Most gay couples probably aren't getting married even now that it's legal

I didn't miss it... I ignored it, because it refers to an argument, that I'm not making.

But since you asked... the 'something normal people lost', is the means to establish standards which rest in natural law, respecting that which assures to the extent possible, human viability.

Which, again... if you're keeping score, is a BIGGY!

 

True... there is no genetic component to homosexuality.

The best theory provides that homosexuality is a consequence of pre-pubescent initiation of post -pubescent sexual hormones. This coming as a consequence of adults or post pubescent children, who initiate 'games' with infants and toddlers, through the stimulation of the genitals.

This causes sexual hormonal discharges that bind sexual attraction to the relevant gender and further associates sex with game play.

Which is thought to be why homosexuals are less inclined to associate sex with long term commitment... .

So, in short, where such is true... what the Left has just done is to license the sexual deviancy to represent normality, which provides that more homosexuals will have greater access to more children... who will play more of these games with more children... Leading the culture directly toward the aforementioned catastrophe, intrinsic to all Leftist policy.

 

We've had same sex marriage for several years. We voted for it. Before that, we had a civil union statute, but that wasn't good enough, as separate is not equal. So, we've had same sex unions for a good number of years. Same sex marriages take place in all the normal locations - from mainstream churches to judge's chambers.


You have it exactly backwards. Marriage is a force TOWARD stability, not away from it. Marriage is a commitment - pro-stability, pro-family.


Same sex orientation is a fact of natural law. You just have that wrong. This is true not just for humans, but across the animal kingdom and throughout history.

 

This is why mixing politics and science, psychology, etc is dangerous.

Some on the far-left want people to believe that issues like homosexuality and transgenderism are as settled "scientific" issues as something like "gravity", and that any discussion of the issues is bigotry.

Yet they're harming people in the process by encouraging the "acceptance" of potentially dangerous activities all for the sake of "diversity".

 

What Marriage is... IS: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Two men cannot so join... as the pretense of attempting to do so establishes the perfect condition for the transfer of bacteria, inducing the likelihood of disease. Thus there is no potential for viability through the pretense of such.

Not only false, but hysterically false.

Natural law for human sexuality is established through the human physiological design... wherein Nature provides two distinct, but complementing genders; each respectively and specifically designed to JOIN WITH the other... and it is through this design that MARRIAGE is... DEFINED!

Homosexuality deviates from that design; thus homosexuality deviates from the natural law which defines such. And as has been repeatedly noted, it not only deviates from that natural law... it deviates a full 180 degrees from such... which is as far from the standard, as is humanly possible.

 

Yes... But in their defense, such is what should reasonably be expected of Evil.

And that is all that is at issue here.

We are merely experiencing the rising again of profound malevolence, brought about through the overt defense of their own subjective needs, over and wholly without consideration for anything beyond those needs.

It's is today, what it has always been... the fast track toward destruction. First on the individual, then naturally expanding into cultural destruction.


And that's where we are today... . And we see it on nearly every level of politics and we see it advanced by ONE SET OF IDEAS, the Political party that represents those ideas and the insurgency into the opposing party that defends the other.

 

The fact of the matter is that nature provides us with same sex orientation. Humans did not create that. It IS from nature. Denying that simply makes no sense.

Continuing, it is clear that humans who are same sex oriented form bonds just like heterosexuals form bonds. In fact, it's been shown that Lesbian relationships tend to be more stable and longer lasting than heterosexual relationships. Further, these people are raising families and have been since forever.


You can do what you want with marriage in your religion. But, with state marriage, the state has clear interest in promoting stability through marriage, and that applies to same sex couples in EVERY WAY that it applies to opposite sex couples.

You can not find any state interest in denying marriage to same sex couples.

And, THAT is why the SC ruled as it did - the 14th amendment requires equality under the law, and there is no legal justification for avoiding that.

 

Science is how we incorporate evidence.

If you find evidence, then science will be excited about that.

The scary part is when we ignore evidence. Once we decide to ignore evidence there is no basis upon which to decide any issue other than the unfounded opinion of millions of people.

You should be far more concerned about the unfounded opinion of 150M progressives than you are about science and evidence.


What danger do you see diversity as presenting?

 

LOL! Nature also provides for other virulent organisms, STDs, the HIV... AIDS... .

That something occurs in nature, does not provide that such is Nature's way of telling us to PROMOTE IT. Yet... here you are advocating that such is the case.

Nature designs humanity with two distinct but complementing genders... EACH respectively and specifically designed to JOIN WITH the other, thus defining Marriage as the JOINING of One Man and One Woman.

LOL! Nonsense... Marriage is the JOINING of One Man and One Woman! The People's demonstrable interest in enforcing that natural law, is that such promotes, to the extent possible, the highest likelihood for viability of the culture, thus promoting the best probability that the culture will be sustained.

Which if it helps... this is the same reason that justifies the existence of government.

Which once it has been established that the government no longer serves that purpose, the Founders of the United States concluded that such justifies the destruction of that government, along with the destruction of those who promote the interests of that government.

Anyone else get the impression that the Left is coming to understand that THAT is where we are NOW... and that THEY are the one's who promote the interests of that which must be destroyed? Which is why they're wetting their collective pant.... weeping and gnashing their collective tooth?

It's also why they're so hysterically determined to disarm us... as fast as humanly possible.

 

Promoting relativism leads to collective mediocrity; when there's no expectation to meet any ethical standard other than "not judge" or "offend people" then there's little incentive to strive for individual or cultural success.

If there's no "purpose" in life other than "do whatever you want to do" regardless of what actual facts say, then this leads to people having no desire to do anything other than fulfill their based, consumerist desires - which I believe will eventually lead toward net economic decline as well as more totalitarianism in government, since a population who lives only for nihilistic materialistic whims will just vote into power who ever offers the most "free stuff".

Pushing "Gay acceptance" alone may not cause it, but the problem is that it's just it's only 1 more step down an already massive flight of stairs which we've been declining, particuarily since the economic boom following WWII in which mass consumerism coupled with Marxist-leaning views infiltrating campuses and the media pushed us in this direction.

 

Well said...

I'd only add, that the promoting of "Diversity" is the promotion of division... which is the root of diversity; which is what the promotion of such is designed to produce. It is a perversion of human reasoning. It takes the melding of diverse cultures into ONE, and simply reverses the process.

It's a manifestation of evil... set upon the US Culture by the Marxists of the old Soviet Union, which it set into the minds of a spoiled generation of malcontents and drug addled halfwits.

And I hate to say... it won.

I don't see any way that the US Survives. My guess is that somewhere around 2017 or 18, the US will finally, irretrievably fail, under the dead weight set upon it, by the Ideological Left.

 

Diseases related to sex? Yes, there are lots of them. Yet, we don't stop having sex, nor humans decide to do so on your advice or even on government decree.

You are still totally confused about what we find in nature. In nature, we find a range of sexuality. The variety includes external genitalia, as well as internal organs including the brain. Nature arranges these such that we find a percent of the population is same sex oriented.

That's nature. All you have to do is look.

Promote? What is being promoted by marriage is stability. And, that is a legit state objective that applies to all citizens.


For the rest, I have NO idea what you are talking about. However, don't gnash. I hear dentures are no fun. Read about George Washington.

 

You have that backwards. Racial minorities, women, those who are same sex oriented, people of all ages, parents, those in wheelchairs - we need our WHOLE population stroking on all cylinders.

We can't do that if we're spending our time trying to make it harder for some.

For one thing, you (and I) hate the idea of having to support those who aren't successful.

"Pushing gay acceptance" is pushing America forward. We NEED those folks working and otherwise contributing at full capacity.

And, it certainly doesn't promote any moral value to make it harder for same sex couples to have stable, monogamous relationships than it is for heterosexuals to do so.


Remember Alan Turning, the guy who cracked the Nazi codes to save our asses in WWII, the guy who pushed computer science in to the present age? How did it help for UK to drive him to suicide on the grounds that he had a same sex relationship? Tell me what that gained?

 

"WE" do not contract sexually transmitted diseases. Only those who engage in unnatural, thus unsound... sexual practices contract sexual transmitted diseases.

But it is wonderful to see someone speak up in support of a RIGHT to practice unsound sexual behavior. As it demonstrates the common leftist notion that there are no responsibilities associated with a right... thus demonstrating that the Ideological Left is an cult which runs counter to the freedom which depends entirely upon the responsibilities intrinsic to sustaining one's means to exercise one's rights, thus sustaining the aforementioned freedom, or 'liberty'. Meaning that the Ideological Left has no kinship with "Liberalism"... but only demands the deceitful association with the term, as a fraudulent means to influence those ignorant of that truth.

Am I? I'm the one arguing that Nature defines human sexuality through the standard of the human physiological design, wherein nature provides for two distinct genders, each respectively and specifically DESIGNED to JOIN WITH... the other.

That human beings are found engaging in such, is irrelevant. As such behavior DEVIATES from the aforementioned sexual standard... a standard which provides for the highest potential for the species to remain viable... and deviations in behavior which undermine that potential viability... as is so consistently demonstrated through the spreading of DISEASE!

That your cult denies that which is otherwise OBVIOUS, merely demonstrates the malevolent nature of your cult; thus demonstrating the reason that a viable culture would reject you and your destructive ideas.

That the culture has not rejected such, merely informs us that the Culture is no longer viable and will soon meet the unenviable demise common to every other culture in human history which has accepted the same fatally flawed, perverse reasoning.

 

Well that's news to me. Further, it isn't a right.

Yeah I have read your explanations. I disagree with them. You didn't prove them. I welcome any evidence you can post that gender is at all biological.

I have yet to see a tiny shred of science supporting this.

All I am asking is for any support for your claim. No need to tell me my beliefs aren't popular. I dint think the way I do because it's in vogue.

You aren't understanding. Biology dictates sex, not gender. Gender doesn't have anything to do with biology. That is the point you keep missing.

It's Actually based on questioning what is accepted as status quo. You want to see Marxism because you don't like that question. You would settle this in a heartbeat by providing links to this science you keep referencing that proves your claim. But if calling me names is easier, I guess there is no real point in discussing this further.

Not the species, just certain behaviors that seem to be more important in fulfilling social expectations than any genetic need.

After all a woman who welds likes steak and wears pants can still procreate.

Incorrect, that is the biological construct of sex. I never argued that the sexes weren't different. Gender is the cultural behavioral expectations placed on sexes. If a woman didn't behave in a feminine manner she would still be able to procreate. Thus gender doesn't have much to do with sex.

So you are arguing that gender is completely socially constructed than? Your blinding concepts that are opposing. If gender is biological you don't need any reinforcement of it. Reinforcement is social conditioning. The differing conditions placed on males verses females are gender and if it's strictly conditioned in finding role models, than you agree with me. If it's biological, there is no need for role models. It's predetermined that boys will grow up to be masculine.

That only supports the concept that sex isn't just present in the genitals. I never said it was, I don't agree that it is. As you said sex influences brain structure.

Again gender is the behavioral expectations placed on sexes. I don't really think it's wrong, I have no issue with that. So before you carry on calling me Marxist and accuse me of trying to deconstruct society and whatever other garbage you are thinking. I don't believe gender is a problematic social construct, in fact I think it's beneficial, even necessary. I just think chastising people that don't fit the standard is a bit on the bigoted side.

Proving sex and behavior are not synonyms.

I am not saying that instinctual behaviors of the sexes are a social construct. I am saying the behavioral expectations placed on the sexes by the society are a social construct.

If humans were neither masculine or feminine could they still reproduce assuming they were opposite sexes? If the answer is yes there is no need for biology to create feminine or masculine gender.

I simply ask that you prove it. What you say doesn't really carry any weight. It certainly shouldn't matter on the state level.

I don't have a problem with you having an opinion on gender. I just don't accept it as a fact.

Consider this Missouri, and show me.

 

ROFLMNAO!

Which means that the society can't be efficient where it uses energy sustaining the standards that provide for the culture to 'stroke on all cylinders'.

To maintain the metaphor... for the societal engine to work, it requires fuel, air and compression... and lubrication to reduce the intrinsic opposition common to friction.

Your argument holds that requiring fuel, air and compression and lubrication is prejudicial... thus precluding the respective components from being something they're not, doing things that they aren't designed to do... thus you promote the idea that these standards preclude the respective components from being equal... therein causing the engine to be starved of fuel and air, and the energy sufficient to ignite same... it reduces the available lubricant... increasing friction, robbing the engine of being what it IS, killing in finality that the engine will 'stroke' at all... let alone 'on all cylinders'.

 

ROFLMNAO!

That is ADORABLE.

If you can't recognize the distinctions in the two distinct genders, there is nothing that anyone is going to offer you in terms of convincing you.

The problem is not the lack of evidence, the problem is your loyalty to your own subjective needs... precludes you from being CAPABLE of recognizing the overwhelming, readily available evidence, which is presented in 99% of humanity... everywhere in the world, throughout human history.

 

The world of sexually transmitted diseases is far larger than you seem to think.

Yes, I believe the state has NO right to control the sexual behavior of individuals. I'd also point out that same sex orientation includes NO act that isn't also practiced by heterosexuals.

Sexual disease danger rises when one leaves monogamy. And, same sex marriage encourages monogamy. So, yes, I promote monogamy, which is a solution to sexually transmitted disease.


Nature has provided same sex orientation. Sorry, but that's just a fact of natures law. Your attempts to declare some restriction on nature is futile - nature is NOT going to listen to you.

You're getting a little prolific with the ad hom. How about we keep this civil? I'll work on that, too.

 

Wrong, biology dictates both sex and gender. Gender comes from psychology, aka brain structure - everything psychological is biological:

Social roles developed from gender, not the other way around:

http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ

The scientific status quo, yeah. People who believe that... the Holocaust didn't happen are questioning the status quo too, that doesn't make them "right".

I provided just one link above, there are plenty of other sources.

Calling it Marxist isn't an insult, it's a description because it comes straight from what cultural Marxists believe - ex. that every form of social stratification (including things as fundamental as gender) can be deconstructed along the lines of "classism or oppression".

Reductionist fallacy; certain behaviors are much more desirable in procreation than others both due

Just because someone could "in theory" procreate or raise children doesn't mean that certain behaviors are beneficial in achieving that end, or beneficial for the kids.

No I'm arguing that gender is 100% biological and comes from brain structure alone; and that 90% of cultural expectations come directly from biology as well, and are much more culturally universal even in modern times than they are "diverse"

Nope. If you raise a lion in a zoo and then just toss it back out into the jungle it will have a harder time adapting to such a strong environmental change because of the shock factor.

Nevertheless I'd say a lion is less happy in the long run being locked in a small cage rather than being allowed to live in a natural habitat.

And yes it's behavioral roles are genetically hardwired - even if you raise a lion in a zoo it will still be likely to instinctively harm children or small animals because it instinctively knows and wants to hunt - you can repress it but you can't "remove" hardwired roles - anymore than you can "remove" homosexuality by praying it away or demonic exorcism.

Positive social conditioning is beneficial since it helps in mastery. The desire and drive exists genetically, the specific social environment can either repress it or help it thrive.

Sexual repression in Islamist countries is an example - the culture, legal system, environment, etc may repress and confine a Muslim's desire to engage in sexual activity, but it doesn't "eliminate" the desire - and too much sexual repression for example has been shown to be psychology unhealthy and lead toward repressed rage (which may be a reason that Islamic jihadists are so violent).

 

Imposing a standard always requires energy. You don't get standards for free.

It also assumes you know what the standard should be. But, I don't agree that you do.

Alan Turing saved our asses in WWII and moved computer science forward in a way that leaves him as a founding father of computer science even though we lost him long before he came even close to his full career potential.

And, that is BECAUSE the UK drove him to bad health and finally to suicide with it's notion (shared by you) that such state persecution was free and right.

No, we push America forward by enabling every individual to contribute to their maximum in the ways in which they desire.

That was an incredible loss for humanity, and is an example of the cost of state-imposed restrictions on the personal lives of citizens.

So, even if you know jack about disease, about nature, or about our constitution, it should be crystal clear how wrong it is to engage the state in destroying people's lives in this manner.

 

Golly... how white of ya to say so. Here's the thing, you also do not believe that an individual should discipline their sexual behavior within the scope of sound principles that govern such.

Which means that your ideas preclude any means for viability to be established.

Nonsense... as the acts are conveyed to individuals of the same gender... which if you were a sound individual, this would inform you that the acts themselves are not at issue. What IS at issue is the unsound, unsustainable BEHAVIOR!

HUH! Yet another clue... passed up entirely, by the clueless.

Marriage is: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

You promote unsound, unsustainable behavior... while claiming that those who perpetuate unsound behavior are somehow turning from such through the pretense of marriage.

Homosexuality is a deviation from the human physiological standard, designed by nature. What you're attempting to do is to normalize deviancy... which is the fast track to the destruction of the culture which depends upon the viability provided for through the natural standard.

 

You don't get the engine turning for free... you don't sustain the engine's means to turn, for free... . Failure to sustain the standards that provide for the engines viability reduce the viability of the engine... where sustaining the standards, promote the engine's viability.

Therefore, we learn that sustaining the means of the engine to turn, brings greater benefit to the engine; thus to those that depend upon the engine's viability... than the failure to sustain them.

Ergo... those who advocate to reduce the engine standards, reduce the potential for viability; thus are a clear and present threat to those who depend upon the engine.

See how that works?

Here's another clue: There's NOTHING "FREE" about Freedom.

 

Alan Turing was also fortunate to live in a time, when homosexuals were forced to invest much of the energy that would otherwise be used in pursuing sex, into other endeavors. Thus his uncommon focus, thus the uncommon results of his relentless concentration into developing his 'machine'.

Such is a common link among history's notable homosexuals.

 

Acts vs. Behavior? No, heterosexuals do the same stuff homosexuals do. If there is an issue, it is monogamy. And, as I've told you more than once, I'm ready to promote monogamy.

Viability? You're just throwing out another word.

You are making accusations you can not back up.

Show me the evidence. We've had homosexuality going on for thousands of years. I do not see any evidence to back your claims.

And, no, nature is the standard. You do NOT get to set the standard. That is NOT your job.

Once again, you toss out the word "viability", but that is meaningless.

 

Um...That is a strange statement. I understand the difference between the genders. I just don't think it's dependant on sex.

If it was so readily available it wouldn't be difficult to post it here and shut me up now would it?