Brandon: There are at least two things wrong with your thinking on this:
1) Evolution does not design anything, invisible supernatural beings do that, evolution is just a process with the most successful results continuing and the less successful disappearing from the face of the earth.
The reproductive organs primary function is reproduction, but they, like the brain, are more complex than that, they also provide, as I stated before, multiple ways of bringing humans into intimacy. Intimacy does not have to have a reproductive result. If it did we would be standing elbow to elbow with the rest of the humanity.
2) The Fourteenth Amendment says that the recognized rights of one citizen shall not be denied to another. (Psst, it's the Equal Rights Amendment, but don't tell the Eagle Forum) If you have a right then that right cannot be denied to me. There's nothing forced about it. Had women applied to the Supreme Court over the right to vote, the Fourteenth Amendment would have impelled the Justices to say "Of course, the right to vote cannot be denied to citizens because they are women." They didn't need to pass a whole new Constitutional Amendment, the 14th would have done the job for them.
Thus I say, the Fourteenth Amendment impels the Justice Department of this nation to say "Yes, the right to marry is one of the centerpieces of this society and to deny the right of anyone to marry the person they love the most in the world is an affront to this Nation and it's Constitution."
Think about it. Gay people marrying each other establishs greater stability in our society not less. It creates, as well as any other we have come up with, stronger unions, not weaker.
Those in opposition to people in love getting married know that they must pass a new amendment to the Constitution which will for the first time in our history put a religious bigotry into our most important legal document. It will be a shame upon this nation, a reversal of the process we have enjoyed for over two hundred years.
It's an evolution of it's own, one in which greater freedom for citizens has been the result. This proposed amendment would stop that process in it's tracks and you know what happens to creatures, or nations, which stop evolving?
Joe(you know, I know you do)Nation
Brandon9000 wrote:
You still don't appear to understand me. I think that sexual orientation is determined purely by physical factors in the individual's body. However, a bisexual, someone who is attracted to both genders, can choose one lifestyle or the other, and will be influenced in that choice by society. You may not agree with this, but your persisteny failure to understand my completely straightforward assertion is very peculiar.
My
apparent inability to see through a glaring contradiction being passed off as common sense is not my deficiency.
By your definition, sex with one's own gender, defined as a "defect" or not, is on one hand an apparent "choice" and on the other written into one's genetic code.
This, my friend, is peculiar for there is no distinction between what is gay and what is bisexual--sexually speaking. They ultimately involve the potential for physical attraction or sexual "intercourse" with one's own gender.
It is
either codefied genetically, or it is a choice made by the individual after birth.
You have made the contention that homosexuality is genetically ordained and bisexuality is a lifestyle choice.
These are not compatible.
Yaknow, maybe it's the alcohol talking, but I'm not really interested in evolution's plan for people. Are you?
Does anyone else feel as if mankind has, in some ways, moved beyond evolutionary pressure? At the very least, classical evolutionary pressures?
Cycloptichorn
candidone1 wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:
You still don't appear to understand me. I think that sexual orientation is determined purely by physical factors in the individual's body. However, a bisexual, someone who is attracted to both genders, can choose one lifestyle or the other, and will be influenced in that choice by society. You may not agree with this, but your persisteny failure to understand my completely straightforward assertion is very peculiar.
My
apparent inability to see through a glaring contradiction being passed off as common sense is not my deficiency.
By your definition, sex with one's own gender, defined as a "defect" or not, is on one hand an apparent "choice" and on the other written into one's genetic code.
This, my friend, is peculiar for there is no distinction between what is gay and what is bisexual--sexually speaking. They ultimately involve the potential for physical attraction or sexual "intercourse" with one's own gender.
It is
either codefied genetically, or it is a choice made by the individual after birth.
You have made the contention that homosexuality is genetically ordained and bisexuality is a lifestyle choice.
These are not compatible.
No, you still are repeating my position innacurately, which is odd, since I've stated it simply a number of times now.
I never said that bisexuality is a lifestyle choice. I said that it's genetically coded.
However, a person who is attracted to both genders can decide to live as a heterosexual or as a homosexual, or as both. In a society which wholely endorses homosexuality as normal, he will have a greater likelihood of choosing to have homosexual relationships, than in a society in which it's treated as a biological malfunction.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Yaknow, maybe it's the alcohol talking, but I'm not really interested in evolution's plan for people. Are you?
Does anyone else feel as if mankind has, in some ways, moved beyond evolutionary pressure? At the very least, classical evolutionary pressures?
Cycloptichorn
But, we haven't moved beyond the final evolutionary move for most species - extinction.
Correct Edgar. In some ways we have moved beyond evolutionary pressures in that we don't have to worry about being eaten by saber toothed tigers and medical science has eliminated "survival of the fittest". We still have to deal with destroying ourselves. It seems some people want to eliminate gays just for being who they are.
Maybe that's why we still have wars....
...And Brandon once again ignores posts which blow his premise out of the water and sticks with his "truthiness."
NickFun wrote:Correct Edgar. In some ways we have moved beyond evolutionary pressures in that we don't have to worry about being eaten by saber toothed tigers and medical science has eliminated "survival of the fittest". We still have to deal with destroying ourselves. It seems some people want to eliminate gays just for being who they are.
We are still subject to survival of the fittest. The only thing that technology and society have changed is that the characteristics being selected for are somewhat altered. Intelligence is still a survival trait, as is freedom from disease, etc.
No defensive claim that you didn't see the post, or that you don't have time to read every single one?
You're slipping, Brandon.
Lash wrote:For the purposes of full disclosure, I'm a conservative. I'll cede ...not a "traditional" Conservative.
over the years I've come to realize that you're a "realist"...
I define a realist as someone who examines the problems in the world without an agenda...I admire that
timberlandko wrote:Something I learned about weddings long ago; always make the gift cash, and never seal the envelope untill you've seen the bar and banquet setup.
just savoring this thread...talk about words of wisdom!!
Brandon9000 wrote:
No, you still are repeating my position innacurately, which is odd, since I've stated it simply a number of times now.
I never said that bisexuality is a lifestyle choice. I said that it's genetically coded.
*ahem*
The sheer idiocy of your position has reached a new height Brandon.
...and you act like I'm being thick.
Get over yourself, just once at least.
The only fear I have about legalizing alternative couples is that it will open the door for the polygamy lobby.In Reynolds vs US 1876 the opinion was:.."polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, . . . which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy."
I believe polygamy undermines democracy but I welcome the chance to change my mind about same-sex marriages...anybody?
My only fear about legalizing homosexual marriage is that it will lead to beastiality and not just beastiality but the taking advantage of puppies and kittens who are too young to make those sort of decisions for themselves.
I mean, that's a scientific fact.
How will it lead to beastiality bear?(panzade asks earnestly)
panzade wrote:How will it lead to beastiality bear?(panzade asks earnestly)
Come on panzade... the bible says so.
Polygamy is rarely, if ever, a mutually desireable relationship.
From my knowledge of polygamy, it is men who marry multiple wives and it is men, through various means of control, subordination and/or abuses, manage to maintain what, to them, is a very desirable scenario.
More often than not, homosexuals are in a mutual relationship by their own accord. Women in polygamist relationships tend to be there because of the ability of a man to manipulate their membership in it.
That there is an appeal to the slippery slope argument stating that legally permitting homosexual marriages opens the door to rights of polygamists is about as valid as the arguments stateing that marijuana use will ultimately lead the user to heroin.
shhhh
