60
   

California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

 
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Aug, 2010 03:30 pm
@reasoning logic,
BTW thank you RL for the compliment, I have to remind myself to accept them. Smile
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Tue 24 Aug, 2010 03:31 pm
@RexRed,
Quote:
You'll allow that heterosexuality is learned? Yes, so you can go on believing that homosexuality is not genetic...


Your conclusion does not follow Rex. The complexity of the Nature/Nurture nexus is an irreducible one. I did not say that homosexuality is not genetic in every case. There are predispositions and susceptibilities which might be genetic or learned. I allowed it could be genetic. And that it could be learned. Heterosexuality might be learned by the pleasure of the mother's body to a baby. That is why I think female homosexuality has never been condemned by the Church.

Quote:
Some people are born whih two genitalia will you allow that as learned?


We are not concerned with such abnormalities. They are as rare as raping priests.

Quote:
How about if you allow that it is genetic considering the mass of scientific evidence proving it and quell your discrimination?


I know of no such scientific evidence and if there was it would apply to criminals and people would be in jail for something they can't help. And I am not discriminating either.

Quote:
When gay people are asked to smell other gay people's pheromones they "blindfolded" consistently choose another gay persons pheromones over a straight person or pheromones of the opposite sex.


Some people like smells others don't. I imagine that is learned by the odour being associated with previous pleasureable experiences. The fact of conducting such experiments could be prejudging the conclusion. The attraction could just as easily be learned as genetic, It proves nothing that I can see.

Quote:
You don't have to assume it exists just ask a gay person.


Which would mean nothing.

Quote:
How does one learn to be gay at three years old? Many of my perceptions were not even developed at that time but being gay was.


Maybe your parents wanted a girl and treated you as one for a while. It's not that uncommon. It's usually girls being treated as boys.

Quote:
How about heteros having sex on a park bench.
etc etc.

I was talking about parades and demos and the victim thing. Mr Jackson was an incident. Californian destiny is an incident too but a big one.

I goota scoot.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Aug, 2010 03:36 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:


RexRed wrote:
Some people are born with two genitalia will you allow that as learned?


We are not concerned with such abnormalities. They are as rare as raping priests.



Err, raping priests are not very rare these days... neither are hairy woman and men with boobs... Smile Got to do better here...
spendius
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 24 Aug, 2010 05:06 pm
@RexRed,
Quote:
Err, raping priests are not very rare these days


I think that what you mean is that you reading about them is not very rare. They are statistically rare. I was trying to be scientific rather than being led by the nose by media. There are 600,000 Catholic priests in the world. How many raping priests have you read about? My guess is that they are much rarer than they used to be.

Quote:
neither are hairy woman and men with boobs...


Chicks with dicks can be created by taking large doses of the substance they feed cheep chickens with to get them to put on weight fast. By which I mean cheap enough to allow expenditure on other items. Steroids I think they call them.

Hairy women are another matter entirely.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Tue 24 Aug, 2010 05:18 pm
@RexRed,
Going back a bit.

Quote:
. You don't think hetero woman flashing their boobs in public is not attention getting?


And what if they couldn't do it anymore. Homosexual males having shown the rest of us the sensible way forward and the economic advantages being so powerful we all get on the train.

Where would you keep the women? In pens? Stables? Cages? Paddocks? Barracks? Compounds?

Quote:
I am a single gay person, I am disease free and I don't go to gay bars at all and I have had relations with about 4 different individuals in the last ten years and only a few times each while dating them long before sex ever came into the picture. You could call me a homosexual role model.


So you're not in the parades then? The in your face "heterosexuals are mugs" jamborees? Okay. I have no dispute with you in that case.
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Tue 24 Aug, 2010 06:08 pm
@spendius,
Your quote [My position is based on circumstances. On Nurture not Nature. And on that period in adolesence when we are a bit vulnerable. I presume you meant "had considered" rather than "might consider". In the present the situation doesn't arise. I might consider letting a chap poke me up the arse, with some Vaseline of course, for $200,000. Me poking him is not possible but I'd give it a try for the same amount. Is it clear now]

Your quote. [I was a handsome boy and I might have fallen to the temptation to cream a few well off older men had I been tuned in. How do I know what would have happened if I hadn't turned left at the T junction that night I met Mrs Bancroft



Your quote. [And what if they couldn't do it anymore. Homosexual males having shown the rest of us the sensible way forward and the economic advantages being so powerful we all get on the train.]


Why do I think that you should be onboard that train? Maybe it's the $$$$ and not genetics for you.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Aug, 2010 10:50 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Going back a bit.

Quote:
. You don't think hetero woman flashing their boobs in public is not attention getting?


And what if they couldn't do it anymore. Homosexual males having shown the rest of us the sensible way forward and the economic advantages being so powerful we all get on the train.

Where would you keep the women? In pens? Stables? Cages? Paddocks? Barracks? Compounds?

Quote:
I am a single gay person, I am disease free and I don't go to gay bars at all and I have had relations with about 4 different individuals in the last ten years and only a few times each while dating them long before sex ever came into the picture. You could call me a homosexual role model.


So you're not in the parades then? The in your face "heterosexuals are mugs" jamborees? Okay. I have no dispute with you in that case.


None of this makes any sense to me. I don't even know how to respond. For once I am at a total loss of words...

I believe in equality so why would I want a woman's freedom restricted. Just as I stay home from the pride parade that marches past a few blocks away from my apartment. I can stay home when the beer belching dudes and bare breasted gals breeze into town on their choppers, problem solved... No need to resort to extremes in either case and everyone is happy. I just don't fine the urge to participate.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 04:24 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Why do I think that you should be onboard that train?


I've no idea rl. You think what you think for your own reasons. There are many trains and they are all moving. Ask a prostitute or a rent boy how many trains there are. I've explained why I think people get on one of them at an early age. What media think are the most popular trains can be discerned from its content. When I was at the age of greatest impressionability there was really only one. The young healthy English Rose and American sweetie. Doris Day types. And our behaviour was conditioned also by what we perceived the girl's train was. Tony Curtis, Errol Flynn $ Co. We were all the same and so peer group pressure reinforced the stereotype. As did everything else.

When you accused my Catholic schooling in order to get in your jibe about the odd renegade priest you failed to realise that it was exactly the same in non-Catholic schools. You also grossly underestimated the effects of movies and TV and books and comics. I'd be surprised if schooling contributed 1%.

We saw the image of the homosexual male in Are You Being Served and in the Carry On series. And the exposure of the homosexual Russian spies did nothing for the image of the fraternity. Mailer too. And Vidal. Many others. That lot is far more significant than schooling.

Quote:
Maybe it's the $$$$ and not genetics for you.


How would I know? Disentangling Nature and Nurture is what Huxley was partly concerned about in Brave New World's Hatching and Conditioning Centre.

Now there are new circumstances. The direction is obvious. Granting homosexuals the same rights in marriage and social and economic standing cannot do other than accelerate the trend. Heterosexual marriage has severe risks as a 50% divorce rate proves. That statistic doesn't just show that 50% of marriages break down. It only shows the number where the breakdown is formalised. What's the hidden breakdown rate? That's a powerful conditioner against heterosexuality when there's a risk free solution elsewhere.

By the way. Why are there not 15 women stuck down the mine in Chile? Equal opportunities my arse.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 09:33 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Have you ever studied neuroscience?


I said I hadn't studied the subject and I haven't. But I have various books which deal with it to a greater or lesser extent. After a search I found Molecules of Emotion by Candace B Pert PhD which I had partly read a few years ago before I got bored with the lady's self-justifying style.

Anyway--I took a glance through it this morning and on page 140 there is this on the matter of mind/body connections-

Quote:
For example, the receptors for sex hormones that had been unexpectedly identified in the brain and then ignored for many years were clearly the mechanism through which testosterone and estrogen , if released into the fetus during pregnancy (sic), could determine neuronal connections in the brain and permanently affect the sexual identity of the child. John Money, the famous John Hopkins psychiatrist, had shown that female fetuses exposed to testosterone like steroid hormones (aberrantly produced by their pregnant mothers' adrenal glands) were more likely to become tomboys and avoid dolls.


This is a PhD mind you. That is one awful piece of writing imo.

But it does raise questions that we might not wish to delve too far into. It does conjure up designer sexuality. It also makes the nexus Nature / Nurture more confusing because nurture is operative from conception onwards.

What can one say about the steroids used in chicken production units? I never eat chicken anyway but if I did it wouldn't be any cheap ones. Proper free range chickens here are about 15 dollars so you can easily tell the cheap ones which are also used in other products such as soups and convenience preparations. These chemicals are what some men use to produce tits.

One does have to wonder if the expression "aberrantly produced by their pregnant mothers' adrenal glands" is a convenience pass for the agriculture lobby.

Research here has claimed that estrogen in the recycled water from uphill territories coming from birth control pills via urine is the cause of the reduction in the sperm count.

There was a book by an American lady which I read a review of about 20 years ago which had a woman drinking disinfectants and bleach in order to produce freak children for her sideshow at travelling fairgrounds.

It's a complex matter. The genetic endowment might be confined to the embryo at conception and thereafter changes are caused by the environment and are thus somebody's responsibility.

The animals in the video might have been fed estrogen.



reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 02:33 pm
@spendius,
You realy do come across very wise at times Spendius, great info.
I have seen the test that the lady was speaking of done in rats and what she says does seem to be true.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 03:05 pm
@reasoning logic,
**** rats. I'm more concerned about my sperm count than a bunch of rodents.
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 05:25 pm
@spendius,
Your quote [Me poking him is not possible but I'd give it a try for the same amount. Is it clear now. ]
your quote [**** rats. I'm more concerned about my sperm count than a bunch of rodents ]




You talk as if you are older than the dinosaurs but your mind still seems to be sharp even though we all do not agree with it. but when did all people ever agree about anything?
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 08:11 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

When you deny someone equal rights, foofie, you are acting as a public citizen, not a private citizen. If you own cherry lollipops, you don't have to give them to anyone you don't want to. You do not, however, own rights. Therefore you have no right to deny them to others. Cherry lollipops make a truly silly analogy


I am denying no one their rights. I can give my opinion about "rights," and whether these "rights," in my opinion, might adversely affect society's status quo (for those who might value "status quo").
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 08:29 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:


I've seen actual family trees that were created by gays who are married, as projects for a Family Relations class in my wife's graduate school. They look just like regular family trees. So yeah; you're completely and totally wrong.

Cycloptichorn


My point has nothing to do with the "look" of a family tree. When people know their family tree, it gives individuals some sort of feeling that their existence, and perhaps personal traits, have roots that go back to an earlier time and ancestors. This only makes sense when one's ancestore are biological ancestors that form a genetic line to the present. When gays might use surrogate mothers, or adopted children, for their continuing family tree, some future descendent would not then be able to perceive a family tree with the same meaning, I believe.

Sort of like today knowing they are "directly" descended from some royalty somewhere. They might feel a little "special," whether that feeling is warranted or not. However, if "running interference" to that royal ancestor was the adopted children of a gay marriage, or a surrogate mother, of a gay marriage, then what the hey, there is nothing "special" about having some royalty in one's family tree. Just my opinion. You can not agree if you like, but you are not going to change my mind.

You do know that there has been genetic testing of Jews to show that a certain percentage of Jews have the genetic marker of the Koans (the ancient priestly tribe) that correlates statistically to what a modern Jew may know is the patrilineal tribal descent of his/her family. So, religious Jews, for religious purposes, do value being descended from the priestly tribe. Now imagine if there were all sorts of creative additions to the Jewish gene pool (actually there has been, but Jews continued to marry fairly regularly within the gene pool). So much then for valuing that one is descended from a priestly tribe. Just an analogy.

0 Replies
 
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 02:16 am
I wanna cherry lollipop. I'm hungry! Laughing
RexRed
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 02:29 am
@wmwcjr,
wmwcjr wrote:

I wanna cherry lollipop. I'm hungry! Laughing

God only gives stones and scorpions.
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 02:40 am
@RexRed,
And Foofie won't give me a cherry lollipop. Wah! Crying or Very sad
RexRed
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 02:52 am
@wmwcjr,
wmwcjr wrote:

And Foofie won't give me a cherry lollipop. Wah! Crying or Very sad


Smile
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 05:08 am
@RexRed,
All that talk about cherry lollipops sure made me hungry. Laughing

Is Foofie overweight from eating all those lollipops she keeps to herself?
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 11:43 pm
 

Related Topics

New York New York! - Discussion by jcboy
Prop 8? - Discussion by majikal
Gay Marriage - Discussion by blatham
Gay Marriage -- An Old Post Revisited - Discussion by pavarasra
Who doesn't back gay marriage? - Question by The Pentacle Queen
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/26/2024 at 08:36:09