Homosexuals
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Apparently when the left say it is time for something to change, than we are all just supposed to mindlessly get in line and help them to change it. End of discussion. You see, they have a clearer, more refined, moral perspective than the rest of us retards, so they get to dictate to society what its moral standards will be - so get used to it, there will be more coming soon. I hope there was nothing about any aspect of tradtional social values you were overly fond of. Well, the thingk I finally want to understand is , Does a person have the right to BE a gay or not. I think if thats something all biological or something depend on how they grown up, well of course nobody can bannded them. I don't want to related it to our tradition, there shouldn't be difference for it in different culture cause we are all human like the way we say about black and whites. But technicly we can't all become gay cause human race will ruin,we need children, and what I BELIEVE is human are not created by default like it. Mazy "A bank is a place that will lend you money if you can prove that you don't need it." - Bob Hope
Mazdak wrote: Well, the thingk I finally want to understand is , Does a person have the right to BE a gay or not. My answer to that would be "Yes, but..." Certainly, who a person choices to love and have a relationship with is their own damned business. But, the real question is if a person pursues such a relationship do I have the right to be intolerant of it? That is, are you and I to be legally required to tolerate behaviors we are morally predisposed to find objectionable. If we are to say that one person has the "right" to behave as a homosexual than why should I not have the "right" to behave as a homophobe? Why is their right to a defined set of behaviors any more valid than mine or yours? And if the state can force us to tolerate behaviors we do not wish to tolerate, how can we be said to possess a "free exercise of religion"? The good thing about all this is that by pursueing this course, the left has opened a can of worms which they will ultimately be unable to control. The irrationality which their religious beliefs are predicated upon, as with all such religions, will collapse like a house of cards. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
-
Roger Allen wrote: You get about the same proportion of gay/lesbian people as you do left handed people. So is it not natural to be left handed? Nope, They are completely different. Nothing happend if all people become left handed but something do happen if all become gay. Roger Allen wrote: As to why we are homosexuals, there have been studies that suggest the development level (size) of one small area of the brain can control this. There is nothing wrong with it, people are what they are. Ok, thats what I'm looking for, but I don't know if its for all gays or there are some other reasons too. :-) Mazy "A bank is a place that will lend you money if you can prove that you don't need it." - Bob Hope
Mazdak wrote: Nothing happend if all people become left handed Being left-handed myself I can assure you it would be a revolution! Many, many things are designed for right-handed people :| But it's another debate :) Does it really matter why some people are gays and other aren't, if it comes from the genes or the education? The fact is, some people are gays, whatever the country and the period of history, knowing "why" has IMHO little interest. As long as Freedom consists in being able to do all that does not harm others, I see no reason to persecute or limit the rights of these people because of their sexual preferences, as long as they aren't breaking this generic rule, as the heterosexuals.
And I'm talking to myself at night because I can't forget Back and forth through my mind Behind a cigarette
-
Mazdak wrote: their total consept, what cause people become gay/lesbian? I mean is that something genetically which they can't enjoy from opposite gender? I've heard some peoples like that or it comes from their childhood and the way they grown up. But there are some people that change their way from when they are not child. How about those? Some people say it is natural to be gay/lebian but how is it natural which most of human nature from the beginig up to now are NOT like this?(I don't think we can say we are not homosexual by mistake or by chance This is the one argument where liberals have to depend on creationism to defend their beliefs. God created some people straight and some people gay, and that is simply the natural order of things. The notion that I, as a parent, upon discovering that one of my children might be inclined towards homosexuality, could seek treatment for it, and to expect that we would apply standard scientific and medical methodologies to understanding the issue, unencumbered by politically correct dogma, is of course, one of the many "immoral" beliefs that the left demands that we reject. Mazdak wrote: Please don't answer last question that it is 21th century and many things have change , so does this one,This doesn't make any scense alone.(At least for me) Apparently when the left say it is time for something to change, than we are all just supposed to mindlessly get in line and help them to change it. End of discussion. You see, they have a clearer, more refined, moral perspective than the rest of us retards, so they get to dictate to society what its moral standards will be - so get used to it, there will be more coming soon. I hope there was nothing about any aspect of tradtional social values you were overly fond of. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: This is the one argument where liberals have to depend on creationism to defend their beliefs. God created some people straight and some people gay, and that is simply the natural order of things. Uhm.. why do you have to bring God into this argument? Are you implying all liberals are religious? If rand() is divine, I'll buy your argument. ;P Stan Shannon wrote: The notion that I, as a parent, upon discovering that one of my children might be inclined towards homosexuality, could seek treatment for it, and to expect that we would apply standard scientific and medical methodologies to understanding the issue, unencumbered by politically correct dogma, is of course, one of the many "immoral" beliefs that the left demands that we reject. Ah yes, but what if your child says "No dad, I am what I am, and you cannot change me!" - is it still your right to "fix" him/her? Gay people don't know they're gay until their sex drive kicks in. Before that they just know they're different than others. Stan Shannon wrote: Apparently when the left say it is time for something to change, than we are all just supposed to mindlessly get in line and help them to change it. End of discussion. Society evolves. I mean, if it wasn't for this evolution, there would be no US, home of the brave, etc. Clinging on to the past or fighting progress is not always worth the effort - I mean, what do you have to earn by denying same sex marriages? -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
-
Mazdak wrote: their total consept, what cause people become gay/lesbian? I mean is that something genetically which they can't enjoy from opposite gender? I've heard some peoples like that or it comes from their childhood and the way they grown up. But there are some people that change their way from when they are not child. How about those? Some people say it is natural to be gay/lebian but how is it natural which most of human nature from the beginig up to now are NOT like this?(I don't think we can say we are not homosexual by mistake or by chance This is the one argument where liberals have to depend on creationism to defend their beliefs. God created some people straight and some people gay, and that is simply the natural order of things. The notion that I, as a parent, upon discovering that one of my children might be inclined towards homosexuality, could seek treatment for it, and to expect that we would apply standard scientific and medical methodologies to understanding the issue, unencumbered by politically correct dogma, is of course, one of the many "immoral" beliefs that the left demands that we reject. Mazdak wrote: Please don't answer last question that it is 21th century and many things have change , so does this one,This doesn't make any scense alone.(At least for me) Apparently when the left say it is time for something to change, than we are all just supposed to mindlessly get in line and help them to change it. End of discussion. You see, they have a clearer, more refined, moral perspective than the rest of us retards, so they get to dictate to society what its moral standards will be - so get used to it, there will be more coming soon. I hope there was nothing about any aspect of tradtional social values you were overly fond of. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: This is the one argument where liberals have to depend on creationism to defend their beliefs. God created some people straight and some people gay, and that is simply the natural order of things. Utter tripe. Belief in a role of genetics in determining human characteristics has nothing to do with creationism. You seem to have plumbed new depths in the rubbish you are prepared to offer in support of your beliefs. Stan Shannon wrote: The notion that I, as a parent, upon discovering that one of my children might be inclined towards homosexuality, could seek treatment for it, and to expect that we would apply standard scientific and medical methodologies to understanding the issue, unencumbered by politically correct dogma, is of course, one of the many "immoral" beliefs that the left demands that we reject. The true position is the opposite of what you claim. In reality, religious cranks torment homosexuals with totally bogus "cures" that have no scientific or medical basis. Stan Shannon wrote: You see, they have a clearer, more refined, moral perspective than the rest of us retards I'm glad we agree on something. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
Stan Shannon wrote: This is the one argument where liberals have to depend on creationism to defend their beliefs. God created some people straight and some people gay, and that is simply the natural order of things. Utter tripe. Belief in a role of genetics in determining human characteristics has nothing to do with creationism. You seem to have plumbed new depths in the rubbish you are prepared to offer in support of your beliefs. Stan Shannon wrote: The notion that I, as a parent, upon discovering that one of my children might be inclined towards homosexuality, could seek treatment for it, and to expect that we would apply standard scientific and medical methodologies to understanding the issue, unencumbered by politically correct dogma, is of course, one of the many "immoral" beliefs that the left demands that we reject. The true position is the opposite of what you claim. In reality, religious cranks torment homosexuals with totally bogus "cures" that have no scientific or medical basis. Stan Shannon wrote: You see, they have a clearer, more refined, moral perspective than the rest of us retards I'm glad we agree on something. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
John Carson wrote: Belief in a role of genetics in determining human characteristics has nothing to do with creationism. Yes, and the notion that a characteristic which by definition disallows the production of a viable offspring is genetic, and that such a gene could survive unaffected for thousands of generations such that it affects virtually every human population in near equal percentages, can only be explained by appealing to a devine authority. John Carson wrote: The true position is the opposite of what you claim. In reality, religious cranks torment homosexuals with totally bogus "cures" that have no scientific or medical basis. Well, OK, so how about some well funded non-bogus, controlled research to establish a set of treatments for those few individuals who might wake up one morning and decide they no longer wanted to be homosexual? I mean, if we can have research on how to convert the "trans-gendered" from one sex to another, certainly changing a homosexual to a heterosexual can't be all that difficult. John Carson wrote: I'm glad we agree on something. I just knew all you mindless true believers would like that. :) "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
-
Trollslayer wrote: Sometimes genes act in odd ways so as soon as the foetus starts to develop that's it. Speaking of "plasuible denial" ... :laugh: "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
If I thought there was a chance of cure then that would be great. So far all I have seen is people being pushed into denial or lying to protect themselves. The tigress is here :-D
-
Stan Shannon wrote: This is the one argument where liberals have to depend on creationism to defend their beliefs. God created some people straight and some people gay, and that is simply the natural order of things. Uhm.. why do you have to bring God into this argument? Are you implying all liberals are religious? If rand() is divine, I'll buy your argument. ;P Stan Shannon wrote: The notion that I, as a parent, upon discovering that one of my children might be inclined towards homosexuality, could seek treatment for it, and to expect that we would apply standard scientific and medical methodologies to understanding the issue, unencumbered by politically correct dogma, is of course, one of the many "immoral" beliefs that the left demands that we reject. Ah yes, but what if your child says "No dad, I am what I am, and you cannot change me!" - is it still your right to "fix" him/her? Gay people don't know they're gay until their sex drive kicks in. Before that they just know they're different than others. Stan Shannon wrote: Apparently when the left say it is time for something to change, than we are all just supposed to mindlessly get in line and help them to change it. End of discussion. Society evolves. I mean, if it wasn't for this evolution, there would be no US, home of the brave, etc. Clinging on to the past or fighting progress is not always worth the effort - I mean, what do you have to earn by denying same sex marriages? -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Uhm.. why do you have to bring God into this argument? Are you implying all liberals are religious? If rand() is divine, I'll buy your argument. Yes, I beleive that modern liberalism represents nothing less than a new world religion, as it has assumed the responsibiltiy of displacing the traditionally defined moral authority of the church with that of the state. The homosexual issue is the clearist example of that process at work. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Ah yes, but what if your child says "No dad, I am what I am, and you cannot change me!" - is it still your right to "fix" him/her? Gay people don't know they're gay until their sex drive kicks in. Before that they just know they're different than others. My child, my discision. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Society evolves. I mean, if it wasn't for this evolution, there would be no US, home of the brave, etc. Clinging on to the past or fighting progress is not always worth the effort Yes, but this isn't evolution it is coercion. Progress as defined by who? How many of us get a voice as to what represents progress? I don't believe in clinging to the past, unless it is all I have left to cling to to avoid falling into the abyss. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: - I mean, what do you have to earn by denying same sex marriages? Stoping a runaway freight train in its tracks. Defeating liberalism for no other reason than to prove that it can be defeated, to demonstrate that there is still an affective challange to an otherwise narrow minded, anti-intellectual group of moral zealots. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
-
John Carson wrote: Belief in a role of genetics in determining human characteristics has nothing to do with creationism. Yes, and the notion that a characteristic which by definition disallows the production of a viable offspring is genetic, and that such a gene could survive unaffected for thousands of generations such that it affects virtually every human population in near equal percentages, can only be explained by appealing to a devine authority. John Carson wrote: The true position is the opposite of what you claim. In reality, religious cranks torment homosexuals with totally bogus "cures" that have no scientific or medical basis. Well, OK, so how about some well funded non-bogus, controlled research to establish a set of treatments for those few individuals who might wake up one morning and decide they no longer wanted to be homosexual? I mean, if we can have research on how to convert the "trans-gendered" from one sex to another, certainly changing a homosexual to a heterosexual can't be all that difficult. John Carson wrote: I'm glad we agree on something. I just knew all you mindless true believers would like that. :) "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: OK, so how about some well funded non-bogus, controlled research Have you looked ? If so, please share it with us :) The tigress is here :-D
-
Well, it differs from country to country, but I found a list on those benefits for the US http://fogarty.org/tim/gay_issues/marriage_benifits.html[^] [Edit]In retrospection, I feel that the real reason people(gay or straight) want to get married is because they want a more formal recognization of their love, more than for the benefits listed above. I could be wrong though[/Edit]
"if you vote me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine" - Michael P. Butler. Support Bone It's a weird Life
Benefits of Marriage
...
..Legal
...
Right to Divorce:laugh: BW CP Member Homepages
"...take what you need and leave the rest..."
-
John Carson wrote: Belief in a role of genetics in determining human characteristics has nothing to do with creationism. Yes, and the notion that a characteristic which by definition disallows the production of a viable offspring is genetic, and that such a gene could survive unaffected for thousands of generations such that it affects virtually every human population in near equal percentages, can only be explained by appealing to a devine authority. John Carson wrote: The true position is the opposite of what you claim. In reality, religious cranks torment homosexuals with totally bogus "cures" that have no scientific or medical basis. Well, OK, so how about some well funded non-bogus, controlled research to establish a set of treatments for those few individuals who might wake up one morning and decide they no longer wanted to be homosexual? I mean, if we can have research on how to convert the "trans-gendered" from one sex to another, certainly changing a homosexual to a heterosexual can't be all that difficult. John Carson wrote: I'm glad we agree on something. I just knew all you mindless true believers would like that. :) "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: can only be explained by appealing to a devine authority. utter B.S. total nonsense. even if homosexuality is an inherited trait, rather than a random flip of a switch during development, a gay man can father a child, and a lesbian can give birth. there's nothing stopping either one from experimenting or dabbling in straight sex, while still preferring homosexual sex. and there's nothing that says a person can't switch from homo- to heterosexual or vice versa during the course of their life. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
If I thought there was a chance of cure then that would be great. So far all I have seen is people being pushed into denial or lying to protect themselves. The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote: If I thought there was a chance of cure then that would be great. So far all I have seen is people being pushed into denial or lying to protect themselves. But doesn't it seem logical that the the chances for such would improve considerably if there was legitimate ongoing research into the issue? Instead, we have a scientific community that exists under a moral authoritarism not seen since the days of Galileo. Any researcher with the audacity to even question the legitimacy of the established conclusions can kiss their career goodbye. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
-
Stan Shannon wrote: can only be explained by appealing to a devine authority. utter B.S. total nonsense. even if homosexuality is an inherited trait, rather than a random flip of a switch during development, a gay man can father a child, and a lesbian can give birth. there's nothing stopping either one from experimenting or dabbling in straight sex, while still preferring homosexual sex. and there's nothing that says a person can't switch from homo- to heterosexual or vice versa during the course of their life. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
Chris Losinger wrote: utter B.S. total nonsense. I'm afraid I will have to trump you with a degree in biology and an understanding of simple mendelian genetics. Certainly any random gene can be inherited by an offspring, and certainly homsexuals possess the anatomy to bear viable children. But the simple matter is that over the course of long biological time, any gene significantly reducing the production of such offsprings, as a gene for homosexuality would, would simply be out competed by other genes. It would not be stable enough to produce any thing approaching a ten percent figure in any population, let alone the entire human populace. It simply is not possible. For it to be stable, homosexuals would have to be having children at about the same rate as everyone else in the population. You could argue that these individuals were under social duress to have children, but that would mean that every human social organization since the first apperance of our species was overtly homophobic. If so, than we can only conclude that homophobia must itself be genetic and is therefore as valid as homosexuality and should be protected on the same grounds. I mean, if I'm genetically predisposed to be a homophobe who are you to tell me I shouldn't be you intolerant bastard. ;) "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
-
Stan Shannon wrote: This is the one argument where liberals have to depend on creationism to defend their beliefs. God created some people straight and some people gay, and that is simply the natural order of things. Uhm.. why do you have to bring God into this argument? Are you implying all liberals are religious? If rand() is divine, I'll buy your argument. ;P Stan Shannon wrote: The notion that I, as a parent, upon discovering that one of my children might be inclined towards homosexuality, could seek treatment for it, and to expect that we would apply standard scientific and medical methodologies to understanding the issue, unencumbered by politically correct dogma, is of course, one of the many "immoral" beliefs that the left demands that we reject. Ah yes, but what if your child says "No dad, I am what I am, and you cannot change me!" - is it still your right to "fix" him/her? Gay people don't know they're gay until their sex drive kicks in. Before that they just know they're different than others. Stan Shannon wrote: Apparently when the left say it is time for something to change, than we are all just supposed to mindlessly get in line and help them to change it. End of discussion. Society evolves. I mean, if it wasn't for this evolution, there would be no US, home of the brave, etc. Clinging on to the past or fighting progress is not always worth the effort - I mean, what do you have to earn by denying same sex marriages? -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Clinging on to the past or fighting progress is not always worth the effort Is homosexuality progress? :) If you look at it from an evolutionary perspective (like I assume is the liberal belief) natural selection keeps the changes/mutations that are most beneficial for the progress of the race. Homosexuality is, in that light, not progress, considering these people won't procreate :) Just my $0.02 worth... :) Paul ;)
van der walt is qualified to answer - googlism
-
Chris Losinger wrote: utter B.S. total nonsense. I'm afraid I will have to trump you with a degree in biology and an understanding of simple mendelian genetics. Certainly any random gene can be inherited by an offspring, and certainly homsexuals possess the anatomy to bear viable children. But the simple matter is that over the course of long biological time, any gene significantly reducing the production of such offsprings, as a gene for homosexuality would, would simply be out competed by other genes. It would not be stable enough to produce any thing approaching a ten percent figure in any population, let alone the entire human populace. It simply is not possible. For it to be stable, homosexuals would have to be having children at about the same rate as everyone else in the population. You could argue that these individuals were under social duress to have children, but that would mean that every human social organization since the first apperance of our species was overtly homophobic. If so, than we can only conclude that homophobia must itself be genetic and is therefore as valid as homosexuality and should be protected on the same grounds. I mean, if I'm genetically predisposed to be a homophobe who are you to tell me I shouldn't be you intolerant bastard. ;) "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: I'm afraid I will have to trump you with a degree in biology and an understanding of simple mendelian genetics. you're gonna have to go farther than simple Mendelian genetics here. humans are social creatures, not strictly individuals like snakes. there could be a non-obvious benefit from homosexuality to the society (or the species) as a whole which we just haven't figured out yet. for example, there's a non-obvious benefit to having grandparents around: even though they are not breeding anymore, not doing much hunting or hard work, etc. (are basically a drain on resources), they do help in raising children, which frees up time for the younger healthier people to do more hunting and hard work. living past the age of their own fertility and productivity still helps promote their own genes because they can help raise the offspring of their offspring. and no, i'm not saying homosexuals help promote homosexual genes - that was an example of"'non-obvious". maybe it's something as simple as providing a way to release sexual urges when there aren't any members of the other sex around: but it gets taken father than necessary (necessary for that goal, anyway) in some people, the same way eating gets taken farther than necessary in morbidly obese people - you're not going to argue that only divine intervention can explain people too fat to breed, right? and unlike people too fat to breed, homosexuals can still be productive members of society; which, like grandparents, helps everyone. if you believe the results of this study, homosexual acts are anything but rare: 80% of men and 90% of women report that they've had a same-sex partner at least once since age 18. it's clear that the tendencies for homosexual acts are present in everyone, perhaps some people just go to far. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
Mazdak wrote: Well, the thingk I finally want to understand is , Does a person have the right to BE a gay or not. My answer to that would be "Yes, but..." Certainly, who a person choices to love and have a relationship with is their own damned business. But, the real question is if a person pursues such a relationship do I have the right to be intolerant of it? That is, are you and I to be legally required to tolerate behaviors we are morally predisposed to find objectionable. If we are to say that one person has the "right" to behave as a homosexual than why should I not have the "right" to behave as a homophobe? Why is their right to a defined set of behaviors any more valid than mine or yours? And if the state can force us to tolerate behaviors we do not wish to tolerate, how can we be said to possess a "free exercise of religion"? The good thing about all this is that by pursueing this course, the left has opened a can of worms which they will ultimately be unable to control. The irrationality which their religious beliefs are predicated upon, as with all such religions, will collapse like a house of cards. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: If we are to say that one person has the "right" to behave as a homosexual than why should I not have the "right" to behave as a homophobe? Damn good point! We could always use their line: I can't help it, I was born homophobic. ;) Jeremy Falcon
-
Stan Shannon wrote: This is the one argument where liberals have to depend on creationism to defend their beliefs. God created some people straight and some people gay, and that is simply the natural order of things. Uhm.. why do you have to bring God into this argument? Are you implying all liberals are religious? If rand() is divine, I'll buy your argument. ;P Stan Shannon wrote: The notion that I, as a parent, upon discovering that one of my children might be inclined towards homosexuality, could seek treatment for it, and to expect that we would apply standard scientific and medical methodologies to understanding the issue, unencumbered by politically correct dogma, is of course, one of the many "immoral" beliefs that the left demands that we reject. Ah yes, but what if your child says "No dad, I am what I am, and you cannot change me!" - is it still your right to "fix" him/her? Gay people don't know they're gay until their sex drive kicks in. Before that they just know they're different than others. Stan Shannon wrote: Apparently when the left say it is time for something to change, than we are all just supposed to mindlessly get in line and help them to change it. End of discussion. Society evolves. I mean, if it wasn't for this evolution, there would be no US, home of the brave, etc. Clinging on to the past or fighting progress is not always worth the effort - I mean, what do you have to earn by denying same sex marriages? -- Unser Tanz ist so wild! Ein neuer böser Tanz. Alle gegen Alle!
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Gay people don't know they're gay until their sex drive kicks in. Before that they just know they're different than others. How do you know this? :rolleyes: Jeremy Falcon
-
Mazdak wrote: Nothing happend if all people become left handed Being left-handed myself I can assure you it would be a revolution! Many, many things are designed for right-handed people :| But it's another debate :) Does it really matter why some people are gays and other aren't, if it comes from the genes or the education? The fact is, some people are gays, whatever the country and the period of history, knowing "why" has IMHO little interest. As long as Freedom consists in being able to do all that does not harm others, I see no reason to persecute or limit the rights of these people because of their sexual preferences, as long as they aren't breaking this generic rule, as the heterosexuals.
And I'm talking to myself at night because I can't forget Back and forth through my mind Behind a cigarette
KaЯl wrote: As long as Freedom consists in being able to do all that does not harm others, I see no reason to persecute or limit the rights of these people because of their sexual preferences Ok, let's say I'm a pedophile then. I love your 10 year old and daughter and she loves me. Then I should be able to marry her under this notion. Even if her mindset is different than mine because of her age, so what? She's still giving consent. Gays obviously have a different mindset too - their mental development is obviously different than that of a straight person. Yeah I know, it's different because pedophilia is not publicly accepted like being gay is. So, there's more people saying it's wrong than right (not like the case of being gay). But, it's the same concept whether or not people justify being gay. Jeremy Falcon
-
Ok friends , seriously ,these days there are so much discussions about gay marriage,now some questions come to my mind. Why there is no talking about lesbian marriage? Are they silent about it or they have some laws now which satisfy them or...? And another thing that I want to know,is not about their marriage,it is about their total consept, what cause people become gay/lesbian? I mean is that something genetically which they can't enjoy from opposite gender? I've heard some peoples like that or it comes from their childhood and the way they grown up. But there are some people that change their way from when they are not child. How about those? Some people say it is natural to be gay/lebian but how is it natural which most of human nature from the beginig up to now are NOT like this?(I don't think we can say we are not homosexual by mistake or by chance ;) ) Please don't answer last question that it is 21th century and many things have change , so does this one,This doesn't make any scense alone.(At least for me) Mazy "A bank is a place that will lend you money if you can prove that you don't need it." - Bob Hope
Mazy if you want real *diverse* answers you have to remember CP is not the place for it because most CPians are just girly guys anyway and to me that's just one step away from being gay. They will naturally be more inclined to promote gayness because most of them are girly/gay/slash take it any way they can get it. ;) Jeremy Falcon
-
Trollslayer wrote: If I thought there was a chance of cure then that would be great. So far all I have seen is people being pushed into denial or lying to protect themselves. But doesn't it seem logical that the the chances for such would improve considerably if there was legitimate ongoing research into the issue? Instead, we have a scientific community that exists under a moral authoritarism not seen since the days of Galileo. Any researcher with the audacity to even question the legitimacy of the established conclusions can kiss their career goodbye. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Actually the dutch do some research into this. It is useful for everyone in that they can find more out about how the brain works because this gives them large groups to compare. This is a rare opportunity in such an ares and it seems there are differences in some parts of the hypthalamus but too fine for scans so they have to wait on people donating teir bodies in oder to study the fine structures involved. An odd result is that there are physical indicators in odd places like the relative lengths of index and ring fingers ! Maybe the situation is as you decribe in the US, but not in Europe. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
KaЯl wrote: As long as Freedom consists in being able to do all that does not harm others, I see no reason to persecute or limit the rights of these people because of their sexual preferences Ok, let's say I'm a pedophile then. I love your 10 year old and daughter and she loves me. Then I should be able to marry her under this notion. Even if her mindset is different than mine because of her age, so what? She's still giving consent. Gays obviously have a different mindset too - their mental development is obviously different than that of a straight person. Yeah I know, it's different because pedophilia is not publicly accepted like being gay is. So, there's more people saying it's wrong than right (not like the case of being gay). But, it's the same concept whether or not people justify being gay. Jeremy Falcon
This definition of Freedom is for citizens. However, we don't consider children as citizens but as "minor people", with a specific legislation and derserving specific protections. We consider that in this case the consent of the child has no value, the child being not grown up, experienced enough to be able to understood his/her choice. The question could also be asked about people with mental deficience.
And I'm talking to myself at night because I can't forget Back and forth through my mind Behind a cigarette