Indo...you need to work on both your logic and grasp of reality...not to mention your overly-emotional nature. It's difficult to have a civil discussion with anyone prone to hissy-fits.
"Ah yes, make sure that the gays don't get treated equally because they are disproportionately affected by life-threatening disease. Wow, great logic."
"Disproportionately affected by life-threatening disease"...that's a nice way to say it; but I don't think it's entirely truthful. I wish I could quote verbatim the program I saw on C-span a few years back; but it indicated that, with AIDS taken out of the equation, it only increased the average life-expectancy of homosexuals by a couple of years. Someone may want to research some stats on that. At any rate, I would discourage rewarding high-risk lifestyles under ANY scenario.
Regarding "nature" - I was always taught that perpetuation of the species was the strongest natural instinct (and innate desire) of any species, specifically one's own genetics. So much so, in fact, that individual members of a species will self-sacrifice for the benefit of their procreated offspring.
Don't get me wrong...I don't believe that homosexuality is "unnatural." It's just that not everything that "occurs in nature" is beneficial. Many things don't further the interest of or benefit the species to help it evolve. Homosexuality, I believe, is one of those things. So I see no reason to "bless" that which is not beneficial with a state-sanctioned marriage certification.
Carlos
California Court Affirms Right To Gay Marriage
by BenV 280 Replies latest jw friends
-
Carlos_Helms
-
Indo_Dude
'Hissy fits'? LMAO. Says the guy who claims he doesn't care about homosexuality yet, over 1/4 of his posts all deal with his aversion to homosexuals, and homophbia. It's hard having a decent conversation with a super Christian, bible beating whack job too, that has admitted they have been duped by being in a cult for many years, but now, by miracles of all miracles, knows exactly what God has said.... this time.... nevermind the last time they said that being in a cult claiming they had special knowledge of God. LOL!
Carolos: Regarding "nature" - I was always taught that perpetuation of the species was the strongest natural instinct (and innate desire) of any species, specifically one's own genetics. So much so, in fact, that individual members of a species will self-sacrifice for the benefit of their procreated offspring.
Now that your bluff has been called you want to change the definition of your argument. Typical. Riddle me this, why do over 450 species engage in homosexual sex if it isn't 'natural'?
As the book Biological Exuberance, by Bruce Bagemihl, PhD and expert in sexuality so much so that the United States Supreme Court quoted him and his works stated:
-
VoidEater
Carlos, you keep evading the issue by merely reasserting your position. The facts always show that diversity is a key survival characteristic for a species. Homosexual individuals do not detract from species survival, they enhance it. To take your position (the selfish gene being the only motivating factor for life) reducto absurdum, the human animal should be a loner with a murderous attitude toward progeny not his own. Clearly, we are more herd animal than that, and the most successful humans develop intricate social constructs. Aside from the limited studies of stepmother rejection of blended family siblings, he view you espouse is not highly supported in the limited frame you present it.
If we are to acknowledge the evolutionary/observed reality of homosexual individuals along with bigotry (again, there is a study or two that presents racism as an evolutionary natural occurance - exactly in line with Carlos' position), we must ask ourselves: which will we support in our legal and social structures?
Will we be inclusive/progressive, or restrictive/recidivist?
Will we have the convictions of the Constitution - that all men are created equal - or be Orwellian with our double-speaking "But some are more equal than others?"
If we live out our biases against race, lefties, orientation - what kind of society are we creating? Who's next for "ok to discriminate against?"
Will you deny your children the equal benefit of the law, or allow them to be controlled by a religious-based bias? -
Gregor
I think it is wonderful that gay people can soon have sex without fear of disfellowshipping for fornication.
-
Indo_Dude
Void: Carlos, you keep evading the issue by merely reasserting your position. The facts always show that diversity is a key survival characteristic for a species. Homosexual individuals do not detract from species survival, they enhance it. To take your position (the selfish gene being the only motivating factor for life) reducto absurdum, the human animal should be a loner with a murderous attitude toward progeny not his own. Clearly, we are more herd animal than that, and the most successful humans develop intricate social constructs. Aside from the limited studies of stepmother rejection of blended family siblings, he view you espouse is not highly supported in the limited frame you present it.
It's pretty telling that the various homophobes, and 'cause the bible says it's so' posters avoid the threads where the actual discussion and translation of Greek words, and what those words mean, isn't it? They sit here on the other threads saying "cause the bible says it's so", yet are nowhere to be found on the threads like: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/158996/2922477/post.ashx#2922477 . They claim to know what God says yet cannot or refuse to participate in discussion solely to ancient language and Greek understanding.
-
NotaNess
Now that your bluff has been called you want to change the definition of your argument. Typical. Riddle me this, why do over 450 species engage in homosexual sex if it isn't 'natural'?
That's good. You can now be proud you aligned yourself being equal to hundreds of other lower species on this earth. You have a human brain....those others don't. We can clearly make the distinction between what's natural and not, especially in the mammal arena. If those species are switchhitting, it's uhh, because they don't have the brains and logic to understand it.
Gays know exactly what they are doing is wrong and not the way it's supposed to be, but they do it anyway, excusing it off on various reasons. Then they get hell bent on trying to force others to accept it, or you're on the $@#& list...or termed a religous hick or something.
Just like most smokers...don't friggin say a thing about it or they'll tear you a new one, or focus in on alcoholics and beer drinkers. You can't say anything about people doing things they shouldn't, without hatred retaliation, like this gay guy is showing on this topic.
All you have to say is you don't agree with gay marriage or in homosexuality and look out cause here comes WW3.
Yout think everyone against homosexuality hates you. That's not realistic. Lighten up.
-
Carlos_Helms
Sorry, Dude. I was under the impression you were the defensive, angry one.
So...I'm a latent, closeted homosexual because I make a few comments on "gay" marriage? Is that what you're insinuating? Or are you attempting to insult me by calling me what you are, a homosexual. Now THAT is some kind of strange and fascinating psychology. Anyway...as I've mentioned many times, I'm not homophobic because I'm not afraid of homosexuality. Capiche? I just think "gay" marriage is a mistake and you have a wild sense of proportion.
Well...I'm not too worried about it. I've slept well through the entire, arduous 14 pages (to date) of this thread. What will happen will happen. I think it's unfortunate; but I'm an optimistic that all things come around in their time. It's kind of a "universal truth," ya know? I even have faith in you, Dude!
Peace,
Carlos -
VoidEater
Nota: All you have to say is you don't agree with gay marriage or in homosexuality and look out cause here comes WW3.
Nope, think what you want. But don't be surprised when called on spurious argumentation. I think the way you have ignored the opportunity to engage with the issue - sidestepping responses and merely reasserting your initial position - demonstrates the hollow nature of your viewpoint. It really comes down to, "I don't like it". Fine, but don't pretend it's objectively defensible - nor that it's any better than bias against interracial marriage or other civil rights.
I personally don't like organized religion - but I will defend its availability while I persuade against aspects of it. i won't just keep saying, "I don't like it, therefore it should go away."
What's next? Ban some subjective length of hair on men as unnatural, as Paul supposedly does? Homosexuality takes place in nature among humans because it is natural. Perhaps not for you, but no one is asking you to sleep with anyone in particular. Extend me the same courtesy. I won't tell you what it is unnatural or abominable for you to eat or wear, either. You are letting your prejudices masquerade as universal truth. I think we've all had enough of that already.
Lastly, for Carlos (another one for evading engagement) - the fact that some may give their lives for their progeny really isn't on point. Many give their lives for a variety of causes, some of which have nothing whatever to do with survival of personal genes.
Indo: I think our work is done... ;-) -
Carlos_Helms
Thank you, Void...for a civil discussion on the matter.
I hope that my "reasserting my position" isn't evading anything. It's an opinion...and I've quoted a few sources who dispute points that others have raised. Somehow, my opinion qualifies me as a homophobe and a racist. I don't get it. Others can have opinions...and can even assert them as truths. If they happen to be popular on the board, they are honored as such.
My position is this: I BELIEVE that "gay" marriage is harmful to culture, society and species. That said (again); what will be will be. No biggie. You have nothing to fear from me. What concerns me more are those who revert to intolerance and cruelty towards those who express a differing opinion...intolerance and cruelty that are not only tolerated, but encouraged by the minority simply because they are in a minority. If you want to call me a "homophobe" or "racist," so be it. It categorizes me as a "hater" so that I'm easier to hate...which is the goal, right? That would make me easier to kill, should opportunity present. Finding someone to hate animates a cause and its believers.
Seen it before. Believe me, it's not a stretch.
Carlos -
VoidEater
Hey, Carlos: i don't hate you. i think you operate from a worldview that is not aligned with my observations. Specifically, I don't see the evidence that society is harmed by sexual diversity. I see a growing opinion even with the conservatives that all marriage strengthens the family, the building block of society, and therefore society itself. Just as you must be perplexed with that view, i am perplexed by the view that that making more marriages and being more inclusive or more families and holding tolerance as a platform for society is somehow harmful.
i understand the position, I just don't see it in real life. I see more states becoming more inclusive and more Countries doing the same.
I see this as progress and a strengthening of society.
Aside from you assertions that it is not, I don't see any evidence for your concerns.
I appreciate your moderate tone even as you express disagreement. I just wish there were some evidence to understand your point of view better.
Cheers -Void