Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 11
The Gay Agenda; Freedom for all?
Topic Started: May 30 2006, 11:39 AM (3,847 Views)
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
AlbertaCrude
Jun 1 2006, 01:12 PM
Jolly
Jun 1 2006, 11:03 AM
If a homsexual reproduces the old-fashioned way, doesn't that automatically disqualify them from being homosexual, and make them bisexual?

Not necessarily. They may have applied for and received a temporary waiver for the proposes of procreation.

What entity is responsible for the issuance of such a waiver?
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Moonbat, you're being pedantic, literal, and personally insulting. I'm done trying to explain this simple and common-sense concept (that humans are made so the male has sex with the female to reproduce) to you.


I'm sorry for insulting you i tried to edit it out but evidently not fast enough.

That analogy was absurd though, to the point of being satire. Can you not see that?

Common-sense is nothing more than a pragmatic guide which should immediately acquiesce to more rigorous analysis, Einstein had no time for it whatsoever he described it merely as that learned before the age of 18.

My argument stands, if we are merely dealing with reproductive capacity then we must label lots of apparently "normal" (in that it's accepted) behaviour as defective. If we are looking at "purpose" in a concept aside from it's metaphorical application to evolution and concepts of genetic fitness than we are appealing specifically to theological ideas and should not hide that from ourselves and others.

I can't believe you think the statement that homosexuals are defective is trivial, do really think that's not something up for debate?
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Jolly inquired
 
What entity is responsible for the issuance of such a waiver?


How the hell should I know? The ALCU? The American Bar Association? Underwriters Laboratories? The Teamsters Union?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

What entity is responsible for the issuance of such a waiver?


Sexual orientation is not defined by acts but by desires.

A homosexual man who lives a life attempting relationships with women despite lacking an attraction and desperately trying to ignore his attraction to men is not heterosexual, he's not bisexual, he's homosexual. He's attracted to men.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Thanks Moonbat. I knew the Teamsters would take care of everything.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Anytime
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Christopher T
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
Why do the gay people always seem to stay out of these arguments?

I'm gay, and my opinion is that straight people need to stop thinking that we choose to be gay, and start thinking about when they chose to be straight.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

MB:

Quote:
 
I can't believe you think the statement that homosexuals are defective is trivial, do really think that's not something up for debate?


I'll put it in context. Yes, I believe a homosexual orientation is defective when it comes to reproduction. Heterosexual is not. Mind you, we all have "defective" something's. For example, I have hyperhydrosis. I sweat REALLY easily, at the faintest amount of extra heat, which can be the most aggrivating thing in the world, and pisses me off more than anything, but I'm learing to live with it and I've seen doctors about it. Only surgury could "cure" me, and even then it's not a guarantee. My point is we all have some defect somewhere. Sometimes it's biological, sometimes it's psychological. I'm not saying I'm a bad person because I have hyperhydrosis, and I'm not saying Kenny's a bad person because he's attracted to the same sex. But I am saying that it's abnormal (rather, it's defective) compared to what the "ideal" human would be - someone who is born who is attracted to the opposite sex and that sweats only with sports! :P

I hope that clarify's my point a little better...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Christopher T
Jun 1 2006, 01:38 PM
Why do the gay people always seem to stay out of these arguments?

I'm gay, and my opinion is that straight people need to stop thinking that we choose to be gay, and start thinking about when they chose to be straight.

You are more than welcome in this argument.

Herein is what I have concluded...the definition of homosexuality is so nebulous as to defy a definitive explanation. Nature/ Nurture? Genetically determined? Pyschologically influenced? So ugly or socially inpaired that you can't get a date with the opposite sex?

Heck, I may not know the answer, but nobody else does either.

So we have a group that wants special rights, that can't even adequately define who they are.

That is not a way to run a society.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Christopher T
Jun 1 2006, 03:38 PM
Why do the gay people always seem to stay out of these arguments?

I'm gay, and my opinion is that straight people need to stop thinking that we choose to be gay, and start thinking about when they chose to be straight.

That was addressed a few pages ago...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Christopher T
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
Jolly
Jun 1 2006, 03:43 PM
You are more than welcome in this argument.

Herein is what I have concluded...the definition of homosexuality is so nebulous as to defy a definitive explanation. Nature/ Nurture? Genetically determined? Pyschologically influenced? So ugly or socially inpaired that you can't get a date with the opposite sex?

Heck, I may not know the answer, but nobody else does either.

So we have a group that wants special rights, that can't even adequately define who they are.

That is not a way to run a society.

What special rights are we seeking? I don't think asking to get married is a special right. I don't think equal protection under the law is a special right. I think health insurance benefits for our partners is a very basic right.

What are we seeking that would set us higher than straight people?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
The 89th Key
Jun 1 2006, 03:44 PM
Christopher T
Jun 1 2006, 03:38 PM
Why do the gay people always seem to stay out of these arguments?

I'm gay, and my opinion is that straight people need to stop thinking that we choose to be gay, and start thinking about when they chose to be straight.

That was addressed a few pages ago...

I asked the question as well. I don't think it was satisfactorily addressed, unless I missed the answer.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Christopher T
Jun 1 2006, 01:50 PM
Jolly
Jun 1 2006, 03:43 PM
You are more than welcome in this argument.

Herein is what I have concluded...the definition of homosexuality is so nebulous as to defy a definitive explanation. Nature/ Nurture? Genetically determined? Pyschologically influenced? So ugly or socially inpaired that you can't get a date with the opposite sex?

Heck, I may not know the answer, but nobody else does either.

So we have a group that wants special rights, that can't even adequately define who they are.

That is not a way to run a society.

What special rights are we seeking? I don't think asking to get married is a special right. I don't think equal protection under the law is a special right. I think health insurance benefits for our partners is a very basic right.

What are we seeking that would set us higher than straight people?

I would think marriage is a special right, and should be reserved for one woman/one man, since that represents the best modality for societal success..

As for equal protection under the law, in most matters you have just as much protection from abuse of your civil rights as do I. I adamantly do not believe in "hate crime" legilation. A crime is a crime is a crime, and should be adjudicated and resolved as such.

In matters of insurance for your partner, I have no problems with that, and I doubt that many of us do. I do see where it could be abused by people claiming to be gay, that are not.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
I would think marriage is a special right, and should be reserved for one woman/one man, since that represents the best modality for societal success..


That's an opinion masquerading as a fact.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
I adamantly do not believe in "hate crime" legilation. A crime is a crime is a crime, and should be adjudicated and resolved as such.


Do you believe in differentiated classes of murder, with different punishment, based on intent? Because intent and premeditation is what separates first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and manslaughter. Really, it's not a new concept, it appears in all kinds of contexts. Intent changes the level of punishment in many crimes.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Christopher T
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
Jolly
Jun 1 2006, 04:03 PM
I would think marriage is a special right, and should be reserved for one woman/one man, since that represents the best modality for societal success..

As for equal protection under the law, in most matters you have just as much protection from abuse of your civil rights as do I. I adamantly do not believe in "hate crime" legilation. A crime is a crime is a crime, and should be adjudicated and resolved as such.

In matters of insurance for your partner, I have no problems with that, and I doubt that many of us do. I do see where it could be abused by people claiming to be gay, that are not.

On what basis do you make the statement, "I would think marriage is a special right, and should be reserved for one woman/one man, since that represents the best modality for societal success.."? How is heterosexual marriage the best modality for societal success? I'm not understanding. I think that considering the divorce rate in heterosexual marriages is over 50%, that heterosexual marriage certainly isn't the best modality for societal success.

Personally I think marriage should have nothing to do with the government at all, and that if heterosexual people want to have a religious marriage that is specifically for them, so be it. As long as I can get a civil union that grants me the same taxation benefits that you are entitled to, then I'll be happy.

I think that hate crime legislation isn't the greatest situation, either. I agree that a crime is a crime and should be prosecuted as such. I just don't want to see the police and judicial system deciding that acts of violence against homosexuals aren't a crime.

And with regard to health benefits, how could it be abused by people claiming to be gay? If they already grant benefits to straight couples, why would straight couples need to be gay to get benefits?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Jolly
Jun 1 2006, 04:03 PM

In matters of insurance for your partner, I have no problems with that, and I doubt that many of us do. I do see where it could be abused by people claiming to be gay, that are not.

Any law can and will be abused by someone. People collecting pensions on behalf of their dead parents shouldn't stop us from having pensions, or parents for that matter.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
QuirtEvans
Jun 1 2006, 02:12 PM
Quote:
 
I adamantly do not believe in "hate crime" legilation. A crime is a crime is a crime, and should be adjudicated and resolved as such.


Do you believe in differentiated classes of murder, with different punishment, based on intent? Because intent and premeditation is what separates first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and manslaughter. Really, it's not a new concept, it appears in all kinds of contexts. Intent changes the level of punishment in many crimes.

Because intent to kill speaks to state of mind, and premeditation. I understand that in relation to differentiate between accidental death, and murder, and the points in-between.

However, the argument starts to lose its force when applied to other crimes...can theft be premeditated? Many, if not most times, it is. Therefore should theft be punished more severely the more the perpetrator thinks about it?

When somebody is beaten, are not satisfactory remedies available to the bench without creating more laws under a totally seperate category?

I find much the same argument to be made concerning some civil rights laws...our Constitution says that we should not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment. If a man commits a crime that the Justice Department also wishes to prosecute as a Civil rights violation, aren't we prosecuting a man twice for the same crime?

And since most of that prosecution is based upon skin color, and not sexual orientation, does that mean that some people have more recourse under the law, than others? I would submit that it does.

I cannot see why we would wish to further complicate our system of justice, when we have enough problems with it as it is...
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
John D'Oh
Jun 1 2006, 02:21 PM
Jolly
Jun 1 2006, 04:03 PM

In matters of insurance for your partner, I have no problems with that, and I doubt that many of us do. I do see where it could be abused by people claiming to be gay, that are not.

Any law can and will be abused by someone. People collecting pensions on behalf of their dead parents shouldn't stop us from having pensions, or parents for that matter.

Pretty easy to detect fraud in that instance.

Without a surveillance camera in the bedroom, how would one go about that two guys, or gals, are not scamming the system in order to acquire health insurance?
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
QuirtEvans
Jun 1 2006, 02:10 PM
Quote:
 
I would think marriage is a special right, and should be reserved for one woman/one man, since that represents the best modality for societal success..


That's an opinion masquerading as a fact.

Then give me this fact: What society has legalized, and benefitted from gay marriage?
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
Then give me this fact: What society has legalized, and benefitted from gay marriage?


Logical fallacy alert!

You're assuming that, if it's never happened, it must be a bad thing. That's exceedingly poor logic.

If no society has ever approved it, how can you know whether the society would benefit, be harmed, or experience no net harm or benefit from it? We're not talking about dropping a nuclear bomb here, where the damage is quantifiable. We're talking about a societal system, and, in a world of better-than-ever-before medicine, of lower-than-ever infant mortality, of better-than-ever methods of curing or otherwise dealing with infertility issues, and of enabling homosexual couples to parent (either through sperm donation, or through surrogacy), it's highly speculative whether heterosexual marriage needs to be encouraged as much as was necessary in, say, the Middle Ages for propogation of the species.

It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
QuirtEvans
Jun 1 2006, 01:28 PM
....and of enabling homosexual couples to parent (either through sperm donation, or through surrogacy....

Surrogacy. That's where the Teamsters can help.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
And since most of that prosecution is based upon skin color, and not sexual orientation, does that mean that some people have more recourse under the law, than others? I would submit that it does.


Another fallacy. Prosecution isn't about giving the victim recourse. It's about punishing the wrongdoer. You'd be better off arguing, why is it more wrong to beat up a black man than a white one?

Recourse comes from civil remedies.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
QuirtEvans
Jun 1 2006, 03:28 PM
Quote:
 
Then give me this fact: What society has legalized, and benefitted from gay marriage?


Logical fallacy alert!

You're assuming that, if it's never happened, it must be a bad thing. That's exceedingly poor logic.

If no society has ever approved it, how can you know whether the society would benefit, be harmed, or experience no net harm or benefit from it? We're not talking about dropping a nuclear bomb here, where the damage is quantifiable. We're talking about a societal system, and, in a world of better-than-ever-before medicine, of lower-than-ever infant mortality, of better-than-ever methods of curing or otherwise dealing with infertility issues, and of enabling homosexual couples to parent (either through sperm donation, or through surrogacy), it's highly speculative whether heterosexual marriage needs to be encouraged as much as was necessary in, say, the Middle Ages for propogation of the species.

Here's the logic....

You are wanting to turn society upside-down upon an issue that is arguably not civil rights based.

No society in history that I am aware of has ever sanctioned gay marriage.

Yes, the situation is legal in some modern countries, but it may be years before the analysis is final. In the menatime, I don't feel like betting the farm on societal experimentation....it's currently in bad enough shape as it is...
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
AlbertaCrude
Jun 1 2006, 03:35 PM
QuirtEvans
Jun 1 2006, 01:28 PM
....and of enabling homosexual couples to parent (either through sperm donation, or through surrogacy....

Surrogacy. That's where the Teamsters can help.

I'm an AFL-CIO guy, myself...
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 11