California Proposition 8

[Dawkinsrocks]

It is clear from your discrimination against hermaphrodites that your talk of homosexuality as learned behaviour is a red herring designed to try to legitimise your bigotry.

 

[Sihouette]

Is this your plan? To wait until there is a new page, launch ad hominems based on false information and see if some significant passer-by will claim you the victor of this debate...that...incidentally...is slipping on your side quite a bit?

Here's what I actually said about hermaphrodites, as you well know from reading it just hours ago:

If hermaphrodites get married, technically, they will be marrying a member of the opposite gender no matter what. Think about it.

So they would not technically be in violation of the description: "between one man and one woman." Or more clearly: "between one person each of the opposite genders".

If I was moderator of this site. I would curb ad hominems like your post above; particularly when they are outrageously dismissive of truth....even truth that is just on the previous...or sometimes even the same page..

Clean up your act dawk.

Meanwhile...

I will reiterate (thanks to your starting a new page with the sole purpose of deception):

homosexuality is a learned deviant behavior from the natural purpose of sexuality to beget offspring. Primates including humans are the paramount of mainstream-behavioral social learners in the animal kingdom. Gay marriage is the attempt to make homosexuality mainstream.

It isn't hard dawk. Follow the breadcrumbs. You like to ignore them and play them down. Just pull the veil off and look at the mechanics of the fabric of society. You think it's just dandy to have homosexuality effectively "taught" (and imprinted) to youngsters of subsequent generations. However, the majority of the voting public has decided not to retool the fabric of society that way..

And that is why Cal Prop 8 passed.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I don't know Chip. I tend to think Mare's condition is relevant. Think about it. Mare represents what is being plead to follow on the heels of lesbians and gays gaining marriage status.

Of course my condition is relevant, I'm another victim of the laws like Prop 8.

 

[top gun]

Silo... do you not know you lost this debate from about page 1 or 2?????????? Heck half the time you give us horse tales and the rest of the time you pretty much just duck direct questions.

All you've done is play "critter theater" with us all and showed extreme prejudice against those that can cause you no harm.

Although this will change fairly quickly, for now it's true Prop 8 for is the law in Cali. So I guess if you see that as good thing you can revel in it. But that has nothing to do with the evidence all around the world that where gay marriage is legal there are no harmful effects on society.

It's like when there were slavery people saying... Oh no, can't let them coloreds loose, they'd be pillaging stuff and raping our white women all over the place!

And since you wouldn't answer my direct question I'll draw the obvious conclusion that it's not the "word" marriage you care to protect it for it's meaning.

It's about you not wanting gay people to have the legal security of any kind of a partnership contract.

 

[Sihouette]

Silo... do you not know you lost this debate from about page 1 or 2?

Correct. I do not "know" that.


What I have done is illuminate the links between primate/human social learning, that are real, known and accepted by the scientific community, and the fact that homosexuality is a learned deviance, as many homosexuals themselves will even allude to.

The third postulation, that homosexuals are pleading for homosexuality to become mainstream, and therefore produce more cruising opportunities for their deviance, is inferred.

However, it follows to reason that this is the net result of what will happen given the facts above...whether the attempt is conscious or subconscious on behalf of the homosexual community.

We greater majority, as custodians of reason, and sanity, have taken it upon ourselves to prevent this wilfull/inadvertent agenda from taking roots, growing and becoming part of the very fabric of our society...

As is our right within a democratic society that makes informed (not kneejerk) decisions that affect our collective destinies..At the very least, homosexuals as a group in large will admit that the origins of homosexuality are not fully understood (to them). So we, the majority, have taken it upon ourselves to "err" on the side of caution.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nobody is useless, if nothing else one can be used as an example of what NOT to do. Siho and Chip are good for this, in a sense, they are a necessary evil on a thread like this because they represent the attitude that most gay and transpeople have been subjected to all their lives.

My part in this thread is not to convince the Siho or Chip, they are beyond reach, but I write to the people who actually want to learn something--especially the transpeople who are still hiding from the hatred embodied in the philosophies of Siho and Chip. People need to see the hollowness of their arguments and the hypocrisy of their attitudes.

When genuinely curious people read this thread they will recognize Siho's cheap shot attempts to insult me by changing my gender reference, they will see her fixation on my sexual orientation despite the fact that transsexuality isn't about orientation. Siho has talked about love without sex, but still insists that she know who I find sexually attractive--which is totally irrelevant since I no longer have sex with anyone. Like my brothers, she wants to be able to attack me for my behavior and it won't matter who I find attractive she'll call me a deviant.

People like Siho and Chip don't have enough education to understand that with 9 different chromosome patterns found in humans, that a black and white sex differentiation is no longer adequate. Neither of them would read the citations I posted, but I read theirs, and that's why I could point out that Siho's own citations refuted her claims.

I'm here for the people who contact me off-thread so that they can get information without the abuse that Siho and Chip would heap on them if they asked questions on the thread. I don't care about the abuse, posting on these discussion sites has allowed me to meet and talk with a bunch of interesting people--and all of them smarter than the people who would hurt them out of ignorance and fear.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Exactly. It is a man made decision. And the decision was made, by the voting majority. Unless you think in our democracy that a minority should rule?

Slavery is man-made too, should the majority be able to vote blacks into slavery or women into subjugation? And since you are as light on civics as on biology, I'll let you in on a secret: we don't live in a democracy, we live in a representative republic.

 

[Sihouette]

Siho and Chip are good for this, in a sense, they are a necessary evil on a thread like this because they represent the attitude that most gay and transpeople have been subjected to all their lives.

Man you like to whine a lot when your edge in the debate is getting lost.

Here, let me refresh your memory about my "attitude" towards gays:

My example comparing them to other afflictions since birth:

wanting (and deserving) compassion for their condition,~ page 51

I have also promoted that it is fine for "domestic partnerships" of whatever pursuasion to have rights to survivorship/medical benefits etc.

How, pray tell, is this an "attitude" you have been "subjected to"?

I know what it's all about, your complaints...it's that I have hit a raw nerve. The Big Secret that gays don't want talked about..that homosexuality is environmentally-acquired via conditioning.

They know damn well that if voters know gayness is a learned-deviance, the implication is that it can be taught...and taught by example...as would be the case should society agree to condone gay marriage...

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Man you like to whine a lot when your edge in the debate is getting lost.Here, let me refresh your memory about my "attitude" towards gays:My example comparing them to other afflictions since birth:
I have also promoted that it is fine for "domestic partnerships" of whatever pursuasion to have rights to survivorship/medical benefits etc. How, pray tell, is this an "attitude" you have been "subjected to"?I know what it's all about, your complaints...it's that I have hit a raw nerve. The Big Secret that gays don't want talked about..that homosexuality is environmentally-acquired via conditioning.They know damn well that if voters know gayness is a learned-deviance, the implication is that it can be taught...and taught by example...as would be the case should society agree to condone gay marriage...

Another example of the Lucy Van Pelt Law: If you can't be right, then be wrong VERY, VERY LOUD.

You've posted the same argument, with variations, since the beginning. No proof, but LOUD.

 

[Sihouette]

"No proof"

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

From: The International Gay And Lesbian Review.

Is there some better source that might paraphrase gays' own understanding of their deviance as suspected acquired and also affecting society in a cumulative and generational way once it's been allowed "mainstream" status?

Please direct me...

The book reviewed by the gay community is called "Gay By The Bay"
They wrap up the review thusly:

GAY BY THE BAY is must reading for anyone at all interested in their queer history. While it is directed at uncovering the hidden past of gays and lesbians in San Francisco, the stories it tells are applicable to anywhere. The authors have succeeded in their goal of making the past come alive

.
Straight from the horse's mouth.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

"No proof"
From: The International Gay And Lesbian Review.

Is there some other source that might paraphrase gays' own understanding of their deviance as affecting society in a cumulative and generational way once it's been allowed "mainstream" status?

Please direct me...

Why don't you post some stuff from the NAMBLA group or from the American Nazi Party, or even from the Plural Marriage website by those Mormons? Then you can pretend that those things represent everybody and you can condemn them too. I'll post a couple of articles from the GIRLS AND CORPSES magazine and tell everyone that all animal trainers advocate the philosophy embodied in the magazine and that you give out free subscriptions. This activity should allow me to achieve a credibility level on a par with your own.

Grandma Soderquist once observed that there are a lot more horse's asses in the world than there were horses.

 

[Sihouette]

Wow, you accuse that I have no proof, that I substitute loudness for substance..meanwhile you are effectively substituting loudness for substance (Chip was right, you project)

Then I provide this article below, from the INTERNATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN REVIEW....summated with their stamp of approval, and STILL this doesn't qualify as proof that the gay community is aware that their motives are to alter the fabric of society via their awareness that homosexuality can become cumulative where it is normalized in a human society..

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

Instead of lambasting or contradicting the book's thrust, here's what THE INTERNATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN REVIEW had to say about homosexuality having deviant and environmental beginnings that mushroomed into an entire society (city) being largely affected:

GAY BY THE BAY is must reading for anyone at all interested in their queer history. While it is directed at uncovering the hidden past of gays and lesbians in San Francisco, the stories it tells are applicable to anywhere. The authors have succeeded in their goal of making the past come alive

The INTERNATIONAL gay and lesbian review is saying in effect, "yeah, we acknowledge that gayness is acquired through abnormal circumstances present after birth, and that it appears to catch others in its net as it moves through a given society. Here's to our "queer" history!"

And you want their vignette of San Francisco to go mainstream throughout the entire state and nation.

So who is it again who is petitioning for gay marriage, you, a transsexual man (without a penis and now a "woman"?), who still is sexually attracted to women or the INTERNATIONAL gay and lesbian community at large? I can't at times even believe I am seriously debating with someone who proposes to society that his self-mutilation be welcomed and condoned as mainstream...it's just preposterous...but, thanks to the cumulative effect of pervasive perversity and political-correctness...here we are...prattling on and on about sheer lunacy wanting legitimacy..

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Wow, you accuse that I have no proof, that I substitute loudness for substance..meanwhile you are effectively substituting loudness for substance (Chip was right, you project)

You have proved your point with an article from the ADVOCATE that stated just the opposite of your contention, you proved your point with an article by a veterinarian, you proved your point with decades old research, and you proved it again with an article by John Bailey who stated without equivocation that you were wrong.

Anyone interested in this subject is going to read new research from respected journals, not popular magazines or book reviews. Focus on the Family doesn't speak for all Christians anymore than Rev. Fred Phelps does, or Ted Haggard, or Emilio Zapata. Even on this thread you can only find one sycophant. You can post individual articles forever and you still won't speak with the authority of the professional medical and psychiatric associations. Dr. Cynthia Chappell's excellent presentation is still available for viewing on line.

Please feel free to keep hounding me about my sexuality, it does SO much for your credibility.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Silo and Chip can produce no evidence to prove that homosexuality is learned.

Eveb if it is so what?

It is clearly no threat to mankind and if anything benefits our species.

The definition of marriage is outdated and needs updating.

Denying gay people the right to marry is as medieval as the definition of marriage.

Silo and Chip are religious bigots who are hung up about sexuality and are using half baked arguments as flimsy cover for their discrimination.

It would hurt nobody but a few bigots to allow gay marriage and those bigots would end up benefitting from having their antedeluvian views brought screaming and kicking into the 21st century.

And that is it.

 

[Sihouette]

You need to outline exactly how it will "benefit our species". As usual, you don't present any factual data, and instead insert pithy, and hopeful "conclusions" based soley on your whims of what a utopian society would consist of.

And apparently that society is one where deviance is embraced as the norm. You don't see any problems with that. Apparently your lack of education in the realm of anthropology leaves you as dangerous as anyone else who knows just enough to snow people into following their pied piper.

Hey, it worked for San Francisco.

"Homosexality as it is currently understood"...."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."..."burgeoning gay culture"..."1970s saw an avalanche of new splinter groups.".."more and more specific groups."..."which advocated the complete overthrow of the entire gender system".."for anyone at all interested in their queer history"..."uncovering the hidden past of gays and lesbians"..."applicable to anywhere"..."making the past come alive".. ~International Gay And Lesbian Review..

You are making a good case though dawk. You're saying that one group of people should drag another group "screaming and kicking into the 21st century". And that is exactly what California voters did, by a majority vote. So you agree then that one group may thrust its unwanted views on another...heh....and you're supposedly for "equality". I suppose only if it benefits your agenda..?


Too bad you didn't factor in the majority-rule as is the case in America. A judge or two may preside over this case, but the biggest jury of all has cast its vote "nay" on the matter of gay marriage, and eventually that jury will make its voice heard, even if it takes another initiative on another ballot..all the way to The Supreme Court.

That's how we do things in America dawk. Say hi to the Queen there for me, will ya?