Another Republican and Lewd Bahavior in a Men's Restroom

[Garfield1966]

1--If sex is truly a means to an end, then it is also illogical for heterosexuals to engage in sex when there is no chance of conception. So, it's illogical for a woman to have sex beyond her child bearing years. To expand on this, many people oppose gay marriage on the belief that marriage is meant to produce a family. If they use this reasoning, then marriage should also be illegal for those that can't have children, or for those that don't intend to have children.

I really like that argument. I'm going to have to remember this one.

Maybe when two people want to get married, they can sign a contract saying that they will provide proof that they are attempting to have children and that failure to produce said child will result in the marriage being void.

 

[delldude]

Your "conclusion" that homosexuality is immoral is ridiculous. Religion is the only aspect that says it's immoral. Yet, the bible mentions other "immoral" things that are condoned by those who condemn homosexualty.

Depends on your personal definition of morality.

Society says its 'immoral'....

Why then are so many against LGBT?

 

[rjh]

Depends on your personal definition of morality.

Society says its 'immoral'....

Why then are so many against LGBT?

Because of ignornace and fear of the unknown. Because of stereotypes, a lot of people believe all gays are promiscuous, feminine, drug addicts, and pedophiles. Because of the religious right, people think homosexuals are out to "recruit" or "convert" others (one of the most ridiculous arguments out there).

Not too long ago, the majority of the country thought that interracial marriage was immoral. Guess what? Knowledge can change opinions.

Again, just because the bible says homosexuality is an abomination, doesn't make it so. And like I said, if you're going to use the bible to support your opinions about homosexuality, then you should agree with EVERYTHING the bible says. I'm willing to bet that there are VERY few people out there that can truly say they agree with every single word in the bible.

 

[Garfield1966]

Not too long ago, the majority of the country thought that interracial marriage was immoral. Guess what? Knowledge can change opinions.

That along with blacks (or any minority for that matter) in the military, womens rights, burning witches, Jim Crow laws and the list goes on.

Just as those bigoted, narrow minded views became obsolete, so with the prejudice against gays become obsolete. It may take some times, but they are slowly making head way.

 

[local 12 proud]

c'mon people God made Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve!

Its runs against nature for the same sex to attract itself. Even if you don't believe in a creator look at how rediculous it seems for life on this planet if we were programmed for anything other than survival of the species!

Ya know... Natural selection for you darwinians, Wake up you morons!

 

[delldude]

Again, just because the bible says homosexuality is an abomination, doesn't make it so. And like I said, if you're going to use the bible to support your opinions about homosexuality, then you should agree with EVERYTHING the bible says. I'm willing to bet that there are VERY few people out there that can truly say they agree with every single word in the bible.

Looks like we're up against the anti-religious left .I think you are way off base with that statement.....they are not only my opinions but the majority of society on the whole.And yes dear.....the majority of the Christian right wingers of this country would in fact say they agree with whats in the Bible and have studied and interpreted the Word.

As for abominations and what God has said......time will soon tell......to find out whats right and who's wrong.

Homosexuality has gone on since the dawn of time.....if all subscribed to the LGBT lifestyle since then nobody would have been around on this planet for thousands of years.

Thats a good reason as to why its a useless lifestyle.

 

[Garfield1966]

Dell,

The law is not supposed to be based on the 'majorities opinion' for if that were case, most of the racist and prejudice laws would still be in place. The Constitution does not support in any way the prejudice being enforced on gays.

What your religious beliefs are have no bearing on the US Constitution. There is no risk of 'all' people becoming gay. We are genetically predisposed to being hetero. Only a small minority of humans are gay. There is no risk of man kind disappearing due to lack of reproduction.

Until the day of atonement (or what ever you call it) come along, how about we actually abide by the US Constitution? I know, novel idea huh?

 

[rjh]

Dell,

What your religious beliefs are have no bearing on the US Constitution. There is no risk of 'all' people becoming gay. We are genetically predisposed to being hetero. Only a small minority of humans are gay. There is no risk of man kind disappearing due to lack of reproduction.

But you're forgetting ..homosexuals are out to "recruit" other! We won't stop until the entire world can properly decorate their homes and recite entire musicals.

Note that once again, those that oppose homosexuality based on bible verses don't explain why they believe it's OK to eat pork and shellfish, why they don't keep slaves, and why the death penalty is OK.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Looks like we're up against the anti-religious left .I think you are way off base with that statement.....they are not only my opinions but the majority of society on the whole.

Dell,

This logic is essentially the entire reason why our Framers did NOT create a Pure Democracy in the U.S.

"A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party" -- James Madison on the ills of a pure democracy.

 

[delldude]

I hear ya......

"…the Major agencies of social control are morals, religion and law. In the beginning of law, these are not differentiated. Even in so advanced a civilization as that of the Greek city-state, the same word is used to mean religious rites, ethical custom, the traditional course of adjusting relations, the legislation of the city, and all these looked on as a whole, as we should say, including all these agencies of social control under one term which we now translate law." (quoted by Archibald, Coyote Learns, 237).

 

[Gilding the Lily]

I hear ya......

"…the Major agencies of social control are morals, religion and law. In the beginning of law, these are not differentiated. Even in so advanced a civilization as that of the Greek city-state, the same word is used to mean religious rites, ethical custom, the traditional course of adjusting relations, the legislation of the city, and all these looked on as a whole, as we should say, including all these agencies of social control under one term which we now translate law." (quoted by Archibald, Coyote Learns, 237).

Yes, now this is much better logic than "popular rage."

 

[local 12 proud]

1--If sex is truly a means to an end, then it is also illogical for heterosexuals to engage in sex when there is no chance of conception. So, it's illogical for a woman to have sex beyond her child bearing years. To expand on this, many people oppose gay marriage on the belief that marriage is meant to produce a family. If they use this reasoning, then marriage should also be illegal for those that can't have children, or for those that don't intend to have children.

Thats absurd, just because the biological clock stops ticking or some are sterile does not remove the natural instinct to engage in sex. We are hard wired that way and if you have proof to show otherwise then back up your proposterious notion with evidence.

2--Psychological experts now realize that homosexuality is NOT a choice. It was removed from the APA's list of "disorders" decades ago.

Really? that does'nt seem to be the consensus today!

The 1973 decision to delete homosexuality from the diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric Association had a chilling effect on research. The APA decision was not made based on new scientific evidence-in fact, as gay activist researcher Simon LeVay admitted, "Gay activism was clearly the force that propelled the APA to declassify homosexuality"....

What is clear, however, is that the scientific attempts to demonstrate that homosexual attraction is biologically determined have failed. The major researchers now prominent in the scientific arena-themselves gay activists-have in fact arrived at such conclusions.....

Simon LeVay, in his study of the hypothalamic differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men, offered the following criticisms of his own research:

"It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.

"These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case-that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it. it is possible that differences in sexual behavior cause (rather than are caused) by differences in the brain"

LeVay made an interesting observation about the emphasis on the biology of homosexuality. He noted, "...people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights"....

The third study, which was conducted by Bailey and Pillard, focused on twins. They found a concordance (both twins homosexual) rate of 52% among identical twins, 22% among non-identical twins and a 9.2 % among non-twins. This study actually provides support for environmental factors. If homosexuality were in the genetic code, all of the identical twins would have been homosexual .....

Prominent research teams Byne and Parsons, and also Friedman and Downey, each concluded that there was no evidence to support a biologic theory, but rather that homosexuality could be best explained by an alternative model where "temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual's sexuality emerges"....

Are homosexual attractions innate? There is no support in the scientific research for the conclusion that homosexuality is biologically determined.

What is more intriguing is the research of Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, the prominent psychiatrist and researcher at Columbia University. Dr. Spitzer was the architect of the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the diagnostic manual, a gay affirmative psychiatrist , and a long time supporter of gay rights. His current study focused on whether or not individuals can change. His preliminary conclusions are:

"I am convinced from the people I have interviewed, that for many of them, they have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual...I think that's news...I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes can be sustained"(NARTH, 2001)....

What was most interesting was Dr. Spitzer's response to a journalist who inquired what he would do if his adolescent son revealed his homosexual attraction. Dr. Spitzer said that he hoped that his son would be interesting in changing and would get some help. It is interesting to note that Dr. Spitzer has received considerable "hate mail" and complaints from his colleagues because of his research.

Is homosexuality immutable? Hardly. There is ample evidence that homosexual attraction can be diminished and that changes can be made.

What is particularly disturbing is the lack of attention paid by the media to the research evidence reported in the Archives of General Psychiatry which concluded that gay, lesbian and bisexual people were at higher risk for mental illness, specifically suicidality, major depression and anxiety disorder.

"Homosexuality is not 'normal.' On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm...Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction...No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous...homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.....

http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html

 

[delldude]

Yes, now this is much better logic than "popular rage."

Yes but only to a point........popular rage has indeed fomented many laws into being.....Megan for one.You were pointing out something akin to a lynch mob mentality as to creating laws I believe.
Popular rage isn't a good basis for a legal system to operate on......Juris de Jour??
Christian right or whatever religion....the Ten Commandments did have a lot to do with law in its coming of age.Yes there isn't anything in the Constitution regarding religious foundations of law or accepting or rejecting the gay movement.However,the present day Gayphobic notions are age old without a doubt...right or wrong?Depends what your beliefs are.

 

[Garfield1966]

Dell,

I the point I am making and that which I think Lily is making is that beliefs have no basis in a land governed by the rule of law.

Like I believe I said in this thread or else where. I have served on 2 juries. I was the foreman on both. In both cases we wanted t nail the defendant to the. We knew in our hearts that they were guilty. The evidence did not support what we thought were the facts of the case.

The first was a DUI. Ends up he was on probation (DA told us this after the case was over). The cops played loose with the evidence and testimony. Had they trusted us to do our job and just told us that hey, we busted him and the video you are seeing is about 2 hours old and he sobered up a bit between now and then, we would have nailed him.

Second case was a insurance company. We knew they screwed up ad we all hate insurance companies. The inspection company the insurance company hired made a mistake, honest mistake, but a mistake none the less. We ended up finding the inspection company 30% liable and the Insurance company 70% liable. We did not really want to but it was the right thing to do according to the law.

Bottom line is, we followed the law not what we believed or felt. We applied the law with out bias (as much as a human can)

Whether or not someone agrees with the gay life style, KKK having the right to march, Neo-Nazi's marching in Skokie .. etc is irrelevant. he law says that everyone must be treated the same. That means if POW's have the right to assemble peacefully and march on DC, so does the KKK and NAMBLA.

If you want to start playing favorites, by all means go ahead, just don't be surprised when it comes to bite you in the ass.



When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)


Freedom and justice for ALL

 

[rjh]

Thats absurd, just because the biological clock stops ticking or some are sterile does not remove the natural instinct to engage in sex. We are hard wired that way and if you have proof to show otherwise then back up your proposterious notion with evidence.
Really? that does'nt seem to be the consensus today!
http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html

Wow ..what a shock! An organization that exists to try and "convert" homosexuals says that homosexuality IS a choice and CAN be changed.

Let's hear from a real organization:

http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

And no, I don't believe that people should have sex only with the intent to reproduce. But, if someone is going to say that homosexual sex is illogical on the grounds that it can't produce a child, then they should say that heterosexual sex under the sam circumstances is also illogical.