Gay marriage Debate: Karl Rove vs. schoolgirl

[z_step18]

There is a difference between what does not naturally occur in nature and what is unnatural (i.e. goes against nature). Medicine, technological improvements, etc do not occur naturally but do not go against nature. I think it very obvious that nature was intended to be harvested and used for the benefit of man, there is nothing unnatural about it. I wouldn't call medicine "natural", but I wouldn't call it unnatural. Homosexuality on the other hand, goes against what was naturally intended, which is union between man and woman, thus it is unnatural.

Thousands of other species have shown homosexual behavior, and there is a genetic component which can make one more predisposed towards it.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Homie,

I know we wouldn't. What I at least hope people can see though, within their own life-spans even, is that morals and values in the West are changing rapidly, very rapidly.

Yup. I think it's delightful.

Cleo

 

[EdwardTking]

Rove took issue with the way the first gay marriages came about, through the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

Courts have lawyers who understand that if they recognise gay marriages, there will be gay divorces, and hey what a lot of money they can make.

An issue as important as the definition of marriage should be resolved by a legislature or a referendum, not a court, he said.

My opinion too.

And any change in the definition requires diligent legislatures to review all laws and parties to review contracts that mention marriage or family or spouse or wife or husband etc against what was originally intended, what would that then mean, what is desirable and maybe, if funding tight, consider whether they should be changed to transfer benefits to people with children or dependents (i.e.) spread them more narrowly rather than more widely.

Without and pending the above, gay marriage means money for lawyers.

 

[The Yankee]

This discussion has turned into a typical gay discussion (pun intended) so I will opt out of it. When I see people ask me to "prove" or even explain how homosexual unions are unnatural I get dismayed, because it seems to obvious to me that it is unnatural. We are made like a very simple puzzle, and if you put two of the same pieces together it won't fit, nor will any babies come out of it
Religious or not, it should be obvious that homosexuality is unnatural.

That's why you should try to get us to see how mind-blowingly obvious it is!

 

[The Yankee]

I know we wouldn't. What I at least hope people can see though, within their own life-spans even, is that morals and values in the West are changing rapidly, very rapidly.

In that, I'd have to agree and disagree. I agree in the sense that I do believe upstanding people are fewer and farther between, but I believe that it would be on a host of other things, including things dealing with marriages and relationships and parenting, but I do not see that being homosexual in and of itself is something to lament about. The rampant disrespect for marriage, faithfulness in a relationship (at least one that was intended to be faithful...not much we can say about people in "open" relationships), and staying true to your own children are there whether one is with someone of the opposite gender or their own.

I would have to disagree, however, in this notion that the "good ol' days" were full of morality. Perhaps they were hidden better, but there's certainly no evidence that there were more moral, upstanding people in the past. Greed, corruption, dishonesty, and yes, infidelity, were all just as rampant in times past as they are now.

 

[Homie]

I think that adding many amendments to the constitution takes away from the intent, the spirit of the constitution, which is limited government and equal rights of people - not to be infringed upon. If we add amendments enumerating rights, then we are implying that we do not have the rights which are not enumerated, thus actually taking away our natural rights, and giving government implicit powers that it does not have.

 

[MobBoss]

Yes yes use the extreme to make you case.

Actually, Skad, I here I use the norm to make my case - the norm being that church pastors dont spend every Sunday preaching on the evils of homosexuality. Its your allegation that the extreme - i.e. people like the Westboro Baptist Church - are somehow the religious norm in the USA. But it isnt and you friggin know it. Its a simply stupid point for you to try and make.

Like how the catholic church does in fact demonize gays. Unless its their own priest.

Demonize? They call it sin. Apparently in your world difference of opinion is not allowed.

What facts am I ignoring? Please by all means show me the 40 states that have legalized gay marriage.

Huh? Now you are completely going off-tangent as I never alleged any such thing. When you simply cant follow the convo rationally any longer I guess the convo is over.

Yup its a government entity that discriminates.

/shrug. It has its own set of rules. Again, dont like it? Dont apply.

Right because its the only place that treats gays as unacceptable.

Wait a second....havent you spent the last several pages argueing that our whole society treats gays as unacceptable freaks to the extent that it causes emotionallly destructive behavior upon gays?

So which is it? Only the military treats them as unacceptable or our society as a whole? Or did your foot just say "hello mouth, open wide'?

Gotcha.

If you want to serve your country but are gay don't join the military. You simple wont be good enough since your gay and gay people can only serve is they hide who they are.

Actually its not an issue of being 'good enough', but you knew that (I hope). Plus there are other ways that you can serve your country that dont include the military. I hope you knew that as well.

So as long as most of the people are christian then its ok for the secular government to discriminate of the basis of religious dogma?

There being christian has nothing to do with it. I mean I know you have issues there, but it really doesnt. By all means show me the religious language in any single one of the statues involved.

Well as long as its in the name of god I guess discrimination is just fine.

Prove its in the name of God anywhere. Its in the name of the people...not the name of God.

Wasn't that the reasonning used against rights for blacks and women? How did that work out?

Well the simple answer to that is sexual preference =/= race. I think a whole lot of black people would say they have been discrminated against and that to compare the two is actually pretty darn insulting to black people. Merely my opinion however.

In Massachusetts for awhile now. But in other places I cant marry a guy and neither can any other man. Pretty equal actually.Yup as long as the discrimination is equally discriminatory its ok.

Only because you don't understand it.

Whats not to understand?

Maybe a math specialist can explain it to you.

Are you a math specialist?

Maybe you don't fully understand how STD get spread and why it ends up in clusters.

Actually, I think I have a handle on this a bit better than you do youself. I know I have spent far more time looking into the actual data than you have in regards to it.

And as long as its the christian definition the christians will be happy.

By all means explain to me how "1 man + 1 woman = marriage' is solely a 'christian' definition?

How did that work out for the blacks?

Let me ask you a question Skaddy. Who has been treated worse/discrminated against more? Blacks or homosexuals?

 

[Homie]

In that, I'd have to agree and disagree. I agree in the sense that I do believe upstanding people are fewer and farther between, but I believe that it would be on a host of other things, including things dealing with marriages and relationships and parenting, but I do not see that being homosexual in and of itself is something to lament about.

This supports my previous claim. Here we agree on the result, but we disagree on what causes it. I may claim homosexuality has a negative effect, but there are so many other factors (some of which you mentioned in your post) that there is no way I can prove that. Which is why I won't attempt to answer this challenge:

That's why you should try to get us to see how mind-blowingly obvious it is! [talking about how homosexuality is unnatural]

I can't. If it isn't obvious to you from just imaging two penises colliding and being unable to bear offspring, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[MobBoss]

Thousands of other species have shown homosexual behavior, and there is a genetic component which can make one more predisposed towards it.

What 'genetic component'? To my knowledge no such thing has ever been found yet. Do you have some evidence that it now has been?

 

[z_step18]

What 'genetic component'? To my knowledge no such thing has ever been found yet. Do you have some evidence that it now has been?

Certain areas of the brain are larger than in heterosexuals, there's twin studies, and some species have been genetically manipulated to show those behaviors. Beyond that, I don't know, I forget the specifics.

 

[Patroklos]

Thousands of other species have shown homosexual behavior, and there is a genetic component which can make one more predisposed towards it.

Thousands of other animals are also cold blooded or reproduce asexually, does that mean it is natural for humans too!

You have arguements to choose from, this should not be one of them

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I saw one experiment with fruitflies or some other insect a couple of weeks ago.

Since I can't remember specifics, maybe someone who does can provide a link?

 

[MobBoss]

Certain areas of the brain are larger than in heterosexuals, there's twin studies, and some species have been genetically manipulated to show those behaviors. Beyond that, I don't know, I forget the specifics.

Again, links please.

 

[GenMarshall]

MobBoss defending the Catholic Church? I'm shocked

 

[z_step18]

Thousands of other animals are also cold blooded or reproduce asexually, does that mean it is natural for humans too!

You have arguements to choose from, this should not be one of them

And thats you're counter argument?

 

[z_step18]

Again, links please.

Ah, sorry. I'll look for some. This is all from memory.

 

[MobBoss]

MobBoss defending the Catholic Church? I'm shocked

Uhm....why?

 

[.Shane.]

Homie,

[As I begin to grasp what Homie's arguing . . .] I don't think we're going to agree on this.

Cleo

Oh, I grasp it to, but a favorite quote of mine comes to mind... "I see your point, its just that its laying face-down in its own urine"

Seriously the whole nature idea is flawed. On that same premise, asthma medicine is unnatural as it runs counter to natural selection by making asthmatics not as undesirable as mates. We outta ban most all medicines because they spit in the face of natural selection.

 

[cubsfan6506]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0vGamcQIYs

Heres a video of about the gay dolphins.

 

[Pannonius]

Thousands of other species have shown homosexual behavior, and there is a genetic component which can make one more predisposed towards it.

There is also pedophiliac behaviour in other species. What's your point?
From an evolutionary view, sodomy is a dead end. False mating achieves nothing, but drains individuals energy. These defected individuals then die off. The same thing as with animals with two heads, for example. Just a genetic anomaly.