Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

We probably have a prop 8 threadFollow

#77 Jan 12 2010 at 9:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
gbaji wrote:
Of course the more correct question would be: If marriage is about procreation


It's not. Anyone (as long as it's a man and a woman, ffs) can get married for any damn reason they want to. As long as it's a man and woman. Because anything else is icky.

That's the bottom line.
#78 Jan 12 2010 at 9:47 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Of course the more correct question would be: If marriage is about procreation, then why don't we limit it to couples who can procreate? Oh wait! We do...
Wake me up when we start forcibly annulling marriages of infertile people, please.

That was not a snarky comment about the "limit" you're mentioning, that was a request that we start doing that.
#79 Jan 12 2010 at 9:51 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Atomicflea wrote:
Furthermore, why aren't people having babies outside marriage fined?

Quite the opposite, it's the basis of our socialist welfare society.

Just ask my brother's babies' momma.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#80 Jan 12 2010 at 9:58 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
I mostly linked to Gbaji posts in my post on the first page of this thread. He position is pretty much set, and I don't think there is anything he'll actually listen to. He has his reality and he is committed to it.

Edited, Jan 12th 2010 10:06pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#81 Jan 13 2010 at 4:56 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
18,463 posts
gbaji wrote:
Of course the more correct question would be: If marriage is about procreation, then why don't we limit it to couples who can procreate? Oh wait! We do...
We don't. Not all heterosexual couples are capable of procreation. They might as well be homosexual.
#82 Jan 13 2010 at 7:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I mostly linked to Gbaji posts in my post on the first page of this thread. He position is pretty much set, and I don't think there is anything he'll actually listen to. He has his reality and he is committed to it.

Edited, Jan 12th 2010 10:06pm by Xsarus


Yeah, I know. And I don't know why, but this is just one gbaji argument that really gets to me. I can't help myself.
#83 Jan 13 2010 at 7:16 AM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I mostly linked to Gbaji posts in my post on the first page of this thread. He position is pretty much set, and I don't think there is anything he'll actually listen to. He has his reality and he is committed to it.

Edited, Jan 12th 2010 10:06pm by Xsarus


Yeah, I know. And I don't know why, but this is just one gbaji argument that really gets to me. I can't help myself.



Because he preached it with the fervency of a Baptist minister even though he has no citations or proof and in fact, Perez vs. Sharp says the opposite. And EVERY thread about same sex marriage has gbaji using that argument again and again and then he gets all pissy and insulting.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#84 Jan 13 2010 at 7:45 AM Rating: Decent
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,702 posts
I've just always assumed that on the most basic level, straight people find the different sex attractive because of pheromones/hormones. Likewise for homosexuals and finding the same sex attractive, and those who don't fit in either of the aforementioned groups are attracted to both sexes pheromones/hormones. Then that personal preference, gained through experience and life, was put on top of that.

Maybe I came to that conclusion because I tried to make a theory that fit the people, instead of coming up with a theory and then attempting to fit people to it? Smiley: tongue I wonder if something like this could be tested; monitoring brain activity while pheromones were introduced without the person knowing if the pheromones were male or female, perhaps?
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#85 Jan 13 2010 at 8:40 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
gbaji wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Nexa wrote:
She has three strikes against her anyway. She's female, she's educated (making her unqualified because she's been poisoned by peer-reviewed study), and she's been to an Ivy League school run by the liberal elite.


Well, that and she's wrong... ;)

I honestly don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that procreation was never historically a central purpose of marriage, and then say it was about building stable families. Um... How do you think families came to be "historically"?


Stable family =/= stable household.


In this context, they are equal. A Household assumes a head who is responsible for the rest of those living there. Dependents are implied to some degree, but I suppose technically not required. One can make the argument though, that the concept of a "household" doesn't have much meaning if you don't have children to raise.

There you go making arguments again based on your assumptions. Your assumptions are meaningless you know.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#86 Jan 13 2010 at 9:42 AM Rating: Good
Deadgye wrote:
Maybe I came to that conclusion because I tried to make a theory that fit the people, instead of coming up with a theory and then attempting to fit people to it? Smiley: tongue I wonder if something like this could be tested; monitoring brain activity while pheromones were introduced without the person knowing if the pheromones were male or female, perhaps?


To me, it all comes down to what happens physically with our bodies. When I see a hot guy that I am attracted to, I start feeling all funny. I get butterflies in my tummy and weak in the knees and all that romantic crap. I have never, not once, in my life felt that way about a woman. I have even tried to feel that way about certain guys, and I can't make it happen. I would've loved to have the choice on who to be attracted to. It would've made my life easier in some respects.

I figure it's got to be the same way for homosexuals and bisexuals. When they meet someone they are attracted to, their body tells them, "Hey, that guy/girl is hot, I'm gonna make your palms all sweaty and make you too nervous to talk to them."

Bisexuals are the only ones who get a "choice," somewhat. If they are attracted to both a man and a woman at the same time, they can make the choise as to which relationship they want to pursue. That doesn't mean, however, that the attraction was a choice in the first place.
#87 Jan 13 2010 at 10:16 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
I think it doesn't matter if people are born with a desire for the opposite sex or if it's learned, or even if it happened one day after consuming a pomegranate sprinkled with fairy dust.

There's no societal, physiological, or rational reason for disallowing the formation of a legally recognized family unit - with all it's rights and responsibilities, to a couple simply because they are the same gender.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#88REDACTED, Posted: Jan 13 2010 at 10:41 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ninomori,
#89REDACTED, Posted: Jan 13 2010 at 10:43 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Elinda,
#90 Jan 13 2010 at 10:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hey, if you're looking for a conservative nation that's against homosexuality and bases its laws upon what's "moral behavior", I'm pretty sure Iran is taking applications Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#91 Jan 13 2010 at 10:50 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Elinda,

Quote:
There's no societal, physiological, or rational reason for disallowing the formation of a legally recognized family unit


Yes there is. Our govn should not be condoning immoral behaviour. It's that simple. That you don't think our nations moral character should be an issue in deciding what behaviours we find acceptable is your personal problem.
There is no moral reason either.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#92 Jan 13 2010 at 11:06 AM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Elinda,

Quote:
There's no societal, physiological, or rational reason for disallowing the formation of a legally recognized family unit


Yes there is. Our govn should not be condoning immoral behaviour. It's that simple. That you don't think our nations moral character should be an issue in deciding what behaviours we find acceptable is your personal problem.

ITT we learn that varus thinks love is immoral.
#93 Jan 13 2010 at 11:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Hey, if you're looking for a conservative nation that's against homosexuality and bases its laws upon what's "moral behavior", I'm pretty sure Iran is taking applications Smiley: smile


I've suggested this before. It's really the logical solution: find a country whose values fit your own, and move.

It's what he keeps demanding of anyone who disagrees with him, after all.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#94 Jan 13 2010 at 11:15 AM Rating: Good
**
715 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Elinda,

Quote:
There's no societal, physiological, or rational reason for disallowing the formation of a legally recognized family unit


Yes there is. Our govn should not be condoning immoral behaviour. It's that simple. That you don't think our nations moral character should be an issue in deciding what behaviours we find acceptable is your personal problem.


What is simple, and that you never seem to understand, is that your interpretation of homosexuality is just that: your opinion. You constantly state opinion as if it is fact, and wonder why people get upset with your absolutism. Although, honestly, I don't think you wonder about it at all and most all of your posts are only said to illicit a response.
#95 Jan 13 2010 at 11:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Hey, if you're looking for a conservative nation that's against homosexuality and bases its laws upon what's "moral behavior", I'm pretty sure Iran is taking applications Smiley: smile
I've suggested this before. It's really the logical solution: find a country whose values fit your own, and move.

It's what he keeps demanding of anyone who disagrees with him, after all.

Iran has a flat corporate tax rate of 25% as well which will be a full 10% lower than in the US once his business starts making in excess of $17mil per year.

Morality based laws and lower taxes? It's a conservative paradise over there! Varrus will even get to boss the women around!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#96 Jan 13 2010 at 11:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
Varrus will even get to boss the women around!


Assuming he ever sees one.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#97REDACTED, Posted: Jan 13 2010 at 12:11 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) While sometimes homosexuality can be due to wiring at birth, many homosexuals are that way by choice or because of an experience they had (i.e. - learned).
#98 Jan 13 2010 at 12:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
When you figure out a way to dye your sexuality, let me know.

I don't claim to be an expert on human sexuality. I don't know whether it's inborn, learned, hormonal or some combination. I do know that it's hardly as trivial as changing your fUCking hair color, you stupid CUnt.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#99 Jan 13 2010 at 12:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
And I'll take the word of a person who has studied marriage professionally over you, sorry.
Yes. And I'm sure she is the only person to ever study the history of marriage. Or... wait a minute! Maybe they picked the expert who agreed with their position? Nah! That would just be crazy...

Good point. They should have gotten one of those marriage history-type folks who say "It's obvious! I don't need to prove it with anything or show any evidence... it's just obvious! You know it's obvious! Why won't you admit that it's just obvious?"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#100 Jan 13 2010 at 12:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
Things in this world, include sexual orientation, are not just black and white. Saying that every "gay" person was born that way is ridiculous. Would you look at it differently if you were born with black hair but color it blond? It's just preference for many (because these many can and will tell you that they were hetero at one point), and no I'm not saying that should change the issue at hand.


Here's the issue. You appear to be confusing overt activity with orientation status. Also, claiming to be heterosexual to avoid social stigma does not change someone's preferences.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#101 Jan 13 2010 at 12:55 PM Rating: Decent
It's like ice cream flavors. I have no idea if I was born liking cookies and cream and hating pistachio. I could not tell you at what point I decided I preferred the former vastly over the latter. It just is.

It's the same way with sexual preference. I could not tell you exactly at what point I thought that boys were cute and other girls were too frilly for my taste. (It had to be prior to 1st grade, what with all the chasing of boys I did on the playground.) It never occurred to me that such a decision was the default choice for my gender, either.

It doesn't matter if it's a "choice" or a genetic preference, whether it was nature or nurture. Nothing is going to "make you gay" just like nothing is going to make me like pistachio ice cream. Didn't matter when I was 6, doesn't matter now that I'm 30.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 394 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (394)