California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

You seem to be speaking empirical about a matter that you nor I know for certain. I do study neuroscience and I do have some knowledge but I can not speak empirical about homosexuality.

I have not claimed to know, I have said that we do not know so caution with regards to change is prudent.

Yes I did Sense your caution but I also sensed you trying to dictate how things should be.
Please do not take this as hateful as that is not how it is meant. I use to be against it myself but after I learned that a love one was gay it was not until then that I seen my ignorance.
I do not fault you as you were taught the same things that I was taught.
The earth is flat. LOL

the only should be is successful. In order to get there we need to make smart choices. I realize that to some I am being unrealistic and a bastard, that failure to put individual rights above all else is considered a character flaw. However, my firm belief is that my mama did not raise no dummy, the ability to prioritize is a increasingly rare but critical human skill.

You speak of change. Do you have any idea of when the first gay was born? how about a guess if you do not know for certain.

I dont care. I dont start from the premise that we know what makes gays or if we can get rid of them, that is outside of current human knowledge. we are on the what to do about them block. On this we have a choice.

Likewise I dont know why I am alive, how I got here, and I dont care. I know that I am here right now and I need to decide what to do with myself today. If you want to be like the Hindu's and get lost in a fog about how you got here by my guest, but that is not likely to get you anywhere. Those who are successful in life tend to be more practical.

I am not open to any other discussion about gays than what to do about them.

Ok forget about facts, science and biology, lets just use our emotions I am cool with that.

What is this majority of culture you keep talking about? According to science all women are bisexual, though most prefer men.. there is a very large portion of men who are bisexual also but prefer women and there are some men who are straight (and need no glue to keep them in their wives bedrooms...) So it seems bisexuals make "the majority". Stop trying to impose the ideas of the few upon the many. Gays are not tying to deny straight men the right to marry and straight men should not deny gays the right to marry...

That is funny

On several threads I have talked about the Darth of science on this question, and that we should do nothing more until we get good science. There has been a lot of change over the last generation, we should have some quiet time and look closely at the result, which will take awhile.

I still believe we need an effort, commensurate with the resources put into getting to the moon, to find out what causes homosexuality. Only then can there be an argument as to what is best for the greater good in society. And, therefore, whether homosexuality can be easily eliminated like a chochlea inplant for the deaf, in the way of analogy. Most heterosexual parents, I believe, would prevent offspring from being homosexual, if it was easily preventable.

That, in my opinion, is the reality - it would be eliminated by heterosexual parents, if there was a simple method.

Foofie, champion of the human genome. Building our master race perhaps?

A
R
T

If the door is opened to not discriminating against one form of deviance on the grounds that it is innate then what is the argument about discriminating against any deviance?

If deviance is innate why do certain environments produce more deviance than others? If behaviour is innate what is the purpose of behavioural training?

It is necessary to distinguish between innate deviance and learned deviance.

Nothing can be done about the former and no fault can be attached to it and thus no penalty can be reasonably exacted. In other words, if the innate argument carries weight the prisons should be cleared and demolished and society learn to live with it all forms of innate deviance.

If certain environments do produce more deviance than others, as they do, and behavioural training is an accepted component of the socialisation system then the notion that deviance can be learned is accepted.

In regard to sexual deviance the period of learning is at its most effective when the sexual impulse is awakening. The early teenage years in most cases. If seductive influences in these years are brought to bear by members of the same sex on individuals who are denied opportunities for contact with the opposite sex, for whatever reason, then the satisfactions obtained will work to habituate them on the normal conditioning principles and they will become fixations. Such seductive influences will generally arise from contact with persons already habituated. Older and more experienced persons.

As the seduction of young persons of the opposite sex carries pregnancy risks it is penalised and discouraged but as there is no such risk in seductions of members of the same sex there will be a tendency for them to take place when contacts with the opposite sex are restricted due to the risk of pregnancy or of any other factors such as lack of confidence.

Normalising homosexual behaviour will therefore cause an increase of it. Many posts on this thread will have that effect. A mass grooming takes place by established homosexuals operating on that sensitivity in the period of the awakening sexual impulse.

The many known disadvantages of the opposite sex can thus be eliminated and with enough time and enough seductive grooming there seems no good reason why homosexuality will not replace heterosexuality as the normal state of affairs.

But the fact that deviant behaviour patterns are learned in this process means that they can be unlearned if those who exhibit them become aware that their deviance is not innate but brought about by seducers habituating them in that period of sexual vulnerability either for the sexual satisfaction of the seducer or simply to validate the seducers own orientation or even to create new business patterns and opportunities.

Normalising and making respectable sexual relations between members of the same sex cannot possibly avoid a snowball effect because of how easy they are once rendered respectable and acceptable and how difficult, and indeed dangerous, are relations with the opposite sex in those early teenage years.

As I said earlier--this is not a static situation.

Why does anything have to be done about them?


In other words: Do nothing until we know, and we will never know.

You state that you "don't care" but then you moan about the "Darth of science" on the topic? Also, what is "good science?" I suspect it's not the large body of science on this topic which has already been done, but rather the science you wish existed that validated your bigotry.

If there is such a deficit of information out there, why should we err on the side of denying civil rights? That doesn't make any sense. If there is truly a Darth of science on the study of homosexuals (there isn't), then we should give them their equal rights until "good science" demonstrates this does actual measurable harm.

It's Loki's wager. Argue over where the head ends and the neck begins so that you never lose your head. You want to perpetuate the debate indefinitely to postpone your defeat.

Coward.

A
R
T

How is homosexuality dangerous? Specifically.

You claim this so casually, but don't seem to be able to demonstrate any real threat. Remember, this is not a theoretical topic, homosexuals have been around as long (longer) than recorded history and all through our evolution. How can you claim to know it's dangerous when history says otherwise?

How have homosexuals contributed to your sexual confusion?

A
R
T

Your innuendo would only be a false accusation, since my post only reflects being a champion of heterosexual parents, and their usual desire to have heterosexual offspring, so that there will be biological grandchildren, rather than grandchildren from some other paradigm. Not everyone prefers to raise children that are not comprised of DNA from two sets of grandparents that are known by each set of grandparents. Have we lost the right to maintain "classic family structure," or must the "brave new world" be modelled by the preferences of the lgbt community?

There is nothing inferior about any "gay gene," if it was discovered; however, the reality is many heterosexual parents would prefer to not have any "gay gene" active in their offspring, I believe. Nothing wrong with that. Sort of like not converting to another religion, since one was raised in another specific faith, even though one is aware that no other faith is "inferior" to one's own faith.

In my own opinion, homosexuality is dangerous to society, and women specifically, since I believe much of homophobia correlates to misogyny.

In other words, when one may hear a male teenager calling another male teenager, "faggot," that I believe is because one teenager sees another teenager acting in less than a supposed masculine manner, and that in the eyes of the heckling teenager "cheapens" the "guy world" he believes he lives in and is very much part of (or questions unconsciously whether he really will be part of, or possibly would like to be more part of?).

So, whenever a teenager, that just might grow up to be part of the lgbt community, displays some behavior that "rankles" some other teenager that has bought into some hyper-vision of masculinity, I believe misogyny is being given credence to. In other words, in the eyes of these teenagers guys should "act like men," and only girls can "act like girls," in the hyper-vision of the masculine "guy world."

In other words, in my opinion, homosexuality is like salt in the wound of a society that already devalues women for their feminine traits.

I know many would offer the solution of eliminating homophobia. But, like solving a simple equation, the solution could also be by eliminating homosexuals through, perhaps, finding the genetic cause and how to silence it genetically.

That's like ending the problems Jews face by getting rid of them all. Sound like a good solution to you? That's what you are advocating here, genetically manipulating our race to get rid of a certain people?

Horrible, absolutely reprehensible opinion, Foofie, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for ever having typed something like that.

Cycloptichorn

wasn't there some guy, a german i think, who proposed such a once and for all solution

Homosexuality is like a rainbow there are many shades and hues the make up the whole picture... It is not just black and white, like, i will or will not have a gay offspring. For instance when a straight guy acts feminine is that not also reprehensible in your book? And when a straight teen insults a feminine gay teen is he not attacking women and femininity indirectly? And when a straight man attacks a woman is that considered ok in your book? When a woman asserts herself in a masculine way like becoming a wrestler or joining the military is that also not wrong in your eyes? Your posts are by far the most ignorant and idiotic posts so far in this forum. It is apparent you wrote them to hurt gays and you know what, I could care less what comes out of your pea brain it is apparent you are just an jerk... errr, Foofie... something terrible has tangled into your DNA... Your thoughts on this matter need to be exterminated...