California Proposition 8

[Sihouette]

Mare must be beside himself with joy. This thread is deteriorating into a flame war when instead it was going along quite nicely as a debate.

As I said before, to me this is an indication that the points I was and am making are finding their mark and it is challenging Mare's status quo of denial. So Mare is retaliating with all she has left: flaming.

I still haven't heard from Mare about the Twinkie phenomenon. Mare, I'll ask you again. What do you think of the Twinkie phenomenon where older gay men seek to rope in impressionable young men into gay experiences with them?

Why do gays seek to "initiate" young people into something that is supposedly in place since birth? Hmm? I'd like to hear your thoughts on the Twinkie thing. I notice you've been a bit silent about it..

 

[Sihouette]

Read "Reason Number 10" of The Ten Reasons Gays Chase Straights:

Copywritten, click link to source...
Source: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/10+reasons+gays+chase+straights%3a+we've+all+done+it%2c+and+some+of+us+do...-a0106560150

The author points out what all gays know, factually or instinctively...their sexual "playing field" is limited by statistics. I find it interesting that with all the other cautionary statements preceding it, the author chooses to wrap up the 10 with this one. It's as if he is saying (without saying): "Hey, the field is limited so...go out there and push the boundaries." ie: attempt to recruit to increase our pathetically low numbers.

And interesting that in point number 2 about blinders [click on "blinders" at end of article] at the end, the author puts a question mark at the end of the sentence. It's not that he's saying that taking the blinders off will make a gay intent on chasing (attempting to convert) a straight man foolish...it's that he's saying maybe it's worth the chance? That he's questioning discernment. Code for: "Go ahead and see if you can." [wink wink]

It's the gay code for recruitment. They know of course that if they speak candidly about their desire to recruit, straights will put the hammer down on their access to our youth or otherwise impressionable people. (people who are at-risk for deviant behaviors of all types). But mark my words, I have been present in dozens upon dozens of conversations where gays were openly laughing about trying to convert heteros to homosexuality. It's a "known" among the gay community. There wouldn't be a term "bi-curiouis" if it wasn't. Either you're gay or not. 'Curiosity' denotes uncertainty and the ability to be swayed. The last thing it is, is 'genetic'. And gays themselves know this.

But if they came out and admitted what they know, that homosexuality can be imprinted at vulnerable times in human development, then their pleas for social legitimacy, in a mileau of learning that is primarily social with humans, would be dead in the water...and hence why they speak of it in code...

?

 

[Chip]

The Bible does calls for our deaths.

And thereby hangs the impetus for making Christianity your devil.

This is not a religious issue.

This remains an issue of definitive propriety.

But at least I now understand where you're coming from.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

And thereby hangs the impetus for making Christianity your devil.

This is not a religious issue.

This remains an issue of definitive propriety.

But at least I now understand where you're coming from.

Where I'm coming from? This has been a big secret? What, you don't read my posts?

What's your source for the definition of definitive propriety? The Bible calls for many deaths, but the hypocritical Bible-beaters apply those death sentences very selectively.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Read "Reason Number 10" of The Ten Reasons Gays Chase Straights:
The author points out what all gays know, factually or instinctively...their sexual "playing field" is limited by statistics. I find it interesting that with all the other cautionary statements preceding it, the author chooses to wrap up the 10 with this one. It's as if he is saying (without saying): "Hey, the field is limited so...go out there and push the boundaries." ie: attempt to recruit to increase our pathetically low numbers.

And interesting that in point number 2 about blinders [click on "blinders" at end of article] at the end, the author puts a question mark at the end of the sentence. It's not that he's saying that taking the blinders off will make a gay intent on chasing (attempting to convert) a straight man foolish...it's that he's saying maybe it's worth the chance? That he's questioning discernment. Code for: "Go ahead and see if you can." [wink wink]

It's the gay code for recruitment. They know of course that if they speak candidly about their desire to recruit, straights will put the hammer down on their access to our youth or otherwise impressionable people. (people who are at-risk for deviant behaviors of all types). But mark my words, I have been present in dozens upon dozens of conversations where gays were openly laughing about trying to convert heteros to homosexuality. It's a "known" among the gay community. There wouldn't be a term "bi-curiouis" if it wasn't. Either you're gay or not. 'Curiosity' denotes uncertainty and the ability to be swayed. The last thing it is, is 'genetic'. And gays themselves know this.

But if they came out and admitted what they know, that homosexuality can be imprinted at vulnerable times in human development, then their pleas for social legitimacy, in a mileau of learning that is primarily social with humans, would be dead in the water...and hence why they speak of it in code...
?

You're quoting the Advocate as a source! Jesus F. Christ on a crutch, you are really reaching. What with the Advocate and the feedlots ya'll practically the National Science Foundation. I love it, thank you for a great laugh, Siho.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

"the bad part is when you try to push your opinions on others in a way that hurts them."

SO TRUE!!!

Mare, I think that is the point of this discussion. Gays have been trying for years to push their opinions and views upon others. According to polls, a majority of people changed their opinion in that they decided to let gay folks be who or what they wanted to be. That isn't enough for gays. They are still pushing. They want everyone to see this issue the way they do!

Most people are all for giving gays the same exact legal rights as any married couple. The only difference is what you call it.

This is nothing like what happened with black people!

Funny thing, though, in a speech the head of the NAACP said that the battle for gay rights was just like the battle for black civil rights.

Equality for all! Not just the majority.

 

[Sihouette]

Yes, but gayness isn't a born trait and it is something that could potentially affect other adolescent people in that gays do factually attempt to recruit others to their ilk. In mammals it is observed that sexuality is malleable at the onset of puberty.

Reason number 10 of The Ten Reasons Gays Chase Straights: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/10+reasons+gays+chase+straights%3a+we've+all+done+it%2c+and+some+of+us+do...-a0106560150 implies that though they will not say that's what they're up to, many of them are out to increase their ranks.
Granting equality in all things, even to an institution designed for the [attempt at] natural begetting of children, marriage, is absurd. Like the other poster gave as example: it's like trying to lobby for cats to be allowed at dog shows. Nothing against the cats, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere about political correctness.

 

[Sihouette]

You're quoting the Advocate as a source! Jesus F. Christ on a crutch, you are really reaching. What with the Advocate and the feedlots ya'll practically the National Science Foundation. I love it, thank you for a great laugh, Siho.~ Mare

I found an article, written by a gay about homosexuality from his unique perspective and undoubted multiple exposures to gay culture and gay mindsets..writing about why homosexuals "chase straights", and still it isn't good enough for you. Which is what I knew. You have to see it printed in some book. And in order to get to that book, it will have to go through a million "politically correct" blind acedemic filters to make it there. And that is your only hope for a rebuttal. Because if we interview gays where they live, within their community and culture about what they really think and do in practice, not profession, then you know what we'll find...

So yeah, it's no wonder you want me to post from some dusty journal from some guy who sits in an institution. The word on the street will bury the pro-marriage gay argument.

So I continue to post from experience with mammalian sexuality and gay culture, from the bucolic areas they roll around in...and the bucolic common sense that will keep it real.

Sorry...

Let's look at a quote from my previous post:

In mammals it is observed that sexuality is malleable at the onset of puberty.

In fact an entire industry has sprung up around this fact: artificial insemination. It is now possible to mail-order your stock thanks to the fact that at the onset of puberty, male animals can be trained to hump inanimate objects or same gender partners to find sexual release. Their semen is collected and shipped Fed Ex all over the world. But I suppose that industry is banking on theory and not proven fact eh?

Providing a stimulus situation which elicits mounting behavior in the bull is termed sexual stimulation. The stimulation process starts by exposing the bull to a mount animal in a collection environment. The presence of other animals in this environment and various visual, olfactory, and auditory stimuli, sexually arouse the bull. When the bull is sexually aroused he will have an erection of the penis and will want to mount other bulls and/or a mount animal. (A mount animal is another bull or steer whose purpose is to sexually stimulate the bull and stand in a sturdy position as the bull mounts him, as if in a natural breeding situation). Cows are not excluded as mount animals but their use is not advocated.

Source: http://www.naab-css.org/about_css/practices.html

In the wild or in extensive pig keeping systems, the male pig, (unlike males in other species) does not initiate sexual behaviour. He waits for initial signals from the female.
Boars reach puberty about 6 months of age, but are generally not used for service till 7-8 months old. These ages can vary a lot depending on the feeding level.
They start learning their courting behaviour and show elements of sexual behaviour while still suckling and as part of play with pen mates. They develop these behaviours even more if mixed with strangers.
Boars reared in isolation are much slower to develop successful courting behaviour. Group reared boars are better than those reared in individual pens, and intensive stocking will encourage aggression as well as sexual behaviour.
Boars reared intensively in homosexual groups maintain this relationships for many months after parting, and they can often show abnormal sexual behaviour.
Source: http://woolshed1.blogspot.com/2008/11/animal-behaviour-and-welfare-pigs_4040.html

Of all the farm animals, pigs are the closest, physiologically, to humans...with the possible exception of the rats that get into the grain silos.

 

[Unite Our Nation]

The NAACP?? You are kidding me right? What *sses that group is.

Gays are not the same as a racial group.

 

[Unite Our Nation]

Sih, you've MORE than proven your point.

 

[Chip]

Where I'm coming from? This has been a big secret? What, you don't read my posts?

Actually, yes, I do miss a few of your posts. We all miss a few of each other's posts. That's normal.

So, yes, this was the first time I learned that you're a lesbian, at least if the logical conclusion from the "our" deaths phrase you posted that you say the Bible calls for was your intended message ... though I also read where you've been married for some time, so I do still wonder somewhat if you are a lesbian.

And yes, it does matter, with respect to bias.

What's your source for the definition of definitive propriety?

I find the constant clamoring for "sources" of obvious realities and simple English phrases to be an indication that the clamorer has ran out of substantive arguments and is now nit-pickingly attacking with absolute nothings.

Definitive propriety is a common English phrase that simply means "with appropriate respect for definition".

The long-standing, time-honored, cross-culturally traditional definition of marriage acknowledged by the overwhelming vast majority of the world's population, obviously, is appropriately "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

It's really that simple.

If you have to resort to nit-picking obvious realities and absolute nothings then you might as well wave the white flag.

Which would be a shame, because I think you have a lot to offer contextually.

The Bible calls for many deaths, but the hypocritical Bible-beaters apply those death sentences very selectively.

Your devil, the Bible and Christianity, and those who read into it what is convenient for them, can be downright scary to many.

Nevertheless, this matter is not one of religion, and your focus on religion, though understandably scary for you, functions, perhaps unintentionally, as a divertive red herring from the foundtional truth of the matter that the passage of Prop 8 was voted for by religious and non-religious alike and with respect for definitive propriety of what marriage is all about.

For those who are married in respect to definitive propriety they do indeed form a kind of club, and they understandably feel irritation at the thought of that club being "crashed" with obvious impropriety, just as dog owners would feel irritation at cat owners trying to force their way with obvious impropriety into the dog show.

And, no, I'm not married.

 

[Sihouette]

Most stallions quickly learn the breeding
routine to which they are exposed. They respond
to conditioned stimuli associated with
the breeding process, and they may breed
efficiently with little or no teasing or contact
with a mare. Others, still quite normal, may
require considerable opportunity to interact
with mares. Some stallions that are bred under
rigid protocols can appear to become “ritual-
bound.” Any change in breeding routine may appear to disturb their response, usually temporarily. Ritual-bound stallions can usually
adapt to procedural changes, even after
years of a fixed regimen, given good handling,
optimal teasing conditions, and patience.
Once these horses accept a new routine,
occasional minor’changes in routine can
be useful in teaching the horse. to be more
flexible...

..those that are mishandled during breeding
under halter often experience a difficult transition
to a breeding career. When exposed to
a mare for teasing such a stallion may simply
stand quietly appear anxious and confused,
or even savage the mare. Most stallions with
such experience-related libido problems respond
well to behavior therapy alone or in
combination with anxiolytic medication.Source: http://www3.vet.upenn.edu/labs/equinebehavior/publixs/Papers/00StalliU.pdf

And sexual preference is 'fixed and immutable at birth' eh?

Nope.

 

[top gun]

I've had a lot of observation of mammals reaching puberty and how they act.

So that means... what?

I think of all the people posting on this thread, I've seen more mammals (of which we are..sexually speaking) than anyone here.

That being said, I can tell you that from my observation and experience over the decades, that I've come to these theories from repetition, not from bias.

If I was biased, I would be saying there's something to hate about homosexuals. There isn't. I didn't hate my buck after he wouldn't mount females. However I did separate him from other up and coming bachelors in the herd. Animals learn from each other too. The paramount of that example is the human being.

You "might" have the most knowledge on animal breeding... but that's not human mental attributes nor is it human sexual preference or behavior pattern.

You seem to know something about horses... or at least at one point you said one through you or trampled you or something to get off a thread.

Horses for instance are not carnivorous. They're mammals but they're not carniverous... they're plant eaters. Humans can go either way because they have a different brain structure that allows for reasoning and a decision making process horses just do not hold.

So as someone who doesn't live on the farm... but as one side of my family at one time were Dairy farmers and later on raised Beef cattle and I was in 4H showing Quarter Horses I can easily say many things animal do not translate over the human beings.

There are human mental circumstances involved with being gay. It could be that someone was always from birth just mentally predisposed to be attracted to the same sex. This may have something to do with the way that particular brain interprets itself.

Others might likely just find that they enjoy only sexual experiences with a same sex person. And with that it "could in some instances" be because of some bad life experience... but it certainly is not in any way shape or form the only reason. It could just as easily be from something interpreted as a great life experience.

Trust me I'm the last person to understand the "gay attraction" but as someone who over the years has known several friends and couples that were gay (some which I never even knew were gay until years later) there is nothing spooky or wrong or that hurts society about them being able to be in a legally recognized monogamous "married" relationship.

Now there was a time back in my teens & 20's when I would of certainly said... OOH NO WAY!!!

But as you get to know people over the years you realize where your prejudices come from and you should see things in a light that if it doesn't hurt you or anyone else then it doesn't matter if it's your cup of tea or not.

Hence Prop is ridiculous and unfair.

 

[Unite Our Nation]

Trust me I'm the last person to understand the "gay attraction" but as someone who over the years has known several friends and couples that were gay (some which I never even knew were gay until years later) there is nothing spooky or wrong or that hurts society about them being able to be in a legally recognized monogamous "married" relationship.


But as you get to know people over the years you realize where your prejudices come from and you should see things in a light that if it doesn't hurt you or anyone else then it doesn't matter if it's your cup of tea or not.

COLOR][/B]

The very act of putting the "blessing" on marriage between two of the same sex DOES HURT OTHERS. It is a psychological harm to many, many married couples.

Let the gays name it something else. Let them be as legally bound with all the benefits (and divorce pain) as married folks. But to allow them to tarnish and stain the word "marriage" is wrong to those of us who feel that the word means something important.

I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings, but why can't gays name it something else? They are so "proud" of their different sexuality, why try to be what they aren't...a hetro couple???

 

[Sihouette]

And that brings me back 'round to the question of the oddity and deviance of homosexual relationships.

When you see two gays together, invariably, one is "butch" and the other "fem", no matter which gender you're referring to. So they're already emulating the male/female relationship. My question is, why?

Why do women who profess to not be attracted to big strapping macho men actively seek out big strapping macho dykes to dominate and straddle them, sans penis (excepting the strap-on kind which they often have their butch partner wear)?

And why do big muscle gays seek out effeminant ones to dominate as if they were with a woman? Could it be that the butch dykes and the effeminant gays are the only ones truly "gay"? And why do they end up doing the domestic voilence thing too? And want to adopt and raise kids? Clearly somewhere along the way there are complex psychological issues afoot that even the gays themselves don't fully understand.

And that's why I've put out that mistraining the sexual drive at vulnerable puberty is the likely culprit for all the confusion in homosexual people. On the one hand they seem to seek out hetero-type relationships. On the other hand they only want sex with the same gender. So it's the sexual drive that was skewed while the "nesting" drive stayed the same.

And given we learn socially and upholding social norms for our impressionable kids to follow is how we 'hand off" our culture to the next generation, upholding something that may in fact be a form of mental illness due to childhood/adolescent mis-development as "normal" or condoned may be a huge mistake.

Gays have made the argument that gayness is genetic. That is factually wrong. Mammals for the most part form their sexuality via conditioning at the onset of puberty as evidenced by the AI industry and their vast knowledge on training the sexual preference of male animals to various substitutes for female penetration, including other males to mount. So gayness is behavioral and adopted around puberty.

Condoning an example of deviant sexuality (for purposes other than procreation) as marriage is patently a bad idea therefore. And again, our youth are bloodhounds when it comes to seeing hypocrisy. If they see adults humping members of the same gender and calling it "sex", knowing that that type of "sex" will never result in offspring, and also knowing the purpose of sex is to beget offspring, those adolescents might get the silly idea into their heads that "whatever feels good is OK, even if it deviates from normal bodily function." Then just try to tell them not to get high...

I know I'm skipping around here a bit but the fact is that allowing gays to marry opens up Pandora's box. I like to keep the lid on Pandora's box, better safe than sorry.

Until we fully understand the mechanisms, or rather, until our human behavioralists are ready to consult with Ag people about the origins of sexual preference, we should not err on the side of blind foolishness.