Sexuality and Choice...

[Autodidact]

But having red hair does not inhibit ones desire or compulsion to reproduce with members of the opposite sex.

It greatly reduces one's ability to have black hair, however.

I thought your definition of abnormal was minority. Now you've defined abnormal as meaning gay? Well, duh, all gay people are gay, so by that definition, unique to you, yes, gay people are abnormal.

I never mentioned what they do in private, I am talking Genetics and why there is no reason we should support providing special provisions to people based on behavioral abnormalities.

You haven't demonstrated either that it's a special privilege, or a behavioral abnormality. Other than that you're doing fine.

 

[Commoner]

Personally, I think it's ridiculous for people to get married with the intent of not having children. As i have stated before, desiring to not have children notes a complete disregard for your own existence.

So is that a "yes, we should deny couples that do not wish to have kids from getting married"?

Can I get an answer, please?

 

[Autodidact]

homosexual couples cannot reproduce together, they have to use other means such as a surrogate or artificial insemination or Adopt. Either way. The children are provided via a sperm and egg, sexual reproduction is the only possible way to reproduce.
they cannot reproduce as a couple, it requires scientific intervention (or infidelity).

Yes, we all know that. Now just explain why that makes any difference.

They are already treated equally. They can marry any member of the opposite sex whom they chose and raise a family and have all the benefits of marriage. IF you chose otherwise you should get no such benefits.

No. You have the right to marry a woman. I don't. That's not equality.

Did you know this exact and exactly wrong argument was used against interracial marriage? That members of both races had the exact same right to marry someone of the same race? The Supreme Court rejected that argument in Loving v. Virginia.

And before you say anything, This cannot compare to sterility in heterosexual couple because that is not behavioral.

So what? Why does it have to be "not behavioral?" So you would prohibit straight couples who do not choose to have children from marrying?

Thank you for noticing my arguments are based in scientific data and established social traditions.

I haven't seen a single scientific source yet in your argument, just prejudice with fancy words.

 

[Autodidact]

You're not going to believe this, but not all heterosexual couples want to have kids. Should we not allow them to marry?

They don't count. They're not Mormon.

 

[Autodidact]

hetrosexual prefrence is an innate trait of each one us since we born.
But, human can change this innate trait, .....how?
by convincing themselves that the ugly dirty behaviors are very cute and nice.

for example, when someone start to smoke, first he can feel that his body is refusing that practice. but when he used to it, his body start to accept it.

in addition, physical structure for our human body is designed for hetrosexuals.

You don't have a clue. Please come back when you get one.

That's just dumb. Men are born straight, and force themselves to endure gay sex so they can be discriminated against and, in some countries (Muslim countries) killed?

 

[Autodidact]

Again, Infertility is not behavioral. Homosexuality is.

Again, so what. Also again, not everyone chooses to have children.

It idea that marriage is a civil right is a misnomer, It is a civil privilege with prerequisites.

Tell it to the Supreme Court. Marriage is not only a right, it is a fundamental right, here in the U.S., per many Supreme Court decisions. See Loving v. Virginia.

Not when the social tradition is based around the fundamental principle of reproduction of a species.

How does permitting same-sex marriage reduce reproduction?

And why is reproduction of the species the only important thing, outside the LDS Church?

 

[Autodidact]

How is denying the fundamentals of human existence at a genetic level better for humanity?

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[Autodidact]

Normality is based on the bell curve of a certain behavior or action. Seeing as the majority of people are heterosexual.

Wait, I thought normal meant desiring the opposite sex. Because when we pointed out that under your definition, few people are normal, you changed it.

So your position is that only the majority is entitled to civil rights? Bad news for all those Mormons living outside Utah. Let's not let them marry, since they're outside the normal bell curve.

 

[Mr Cheese]

So is that a "yes, we should deny couples that do not wish to have kids from getting married"?

Can I get an answer, please?

I intend to get married, and NOT have kids...

well my wife to be has had a hysterectomy...

I walked into this knowing that.

I've never felt an unbridled need to breed... there are many homosapiens already...

If I one day breed, then so be it....

until then, I'll be getting married for love....a silly modern western idea

 

[Commoner]

I intend to get married, and NOT have kids...

well my wife to be has had a hysterectomy...

I walked into this knowing that.

I've never felt an unbridled need to breed... there are many homosapiens already...

If I one day breed, then so be it....

until then, I'll be getting married for love....a silly modern western idea

You ungrateful heathen!

 

[Autodidact]

Actually it does. Our biology is geared toward monogamy between men and women. During pregnancy women emit pheromones that males biology is geard to be attracted to. At a physiological level, this is designed to "keep the male around" to take care of the woman and baby.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Yes, and both men and women also have biological drives toward multiple partners, although what this has to do with the price of pancakes in Provo I don't know.

You may have heard of this religious group in the United States that practices polygamy during the 19th century?

 

[Autodidact]

Personally, I think it's ridiculous for people to get married with the intent of not having children. As i have stated before, desiring to not have children notes a complete disregard for your own existence.

As I have stated, your Mormon obsession with reproduction would be cute if you didn't insist on inflicting it on the rest of us.

And before you start hollering and screaming, Intent is different than capacity (such as desiring to have children to find you you are incapable of it)

So, as you have been repeatedly asked, should these couples be allowed to marry? Have you supported a political movement to deny them this special privilege? They're obviously terribly abnormal and counter to the fundamental human reproduction blah blah blah.

 

[Autodidact]

btw, if anyone think's I've made an effective argument, please quote me. madhatter has me on ignore.

It's not his fault he has an abnormal obsession with reproduction; it's part of the theology he was brainwashed with as a small child. We'll let him marry anyway, but only one woman at a time.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Actually it does. Our biology is geared toward monogamy between men and women. During pregnancy women emit pheromones that males biology is geard to be attracted to. At a physiological level, this is designed to "keep the male around" to take care of the woman and baby.

uh yeah, thats why men produce millions of sperm at regular intervals....

because biologically, one woman should have millions of sperm inside her every month....

yeah...:sarcastic

If the pheramone theory (one I have never heard of, please present evidence)is true, why are there so many absentee fathers today?

Biologicaly men produce millions of little swimming sperm.... biologically men are more likely not built for monagmy.

Monogamy was/is largely an invention of the Romans. King David and Solomon for example had more than one walkign baby factory, as did Abraham...

The Romans of course brought us monagmy largely, while having public orgies and state run brothels..... I'm all for the orgies myself.. I think it might be fun....not sure about the brothels....

The simple fact is your arguments are based on social norms, nothing more. You pretend otherwise. Luckily not everyone on the planet follows one set of norms, or the human race would never progress...

 

[Kerr]

Actually it does. Our biology is geared toward monogamy between men and women. During pregnancy women emit pheromones that males biology is geard to be attracted to. At a physiological level, this is designed to "keep the male around" to take care of the woman and baby.

So? Genetics and biology have no bearing on what kind of family we have, all it cares about is survival and passing on genes. I personally believe we are more then that, which is why I think it is wrong to force people into static family structures that simply does not work for the individuals involved. Individuals do actually matter.

 

[Kerr]

Normality is based on the bell curve of a certain behavior or action. Seeing as the majority of people are heterosexual.

So, care to explain why this actually matters for what behaviours that should be accepted and not accepted?

 

[Mr Cheese]

btw, if anyone think's I've made an effective argument, please quote me. madhatter has me on ignore.

It's not his fault he has an abnormal obsession with reproduction; it's part of the theology he was brainwashed with as a small child. We'll let him marry anyway, but only one woman at a time.

I think you've made some great arguemnts....

but I feel they will fall on deaf ears....

People like madhatter believe what they want to believe....

a simple look at history (even in the bible) would tell you that manogamy is not the only valid model for families/married people that has and does exist...

A simple look at biology tells us, as I mentioned, men produce MILLIONS of sperm...EVERY MONTH...not yearly or throughout their lives...but far more often. Biologically this is all meant for one set of ovaries?

I am sure women also have that drive, but women are born with a finite amount of eggs, unlike men who just keep producing the suckers, you could argued men are more geared toward multiple partners than women, at a purely physical level.

So what do we have, views and opinions essentially colored totally by religion
These views aren't bad per se, a person should be allowed to be ignorant and believe what they want, I am being fair and using the word ignorant...

But when members of society are excluded from rights that others have, when said society promised them to everyone.....something aint right.

However its all been said a million times...
As long as people wish to remain ignorant, bigotry and denial of basic human rights, will continue to exist.

Not that I have an invested interest, not having children, but I do so hope the american education system is overhauled...............

 

[Ozzie]

For those that believe that a person's sexual preferences is a choice rather than an innate trait...

1. What evidence do you have to support this assertation?
2. Why would someone choose to make a decision that quite often results in physical and social alienation from family and friends?
3. What evidence would you require to change your opinion that sexual preference is a choice?

The notion of "choice" is enacted at the point one selects a target for sexual gratification one hopes is reciprocated and acts on it. Otherwise there is nothing to discriminate between sexual preference that is innate v learned.

 

[MSizer]

I haven't bothered to read through the thread, but in case it hasn't been mentioned, there is now proof that sexual preference is at least partially biological.

Men with older brothers more likely to be gay - More health news- msnbc.com

The more big brothers you have, the more likely you'll be gay (and they've ruled out nurture).

 

[madhatter85]

So? Genetics and biology have no bearing on what kind of family we have, all it cares about is survival and passing on genes. I personally believe we are more then that, which is why I think it is wrong to force people into static family structures that simply does not work for the individuals involved. Individuals do actually matter.

Individuals do not matter when it comes to biology and physiological structure governed by genetics. Genetics have a complete disregard for one's feelings, emotions, ideals, and thoughts.
the fact remains that if genetics are to blame for homosexual behavior, it is a genetic flaw because based on Darwin's research a species will not evolve the desire to end it's own existence unless through natural selection. And since there has been homosexual activity since near recorded history, It cannot be natural selection, but just a genetic flaw.