knoxsouthy wrote:
Unless of course they're into some 2 on 1 action, but my lucks not that good.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Rainbow Academy!
Rainbow Academy!Follow
So you support bisexuality? You heathen.
knoxsouthy wrote:
Belkira,
A better question is why do you think the govn should recognize homosexual marriage?
A better question is why do you think the govn should recognize homosexual marriage?
I don't see any reason why they shouldn't. Homosexuals are tax paying American citizens, just like the rest of us. There's no reason not to legalize homosexual marriages.
And you simply can't give a good enough reason why our government should be openly discriminating against a group of American citizens.
Well, I'm going home. Have fun with your obfuscation Varrus, its the only tactic you have that gets you anywhere (back where you started).
knoxsouthy wrote:
So the procreation thing didn't fly for you?
No, it didn't. Because it doesn't make any sense. Nice try, though.
And, for the record, I'm not against more rights for fathers, and I'm not a huge fan of "affirmative action." But discrimination in one area doesn't make discrimination in another area ok.
knoxsouthy wrote:
Quote:
And, for the record, I'm not against more rights for fathers,
Yet you're pro-choice.
Yes, I am. I believe there is a way to give the father appropriate rights without taking them away from the women who have to carry and bear a child.
It's odd, isn't it? To see an actual gray area instead of only black and white?
I've just read this thread and I'm really not sure what all the fuss is about as this will pass over with time as such gay friendly schools are surely not sustainable?
I have many gay friends and most would never dream of segregating themselves by their sexuality. They will define themselves by their work or interests but never by their sexual endeavours. Or should we all run through the streets screaming our hetro/bi/tri/bestial/whatever tendancies?
As for the OP question?
Nobby hit the nail on the head. The problem should be dealt with at the source and not by setting up special schools that simply promote and exaggerate the problem.
Edited, Oct 13th 2008 5:51pm by GwynapNud
I have many gay friends and most would never dream of segregating themselves by their sexuality. They will define themselves by their work or interests but never by their sexual endeavours. Or should we all run through the streets screaming our hetro/bi/tri/bestial/whatever tendancies?
As for the OP question?
Nobby hit the nail on the head. The problem should be dealt with at the source and not by setting up special schools that simply promote and exaggerate the problem.
Edited, Oct 13th 2008 5:51pm by GwynapNud
It shouldn't matter, in determining who we are allowed to discriminate against, whether gays and bis are born that way, or purely and only choose to be that way, but since this might make a difference to Knox, here goes. This quote is from the first link from googling "gay brain structure". It's just one instance of thousands of similar findings. Science for a while now has caught up with what has been reported by gays all along: almost all didn't develop sexually the same way as heterosexuals and then one day make a conscious choice to try sex with members of the same sex for fun, out of curiosity, or kinkiness. They simply grew up oriented that way from the start. All their burgeoning feelings of desire, lust and love just happened to be for people of their own sex, because they were born that way. Most gays feel exactly that sense of revulsion and feelings of wrongness at thoughts of themselves having sex with the opposite gender, as heteros feel when contemplating having sex with their own gender.
Quote:
The brains of gay men and women look like those found in heterosexual people of the opposite sex, research suggests. The Swedish study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, compared the size of the brain's halves in 90 adults. Gay men and heterosexual women had halves of a similar size, while the right side was bigger in lesbian women and heterosexual men. A UK scientist said this was evidence sexual orientation was set in the womb.
Scientists have noticed for some time that homosexual people of both sexes have differences in certain cognitive abilities, suggesting there may be subtle differences in their brain structure. This is the first time, however, that scientists have used brain scanners to try to look for the source of those differences. A group of 90 healthy gay and heterosexual adults, men and women, were scanned by the Karolinska Institute scientists to measure the volume of both sides, or hemispheres, of their brain.
When these results were collected, it was found that lesbians and heterosexual men shared a particular "asymmetry" in their hemisphere size, while heterosexual women and gay men had no difference between the size of the different halves of their brain. In other words, structurally, at least, the brains of gay men were more like heterosexual women, and gay women more like heterosexual men.
A further experiment found that in one particular area of the brain, the amygdala, there were other significant differences. In heterosexual men and gay women, there were more nerve "connections" in the right side of the amygdala, compared with the left. The reverse, with more neural connections in the left amygdala, was the case in homosexual men and heterosexual women. The Karolinska team said that these differences could not be mainly explained by "learned" effects, but needed another mechanism to set them, either before or after birth.
Dr Qazi Rahman, a lecturer in cognitive biology at Queen Mary, University of London, said that he believed that these brain differences were laid down early in foetal development. "As far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay," he said.
The amygdala, he said, was important because of its role in "orientating", or directing, the rest of the brain in response to an emotional stimulus - be it during the "fight or flight" response, or the presence of a potential mate. "In other words, the brain network which determines what sexual orientation actually 'orients' towards is similar between gay men and straight women, and between gay women and straight men.
"This makes sense given that gay men have a sexual preference which is like that of women in general, that is, preferring men, and vice versa for lesbian women."
Scientists have noticed for some time that homosexual people of both sexes have differences in certain cognitive abilities, suggesting there may be subtle differences in their brain structure. This is the first time, however, that scientists have used brain scanners to try to look for the source of those differences. A group of 90 healthy gay and heterosexual adults, men and women, were scanned by the Karolinska Institute scientists to measure the volume of both sides, or hemispheres, of their brain.
When these results were collected, it was found that lesbians and heterosexual men shared a particular "asymmetry" in their hemisphere size, while heterosexual women and gay men had no difference between the size of the different halves of their brain. In other words, structurally, at least, the brains of gay men were more like heterosexual women, and gay women more like heterosexual men.
A further experiment found that in one particular area of the brain, the amygdala, there were other significant differences. In heterosexual men and gay women, there were more nerve "connections" in the right side of the amygdala, compared with the left. The reverse, with more neural connections in the left amygdala, was the case in homosexual men and heterosexual women. The Karolinska team said that these differences could not be mainly explained by "learned" effects, but needed another mechanism to set them, either before or after birth.
Dr Qazi Rahman, a lecturer in cognitive biology at Queen Mary, University of London, said that he believed that these brain differences were laid down early in foetal development. "As far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay," he said.
The amygdala, he said, was important because of its role in "orientating", or directing, the rest of the brain in response to an emotional stimulus - be it during the "fight or flight" response, or the presence of a potential mate. "In other words, the brain network which determines what sexual orientation actually 'orients' towards is similar between gay men and straight women, and between gay women and straight men.
"This makes sense given that gay men have a sexual preference which is like that of women in general, that is, preferring men, and vice versa for lesbian women."
And that is why it's so much fun to go shopping with a gay man.
We should have "nerd-friendly" and "loser-friendly" high schools too since they're harassed as well.
This is such a dumb idea. It's a lazy solution. Instead of educating children that gay people are NO different from straight people, they want to separate them.
This is such a dumb idea. It's a lazy solution. Instead of educating children that gay people are NO different from straight people, they want to separate them.
DaimenKain wrote:
We should have "nerd-friendly" and "loser-friendly" high schools too since they're harassed as well.
This is such a dumb idea. It's a lazy solution. Instead of educating children that gay people are NO different from straight people, they want to separate them.
This is such a dumb idea. It's a lazy solution. Instead of educating children that gay people are NO different from straight people, they want to separate them.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Since I can't read his posts, did anyone catch if there was a knox response to the sterile person argument before he got no rated?
If not, I'm gonna ask him, and hopefully I catch it before he's no-rated.
If homosexual marriage shouldn't be legal because they can't reproduce, then are you also against marriage for sterile people?
Edited, Oct 13th 2008 6:25pm by DaimenKain
If not, I'm gonna ask him, and hopefully I catch it before he's no-rated.
If homosexual marriage shouldn't be legal because they can't reproduce, then are you also against marriage for sterile people?
Edited, Oct 13th 2008 6:25pm by DaimenKain
Quote:
It's a lazy solution. Instead of educating children that gay people are NO different from straight people, they want to separate them.
Surely the point is that gay people are different in their sexual orientation? Its just that the difference is nothing to be excited about?
Quote:
If homosexual marriage shouldn't be legal because they can't reproduce, then are you also against marriage for sterile people?
Marraige is legally binding, not religious. Who cares if Elton married his lover as long as its not in a church? I'm not sure about the man in africa who married his goat though ..... (feel free to google it ..)
Edited, Oct 13th 2008 6:30pm by GwynapNud
Hell, who cares if it IS in a church, assuming the church doesn't?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
GwynapNud wrote:
Quote:
It's a lazy solution. Instead of educating children that gay people are NO different from straight people, they want to separate them.
Surely the point is that gay people are different in their sexual orientation? Its just that the difference is nothing to be excited about?
Quote:
If homosexual marriage shouldn't be legal because they can't reproduce, then are you also against marriage for sterile people?
Marraige is legally binding, not religious. Who cares if Elton married his lover as long as its not in a church? I'm not sure about the man in africa who married his goat though ..... (feel free to google it ..)
Edited, Oct 13th 2008 6:30pm by GwynapNud
I fail to see how anything you're saying has anything to do with what I said.
Ok. This particular argument gets really old about the 30th time you've responded to it:
Not without somehow coming up with (and paying for and creating complex legal rules for) some test to determine if a couple is sterile (or homosexual for that matter). The traditional marriage rules of "one man, one woman" doesn't distinguish what sexual orientation they are, or their fertility. It just looks at their sex. It's based on the broad (and correct) assumption that the only couple configuration that can produce a child is one consisting of one man and one woman.
I don't need to perform any tests, or come up with complex legislative rules to apply that guideline. That's why it's used. It works. It is literally the smallest set of couples that includes all couples that can possibly produce children, without requiring any more information than is contained on a drivers license or birth certificate.
I know I've explained this to you personally a number of times, so could you please not pretend that there's no counter argument?
Edited, Oct 13th 2008 4:59pm by gbaji
DaimenKain wrote:
If homosexual marriage shouldn't be legal because they can't reproduce, then are you also against marriage for sterile people?
Not without somehow coming up with (and paying for and creating complex legal rules for) some test to determine if a couple is sterile (or homosexual for that matter). The traditional marriage rules of "one man, one woman" doesn't distinguish what sexual orientation they are, or their fertility. It just looks at their sex. It's based on the broad (and correct) assumption that the only couple configuration that can produce a child is one consisting of one man and one woman.
I don't need to perform any tests, or come up with complex legislative rules to apply that guideline. That's why it's used. It works. It is literally the smallest set of couples that includes all couples that can possibly produce children, without requiring any more information than is contained on a drivers license or birth certificate.
I know I've explained this to you personally a number of times, so could you please not pretend that there's no counter argument?
Edited, Oct 13th 2008 4:59pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Nobby.
Around here that's known as a 'mangina'
Edited, Oct 14th 2008 12:10am by paulsol
Quote:
Baron von tarv wrote:
Quote:
And anywho, how am I supposed to offensively stereotype you now you've left the Navy?
I have a really unfashionable goatie and I listen to Nightwish.
Henceforth shall I dub thee Minge-gob Smiley: schooled
Quote:
And anywho, how am I supposed to offensively stereotype you now you've left the Navy?
I have a really unfashionable goatie and I listen to Nightwish.
Henceforth shall I dub thee Minge-gob Smiley: schooled
Around here that's known as a 'mangina'
Edited, Oct 14th 2008 12:10am by paulsol
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
gbaji wrote:
Ok. This particular argument gets really old about the 30th time you've responded to it:
Not without somehow coming up with (and paying for and creating complex legal rules for) some test to determine if a couple is sterile (or homosexual for that matter). The traditional marriage rules of "one man, one woman" doesn't distinguish what sexual orientation they are, or their fertility. It just looks at their sex. It's based on the broad (and correct) assumption that the only couple configuration that can produce a child is one consisting of one man and one woman.
I don't need to perform any tests, or come up with complex legislative rules to apply that guideline. That's why it's used. It works. It is literally the smallest set of couples that includes all couples that can possibly produce children, without requiring any more information than is contained on a drivers license or birth certificate.
I know I've explained this to you personally a number of times, so could you please not pretend that there's no counter argument?
Edited, Oct 13th 2008 4:59pm by gbaji
DaimenKain wrote:
If homosexual marriage shouldn't be legal because they can't reproduce, then are you also against marriage for sterile people?
Not without somehow coming up with (and paying for and creating complex legal rules for) some test to determine if a couple is sterile (or homosexual for that matter). The traditional marriage rules of "one man, one woman" doesn't distinguish what sexual orientation they are, or their fertility. It just looks at their sex. It's based on the broad (and correct) assumption that the only couple configuration that can produce a child is one consisting of one man and one woman.
I don't need to perform any tests, or come up with complex legislative rules to apply that guideline. That's why it's used. It works. It is literally the smallest set of couples that includes all couples that can possibly produce children, without requiring any more information than is contained on a drivers license or birth certificate.
I know I've explained this to you personally a number of times, so could you please not pretend that there's no counter argument?
Edited, Oct 13th 2008 4:59pm by gbaji
And yet... that still has nothing to do with why homosexual marriage is not recognized by the government. Because, see, a man may not be able to get another man pregnant, but they can still adopt a child.
Not that it matters, though. Because marriage is not there to provide little citizens for the government. That might possibly have been part of the reason it was originally sanctioned by the government, but that is no longer an issue, or else the government would annul any marriage that did not produce offspring within a reasonable amount of time.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
And yet... that still has nothing to do with why homosexual marriage is not recognized by the government. Because, see, a man may not be able to get another man pregnant, but they can still adopt a child.
You're changing the subject. I was responding to the argument that *if* marriage is about having children, then sterile heterosexual couples should be excluded just as homosexual couples are.
If you want to discuss whether that's why marriage exists, than by all means do so. But don't pretend that by doing so you at all counter my argument. Can we agree that if the criteria for marriage has to do with the possibility of that couple generating a child that it certainly makes sense to restrict it to a couple consisting of one man and one woman?
Yes or no? Once you answer that, I'll gladly work to the next step. I've just learned that if I don't make you do this, we'll end up going around in circles for 5 pages as I repeat the same very straightforward arguments over and over while you and others keep repeating the same cycle of counters until we arrive back at the same starting point again.
I will give you a hint of things to come though:
Quote:
That might possibly have been part of the reason it was originally sanctioned by the government, but that is no longer an issue, or else the government would annul any marriage that did not produce offspring within a reasonable amount of time.
You're inserting your own assumptions there. Saying that something may have originally been for one reason, but isn't anymore is circular when you're the one arguing for the very changes that would make it not be about that original reason anymore.
Just sayin'...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
They want to make a school that is "gay friendly" so that homosexuals stop being picked on and stop getting their asses kicked?
Do ****'s who go to gay bars suddenly stop getting jumped when leaving? I can't help but feel that a school like this would just have a huge bulls eye on it for all those gay bashing folks out there.
Do ****'s who go to gay bars suddenly stop getting jumped when leaving? I can't help but feel that a school like this would just have a huge bulls eye on it for all those gay bashing folks out there.
Quote:
Can we agree that if the criteria for marriage has to do with the possibility of that couple generating a child
It has to do with commitment to ones partner and a public acknowledgement of a legally binding union which infers all the legal and social protection that brings.
Recent Visitors: 187
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (187)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Rainbow Academy!
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC