1789 so all routes to the Court were not eliminated. United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1871), recognized some limits to Congress’ power to restrict appellate jurisdiction of the Court.
The Ordain and Establish Clause of Art. III sec. 1 empowers Congress to decide whether to create lower federal courts. Cases suggest it has broad power in this respect although some, including Justice Story, have suggested that power is not unlimited. Sheldon v. Sill, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 441 (1850), confirms that Congress need not confer on lower federal courts the full jurisdiction the Constitution would allow.
It is not clear that Congress could eliminate all jurisdiction regarding a federal right without violating the Marbury principle.
goldylight
***** Vampire
Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that "the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Since Congress created the federal district and appellate courts, Congress can regulate, reorganize or even abolish them. As an example of proper regulation, Congress in the past has ordered that all cases of a certain kind must be heard by a three-judge district court, instead of by just one judge.
In the 1930s, liberals in Congress thought the federal courts were too pro-business to handle cases involving labor strikes fairly. In 1932 Congress passed the Norris-Guardia Act removing jurisdiction in this field from the federal courts, and this was upheld by the Supreme Court in Lauf v. E. G. Shinner (1938). Liberals followed the same procedure when they passed the Hiram Johnson Acts to remove federal court jurisdiction over public utility rates and state tax rates.
Another celebrated example was the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 (OPA), in which Congress removed from federal courts the jurisdiction to consider the validity of any OPA regulation. In the test case upholding this law, Lockerty v. Phillips (1943), the Supreme Court held that Congress has the power of "withholding jurisdiction from them [the federal courts] in the exact degrees and character which to Congress may seem proper for the public good." In 1946 the Supreme Court handed down the portal-to-portal pay decision, which was generally recognized to be a big mistake that would send hundreds of firms into bankruptcy. Congress simply removed jurisdiction from the federal courts to handle any more such cases.
Although Congress's power over the Supreme Court is somewhat limited, the Constitution still gives Congress the power to define the boundaries of the Supreme Court "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." The Supreme Court upheld this limitation of its own authority in Ex parte McCardle (1868), stating, "the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court is given by express words."
In the 1930s, liberals in Congress thought the federal courts were too pro-business to handle cases involving labor strikes fairly. In 1932 Congress passed the Norris-Guardia Act removing jurisdiction in this field from the federal courts, and this was upheld by the Supreme Court in Lauf v. E. G. Shinner (1938). Liberals followed the same procedure when they passed the Hiram Johnson Acts to remove federal court jurisdiction over public utility rates and state tax rates.
Another celebrated example was the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 (OPA), in which Congress removed from federal courts the jurisdiction to consider the validity of any OPA regulation. In the test case upholding this law, Lockerty v. Phillips (1943), the Supreme Court held that Congress has the power of "withholding jurisdiction from them [the federal courts] in the exact degrees and character which to Congress may seem proper for the public good." In 1946 the Supreme Court handed down the portal-to-portal pay decision, which was generally recognized to be a big mistake that would send hundreds of firms into bankruptcy. Congress simply removed jurisdiction from the federal courts to handle any more such cases.
Although Congress's power over the Supreme Court is somewhat limited, the Constitution still gives Congress the power to define the boundaries of the Supreme Court "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." The Supreme Court upheld this limitation of its own authority in Ex parte McCardle (1868), stating, "the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court is given by express words."
VanillaGorilla
Active member
I listened to that my self today pc1. I was going to post jay's comments myself and recommend that you and anyone else in MA to listen to him if you have the chance.
goldylight
***** Vampire
HAve not really seen him since his show bombed...Godlike said:
VanillaGorilla
Active member
I don't know what it's going to take either. 30% to 50 % of peoples money is taken away from them every week.( IMO this is a major factor in causing divorse and family problems because now both parents absolutely have to work to survive). As jay was talking about yesterday if gay marriage passes 5 years from now they will be taking the catholic church to court because they refuse to marry them. If you take that a step further, I can envision a time when the discussion we are having now will be labeled hate speech and we could be sued or thrown in jail because of it. They passed that campaign finance law which makes it illegal to say anything about a candidate 30 to 60 days before an election. So in other words if we video taped john Kerry and Ted Kennedy with a face full of coke, molesting 15 year old girls, taking bribes, and planning to put a toxic waste dump in the neighborhood we live in, we would not be allowed to pay for it to be put on the air. It's not a huge leap of logic to see that the left is going to be complaining that because most talk shows are conservative that it's not fair. The ban will then apply to talk radio. I am sure they want to go after the internet as well. It's time for people to wake up.
goldylight
***** Vampire
Well at least all the conservatives own the guns in this countryVanillaGorilla said:
i was also looking at something that said we own most of the land too - i will look for it....goldylight
***** Vampire
That was a good book - i especially liked how he refers to dan rather as "the dan". Anne Coulters book bias was pretty good too if you are interested in reading about the media bias.size said:
jweave23
Registered User
VanillaGorilla said:
Unfortunately I'm too late in this discussion by now and would be so presumptuous as to assume I have all the answers, but this one statement in particular stood out to me.
You are implying that homosexuals have a mental or gentic disorder, no? If you believe so, fine, but this statement is too arguable IMO to be used as a basis for logical argument. If we cannot agree on one parameter of the argument (whether homosexuality is "normal" or not, and how this relates to a person's condition of physical or mental health) then we cannot move further. You are seeming to state an opinion (albeit shared by many out there) as fact for use in argument, how is this logical??
size
Well-known member
jweave23 said:
My take on the statement is that it is a referral to Darwinism. An animal would not change/devolve in order to breed itself out of existence. Consequently, such behavior may be a link to a genetic flaw because essentially homosexuals are eliminating the oppurtunity to spawn future generations.
I know this is a completely new topic, but I believe that was the rationale behind the comment.
jweave23
Registered User
size said:
That may have been the basis for the comment, but again this cannot be taken as fact. Unless all parties agree with extrapolation on Darwinistic principles, we are again not discussing this on a common ground. I realize this makes the discussion more difficult, but you cannot make logical points in an argument unless all parties agree upon which theories and/or terminology can be used. No one to my knowledge has stated that Darwinism, especially an extrapolation of it, can be used as factual supporting information.
goldylight
***** Vampire
I really like him and he is a very intelligent man. He is also believes in strict interpretation of the constitution which i like - but i have to admit - his show sucked.....I like Pat B to - and also thought his show with bill press sucked...Godlike said:
goldylight
***** Vampire
Well - for those who dont know - a woman(Kelli Carpenter) married an animal today in Cali - Invalid Link Removed - EEEWWWW
goldylight
***** Vampire
You are correct - silly me - i had a lot going on at work - brain not functioning right.Cogar said:
PC1
Guest
Godlike said:
Keyes rocks! Liberals HATE having him in debates because he just makes so much SENSE!
size
Well-known member
Keyes is calm, articulate, and intelligent. This makes it very difficult to argue with him.
Another individual similiar to him is Dinesh D'souza.
Their abilities to provide point after point and remain composed while defending their position is incredible. Regardless if you agree with them, you have to respect this approach to discussion and debate.
I can see this has gone off topic.
Another individual similiar to him is Dinesh D'souza.
Their abilities to provide point after point and remain composed while defending their position is incredible. Regardless if you agree with them, you have to respect this approach to discussion and debate.
I can see this has gone off topic.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
I disagree with you. It is not my opinion but a fact. Which are human beings genetically designed to do? Is it normal for a man and woman or man and man or woman/ woman to be attracted together? If you go with the man/ man woman/ woman scenario the human race would be extinct. There fore homosexuality is a genetic or a mental disorder and can not be deemed normal. Were there homosexuals through out history? Yes but there were also people with schizophrenia and people who were born with out the ability to see through out history is well, both of which are disorders.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
It can be taken as fact and you don't need to bring Darwinism into which made a good point..
I disagree with you on this point as well. You can have two groups of people. One believes the earth is flat and the other group believes it's round. Neither group will agree on the theories and terminology. However, one group is right and one group is wrong. When debating people usually don't agree on theories and/or terminology. If you do it's the equivalent of being in a fight and saying that you can only punch each other in the arm. The bottom line is men can't have children with out women and woman can't have children with out men. That is a fact. If that's a fact than homosexuality can not be normal. If you want to dispute this fact go ahead.
As I stated before don't tell me that it's normal because there have been people that were gay over the past 5000 years. That's great but there have been people who are blind as well and it's not normal for a baby to be born blind. It's a genetic abnormality. There have been people with multiple personality disorders over the past 5000 years too. MPD is a mental disorder and it is not a normal mental process to have either. Both abnormalities do occur but neither is a normal condition to be in. Are you going to tell me it's normal for someone to be blind or not to be able to function mentally?
VanillaGorilla
Active member
Keyes does rock. Do you guys remember in the republican primary when he would debate Bush and McCain? He blew everyone out of the water. The next days rag would totally ignore him or anything he said. It was like he was never there. The elites were saying your choice is between Bush and McCain. Alan Keys doesn't exist. Talk about media bias. If you guys liked Goldberg's book read Coloring the News by William McGowan
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
VanillaGorilla
Active member
They are working on the guns too. They are also working on the land issue as well. I can think of east 3 classes that talked about a "fairer form or land distribution".
VanillaGorilla
Active member
JW what you are saying is that we can't debate about this until we all agree. It doesn't work that way. On the topic of Darwin there is some debate with evolution vs. creation. However I think most people would agree that most species have a built in genetic component not to breed them selves out of existence. Which is why people are repelled from incest. or as size so eloquently put it.....
You can try to make a case against this but I don't know allot of people that would agree with you.
jweave23
Registered User
VanillaGorilla said:
A fact?? The term "genetic", when describing a condition, implies that this can (and usually will be, even if rare) passed down through blood, and is usually traceable in previous and current generations. Is this what you mean? Can you show me an overwhelming amount of proof that would make anyone agree that this is fact? I'm sure you can show some opinion that this is true, just as I could show the opposite. Let us just use this one page for example, taken from NARTHA (National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuality): Invalid Link Removed which provides much argument to the contrary, and even some in suport of your position.
My point here is this: I do not necessarily support the opposing argument of yours, but I will stress: just because you have come to a conclusion, even if based upon some factual evidence, this does not make your statement solid enough IMO to base an argument on (meaning "correct"). You are presumptuous in the way that you seem to believe you have the knowledge and/or in some way can make a statement of fact about something that experts could argue about indefinitely. If scientists, religious freaks, and many other people who examine this subject in-depth cannot come to a definitive conclusion, I surely will not blindly accept your theory and consider it enough of a base to form a supportable position and then move on in the discussion.
I think that part of the problem here is that this discussion is too large to really get anywhere very soon. There are too many factors that can be argued, we have too many unknowns and points that have supporting evidence either way. This, to me, means that we can all have an opinion on certain aspects of an issue (such as "is homosexuality genetic and/or a mental condition") but they are just that, opinions.
jweave23
Registered User
VanillaGorilla said:
No it cannot, see my post above.
VanillaGorilla said:
A few things here:
1. In your example of the earth, the common ground here could be: what constitutues the "earth" (i.e what is the definiton of "earth"). This would be a term each party should agree upon before any logical discussion could occur. I'm stressing that some type commonality of parameters or definitions of used terminology is imperitive for another party to accept your idea(s).
2. In your example of the earth, one party was "right" and one party was "wrong". You must realize that this is not always the case. Many times (and IMO this is one of them) neither party is entirely correct or incorrect. There may be themes or ideas from each that may support an alternative theory, which may encompass everything discussed.
3. You seem to be thinking that I am implying that two parties in a discussion should agree on the concept being discussed. This is not true. What I am saying is that if you are going to use certain ideas or terms in your supporting evidence (in this case you brought up genetic disorders and someone else Darwinism), both parties should agree (or be forced to agreee by a third party in some cases) on what each means or represents. So, in a way, your analogy of "you can only punch each other in the arm" is actually really not that far off. This is evident in a court of law, where this type of defined logic is used. Also, from what I can gather, in our military there are Rules of Engagement which define parameters for engaging another party. You may not believe these are necessary, but I do. I believe that the only way to come to the most logical conclusion is to define as many apsects of the discussion as possible.
4. Last, but most important to me:
I have not stated what I believe. I have not stated what I believe to be "normal", "abnormal", "right" or "wrong" so please refrain from assuming I have said so. I am attacking your way of making your point, not always the actual content which you are discussing. I believe my points could be presented from someone who agrees or disagrees with your position.
Cogar
Member
I have not been able to follow this argument completely (from either side), but would like to add that the presence of a "homosexual gene" has been a proposed justification for that lifestyle for some time, although I believe finding substantive support for this concept outside of the homosexual community (referring to the doctors that do genetic research) would be difficult if not impossible to find.jweave23 said:
houseman
Board Supporter
Cogar said:
I agree with you, however, why should we allow the notion and/or opinion that it is simply a lifestyle choice to be the basis for the argument?
Frankly, I find it utterly disgusting that some would honestly believe it to be a true choice in one's self to be attracted to the same sex. I cannot fathom the reasons the indignity and harrasment such a person would subject themselves to having the choice to live that lifestyle. Rational, logic people would not do this.
This has to lead me to believe they're born gay.
I don't choose to like women. That's who and what I am. I like women - not men - and I never had to make a conscious decision to do so - it just is.
A
Godlike
New member
If man's moral choices are governed only by his genetics, then how is he different from the animal kingdom? This seems to me to be another way of saying that man is only a complex animal, driven by the same forces as the rest of the natural realm, maybe in a more complex way, but basically he's just another animal. It's another way of saying that man has no higher nature but instead functions only according to his natural impulse.
This assessment doesn't distinguish between desire and behavior, between impulse and action. That's fine for animals. An animal has an impulse to do something and it acts upon it. There is no higher nature that allows it to judge morally, more acceptable impulses from those that are less acceptable. But what of man? Is there a difference between his impulse, for example his impulse to have a homosexual relationship, and his action for homosexuality? His impulse to beat his wife or his action of laying a hand on her?
That's the big question, are people able to control their behavior? Ought we expect them to? Doesn't the mere presence of civil law assume that man can choose other than evil? Self-control is a virtue, isn't it? More than that, the law demands self-control. Even an insanity plea is not based on the idea that a particular criminal could not choose good from evil but that he didn't know good from evil. The law requires anybody that knows good from evil to choose good rather than evil and holds them culpable if they don't.
Further, if human beings have no moral autonomy, if they don't make their own moral choices but nature makes those choices for them, why "ought" we even be concerned about the answer to this issue at all? Certainly if what we call morality is simply a matter of different genetic compositions, then why would someone be "wrong" in a moral sense if they were judging people for actions that are allegedly dictated by nature?
You see, this knife cuts both ways. If what some people call immorality is simply the natural order of things for people, how does one even blame the one who's being judgmental? Couldn't one argue, for example, that it's a Christian's nature to judge right and wrong? It's part of their genes.
The fundamental question is not whether we're influenced--many things influence us--but whether we're free. Isn't that true? Isn't part of what it means to be human the ability to choose? Don't we encourage people to "do the right thing," "just say no," "use condoms," quit smoking," "wear your seat belts," "drink milk," use proper PCT" and a whole raft of other things, all of those popular encouragements admitting that there are natural factors that would cause us to do the opposite that we must master and choose against? Why all the campaigning for choice if in fact there is no ability to choose?
This assessment doesn't distinguish between desire and behavior, between impulse and action. That's fine for animals. An animal has an impulse to do something and it acts upon it. There is no higher nature that allows it to judge morally, more acceptable impulses from those that are less acceptable. But what of man? Is there a difference between his impulse, for example his impulse to have a homosexual relationship, and his action for homosexuality? His impulse to beat his wife or his action of laying a hand on her?
That's the big question, are people able to control their behavior? Ought we expect them to? Doesn't the mere presence of civil law assume that man can choose other than evil? Self-control is a virtue, isn't it? More than that, the law demands self-control. Even an insanity plea is not based on the idea that a particular criminal could not choose good from evil but that he didn't know good from evil. The law requires anybody that knows good from evil to choose good rather than evil and holds them culpable if they don't.
Further, if human beings have no moral autonomy, if they don't make their own moral choices but nature makes those choices for them, why "ought" we even be concerned about the answer to this issue at all? Certainly if what we call morality is simply a matter of different genetic compositions, then why would someone be "wrong" in a moral sense if they were judging people for actions that are allegedly dictated by nature?
You see, this knife cuts both ways. If what some people call immorality is simply the natural order of things for people, how does one even blame the one who's being judgmental? Couldn't one argue, for example, that it's a Christian's nature to judge right and wrong? It's part of their genes.
The fundamental question is not whether we're influenced--many things influence us--but whether we're free. Isn't that true? Isn't part of what it means to be human the ability to choose? Don't we encourage people to "do the right thing," "just say no," "use condoms," quit smoking," "wear your seat belts," "drink milk," use proper PCT" and a whole raft of other things, all of those popular encouragements admitting that there are natural factors that would cause us to do the opposite that we must master and choose against? Why all the campaigning for choice if in fact there is no ability to choose?
VanillaGorilla
Active member
I am not debating what causes homosexuality. The problem in researching this issue is that there are political agendas. Gay activist will only accept that it is genetic. Religious people or "religious freaks" as you put it have their views as well. Everyone has their biases including scientist. I have not been saying or debating what the cause of homosexuality is. You pretty much have two choices. It's either genetic or mental. My opinion of this that it is probably both. They have found that in some homosexual certain parts of the brain are closer to a woman's. There also some evidence that someone who's molested has a greater chance of becoming gay. What I have just stated was an opinion.
Why make something more complicated than it needs to be? You have two choices. What is not an opinion is that homosexuality is either a genetic abnormality or a mental one. Gay activist believe it's 100% genetic. That's fine but that would make it a genetic abnormality. Therefore it's not normal. If you disagree with this, post why you do and post why you feel that homosexuality is normal. It is also a fact that human population on the planet would be wiped out if everyone turned gay.
To take a play out of bill Clintons book we can debate what the definition of is is. My point that I made before is often times when debating a subject the parties can't or won't agree on things like that. Homosexual activists will not accept anything other than their own agenda no matter what science or other points of view there are.So there is no way that you can have any common ground with someone like that.
Obviously this isn't all ways true but I used it as an extreme example. If you went back to debate that the earth is flat vs. round what would happen? You would go to present you case. The earth is round because Facts XYZ. The other side would have accused you of blasphemy and burnt you at the stake. There was no talking about terms to agree upon before the debate. It is a similar case here. If you stand up and say anything against a gay agenda, you are called a homophobic bigot.
I am not assuming what you believe and I understand you are attacking the way I am making my point. You are pretty much saying we all have to agree on some general terms before debating. That's great if you can do that but doesn't work that way all the time. In order to attack my point you need to tell why my point is not a fact in doing so present evidence of your own. What you doing is playing games with semantics. Women and men need each other to have children. That is a fact. If you agree with that point you have to concede that homosexuality isn't normal.We can debate what causes it until we are blue in the face but the bottom line is it's not normal. If humans and animals don't have a built in program for procreation and survival of the species, than why isn't incest and homosexuality more wide spread? What you are doing is trying to argue that a fact is opinion without other offering anything other than that.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
No one is saying that house. Sexuality is a much more complicated matter than it's made out to be. Mental trauma can play greater role than people realize.
No it isn't it's more complicated than that. When you throw in a major mental trauma such as being molested it could seem to the victim that they were born that way but they were not. You can make the same augment for child molesters. They didn't choose to be that way ........it just is. Now that you have jumped bak in house maybe you would like to answer some of the questions I asked you.