California Proposition 8

[Dawkinsrocks]

Jeez you are hard work aren't you.

There are 6 billion pieces of evidence that indicate that homosexuality is no threat to the human species.

If anything there are too few homosexuals as our species approaches overpopulation.

And your point about the majority is risible.

Its logiocal conclusion is that when the majority thought the earth was flat, it was flat.

 

[Sihouette]

Apparently a majority of gays and lesbians disagree. They admit that their ilk is both environmentally acquired and "contagious" in the article I submitted (still waiting for your evidence). And this falls in line with what the ag industry already knows about acquired sexual deviant behavior and its ability to affect a "herd", be it horses or humans. And with what anthropologists have known for centuries now, "monkey see, monkey do", to put it in layman's terms..

It is a matter of subjective assessment whether or not these facts "hurt" a society. Unlike the earth not being flat, we have ample evidence on hand today, not the least of which from the gays themselves, to tell us that we should not meddle about with homosexuality as being mainstream, unless we want our culture to actually be a predominantly homosexual one, as San Francisco is nearly today...from an original dysfunctional environment become "chic".

The generational aspect of learned deviance in humans is probably nowhere better represented than The "Gay" Area. It's on the tips of everyone's tongues. Everyone knows it. The town's nickname is "sodom by the sea".

Voters made an informed (vs the world is flat) decision to not make homosexuality mainstream. Homosexuality will always be a part of human society and I am not advocating its eradication. I think we should instead have compassion for homosexuals and try to understand why they are the way they are. Factually, I believe we already do. And this is why we cannot allow them to be condoned as "mainstream". This is exactly why we cannot.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

''Apparently a majority of gays and lesbians disagree. They admit that their ilk is both environmentally acquired and "contagious" in the article I submitted (still waiting for your evidence).''

I love that.

Sounds like you think that if a majority of gays think something it must be true (even if they did think what you suggest they do)

Let's hope they don't think the world is flat.

The human species is inarguably successful.

It is indisputable.

If anything we are too successful but having people around who can contribute to the support of people without reproducing themselves are going to assist the species without contributing to overpopulation.

There are 6 billion of us, we double in population roughly every 25 years.

And even with homosexuality we are reproducing too fast.

You are making yourself look completely ridiculous arguing against this.

 

[Chip]

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

That's right, I've provided no evidence that homosexuality is learned.

That's because homosexuality isn't learned, and I've never said it was.

"Learned" implies a conscious state of "study" and "decision".

None of that applies to how homosexuality occurs.

No one reviews homosexuality and then decides to become a homosexual.

However ... homosexuality is not genetic or gestational in origin either; there is no gene (or gene combination) "for" sexual preference in contradiction of genetalia and there is no unusual amniotic fluid composition shown to create homosexuality.

That leaves only on one way that a person can become a homosexual: unconscious inculcation.

Unconscious inculcation is not a "learned" process.

It does not involve conscious "study" and "decision".

The unconscious inculcation of homosexuality occurs from being subjected to idiosyncratic dysfunction in family-of-origin and related dynamics during the first four years of post-natal life while the brain is still forming.

That is not a "learned" process.

That is a damage process, damage that is actually reflected in brain scans.

That's why homosexulity cannot be "unlearned" -- it was never "learned" in the first place.

That damage is presently irreversible -- no amount of "deprogramming" can reverse the damage.

That damage is not genetically transmitable -- that's why homosexuals don't breed homosexuals as they would if homosexuality was genetic.

I would appreciate it, Dawkinsrocks, that in the future you not delusionally fabricate false statements and attribute them to me.

Thank you.

 

[Chip]

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

I am of no religious persuasion, and I've never indicated otherwise.

My posts are not about bigotry, they are about definitive propriety.

Therefore your unprovoked inflamatory ad hominem is duely noted.

One more, and I will report you to the moderators.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

You started it.

I suppose if you say it is like that it must be so.

Sorry Chip i thought you said homosexuality is learned when in fact you are saying homsexuality is learned, just without any supportive evidence.

I will try not to do this again

Please don't report me, I will do anything but please, not that again.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

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

The problem is that sexuality is more complex that Siho's animal training leads her to believe, so she makes a black and white, but wholly unsupportable decision that plays into her fears. Read her posts, it's all about fear of things that have never happened in any society in human history, but she posits these things because she's afraid. I'm not sure where the fear comes from though early experiences may influence it and what she does for a living has to have an impact.

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.

Yeah, pretty much, but you can't make someone evolve, just as with racism, you have to let the dinosaurs die of old age while the newer, faster mammals grow up with new scientific truths--which appears to terrify Siho and Chip who wish to cling to the comfortable myths and taboos of yesteryear. Many people are like that because change is scary, so it's easier to live with a comfortable lie than to accept an uncomfortable truth.

 

[Chip]

Yeah, pretty much, but you can't make someone evolve, just as with racism, you have to let the dinosaurs die of old age while the newer, faster mammals grow up with new scientific truths--which appears to terrify Siho and Chip who wish to cling to the comfortable myths and taboos of yesteryear. Many people are like that because change is scary, so it's easier to live with a comfortable lie than to accept an uncomfortable truth.

I have never said that homosexuality is learned.

I am not of any religious persuasion, and I've never indicated otherwise.

I've presented the neuropsychological truth that homosexuality is unconsciouslly inculcated from damage incurred from exposure to dysfunction in family-of-origin and related dynamics.

That's not about myths.

That's not about taboos.

That's about reality.

And I have presented the definitive propriety argument that supports upholding Proposition 8.

You can polly-parrot Dawkinsrocks in your misery-loves-company kabal all you want, but your collective unprovoked ad hominems only reveal that you've lost the argument and you have nothing left but childish invectives.

It is highly likely, therefore, that your "dinosaur" comment was a projection.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Yeah, Chip is not saying homsexuality is learned.

I got confused with that.

He is saying it is learned.

Keep up Mare.

Cuh.

 

[Sihouette]

Careful dawk...you also like dragging sectors of society "screaming and kicking" into ideologies that they don't agree with..

That's right, I've provided no evidence that homosexuality is learned.

That's because homosexuality isn't learned, and I've never said it was.

"Learned" implies a conscious state of "study" and "decision".

None of that applies to how homosexuality occurs.

No one reviews homosexuality and then decides to become a homosexual.

However ... homosexuality is not genetic or gestational in origin either; there is no gene (or gene combination) "for" sexual preference in contradiction of genetalia and there is no unusual amniotic fluid composition shown to create homosexuality.

That leaves only on one way that a person can become a homosexual: unconscious inculcation.

Unconscious inculcation is not a "learned" process.

It does not involve conscious "study" and "decision".

The unconscious inculcation of homosexuality occurs from being subjected to idiosyncratic dysfunction in family-of-origin and related dynamics during the first four years of post-natal life while the brain is still forming.

That is not a "learned" process.

That is a damage process, damage that is actually reflected in brain scans.

That's why homosexulity cannot be "unlearned" -- it was never "learned" in the first place.

That damage is presently irreversible -- no amount of "deprogramming" can reverse the damage.

That damage is not genetically transmitable -- that's why homosexuals don't breed homosexuals as they would if homosexuality was genetic.~Chip

You're absolutely right. I try to be careful to say "acquired" when referring to the origins of homosexuality, but sometimes mistakenly call it "learned". And I should try to inject more compassion to their situation where it may come across like I'm persecuting. Yet conditioning is teaching, and what is taught is learned so?? I think it's a smattering of both learning and infection...in that old primate-social learning thing. Monkey sees what is "normal" so monkey makes a conscious decision (at some point) to mimic what is "normal" in his society. From then on it may become reflexive.

I'm merely pointing out that the homosexual blindspot..in something they themselves (via the international gay and lesbian review and many others I've spoken to and heard from as well) have admitted is true on the one hand, but refuse to admit on the other, when they see that it kills their arguments of being included in the mainstream via marriage.

That "something" again, is the acquired and "viral" nature of homosexuality within a culture...as evidenced very plainly and clearly in the article on San Francisco "Gay By The Bay" and its stamp of approval by the international gay community...evidence by its uncontested presence (still) on their website. I would imagine that thousands of international gays have seen the article by now? They plainly celebrate the deviant conditions that brought their cumulative culture into the mainstream for San Francisco at least. And they sit baffled as to why the rest of the world doesn't join in their festivities of "celebration".


What do you think, Chip, about my theory of homosexuality's genesis being from one of these three sources? Any more you can think of?

1.Frustration of the sexual drive/ inability to access the opposite gender,
2. Learned (acquired)-aversion to the opposite (or same, as with transsexuals) gender.
3. Early-imprinting via repetition of inappropriate contact. (molestation)

All three are explained by associative conditioning

Maybe a fourth?:

4. Social mimcry

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

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.

One, in the US people do not have to prove their value to society in order enjoy the freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution. As long as they harm no one they are allowed the pursuit of happiness, etc. Perhaps you would like to outline exactly how it benefits our society to allow drug dealers, murderers, rapists, and theives the right to marry?

Two, what's wrong with working towards a Utopian society? I'm glad that you recognize my intent, but does that mean that you are working against a Utopian society? Why?

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.

You are on shaky ground here, Siho, unlike your biology major, I REALLY did minor in cultural anthropology in college. "Deviant" is one of those terms that changes in meaning continually. Interfaith and interracial marriages were called deviant at one time too. In fact a black man desiring a white woman was not only called "deviant" but got black men beaten and killed. Deviance is in the eye of the beholder, shoot, at one time any sexual position but the "missionary" one was considered deviant. Oral sex was called deviant too.

Hey, it worked for San Francisco.

One source does not the story tell, especially when that one source is neither comprehensive nor scientifically based.

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".

But that's exactly the inverse of what YOU are trying to do, you want to drag everyone back into the 16th century and you're really afraid because you see your position losing ground worldwide.

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..?

In the US the Constitution of the US is the highest law, majority votes cannot abridge the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. That's why there has been a move afoot to amend State and Federal Constitutions, because the majority vote laws cannot supercede the Constitution. In California the court looked at the California Constitution and read very clearly that it stated a "right to equal protection under the law" so they had to legalize marriage for all consenting adults. The vote by the people won't hold against court challenges, eventually--just like slavery--the courts will realize that hysterical religious bigotry is not Constitutional and the law will be overturned. One battle doesn't win the war.

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.

Yes, and the Supreme Court will strike down the anti-gay marriage laws just like they struck down sodomy laws, Jim Crow laws, and the laws subjugating women.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

With evidence as strong as Silhouette's and Chip's who could argue?

Hec, some of my best friends are black and they call each other n.i.g.g,e.r

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Apparently a majority of gays and lesbians disagree. They admit that their ilk is both environmentally acquired and "contagious" in the article I submitted (still waiting for your evidence).

Your first sentence makes you whole post a fallacy based on supposition for which you have no proof. You have not spoken to all the gay people, your pitiful sources certainly don't speak for ALL gay people, and once again you shoot yourself in the foot with your own mouth (to mix a metaphor).

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

But it is good that she values the views of homosexuals so highly.

But not enough to grant them these highly developed people the right to marry.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

However ... homosexuality is not genetic or gestational in origin either; there is no gene (or gene combination) "for" sexual preference in contradiction of genetalia and there is no unusual amniotic fluid composition shown to create homosexuality.

That leaves only on one way that a person can become a homosexual: unconscious inculcation.
Unconscious inculcation is not a "learned" process.

You cannot scientifically support either of these statements, in point of fact there is a great deal of evidence to show that sexual orientation is an innate quality, probably a side-effect of some sort. The very fact that you refuse to review scientific evidence presented to you speaks volumes about your "counseling" credentials.