California Proposition 8

[Dawkinsrocks]

I am not off topic.

I am talking about the discrimination against gays of denying them the right to marriage.

Changing the definiton of marriage is not like changing the defintion of cats to dogs and so what if it was.

Silohouettes and Chips position on this are just discriminatory and bigoted.

Oh and Chip, will you stop writing ad hominems

It isn't impressive and when used more than once just sounds like you learned one latin phrase and have to use it at every opportuinity.

Call on the mods if you like you bigoted dinosaur.

Divisive views like yours are what makes your nation a ****ed up hotbed of hypocrisy.
Land of the free, all men are made equal, god's country

**** off.

 

[Sihouette]

Silohouettes and Chips position on this are just discriminatory and bigoted

Goodness, what a substantial accusation...lol..

Warning: Uncomfortable truth alert!. Attempt to divert! Attempt to divert! Ad hominem! Cry "victim"! Anything!

Thank you for that unintended pat on the back dawk.

Homosexuals in general recognize, on a visceral level, evidence by scores of them I've talked to and the article The Ten Reasons Gays Chase Straights, that they picked up their deviance since birth. Knowing that gayness is aquired via the enviroment and wanting the environment to normalize gayness via marriage = a recruitment drive; whether it's willful or not.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

One of your more bizarre posts and that is saying something

 

[Sihouette]

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Here's one for you.

Every now and again nature creates a hermaphrodite.

Are you saying that such a person should be denied the right to marry?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

And what exactly is your objection to changing the defintion of marriage to one of a union between people rather than sepcifying gender?

 

[Sihouette]

Let me reiterate:

We do not fully understand how homosexuals are made. This is a point I brought up early on that needs to be revisited, frequently..

If I and others (like in the AI field who train animals to deviant sexualty at the onset of puberty), are right about homosexuality being a learned trait, and I know I'm right that humans learn socially..1+1 =2 in this case I'm afraid.

If sexuality is trained, or learned, then our social fabric will be harmed in a significant way if gayness acheives the title of normal via marriage, an implied condoned sexual relationship. In other words, numbers of homosexuals one would be expecting in a given population of humans would be expected to rise significantly if humans learn socially, gayness is learned and gayness becomes "mainstream" via overturning Prop 8. It is a direct and predictable relationship if my unknown variable becomes confirmed as true; which I believe it has by an entire industry that our very survival depends on (agricultural artificial insemination).

I'll let you in on another unknown, but highly suspected variable. Homosexuals in general recognize, on a visceral level, evidence by scores of them I've talked to and the article The Ten Reasons Gays Chase Straights, that they picked up their deviance since birth. Knowing that gayness is aquired via the enviroment and wanting the environment to normalize gayness via marriage = a recruitment drive; whether it's willful or not.

*********
If we know that deviances can snowball, via human social-learning, we have a compunction to monitor what we allow as "normal". To some, like you, we should just allow definitions of normalcy to incude deviances. Some (most) however think the words "cat" and "dog" should remain with separate definitions..

For some (most) keeping men's and women's locker rooms separate is socially normal. For some like you, apparently, we should have coed and gender-bending everything. Of course there will always be deviances. They just shouldn't be defined as the norm.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[Sihouette]

Taking it one step further. I understand the basic underlying thrust or cause of some homosexual thinking. They want gender-bending to reflect that the spirit is more important than what swings (or doesn't) between the legs.

That being said, their mimicry of hetero bull/fem roles in their own relationships suggests that they too acknowledge there must be a norm to strive to in order to work through human issues.

What they fail, perhaps, to understand is that they were born with a certain gender in order to learn those lessons needed this time around. I think that preserving a basic framework of "normalcy" serves the greater good.

This is all very esoteric stuff and will send some reeling or poking fun. I don't really care. The main thing I want to impart is empathy for wanting spiritual, instead of gender, recoginition, while also imparting the need for tradition in gender roles to preserve a very vital function in providing a more cohesive matrix within which to learn.

How's that for weird? We cannot buck "the system". And the painfully obtuse display of the bull/fem syndrome with gays illustrates that very graphically. "The system" demands an overtly defined role of marriage as between men and women. Deviances are always present and have their role to teach and learn from. But we mess with greater things than just peevish semantics when we seek to redefine terms with potent opposing meanings such as "dog" and "cat".

 

[Sihouette]

Case in point:

Domestic violence in the GLBT community is a serious issue. The rates of domestic violence in same-gender relationships is roughly the same as domestic violence against heterosexual women. As in opposite-gendered couples, the problem is likely underreported.
Source: http://www.aardvarc.org/dv/gay.shtml

Seems the bulls are dominating the fems, no matter what the physical shell is swinging, or not, between the legs.

The lessons cannot be bucked. And those that think they can by humping a member of the same sex are seriously deluded. Why should we then let delusional deviants petition for a description (normalcy) that would promote others to follow?

The only thing that differs between homo and heterosexuals is that one group fixated their reptilian sexual urges on the same gender at a critical age and the other fixated those same drives on the opposite gender...for any number of a host of complex psychological frustrations/aversions or unwanted experiences thrust on them at a critical age. We've decided, as a majority, that the hetero function is the normal one. Homosexuals covertly also agree in that they themselves also strive for the male/female roles within their own relationships. Their spritual and physical drives are out of sync. Being out of sync is not a condition to aspire to. Not in my and most other people's minds at least.

 

[Sihouette]

Some more reading on gender-bending and the history of the origins of the culture that seeks to be defined as "normal".. (as if Mare's case wasn't enough )

”'Queer' has come to stand for the wide range of marginalized sexual identities, practices and communities sometimes excluded by the words ‘lesbian' and ‘gay,' yet which also lie beyond the pale of normative society and share a rich history with homosexuality as it is currently understood” (125)...

..Early San Francisco was predominately male, and up to ninety percent during the 1850s. This led to such curious practices as all-male square dancing. In these gatherings, the man taking the woman's part wore a red hankerchief around his arm. This was the precursor for the modern hankerchief code among gay men. GAY BY THE BAY is filled with dozens of such tales, all of which help explain how queer culture has been handed down from one generation to the next.

As far back as the 1800s San Francisco was known as “Sodom by the Sea.” Stryker and Van Buskirk reason that same-sex involvement must have occured during this period, primarily between men. They base their assumption upon modern research that has been done on all, or mostly-male communities.. [as with prisons, sexual frustration, even after the formative stage, can result in environmental homosexuality, italics Sil's]..

..The war swelled San Francisco's navy population, which only added to the city's burgeoning gay culture. [navy men all cramped on a ship with no women..."burgeoning gay culture"...anyone seeing that gayness once 'normalized' can be socially contagious? I am..]..

..The 1950s also saw the rise of the “butch”/”fem” roles among lesbians. Women were becoming freer to live their own lives, which included being in same-sex relationships. In 1955 the Daughters of Bilitis organization was founded in San Francisco. One of this organization's main goals was to get women to give up their butch/fem roles, which the Daughters viewed as an aproximation of man/woman roles...[ they are still very intact today]..

..By the 1960s fissures had erupted in many of these organizations between men and women, as well as between whites and minorities. The 1970s saw an avalance of new splinter groups that catered to more and more specific groups. One of the largest new groups emerging was the lesbian separatist movement, which advocated the complete overthrow of the entire gender system [born no doubt of spiritual hunger to be actually loved, instead of "loved"]...

Source http://gaybookreviews.info/review/2738/585

I remember once seeing a show on prostitution in the old west. San Francisco was the extreme most western community in the US. There was some ungodly number of men to women. Like 800 to 1 or something like that. Under those conditions, men would take turns wearing dresses and dancing with other men. Obviously sexual frustrations led to homosexual encounters and a new fixation on only men. This same syndrome is seen with prisoners. With many, many lesbians I talk to, their aversion to men started after significant negative experiences with males. They decided to just quite and try women instead. Then they became fixated in the new role. And yet many of them are also trotting around in butch/fem relationships. So they haven't escaped their lessons.

In any event, this article does illuminate the social-snowball aspect of a region or community "normalizing" homosexuality, born from a culture of obvious frustrating conditions with the opposite sex. I've been to the Bay Area, or "The Gay Area" as many locals refer to it. There you will find the bastard children of early pioneer frustration and a homosexual culture born from it.

They want now to normalize this queer culture throughout the entire US and abroad eventually I'm sure. Looking back at it's roots, in psychological dysfunction/frustration, I'm not sure that's such a good idea. These western boomtowns were filled with some of the most degenerate men and women (the prostitutes) that followed the gold and timber rushes. Their moral code, or lack thereof, their "anything goes" mentality is the foundation of the gay movement today; whether or not gays are willing to acknowledge this. Looking back at the roots of homosexuality within The Gay Area, it is easy to see that the culture is spawned from a degenerate element...though many gays today may not themselves be actual degenerates.

And thus we come full circle to my concerns about normalizing homosexuality via marriage. It can and has infiltrated a culture to such a degree that those who would not normally pursue the sexual tweak are now readily adopting it as a "normal" lifestyle; wholly unaware of its deviant and degenerate origins, thanks to the span of a few decades and forgetfullness of its historical roots.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Your projections are topically irrelevant ... though they do demonstrate that your personal struggles, which you've documented in this thread, make it understandably difficult for you to stay on topic as well as understandably preventing you from seeing clearly and thus accurately with respect to the topic.

Regardless, please post relevant to the topic.

When you do, such will be conducive to productive discussion.

Others here have gone to great lengths to make my experience part of this thread and, unlike any of them, I am the one person here who has personal experience with transsexuality in humans and have actual education on the subject and the one whose marriage is most at risk from the anti-gay people.

You are the one who wishes to make 6 year olds the standard of adult behavior, so my question to you is valid in light of the fact that there are 4-6 year old children who recognize already that they have been miscast in the play of life by having an inappropriate body. I have posted scientific reasons for the condition I and others have, I have given historical evidence, and I have been honest, open, and consistent in my presentation. This stands in stark contrast to some of the others here who have been all over the map looking for any kind of argument that might have a shred of value.

If you are not lying about your credentials like some people do, then you know very well that fully male and fully female people stand at opposite ends of a spectrum and that there are intersexed (the archaic term is "hermaphrodite") people who exhibit the primary and secondary characteristics of both genders, so the idea that there might be people spread out all across the spectrum is not only reasonable but rational and obvious. We speak every term to continuing ed classes of couselors and therapists and I have never met one yet that has your level of intrasigent ignorance who was not religiously driven.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Let me reiterate:

We do not fully understand how homosexuals are made. This is a point I brought up early on that needs to be revisited, frequently..

If I and others (like in the AI field who train animals to deviant sexualty at the onset of puberty), are right about homosexuality being a learned trait, and I know I'm right that humans learn socially..1+1 =2 in this case I'm afraid.

If sexuality is trained, or learned, then our social fabric will be harmed in a significant way if gayness acheives the title of normal via marriage, an implied condoned sexual relationship. In other words, numbers of homosexuals one would be expecting in a given population of humans would be expected to rise significantly if humans learn socially, gayness is learned and gayness becomes "mainstream" via overturning Prop 8. It is a direct and predictable relationship if my unknown variable becomes confirmed as true; which I believe it has by an entire industry that our very survival depends on (agricultural artificial insemination).

I'll let you in on another unknown, but highly suspected variable. Homosexuals in general recognize, on a visceral level, evidence by scores of them I've talked to and the article The Ten Reasons Gays Chase Straights, that they picked up their deviance since birth. Knowing that gayness is aquired via the enviroment and wanting the environment to normalize gayness via marriage = a recruitment drive; whether it's willful or not.

*********
If we know that deviances can snowball, via human social-learning, we have a compunction to monitor what we allow as "normal". To some, like you, we should just allow definitions of normalcy to incude deviances. Some (most) however think the words "cat" and "dog" should remain with separate definitions..

For some (most) keeping men's and women's locker rooms separate is socially normal. For some like you, apparently, we should have coed and gender-bending everything. Of course there will always be deviances. They just shouldn't be defined as the norm.

Does that make sense to you?

Dawks,
This post means that Siho doesn't know about or want to discuss intersexed (hermaphrodites) because it doesn't fit into the "learned behavior" pattern.

 

[Sihouette]

Hermaphrodites would have an especially hard lesson to learn. Suffice it to say there's a reason they were born that way.

Their lot wouldn't belong to the majority though. We shouldn't descriminate against them. If they find someone to love and give survivor's rights to, let them do so. Just not under the umbrella of "marriage".

I looked back where dawk had mentioned this but must've passed it over.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Siho,
I will assume that you have an understanding of the term "barren" as it is used in the Bible (Judges 13:3 or II Kings 2:19). Your arguments are intellectually barren, you have lied on this thread, you have defamed, condemned, and taken numerous personal experiences--yours and others--and tried to apply them across the board to all people in an attempt to denigrate them and thereby justify your own inner terrors. It's sad, but I note that you don't have many disciples, except for Chip. Like the rascist bigot, Byron De La Beckwith, who shot Medgar Evers, you are a vanishing breed, a dinosaur not going quietly into that good night. And while I pity you, I cannot help but be glad that you are going, however reluctantly, into the mists of time. I also rejoice at the new generation growing up without your fear because we will all live better lives without the terrors that haunt you.

I hope that you will be able to die peacefully in old age and your terrors find some succor in the womb of the grave. Be at peace with God, whatever you conceive It to be.

 

[top gun]

Sihouette;80208]In spite of your self-congratulating Topgun, your argument has not tightened up at all. You're reaching. But while we are tromping around in the area of armchair psychology..

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It's you that seem to believe you have some knowledge of HUMAN sexual behavior because you train "animals". I'm simply pointing out you are clueless according to major studies.

I'll give ya a good parable here. I used to train German Shepards in obedience by both voice command and hand signal as well as attack training. If I were to use your qualifications due to this knowledge I'm also an expert in communicating with the deaf and military strategy.

BIG SURPRISE HUMANS ARE DIFFERENT THAN ANIMALS! The human brain has abilities animals just do not posses so you can't make DIRECT correlations to human behavior, motive or intent because of what you can get an animal to do.

We do not fully understand how homosexuals are made. This is a point I brought up early on that needs to be revisited, frequently.

But we do know that being homosexual doesn't hurt heterosexuals so there is no reasonable rationale for discriminating against them.

If I and others (like in the AI field who train animals to deviant sexualty at the onset of puberty), are right about homosexuality being a learned trait, and I know I'm right that humans learn socially..1+1 =2 in this case I'm afraid.

There ya go back to animals again. I've seen a lot of animals that would eat their own poop... never saw a human do that though. Your balance of judgment here is way way off.

If sexuality is trained, or learned, then our social fabric will be harmed in a significant way if gayness acheives the title of normal via marriage, an implied condoned sexual relationship. In other words, numbers of homosexuals one would be expecting in a given population of humans would be expected to rise significantly if humans learn socially, gayness is learned and gayness becomes "mainstream" via overturning Prop 8. It is a direct and predictable relationship if my unknown variable becomes confirmed as true; which I believe it has by an entire industry that our very survival depends on (agricultural artificial insemination).

You come up with some doozies! You're worried that something that is already legal and practiced everywhere might increase if the people that are already doing it everywhere had a piece of paper saying they were only to do it with one other person. WOW!

So now I guess I have to also go and blow up your...

We'll end up having to use artificial insemination because the gays and their marriages will take over and ruin everything for the heterosexual...

with a real study as follows...

Gay marriage hurts families? There's no evidence
Wed Sep 24, 2008
Article Source: Reddingpolitics, gay-marriage, divorce, same-sex-marriage, scandinavia

James Wilson, in his Monday piece stating his opposition to legalized same-sex marriage, comments, "None of this is opinion; let readers fire up search engines and see for themselves." So, I researched the Internet for confirmation or denial of his statements. Wilson wrote, "Repeated studies show that heterosexual marriage becomes less frequent and shorter lived in the wake of legalized marriage." An Internet search reveals how inaccurate the predicted "death" of heterosexual marriages by Focus on the Family board Chairman James Dobson really is. Conservative writer Stanley Kurtz incorrectly asserted that gay marriage helped to kill heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia.

According to a May 20, 2004, article on Slate.com by M.V. Badgett, associate professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "In Denmark, for example, the marriage rate had been declining for a half century, but turned around in the early 1980s. After the 1989 passage of the registered-partner law the marriage rate continued to climb; Danish heterosexual marriage rates are the highest they've been since the early 1970s. And the most recent marriage rates in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before partner laws were passed.

"Furthermore, in the 1990s, divorce rates in Scandinavia remained basically unchanged."

What about conditions in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage has been legal since May 17, 2004? The commonwealth has had the lowest divorce rate of any state in the union: Compare 2.2 for every 1,000 residents each year in Massachusetts, 3.8 for the national average. The divorce rate in Massachusetts declined in the first two years of legalized same-sex marriage. (Divorce Rates by State, 1990-2005 — Infoplease.com.)