Gay Marriage - Legal Question

Second comment, as you was the one who started this thread it is a greater sin to be name callings people who had taken their time to reply just because you do not care for their comments, in my opinion.

You was not it would seem asking a question you was just seeking emotional support for gay married rights.

I suggest if you wish in the future to hear only one side of this issue you might limit your postings to gay rights websites.

If however you do post on an open website that contain a lot of different viewpoints on issues do not be shock that not everyone is going to be following the party line completely concerning "gay rights" or any other matter under the sun.

While, I believe, we do know what causes heterosexuality ("nature"), do we know what causes homosexuality? I do not think we can just say "nature," since nature is oriented towards procreation. So, I do wonder if we do not hear much about science attempting to discover what makes for homosexuality, since at this point in time it seems to be politically incorrect to ask that question, and therefore, I have to be cynical about homosexuality and its "rights," since I prefer to understand something, before I believe it is being denied any "rights."

If there were no children produced by a union, the next in line was generally the sister's son.

And, in some countries, like Ireland, land remained in the hands of the extended families with the land held as usufruct or life time use. That is one of the reason why Irish names begin both with O and with Mac. O refers to the wider family, descendants from a grandfather, therefore, held in common by all the cousins.

I am sorry that you do not know a gay couple who are parents and wonderful parents at that.

What cause any form of human disorder such as cancer?

Homosexuality is just a misdirection of the normal sexual drive that more then likely has many possible causes or triggers.

Some likely had physical causes such as hormonal imbalances perhaps dating back to the womb and others date back to sexual abused in childhood and others causes will never be known.

Research into this area is very non-PC indeed at the moment.

To ask what "causes" homosexuality is no different from asking what causes heterosexuality. There has even been a suggestion that over-crowding triggers more homosexuality.

Come on plainoldme heterosexuality is cause by evolution and the need to produce the next generation in higher animals.

Homosexuality is a misdirection of that drive on it face.

That does not mean that the condition is evil or there is anything wrong morality with those who have that condition.

As I said, there is a theory that overcrowding, that is, overpopulation increases the incidence of homosexuality.

In the sense that both evil and morality are defined in terms of evolutionary success then of course homosexuality is wrong if you assume evolutionary failure (extinction) is wrong.

Why is there anything wrong morally with bank robbing? Morality is simply a way of teaching the population to behave in ways judged to be useful in the competition between societies. The justification of any activity which the culture has traditionally rejected for practical reasons undermines to an extent all those activities which it has also done because it undermines authority in a general way. It opens up the idea that if authority got one thing wrong how do we know it hasn't got everything wrong. Or, at the least, a perception that authority is not infallible.

Dimorphism is a product of evolutionary success. It is obvious the evolutionists are not interested in evolution except as a battering ram against authority inhibiting their selfish indulgences. Everything in the liberal agenda which uses evolution in that way is contra-evolution.

I really have trouble understanding why some are personally affronted by gay people.

Remember what the pro-abortion people said? If you don't like abortions, don't have one?

Well, if you don't like gays, ignore them.

Did they actually say that POM? It's as daft as saying if you don't like murder don't kill anybody.

I think most people would be only too glad if they could ignore homosexual men. One has to wonder why they don't make it easier for us.

If you don't like not being ignored don't draw attention to yourself.

I thought you were a bit of a thinker.

You people here are not ignoring gay men . . . you are waging war on them.

What spendius is referring to in the above quote . . . must make certain that maporsche isn't upset that I didn't include EVERY WORD SPENDIUS COMMITTED TO THIS RESPONSE . . . is the pro-right to chose slogan: If you don't like abortion, don't have one.

Sorry, but your analogy doesn't work. The matter with laws against abortion is that a certain segment of society wants to dictate the lives of another segment. Those who are against abortion are generally, but not exclusively, on the right. The right often complains about government regulations (such as the sort that, most likely, would have either mitigated or prevented the current economic crisis). The right often charges the left with limiting freedom.

The right never sees its own contradictions. And I use the word never as an absolute. In the case of abortions, the right assumes that it can and will dictate what women do with their own bodies.

What the pro-choice segment did with the "don't have an abortion" rallying cry was to simultaneously point out that the right can not dictate what another does with her body on that level and turns the hypocrisy of the right back on it.

I could easily say they are waging war on us. When I was a young man no young woman would ever have thought of wondering whether any of us had a homosexual component to our make up and, in moments of drama, even openly referring to it in a derogatory fashion which is as surprising as it is corrosive. Now they do.

And I think it is widely accepted that those men with a certain level of that homosexual component, which is said by scientists to be biological, to their make up tend to congregate in media circles. And it was on an organ of media that the scientist said it. So why would young women today not wonder about it as the chap they are with is performing miracles of machismo to deny it. He's in denial they might say. Freud did. All that well defined musclature pumped up in the gym can only lead to one conclusion. It's been on TV. In articles. It's folk-lore.

I have had it done to me on A2K when someone has been stumped by one of my irrefutable arguments. We 100 percenters have had war waged on us and right in the heart of our being.

I tell people who ask that I wear a beard because then nobody can accuse me of going to the cross-dressers parties. If they are shavers they occasionally look a bit shifty. Cross-dressers hate irony.

And they were doing alright before they made all that fuss. The ones who got prosecuted were the ones who caused neighbours to complain. Or annoyed people in some other way enough to call the cops. Nobody bothered otherwise I've been told. And to annoy people is best done by reducing the property values in an area. And now, I've heard, they are getting their own areas. When they do, of course, they'll all go nuts once it's no longer a BIG DEAL. The routines of daily life in a monogamous homosexual community once settled in, and in the rut with no placards to carry, are unthinkable.

What? I thought gay men were allies in the societal war against uncultured behavior? If it was not for gay men, so many cultural activities would have a lesser audience and patronage, I believe.

If married gays were off in suburbia being soccer dads, then there would be fewer people at the cultural activities of urban American, in my opinion. Museums, art galleries, operas, ballets, could close from lack of patronage, perhaps.

In the way of analogy, for gays to get "married" is like having a fresh ham at a Bar Mitzvah, in my opinion. It might really be simple.

If homosexuality was very harmful to humans it would had been breed out of us a million years ago.

A small percent of the males that are not competing for the females seem not to be very harmful to the tribe and for most of human history women did not have choice to be gay.

Come on Bill. We are not talking about evolution. Who said homosexuality was harmful in evolution? Evolution is what it is. Legal questions don't exist in evolution. They countermand it.

And female activities of a homosexual nature have never been legislated against in our culture as far as I know.

Since you are not a woman, let me clue thee in. Women have always discussed whether a certain man might be gay or undecided.

You are right about lesbianism. Few cared if two women lived together as they assumed the women were saving money.

I know a nice gay couple who have a little girl, with the help of a nice lesbian couple. At 17 months, the little girl is potty trained, talkative and social.