I Believe Homosexuality Is A Neurological Disorder.

Anyone who proposes or endorses codifying religious doctrine into civil law. You know, like keeping same sex marriage illegal because the buybull says it's bad? Stuff like that.

 

They are no more forcing their beliefs by insisting that marriage remain limited to heterosexuals, than you are by insisting it include homosexuals.

 

True enough, but we're talking about the motivation. I endorse same sex marriage because I am in favor of full human equality. You and others oppose it because (you believe) gawd said so. The problem is "gawd said so" is not only insufficient grounds to justify a law, it is in fact, unconstitutional.

 

You play you pay.

 

Well, I'm an atheist. And full human equality would involve marriage for any two consenting adults who desire it. Not this tiny expansion of marriage, only to include homosexual couples.

 

And I'm fine with that. Why you're not is beyond me, especially if it's not religiously motivated.

 

No full equality is not giving people special rights just because they are married. It's unfair to single people and people who want to be in group marriages.

 

Yes. Did you have a point?

 

First, even if it is a disorder, and one that would be fairly common, at that, why should it be treated, and why should it be treated at government expense? Do you also believe that those who "suffer" this "disorder" should be forced into treatment?

Alzheimer's and certain other malfunctions cause enormous suffering and often death among those afflicted. Homosexuality is the cause of neither. If, indeed, it is of neurological origins, calling it a disorder is your own subjective moral judgement, since it has no basis in fact. There's nothing disorderly about it and the human race does not seem to have difficulties with self-preservation despite the prevalence of homosexuality.

On the other hand, those who would put the determination of what is or is not normal into the hands of the state have caused the deaths of millions in just the last century alone, and cause untold suffering among millions more. Homosexuals are not dangerous to society; your sort of thinking has proven to be extremely dangerous in some cases.

 

Di Silva was saying that homosexuality should be denounced because it is undesirable to the family/societal unit.

Seems like people are a little confused as to what I'm saying - I am for the liberty of anyone to do whatever they want. Literally. If you haven't consented to a condition then you cannot be held to account for it. This includes homosexuals. They never consented to a coercive societal unit that places a Christian understanding of partnership above all else, therefore they shouldn't be marginalized and stolen from at a greater rate by that construct.

 

Because thats not what has been enacted in 10 states. Not what the Prop 8 case seeks to do. They held that marriage is only unconstitutional in that it excludes gay couples. Declares as fact that ONLY gays and lesbians would marry someone of the same sex. The single mother and grandmother raising their children / grandchildren for over a decade would be excluded. Only the denial of marriage to gays and lesbians was held to be unconstitutional.

 

Well Di Silva was merely expressing her/his beliefs. And you are expressing yours. Using your logic YOU are trying to force your beliefs.

But we didnt consent to your coercive societal unit that places YOUR understanding of partnerships above all else.

 

nope. all that happened was the gender restriction was removed. ones sexuality still has no relevance in the law.

 

He says this every time. He'll probably keep saying it. It's ridiculous, as you'd think he would get it by now.

 

Obviously neither of you have ever simply read the case. There are reasons everyone refers to it as gay marriage because that is exactly what it is

- - - Updated - - -

Obviously neither of you have ever simply read the case. There are reasons everyone refers to it as gay marriage because that is exactly what it is

 

And yet, all that happened was the gender restriction was removed. sexuality is irrelevant. two straight men can now marry in those states. Just like a homosexual man and lesbian female can marry in all 50 states.

 

There wasn't a single coherant sentence in that entire mess of a post.

 

Which is why he is on my ignore list. But I'll translate for you. He doesn't like queers or trannys and wants them to all die in a fire.

 

An intelligent person would be able to extrapolate that point by themselves without having to have everything spelled out to him.

 

I find your happiness over the death and suicides of human beings to be absolutely disgusting.

 

Do you even so much as acknowledge that children of this era do not receive the same level of nurturing that they did in earlier generations?

 

Read my post again. I think it has far more to do with economics than feminism. These days, both parents usually have to work in order to raise a family, which results in less time to spend with children. That is an economic reality, that has little to do with feminism.

 

At least you admit the existence of the failure to sufficiently nurture children. What's your solution to the failure to nurture?

 

Oh, I don't know- maybe fix the damn economy? Seriously, is that so mysterious?

 

I enjoy sex, but I have always taken it seriously/safely. I hope others will do the same.