Gay marriage

[inviere1644]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

[cnorman18]

I love it. Love it, love it, love it!

I've identified myself as a conservative for years (though not as a Republican for quite some time). I'm going to have to rethink that. Other than on the Second Amendment, I seem to be a liberal now... How strange.

On guns, I remain a proud Neandertaler. But on most other issues, I seem to be gravitating toward the left. Hmmmm.

I'll get back to you.

[Goat]

I love it. Love it, love it, love it!

I've identified myself as a conservative for years (though not as a Republican for quite some time). I'm going to have to rethink that. Other than on the Second Amendment, I seem to be a liberal now... How strange.

On guns, I remain a proud Neandertaler. But on most other issues, I seem to be gravitating toward the left. Hmmmm.

I'll get back to you.

The true social conservative and the social liberal have one common value.. and that is 'freedom of the individual'. Their main disagreement is on how it gets achieved.

[Scotracer]

If we had a closed system of a billion females, we'd die out. That argument just doesn't work

Actually, that's a false analogy. Why would a closed system of a billion females die out? Because they need to have sex with males to reproduce, and males aren't there, but if they were, they would start reproducing. Solution: make males AND females.

Why would a closed system of gays die out? Because they need to have sex with the opposite gender to reproduce, but even if you make the opposite gender, they still won't reproduce because they don't want to have sex with the opposite gender.

See? With your example of females there was a lack of resources (males). With gays, there are the right resources to reproduce but they don't want to have sex with them.

But you are making the assumption that homosexuals wouldn't have sex/do whatever is necessary to produce a child if the survival of their populous relied on it. How can you make that assumption?

Have you never heard of Turkey Basters?

How are they still helping?

You said it yourself

See:

No one said they aren't helping, but they aren't helping nearly as much as heterosexuals, and natural selection would favor the most reproduction.

Okay, I see the misunderstanding. When I made the "No one said they aren't helping" quote, I was pointing out Lucia's straw man. I then went on to say (in the very next paragraph) that although Lucia was attacking something I never even said, I would go ahead and actually say it.

Also, it's illogical to conclude that since I said "no one said they aren't helping" that I meant "they are helping". One's the absence of a positive, and the other is an active negative.

But referring back to the original post and the topic title, how does something that isn't harming society any justification to make it illegal?

Even if they weren't adopting they aren't actively harming the propagation of the species so your entire argument is mute.

Your statement doesn't make my argument moot, because my argument isn't that gays are actively harming the propagation of the species. It's that (according to the evolutionary model) the process of natural selection would automatically select the traits that most help the propagation of the species, which would be heterosexual traits.

And as I linked to in an earlier post, there is evidence that homosexual traits do help the propagation of the species. Biology and population genetics isn't a simple game, my dear friend.

This post.

The homosexuals did not help propagate the species in that example.

But they didn't harm it.

Well, natural selection would go for the traits that most help propagation, not traits that don't not help propagation.[/quote]

Which naturally suggests that homosexuality doesn't harm propagation since it's still around. And see the above link.

Your argument that because evolutionary theory doesn't obviously support it therefore it should be illegal/frowned upon does not hold up to even modest scrutiny. Should we kill/sterilise those who have hereditary diseases so they can't pass them on? Or alternatively refuse medical treatment to them? Most of my family requires glasses for astigmatisms...should we not be allowed glasses therefore reducing our chances of reproducing just because it's the 'natural' way of things?

[Baron von Gailhard]

[our argument that because evolutionary theory doesn't obviously support it therefore it should be illegal/frowned upon does not hold up to even modest scrutiny.

I could agree with you. Evolutionary theory is against charity, which defies evolutionary principles. There is no doubt that humans have risen above mere evolutionary principles, which is why man but not animals is said to be made in the image of God. The argument against homosexuality is that it is corrupting of spiritual values. Homosexuals literally rob a person of his spiritual life, enslaving his flesh to its basest desires. The homosexual in fact lowers himself from the state of being human to the state of being animal and of not being able to rise above the cravings of the flesh. It is a degnerative disorder, relegating a person to being a mere evolutionary artefact. The bble however informs humans that they are destined for higher things.

[McCulloch]

Evolutionary theory is against charity, which defies evolutionary principles.

You have obviously been taught either an outdated version of evolution or the creationist straw-man version of evolution. There are a number of evolutionary explanations for altruism, the evolution of morality and the evolution of cooperation.

There is no doubt that humans have risen above mere evolutionary principles, which is why man but not animals is said to be made in the image of God.

Or it could be said that god is merely the image of the idealized man.

The argument against homosexuality is that it is corrupting of spiritual values.

What are spiritual values?

Homosexuals literally rob a person of his spiritual life, enslaving his flesh to its basest desires. The homosexual in fact lowers himself from the state of being human to the state of being animal and of not being able to rise above the cravings of the flesh.

This is just pure bigotry. Homosexuals can be spiritually aware, worship god, have truly loving stable relationships and not be slaves to their desires. To denigrate them as being less than human, merely because they do not believe the same set of moral proscriptions from an invisible and unprovable god is the kind of attitude that has in the past led to horrible atrocities.

[cnorman18]

Homosexuals literally rob a person of his spiritual life, enslaving his flesh to its basest desires. The homosexual in fact lowers himself from the state of being human to the state of being animal and of not being able to rise above the cravings of the flesh.

I just gotta wonder -- why doesn't this apply to heterosexuals as well? Does the Baron think that homosexuals are somehow more interested in or obsessed with or motivated by sex than straights?

The above might be a perfectly apt and accurate description of a college roommate of mine, who would schtup any female under the age of 50 without hesitation and without the least interest in her personality or her mind; casual, meaningless, recreational sex was the only kind he knew, he was just fine with that, and he was about as heterosexual as it gets.

On the other hand, I know of a gay couple in their 50s here in Dallas who have been faithful and devoted to each other, and to the their faith (Reconstructionist Judaism) for decades, and are active in the arts, charity work, and their business careers as well; they have many friends who think highly of them and regard them as men of fine character and an asset to their community. Which of these people would you rather have in your life? That's a no-brainer, to me.

I don't know if I've ever seen a more blatant example of vicious, slanderous stereotyping and unwarranted, arrogant judgment, not only on this forum, but ever.

Let me make sure I get this; the Baron claims to be a follower of Jesus???

[Scotracer]

And here I was thinking that the UK had actually grown up and became a sensible nation Pure bigotry in all its terrible glory. I'm not even a human? Brilliant...does that mean I don't need to attend my lectures tomorrow?

[cnorman18]

And here I was thinking that the UK had actually grown up and became a sensible nation Pure bigotry in all its terrible glory. I'm not even a human? Brilliant...does that mean I don't need to attend my lectures tomorrow?

My grandmother told me that black people -- she did not use that term -- are black because they are dirty, and that Jews are born with horns. Similar feeling here. They TRIED to teach me to hate. Why it didn't take, I can't say. Of course, there are members of MY family that think anyone who doesn't root for the Dallas Cowboys is a child of the Devil...

This is support for evolution, in my opinion. Some of us are evidently on our way back.

[McCulloch]

[youtube][/youtube]

[Goat]

[youtube][/youtube]

Blocked on the U.S. on copyright grounds, but yes.. I know that song..

Here is one that is not blocked

[youtube][/youtube]