Sexuality and Choice...

[Autodidact]

I, for one, came from a household with only one parent. My mother was single from the time i was born to the time she passed away. There are circumstances that are out of our control, but that does not mean we should provide privileges to people who behave abnormally willingly.

You're terribly bigoted, you know that?
What about people who play Dungeons and Dragons, should they be allowed to marry? What about people who willingly follow the dictates of twelve men in Salt Lake City? People who sleep in the nude?

 

[Autodidact]

I re-cited the decision of the court and you have yet to show how homosexual unions are fundamental to our very existence and survival.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... -

M.A.R.R.I.A.G.E. It's a fundamental right. You're wrong. You lose.

 

[Autodidact]

So are you saying homosexuality is a choice?

No, I'm saying it doesn't matter if it's a choice or not, kind of like your religion.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't think there is any reason people should get married if they are not willing to raise a family. You may as well be roommates who sodomize each other once a month

We're not asking whether you approve, you narrow-minded bigot, we're asking whether they should have the right.

I don't think there's any reason to wear special undies, but I grant you the right to do so.

 

[Autodidact]

It actually is destructive at a fundamental level. It inhibits one's desire to further the species.

And that's all that matters. So Mother Theresa, Mahatma Gandhi, Florence Nightingale and Jesus Christ all led wasted, evil, degenerate lives.

(side note: Did you know that many biographers believe that Florence Nightingale was a lesbian? Also Jane Addams and Willa Cather. Too bad they contributed so little to society, unlike Octomom.)

 

[madhatter85]

I wonder if Auto forgot she is on ignore?

 

[madhatter85]

Homosexuality does not inhibit the furthering of the species. For example homosexual couples can raise children who are in need of being adopted. Of course anybody can contribute to society through their individual action so that is really a moot point.

If you mean furthering the species by physically having children as a couple then how does this statement not apply to infertile couples?

If you had read my earlier statements. Infertility is not behavioral so this argument cannot apply.

Yes, and that doesn't matter because he was not using it to argue that they found same-sex marriages legal. The point was that they found marriage to be a right.

...they found marriage to be a [privilege] (based on the fact that marriage is fundamental to our "very existence and survival" which homosexual unions cannot uphold.

 

[Autodidact]

I wonder if Auto forgot she is on ignore?

Nope.

 

[Autodidact]

If you had read my earlier statements. Infertility is not behavioral so this argument cannot apply.

...they found marriage to be a [privilege] (based on the fact that marriage is fundamental to our "very existence and survival" which homosexual unions cannot uphold.

So when the Supreme Court writes: "marriage is a fundamental right," madhatter reads that as "marriage is a privilege." Good to know. Apparently madhatter suffers from a genetic abnormality that impairs his reading comprehension.

 

[Kerr]

I have to disagree. At a physiological level Men and Women are both geared towards different actions and thought patterns based on the same information given to the brain through their senses. This is a fundamental human trait that shows men and women have different roles in society. However, if you wish to discuss this aspect further, please create a different thread as this is off-topic.

It does not matter if you or I am right or wrong, if the society hold back one single individual because that person breaks with the traditional rolls then that society needs to change. The individual is that important. In any case, it is off topic, so I agree that we should leave it here.

 

[blackout]

I'm sorry, I missed your answer. These couples SHOULD be allowed to marry, or SHOULD NOT.

Everyone here knows that when you refuse to answer a simple question, it's because you know the answer is devastating to your argument, so own up and take your medicine. Answer the question.

If madhatter would read my posts, he would learn something and not make such spectacular bloopers. The Supreme Court in Turner v. Safley held that prisoners cannot be denied the right to marry, because marriage is a fundamental right. And why on earth are we talking about rapists and crazy people? (although he's completely wrong about crazy people too. Insane people have the same rights as anyone else, unless they are found unable to manage their own affairs by a court.)

O.K., What are those reasons?

You're terribly bigoted, you know that?
What about people who play Dungeons and Dragons, should they be allowed to marry? What about people who willingly follow the dictates of twelve men in Salt Lake City? People who sleep in the nude?

M.A.R.R.I.A.G.E. It's a fundamental right. You're wrong. You lose.

No, I'm saying it doesn't matter if it's a choice or not, kind of like your religion.

We're not asking whether you approve, you narrow-minded bigot, we're asking whether they should have the right.

I don't think there's any reason to wear special undies, but I grant you the right to do so.

And that's all that matters. So Mother Theresa, Mahatma Gandhi, Florence Nightingale and Jesus Christ all led wasted, evil, degenerate lives.

(side note: Did you know that many biographers believe that Florence Nightingale was a lesbian? Also Jane Addams and Willa Cather. Too bad they contributed so little to society, unlike Octomom.)

So when the Supreme Court writes: "marriage is a fundamental right," madhatter reads that as "marriage is a privilege." Good to know. Apparently madhatter suffers from a genetic abnormality that impairs his reading comprehension.

Who's on ignore?

 

[Autodidact]

I wonder if Auto forgot she is on ignore?

btw, sports fans, madhatter claims to have me on ignore because I make reckless assertions of fact without supporting sources. Is it your impression that I have done so here?

 

[Kerr]

It actually is destructive at a fundamental level. It inhibits one's desire to further the species.

Which is not that important anyone. Homosexuals have always existed, they have yet to hold back or inhibit our specie. Nonsense is just that, nonsense, reality is proof enough that homosexuality is not destructive.

 

[YamiB.]

If you had read my earlier statements. Infertility is not behavioral so this argument cannot apply.

Do you have a response to my statements about how you were wrong about homosexuality going against the furthering of the species?

I did read your early statements about infertility being behavioral. If it depends on people having children together than infertile couples don't meet your standards it would not matter if they can choose or not. Also this ignores cases where only one person in a couple is infertile, would you support a person finding somebody else to marry in those cases since they could be contributing by producing more children?

...they found marriage to be a [privilege] (based on the fact that marriage is fundamental to our "very existence and survival" which homosexual unions cannot uphold.

Well first of all they found it to be a right not a privilege, that seems like a silly mistake to make when you're so fond of playing with the semantics of this statement.

This case established marriage as a right. Procreation may have come into it at that point, but it doesnt not anymore because couples who can't have children already allowed to marry and of course lesbian couples can now procreate through medical science.

Do you have a reason why same-sex marriage should not be allowed that actually matches with reality?

 

[madhatter85]

Which is not that important anyone. Homosexuals have always existed, they have yet to hold back or inhibit our specie. Nonsense is just that, nonsense, reality is proof enough that homosexuality is not destructive.

But it is. since Homosexuality is not an inherited trait, we can see that the genetics are flawed and produce individuals with desires to copulate with members of the same sex. This means that the desire to produce offspring is null and void. If there is truly a desire to produce offspring, then you must look at the homosexual urges as confused. both models model show either an abrupt end of that line of human, or a contradictory desires at a fundamental level.

 

[madhatter85]

Do you have a response to my statements about how you were wrong about homosexuality going against the furthering of the species?

No, I am not wrong about homosexuality going against the furthering of the species. Homosexuality is a hindrance to it.

I did read your early statements about infertility being behavioral. If it depends on people having children together than infertile couples don't meet your standards it would not matter if they can choose or not. Also this ignores cases where only one person in a couple is infertile, would you support a person finding somebody else to marry in those cases since they could be contributing by producing more children?

I assume you mean infertility not being behavioral. And since it is not behavioral and not within their control, it would be unfair to deny them those privileges.

Well first of all they found it to be a right not a privilege, that seems like a silly mistake to make when you're so fond of playing with the semantics of this statement.

This case established marriage as a right. Procreation may have come into it at that point, but it doesnt not anymore because couples who can't have children already allowed to marry and of course lesbian couples can now procreate through medical science.

It did not establish marriage in general as a right. It established that laws prohibiting cross ethnic relationships were unconstitutional. Since Ethnicity and Homosexuality are completely separate attributes, (Ethnicity not being behavioral) your argument is null.

Do you have a reason why same-sex marriage should not be allowed that actually matches with reality?

See my previous statements.

 

[Kerr]

But it is. since Homosexuality is not an inherited trait, we can see that the genetics are flawed and produce individuals with desires to copulate with members of the same sex. This means that the desire to produce offspring is null and void. If there is truly a desire to produce offspring, then you must look at the homosexual urges as confused. both models model show either an abrupt end of that line of human, or a contradictory desires at a fundamental level.

Wrong, homosexuality and the desire to have children are two entierly different things.

 

[Kerr]

I assume you mean infertility not being behavioral. And since it is not behavioral and not within their control, it would be unfair to deny them those privileges.

So children are not the point of marriage? Good to know.

 

[madhatter85]

Wrong, homosexuality and the desire to have children are two entierly different things.

But the are inherently linked. Homosexuality means sexual attraction to the same sex.

By default sexual attraction is grouped under primal urges to produce offspring. seeing as we are hard wired to reproduce, any variation in default sexual attraction is unnatural and/or flawed.

 

[Kerr]

But it is. since Homosexuality is not an inherited trait, we can see that the genetics are flawed and produce individuals with desires to copulate with members of the same sex. This means that the desire to produce offspring is null and void. If there is truly a desire to produce offspring, then you must look at the homosexual urges as confused. both models model show either an abrupt end of that line of human, or a contradictory desires at a fundamental level.

Must also point out that even if this was true, it would not mean homosexuality should not be accepted. It still should, because the individual in this case is more important then the society. As we both have agreed on before, homosexuality will not kill us. Thereby it is wrong to treat it as if it was a factor to that.