California Proposition 8

[Sihouette]

If you read the other sentences before and after that group it will start to make more sense to you. I'm pretty sure that your goal isn't to make sense or understand, but rather to divert.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If you read the other sentences before and after that group it will start to make more sense to you. I'm pretty sure that your goal isn't to make sense or understand, but rather to divert.

Nothing to divert, all those posts and not a shred of proof. Genius has limits, stupidity has none.

 

[top gun]

Nothing to divert, all those posts and not a shred of proof. Genius has limits, stupidity has none.

In her case it really appears to be...

Hell has no fury like a woman scorned (by a gay man).

But hey... that's just my observation from what she's said.

I was able to uncover some more Siho in depth human sexual research on line though.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

In her case it really appears to be...

Hell has no fury like a woman scorned (by a gay man).

But hey... that's just my observation from what she's said.

Couldn't be her research--no animals being abused and no gay bashing.

 

[Sihouette]

Why observe and misquote? Why not quote and set the record straight? Your comments border on ad hominems.

Mare and I agree that the sex drive can be manipulated by exterior conditions after birth. I knew it all along really and hence the reason gay vernacular includes terms for the purposeful induction of young into their ranks..

 

[Sihouette]

Hey you have a (dubious) research sample of one.

That is conclusive proof of the conclusion you were seeking.

The desperation of christian 'logic'.~ Dawsin

I am not a christian. I am an agnostic. Myth #327684: "only religious zealots are opposed to gay marriage" If only one good study with oodles of references and cross-references to other studies that support it [see the article http://www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf] finds that sexual-preference is fluid then we'd better take another look at how gay marriage may impact our future generations.

Besides, Mare himself cited a book that agrees with the fluidity, the malleability of the sexual-drive. Mare himself even said that in a "caged" or manipulated/restricted/altered environment, sexuality may be affected.

There really isn't a disagreement at this point. The only debate now is whether or not we want gay marriage given that children learn/imprint themselves via mimcry.

 

[PLC1]

I am not a christian. I am an agnostic. Myth #327684: "only religious zealots are opposed to gay marriage" If only one good study with oodles of references and cross-references to other studies that support it [see the article http://www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf] finds that sexual-preference is fluid then we'd better take another look at how gay marriage may impact our future generations.

Besides, Mare himsehttps://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=121191lf cited a book that agrees with the fluidity, the malleability of the sexual-drive. Mare himself even said that in a "caged" or manipulated/restricted/altered environment, sexuality may be affected.

There really isn't a disagreement at this point. The only debate now is whether or not we want gay marriage given that children learn/imprint themselves via mimcry.

Is it your contention, then, that gay marriage will lead the youth to choose homosexuality?

Is there anything to back up that idea?

What about the notion that children raised by gay parents suffer as a result? This too turns out to be unsubstantiated.

The American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health issued a report in 2002, the most recent comprehensive review of gay-parenting studies. It found no meaningful differences between children raised by gay parents and those raised by heterosexual parents.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I am not a christian. I am an agnostic. Myth #327684: "only religious zealots are opposed to gay marriage" If only one good study with oodles of references and cross-references to other studies that support it [see the article http://www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf] finds that sexual-preference is fluid then we'd better take another look at how gay marriage may impact our future generations.

Besides, Mare himself cited a book that agrees with the fluidity, the malleability of the sexual-drive. Mare himself even said that in a "caged" or manipulated/restricted/altered environment, sexuality may be affected.

There really isn't a disagreement at this point. The only debate now is whether or not we want gay marriage given that children learn/imprint themselves via mimcry.

Once again resorting to calling me "him" as an attempt to insult, especially after calling me a lesbian in previous posts--at least you are consistent.

Drawing a false conclusion hardly supports your case, please note that in more than 1000 posts you have not provided even ONE valid scientific paper to prove your thesis. All of your arguments are based on what amount to caged animals, from which you then draw a direct, mathematical correlation to all human behavior. Only a fool would believe that.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I am not a christian. I am an agnostic. Myth #327684: "only religious zealots are opposed to gay marriage" If only one good study with oodles of references and cross-references to other studies that support it [see the article http://www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf] finds that sexual-preference is fluid then we'd better take another look at how gay marriage may impact our future generations.

Besides, Mare himself cited a book that agrees with the fluidity, the malleability of the sexual-drive. Mare himself even said that in a "caged" or manipulated/restricted/altered environment, sexuality may be affected.

There really isn't a disagreement at this point. The only debate now is whether or not we want gay marriage given that children learn/imprint themselves via mimcry.

Lying about one's motivation is not new behavior either, thank you. Your claim of agreement with me is fallacious, you are misusing the terminology.

Your behavior is a bit reminiscent of James Randi, his position is that if something can be faked, then it does not exist in reality. The classic example would be the female orgasm, since it can be faked it does not exist.

Oh yeah, Washington DC just okayed gay marriage. I'm happy because now the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, S. Africa, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire all have gay marriage. With no concommitant imprinting problem like you imagine.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

A scientist finally built a machine to translate dog barks into English. When put it on and went out into the neighborhood he discovered that the dogs were all saying, "HEY!, HEY!, HEY!" In another neighborhood he did the same thing with the same result, "HEY!, HEY!, HEY!"

Your posts are a lot like that, Siho, you keep shouting, "HEY!, HEY!, HEY!" in hopes that someone will pay attention to the lies you tell. Yes, it's called lying when you credit someone else with something they didn't say.

Keep shouting, you know, they say that with schizophrenia you're never alone.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Is it your contention, then, that gay marriage will lead the youth to choose homosexuality?

Is there anything to back up that idea?

Truth is irrelevant in this case, Siho's barn knowledge is superior to all scientific research.

People like Siho make me glad that the in vitro meat research is going so well, it will put the meat industry as we know it out of work. No feedlots, no tons of manure pouring into waterways, no subclinical doses of antibiotics producing antibiotic resistant germ strains, no grain wasted on useless animal fattening, and no slaughter houses killing billions of animals who die in terror and misery. There won't be the problems with salmonella and e-coli in filthy slaughterhouses and butcher lines either. Animals will be put out to pasture and so will the meat industry and their sycophants. The end of the AI industry as well and all the Siho's of the world having to get real jobs instead of abusing animals for fun and profit. Some things REALLY ARE progress.

 

[Sihouette]

Is it your contention, then, that gay marriage will lead the youth to choose homosexuality?

Is there anything to back up that idea?~PC

Yes, logic.

IF you have "something" that can be imprinted on an [human: refer to comparative psychology] animal via social pressures or environmental factors [with me so far? If not, refer to the Pfaus study and the field of child development] AND that animal learns socially through aping norms [see the entire fields of anthropolgy and child development] THEN you can deduce that the young of that animal will aspire/gravitate to that "something" if it is made the norm.

As to there being no psychological harm to children raised in homosexual households, that is what can be debated. We certainly can logically expect more and more of those case subjects to study as time goes on. Again, it's a matter of subjective opinion on whether or not you want the increase, for it will happen if logic still works. Some people like that. Some don't. There, again, is your debate.

If none of the citations impress you in the logical deduction above, then I'm really up against denial instead of a lucid opposition.

 

[PLC1]

Yes, logic.

IF you have "something" that can be imprinted on an [human: refer to comparative psychology] animal via social pressures or environmental factors [with me so far? If not, refer to the Pfaus study and the field of child development] AND that animal learns socially through aping norms [see the entire fields of anthropolgy and child development] THEN you can deduce that the young of that animal will aspire/gravitate to that "something" if it is made the norm.

As to there being no psychological harm to children raised in homosexual households, that is what can be debated. We certainly can logically expect more and more of those case subjects to study as time goes on. Again, it's a matter of subjective opinion on whether or not you want the increase, for it will happen if logic still works. Some people like that. Some don't. There, again, is your debate.

If none of the citations impress you in the logical deduction above, then I'm really up against denial instead of a lucid opposition.

If facts must be questioned or dismissed in order to support an opinion, it is he opinion that is suspect, not the facts.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Yes, logic.

IF you have "something" that can be imprinted on an [human: refer to comparative psychology] animal via social pressures or environmental factors [with me so far? If not, refer to the Pfaus study and the field of child development] AND that animal learns socially through aping norms [see the entire fields of anthropolgy and child development] THEN you can deduce that the young of that animal will aspire/gravitate to that "something" if it is made the norm.

As to there being no psychological harm to children raised in homosexual households, that is what can be debated. We certainly can logically expect more and more of those case subjects to study as time goes on. Again, it's a matter of subjective opinion on whether or not you want the increase, for it will happen if logic still works. Some people like that. Some don't. There, again, is your debate.

If none of the citations impress you in the logical deduction above, then I'm really up against denial instead of a lucid opposition.

No proof, just conjecture based on a desire to get revenge. You remind me of a knucklehead that suggested that the dinosaurs became extinct because they all went gay.

There is not a single solid link in your chain of logic, not one. You might as well be shouting, "HEY!, HEY!, HEY!" None of the cultures that accepted gays and transsexuals as normal members ever had a problem with all the kids turning gay. You are so afraid that it makes you miserable. And I'm happy.

 

[LooseChange]

Well, you thought I was a screaming liberal...but here is proof that I'm definietly not. That independants and many many democrats are not swayed by the deafening hordes of "do as I do or else!"..

I understand the arguments on both sides of the fence. On the one hand you have two people of the same sex who love each other deeply. Yet on the other hand you have people wanting to define sex as to exist only between men and women. I loved my grandmother very deeply...as deep as you possibly can. Yet I never felt compelled to have sex with her or to marry her. *shudder*. My sexuality was oriented towards men. It truly is about "orientation", in every aspect of the word.

I think the whole phenomenon of being gay is a little hard to understand. I think there may be some people with legitmate hormone imbalances from birth that cause them to be attracted to the same sex. But I also think there are a much wider group of people who have adopted gayness as an impressed behavior. Many people who I know to be gay have admitted to a sexual encounter at an impressionable age of a same-sexed, almost always older or adult perpetrator.

I work with animals breeding. You have to be careful about imprinting breeding behaviors on your young animals. They literally can be trained to mount or accept mounting from anything, even inanimate objects as with AI (artificial insemination) where bulls, boars, stallions etc. are trained to mount dummies. Some will from then on only prefer mounting dummies making them ".Objectum-sexuals and probably subject to their own "rights" movement in their human counterparts...of which exists folks... And once that training is in place, the urges go into auto-pilot and the behavior is set in stone. You can lose many a good breeding stallion or buck or bull that way to same-sexed preference. Ask any rancher about this phenomenon.

If females have access to only females in a herd, they will start mounting each other in frustration. This is especially common in pigs. Some of them will from then on only accept mounting from another female and will attack a male if he tries to "do his thing".

So gayness, IMHO, is potentially both of birth origin, that which I call "true gays" and also of learned origins, that which I call "behavioral gays". The problem is sorting out who is who. And even bigger problems sorting out how we want the definition of marriage to apply to learned behaviors that may not be that person's original sexual (potential) orientation.

ie: if we "normalize" something that does not wholly have origins in immutable DNA, and is instead highly suspected a behavioral phenomenon, then we are mutating our very description of what is normal sexual behavior...and passing on that mutation, since primates like us are "learn-by-example" animals, to future generations via social learning... Some people think this is fantastic. Other people think is teaches young people the wrong thing.

Some homosexuality also seems to be enmeshed rather unsavorily into child predation and imprinting sexuality. Many young girls molested by men grow up to be extremely promiscuous and equate love with sex due to this assault to their growing personas. Promiscuous gays are made from the same cloth so-to-speak. Do we then normalize extreme promiscuity? Do we teach that to our children as "perfectly normal and acceptable"? After all, I know several of these women as adults who become enraged and just as uppity and defensive of their promiscuity as "normal" if it is challenged by another as abnormal..

I don't think we should normalize extreme promiscuity, for many health reasons if for nothing else.

So I guess the bottom line is that before we go on a big crusade for some concept, I think we really need to get to the bottom of understanding it before we assign a label of "normal" to it. Human sexuality is one big morass of intertwined DNA predisposition, impression, social learning, mallealbility, hormones and probably a dozen other things I don't know about and few others do.

Do I think we should descriminate against anyone's sexual orientation when it comes maltreatment? Certainly not. Because as a rancher I can tell you that it is FIXATED IN STONE once it's solidly in place...and that is not always at birth and may include a complex set of occurances during a time when a young person's (animal's) mind and hormonal intricacies are still in formation. On the other hand should we go all the way to the other end of the spectrum and set an example for future generations to aspire to an affected fixation, there by "mistreating" them by assenting to mutate the original definition of sexuality for procreation by errant example ? No, I don't think that should happen either.

Yes, it is the "don't ask, don't tell" argument. And yet not allowing to ask provides protection for the rights and civil enjoyments of privacy for those who are gay. It helps prevent descrimination. Asking gays not to advertise by "telling" is protection for our youth from undue coercion to affiliate one way or another.

And yes, some gays are highly coercive. Many dykes I know (virtually every one) are promiscuous, predatory and think of "converting" straight women to lesbianism as a fun sport. I've heard gay men talk about converting boys. (why do they aspire to "convert" someone's supposed DNA orientation? Do they know too that gayness is learned?) They even have a name for it but that name escapes me right now.. And this just may be my own limited experience; but I know about five lesbians around my age that all have openly and repeatedly hit on young girls from as early an age as 12 on up to 18. (Probably the age they themselves were approached by an older promiscuous and predatory lesbian) And so on.. This is how it works in the herd too. The older ones teaching the young by behavioral example.

Sexuality is a very dicey human/animal behavior that is not fully understood as to the delicate balance of imprinting, hormones and the like. I think until we have a definite grasp on it as to its origins, I don't think we should normalize that which may or may not be normal, before we fully understand it. And we don't yet. That we all can agree on.

*braces for attacks from all sides*

I pose a question to you and please be honest and answer if you can? Does gay marriage hinder the procreation process in heterosexual marriages?