Is homosexuality a bad thing?

@Cycloptichorn,

Basically you are just dumb as they came and notoriously are not even able to comprehend the issue at hand, so I leave you to gossip with your friends.

I am not loosing my time with someone that confuses English control on an international forum with the lack of solid arguments precisely because he does n´t have an argument.

You are what I usually call a modern ignorant with a PH.D. sold with a discount...I´m out !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Basically you are just dumb as they came and notoriously are not even able to comprehend the issue at hand, so I leave you to gossip with your friends.

Ad Hominem attacks have never won the day in any argument.

Quote:

I am not loosing my time with someone that confuses English control on an international forum with the lack of solid arguments precisely because he does n´t have an argument.

I'm not confusing them. You have two separate problems:

1, your English is atrociously bad. We get people from all over the world here and 99% of them put more effort into getting it right than you do. Put some effort in if you want to be taken seriously.

2, your bigoted arguments are nonsensical. This is not related to the other argument in any way.

Quote:

You are what I usually call a modern ignorant with a PH.D. sold with a discount...I´m out !

I don't care if you want to call me whatever you like. You can retreat from the discussion for whatever reasons make you feel happy.,

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Sorry as far as I am concern gay couples are not in a one to one relationship with straight couples and therefore are not in a logical position to demand the same standing.

I have two step daughters who are in heterosexual marriages and so far had produce three children with one on her way.

If they had been in gay relationships that would not likely be the case and that go even more so for gay males.

The percent of gay couples with children in the households are a fraction of straight couples and as long as that is so there is zero reason to license and control the terms of their relationships.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

No its not, and If you properly read my argument you would care to notice that legally I defend the same kind of protection heterosexual marriage has...

Then what has your nose bent so out of shape by calling it marriage? If you legally want to make it the equivalent, why not call it the same thing?

I'm asking you to specifically answer this question, because it's key to revealing your motivations.

Quote:
2 - You are the one so far who was not able to provide nothing but a mediocre caricature of an argument based on equal rights...it does n´t fit !
Encore la folie mon cher ami... n´importe quoi !

This is a meaningless assertion on your part, and it doesn't advance the argument at all. Tell us how it's compatible to have equality of rights and discrimination at the same time - legally and morally.

Cycloptichorn

There are aspects which are equal in nature and fundamental to what a relation between a couple should represent, so concerning those similarity´s, Law should treat them the same way...yet marriage is far beyond that simple definition.

As I said earlier I have nothing against gay people which does n´t prevent me from disagreeing when I see it fit...a basic democratic principle that you seam to forget all to often with your sidestep poetic disregard for heterosexual analysis and perspective...

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Sorry as far as I am concern gay couples are not in a one to one relationship with straight couples and therefore are not in a logical position to demand the same stranding.

There is no evidence to support this assertion. Just prejudice.

Quote:

I have two step daughters who are in heterosexual marriages and so far had produce three children with one on her way.

If they had been in gay relationships instant that would not likely be the case and that go even more so for gay males.

Adoption. What's the problem with that? There are more kids who need to be adopted than there are families, by a lot.

And before you knock adoption, let me tell you that I was adopted. So I'd really love to hear your answer here.

Quote:

The percent of gay couples with children in the households are a fraction of straight couples and as long as that is so there is zero reason to license and control the terms of their relationships.

This is because bigots like you have supported laws that don't allow them to marry and don't allow them to adopt. How are they supposed to have kids when they aren't legally allowed to create or participate in the structures that support them?

Bad argument.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

There are aspects which are equal in nature and fundamental to what a relation between a couple should represent, so concerning those similarity´s, Law should treat them the same way...yet marriage is far beyond that simple definition.

Who defines 'should?' You? I don't think so.

That's not the way we make laws in this country. In order for something to be illegal, you have to show harm. Who is harmed by gay marriages?

In what ways is 'marriage' more than the laws behind it? I think this is a poor assertion on your part.

Quote:

As I said earlier I have nothing against gay people which does n´t prevent me from disagreeing when I see it fit...

You can repeat this all you want, but it's a lie. You're lying to both us and yourself. You DO have something against gay people: you don't think they deserve equal rights to enjoy their lives that everyone else has.

At least your writing was better in this post.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Adoption. What's the problem with that? There are more kids who need to be adopted than there are families, by a lot.

No problem at all with that and if it can be shown that the for any reason the numbers of children being care for in gay households are approaching the numbers of children in straight households by percent then there would be no logical reason to denial gay marriages.

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Who defines 'should?' You? I don't think so.

Tradition does, and Human nature...what else ? Is there another argument concerning, well...everything ?

Quote:

Who is harmed by gay marriages?

Heterosexual marriage identity is enough of an answer...pi nuts in your perspective unfortunately...

Quote:

In what ways is 'marriage' more than the laws behind it?

Another stroke of blessed ignorance on your part...fast forward...

Quote:

You DO have something against gay people: you don't think they deserve equal rights to enjoy their lives that everyone else has.

No I don´t !
This is a structural perspective on how equality to what is equal, and equity to what is different, should mean upon building meaningful concepts in a just Society...also about the Nature of Law and its adequacy to protect the majority´s and their cultural paradigms or beliefs, precisely the reason why Law differs from country to country... and can be applied to almost anything besides the gay agenda...not about gay at all, not that important to me anyway.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Oh Ok Now I finally understand how we can determine logic!
Wow I never new that it would have had such a scientific explanation to it. Thanks for sharing your science with all of us!

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Tradition does, and Human nature...what else ? Is there another argument concerning, well...everything ?

Argument ad Antiquitatem is a logical fallacy. 'Tradition' is never a logical reason for doing anything. Modern-day actions must stand on their own logical accord. This is a fundamental truth that any freshman-level debater should understand.

Quote:

Heterosexual marriage identity is enough of an answer...pi nuts in your perspective unfortunately...

There's no such thing as 'heterosexual marriage identity.' It doesn't exist. You made it up. It is a convenient phrase that bigots like to utter in order to pretend that there is a victim of Homosexuality.

Even if we were to accept your premise - which I don't - in what way would that identity be harmed? I am married. I can tell you that my marriage is in no way affected by gays being married at all, not in terms of identity or what my marriage means to me. In what ways has my life been harmed that I am unaware of? Please be very specific.

Quote:

Another stroke of blessed ignorance on your part...fast forward...

I think it's safe to say that there is no answer on your part. You may refer to it as my ignorance if you like, but I doubt any reader of this account would agree with you.

I asked you a very simple question: what is meaningful about marriage that goes beyond the legal definition? If you can't answer again I am going to be forced to conclude that you were just making **** up.

Quote:

No I don´t !
This is a structural perspective on how equality to what is equal, and equity to what is different, should mean upon building meaningful concepts in a just Society...also about the Nature of Law and its adequacy to protect the majority´s and their cultural paradigms or beliefs, precisely the reason why Law differs from country to country... and can be applied to almost anything besides the gay agenda...not about gay at all, not that important to me anyway.

This paragraph is unfortunately something of a backslide when it comes to your ability to make yourself understood clearly. But I will say this: the 'majority' has zero rights to have their cultural paradigms (whatever that is) protected by the law; at least, here in America, it doesn't. Perhaps they do things differently wherever you are from. But here, you usually have to show - specifically - how people are harmed by an action before it can be made illegal.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Adoption. What's the problem with that? There are more kids who need to be adopted than there are families, by a lot.

No problem at all with that and if it can be shown that the for any reason the numbers of children being care for in gay households are approaching the numbers of children in straight households by percent then there would be no logical reason to denial gay marriages.

Bill, people don't adopt kids as much when they a) aren't married and b) aren't allowed to by law. In fact, it's difficult for single people to adopt kids; most agencies want a stable household.

Are you ignoring the fact that your condition for 'allowing' gay marriage cannot come about in the absence of said marriages? You are blaming them for things that they cannot do because you won't let them, until they've done them!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@BillRM,

I am sorry but I also don´t get this argument...the percent approach ???
How about diversity of role models up to the age of 4 when you form the basis of identity ?
Slightly better...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
You DO have something against gay people: you don't think they deserve equal rights to enjoy their lives that everyone else has.

No I don´t !

Yes you do. Watch:

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN wrote:

Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Why would the State’s opinion on gender choice be any less irrelevant than the State’s opinion on racial choice if the decision resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State?

Note: The Warren Court didn't rule on whether or not race consideration in marriage was good or bad, fair or unfair, traditional or new wave (and never opined whether or not these interracial marriages altered the definition of marriage, in the eyes of the majority of that state’s citizenry... because it was irrelevant); they ruled it was none of the State's business.

Sooner or later, Loving v. Virginia will be tapped as controlling law.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Tradition does, and Human nature...what else ? Is there another argument concerning, well...everything ?

Argument ad Antiquitatem is a logical fallacy. 'Tradition' is never a logical reason for doing anything. Modern-day actions must stand on their own logical accord. This is a fundamental truth that any freshman-level debater should understand.

Quote:

Heterosexual marriage identity is enough of an answer...pi nuts in your perspective unfortunately...

There's no such thing as 'heterosexual marriage identity.' It doesn't exist. You made it up. It is a convenient phrase that bigots like to utter in order to pretend that there is a victim of Homosexuality.

Even if we were to accept your premise - which I don't - in what way would that identity be harmed? I am married. I can tell you that my marriage is in no way affected by gays being married at all, not in terms of identity or what my marriage means to me. In what ways has my life been harmed that I am unaware of? Please be very specific.

Quote:

Another stroke of blessed ignorance on your part...fast forward...

I think it's safe to say that there is no answer on your part. You may refer to it as my ignorance if you like, but I doubt any reader of this account would agree with you.

I asked you a very simple question: what is meaningful about marriage that goes beyond the legal definition? If you can't answer again I am going to be forced to conclude that you were just making **** up.

Quote:

No I don´t !
This is a structural perspective on how equality to what is equal, and equity to what is different, should mean upon building meaningful concepts in a just Society...also about the Nature of Law and its adequacy to protect the majority´s and their cultural paradigms or beliefs, precisely the reason why Law differs from country to country... and can be applied to almost anything besides the gay agenda...not about gay at all, not that important to me anyway.

This paragraph is unfortunately something of a backslide when it comes to your ability to make yourself understood clearly. But I will say this: the 'majority' has zero rights to have their cultural paradigms (whatever that is) protected by the law; at least, here in America, it doesn't. Perhaps they do things differently wherever you are from. But here, you usually have to show - specifically - how people are harmed by an action before it can be made illegal.

Cycloptichorn

"This paragraph is unfortunately something of a backslide when it comes to your ability to make yourself understood clearly. But I will say this: the 'majority' has zero rights to have their cultural paradigms (whatever that is) protected by the law; at least, here in America, it doesn't. Perhaps they do things differently wherever you are from. But here, you usually have to show - specifically - how people are harmed by an action before it can be made illegal."

Again I can clearly see you know nothing on the Jus-Natural foundation of the LAW, be it in America in ancient Rome or anywhere...
not ad hominem at all...your ignorance is factual !

"I asked you a very simple question: what is meaningful about marriage that goes beyond the legal definition? If you can't answer again I am going to be forced to conclude that you were just making **** up."

1 - Legal definition conforms to practice and not the other way around...
2 - Legal definition provides a background of protection to the values principles and beliefs that a Society naturally and spontaneously raises up instead of inventing them from scratch !

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Guess who wrote the Constitution, people right ? not Aliens...
Marriage is a Social contract by nature no point in denying that...the choice is Individual but its Identity its collective !
...nevertheless your miss interpretation of what marriage is indeed underline´s a potential protection to gay rights, and in such case it should be adopted or corrected...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Guess who wrote the Constitution, people right ? not Aliens...
Marriage is a Social contract by nature no point in denying that...the choice is Individual but its Identity its collective !

Precisely as it was in 1958 Virginia when the people were quite certain that interracial marriage was unnatural, and even a sin against God, and by God they weren't going to tolerate the definitional changes to it either.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...nevertheless your miss interpretation of what marriage is indeed underline´s a potential protection to gay rights, and in such case it should be adopted or corrected...

What are you babbling about here? (Could be a language issue, as I can't tell if you're conceding the point or not.) For what its worth; our constitution was already corrected by the 14th amendment to guarantee minorities (NOT majorities) equal protection. I'll grant you the Supreme Court has taken it's sweet time in enforcing the various provisions; but the basic principle that "All men are created equal" and that all are guaranteed equal protection under the law is simple enough for a child to understand.

The Loving ruling merely recognized the individual's rights for what they are. If who you marry was none of the State's business then; what makes you think it's any of the State's business now? It is the bigots who would need to change the constitution, in my opinion, because it is they who are seeking to exclude a minority from what the WARREN Court referred to as one of the "basic civil rights of man". The simple truth is; who a person chooses to marry is none of the State's damned business and (in my opinion) both the constitution in its current form and current case law support this conclusion.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

"All men are created equal and that all are guaranteed equal protection under the law"

1 - All men are equal and that all are guaranteed equal protection under the law only states that all men under similar circumstances are entitled to the same norms...what else ?

1.1 - Where does this change the communal identity of marriage as a social contract bound by social stereotypes ?
1.2 - Where does this imply´s that the LAW judges equally what is different in circumstance or in nature ???

You seam to be a little bit confused on many issues concerning what the LAW is all about...I can empathise why, you lack the rightful distance to judge better...

Ultimately you just sound like a communist with these deliberate confusions between what Equality and Equity stands for...maybe we just should start patenting the concepts that are socially created by a specific group to prevent "piracy" from catching on...

make no mistakes, if you know anything about Biology and Evolution you should comprehend that Law is about Territorial dispute build upon diversity of options...(PROPERTY)

5 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

So I guess the expression "piss in your own corner" fits the occasion to the full... Cool

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Ultimately you just sound like a communist with these deliberate confusions between what Equality and Equity stands for...maybe we just should start patenting the concepts that are socially created by a specific group to prevent "piracy" from catching on...

Yeah.. call him a communist. That ought to make your argument better. Drunk

Quote:

1.1 - Where does this change the communal identity of marriage as a social contract bound by social stereotypes ?
1.2 - Where does this imply´s that the LAW judges equally what is different in circumstance or in nature ???

You ignore the real concept that the government has to show an overriding interest to impose any discrimination. You can argue all you want to about social contracts and social stereotypes it doesn't change the law's requirements before it can discriminate. The law can't use a social stereotype as an excuse to discriminate based on court precedents and earlier rulings.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

make no mistakes, if you know anything about Biology and Evolution you should comprehend that Law is about Territorial dispute build upon diversity of options...(PROPERTY)

That doesn't even make sense. If the law is based upon property what does that have to do with biology and evolution? Property existed before we knew about biology or evolution. It continued to exist after we learned about biology and evolution.

1 Reply

Is homosexuality a bad thing?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know