California Proposition 8

[Sihouette]

I agree with you. I think that people who hate homosexuals with an unexplained fervor are probably closet gays, not all but probably quite a few. However, I don't hate homosexuals. My language about their pleas for seeking normalcy in marriage are, brace yourself, exactly as I presented them with no "hidden" motivation.

My dialogue herein especially with Mare Tranquility was a mnemonic device to illustrate how deviant deviant can become and to what extremes perverse sexuality can go to when blended in with obvious other deep psychological issues. As in Mare's case utter hatred of his own gender and therefore hatred of himself as male. To such an extreme that he convinced himself he was female and mutilated his genitals accordingly. In a climate where sexual deviations become normal, delusional people will do delusional things to themselves and others. Mare is the 'nazi germany' of examples as to why sexual deviation can become a social ill if allowed to be thought of as 'normal.'

I work with animals, I've said this like umpteen times. We who ranch and must know animal sexual behavior in order to survive economically learn a thing or two about its origins, it's malleability and so on. We recognize that it isn't as innate as people think. That's why I suggested that we must first understand sexual preference before we declare deviants from progenerating couples a "group".

They are and at the same time they aren't. They are in the sense that once their preference is acquired, around puberty, it is nearly impossible to break. How many 'homophobes' are willing to admit that being gay (after a certain threshold age) truly is not a choice anymore? Eh? I'm agreeing with that.

However, I also understand herd mentality and have made the study of anthropology post-college a hobby of mine. We are the apex of social learners. Things within a troop of primates that are "normal" become absorbed by the young as "the way to behave". My gut feeling is that normalizing homosexuality via marriage is not a really good idea in that humans can snowball 'normal' to really entrenched extremes. That's why I gave the examples of nazi Germany. Not the nazis themselves, but Germany..the german citizens that rallied around something that was aggressively made 'normal' that clearly was not and had no business being touted as such. Those are the similarities and that is the extreme example of normalizing something that isn't within a malleable primate society like ours.

That being said, homosexuality will always exist due to just random chance as each individual goes through puberty. I say, minimize those chances. And do so by upholding heterosexuality as the norm. At the same time, show compassion for homosexuals and allow them their own quasi-unions with same legal status but don't call it "marriage". Marriage should be the banner of the norm. And the norm must be heterosexuality. It is that way with the mammals and therefore it is how it should be with us.

And I do notice topgun that you still haven't addressed why bigamists should not be included in your pleas for deviants getting the stamp of normal? I think you're shying away from it on purpose. Care to tell us why?

 

[top gun]

I agree with you. I think that people who hate homosexuals with an unexplained fervor are probably closet gays, not all but probably quite a few. However, I don't hate homosexuals. My language about their pleas for seeking normalcy in marriage are, brace yourself, exactly as I presented them with no "hidden" motivation.

No you just seem to have that "protest too much" thing going on... but that's fine. I don't care who suppresses what. It's a free country.

And that whole "herd" thing you throw out there is just another homophobic smoke screen. Unless you've located some new H&R Block and your cattle are married filing jointly... COWS AIN'T PEOPLE! Cows can't strategize, can't imagine, can't make the same decisions as a human being.

This isn't the random sexual mistake of a stupid cow in a field. This is millions of highly intelligent people making a lifestyle decision that gives them both satisfaction and makes them happy as human beings.

Yes when it comes to procreating the male female sex act is what makes that happen. But marriage is a commitment of love between 2 adults with established legal benefits & possible ramifacations... not a commitment to bear children. Again completely different than a dumb animal in heat.

Hey I'm just saying if you come off very manly maybe that has something to do with all the gay bashing. And you did have that support for Hillary going. And it's a fact the gays had Hillary as their first pick! Just think about what I'm saying...

And I do notice topgun that you still haven't addressed why bigamists should not be included in your pleas for deviants getting the stamp of normal? I think you're shying away from it on purpose. Care to tell us why?

Answered it! In fact I've answered the exact same question from you like 2 or 3 times by now.

It's because bigamy creates an unfair burden and severely negative legal issues if the couples have children or if someone dies.

But that brings up a good point. Since cattle ARE EXACTLY LIKE HUMANS SEXUALLY... then no one should be allowed to marry. When your bull goes after cow after cow driven by heat they are in no way capable of a long term loving committed relationship.

Hence we can extrapolate from the Siho book "Mammals and Man the Sexual Equals" man cannot possibly use judgment to make any important sexual decisions.

And maybe that's the conflict you are having. Your mind says one thing... but your body is saying another. That could make a person act out. I don't know... wish you luck on your journey...

 

[Sihouette]

This is millions of highly intelligent people making a lifestyle decision that gives them both satisfaction and makes them happy as human beings. ~topgun

So we do agree on one point at least. Homosexuality is a decision at some point, and not an inborn trait. I would go one step further and say it is even imposed upon impressionable young and pubescents in the case of inappropriate contact...or errant example. And hence the debate we're having here.

Your comments denigrating the science of artificial insemination (AI) are demonstrating your reactive nature and lack of thoughtful scientific impartiality. Are you denying that pubescent animals can be trained to prefer unnatural sex? Are you denying that we use animal behavior as clues to our own? Are you denying that humans are animals?

This country is not totally free BTW. You cannot feel free to rob a bank, cheat on your taxes or marry more than one person. We have laws regulating certain behaviors that we don't want our children to emulate as 'normal'. And we do this for a reason because that is how a majority democracy works. We know about monkey see monkey do and we exercise a right to control the future of our society by majority imput.

And BTW, I notice you still haven't given comments on why you think bigamists, specifically, should be eliminated from inclusion in the CA Supreme Court's decision that is pending for other sexual deviants to be able to "marry".

 

[Sihouette]

OK, I'll start this post off by saying that these quotes and thoughts come from a right-wing website talking about the slippery slope. But as much and as often as I disagree with the extreme right (see my signature if you doubt it), I must admit they are on the same page as I when it comes to this issue. The rest of it is a bit looney. But the alarm bells should be ringing in those opposed to bigamy...and for good reason..:

Rick Santorum got pilloried last April when he argued that if the Supreme Court overturned Texas' sodomy statute, a host of other morals laws would become constitutionally questionable. "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home," the Pennsylvania senator said, "then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery...

..Now someone else is making the same argument. "A lawyer for a Utah man with five wives argued Monday that his polygamy convictions should be thrown out following a Supreme Court decision decriminalizing gay sex," the Associated Press reports:

The nation's high court in June struck down a Texas sodomy law, ruling that what gay men and women do in the privacy of their homes is no business of government.

It's no different for polygamists, argued Tom Green's attorney, John Bucher, to the Utah Supreme Court.

"It doesn't bother anyone, (and with) no compelling state interest in what you do in your own home with consenting adults, you should be allowed to do so," Bucher said.

One can make a principled distinction between gay rights and polygamy; we did so back in April. Then again, these distinctions have a tendency to break down under legal scrutiny...

..It's hard to imagine the courts accepting Bucher's argument and establishing a constitutional right to polygamy, but that is because polygamists have not gained anything like the level of social acceptance that homosexuals have over the past couple of decades. Where the courts draw the line, in other words, seems to be driven more by fashion than by principle.

It's perfectly appropriate for moral fashions to determine public policy--but they should do so by way of the democratic process, not judicial fiat...

..Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas was right. If Kennedy and the majority have their way - striking down all morals-based legislation as irrational - most of the laws on the books in the U.S. become unconstitutional. Kennedy may be hip with the pro-gay-rights community, but the stunning sweep of his decision in Lawrence v. Texas will be visited again and again - by every combination of non-traditional marriage practicers that one can imagine - and probably many that we haven't even thought of yet.
Source: http://www.command-post.org/oped/2_archives/008997.html

When gays cry foul about the "slippery slope" argument, they are ignoring the phenomenon in law of setting precident. It is how this country works. It is the internal mechanics of how nearly every enforceable law comes into existance.

Lawyers argue in court for their cases with law books open in front of them and fingers scanning words of the language of past judgements, scrupulously scanning them for loopholes their clients can slip through in whatever case they're trying to make. This is the essence of what they teach lawyers in law school.

The GLBT (but excluding for some reason bigamists) community probably doesn't give a fig about bigamy in principle. After all, they are the quintessence of "anything goes", sexually speaking. They're right in one sense that "anything goes" is the way it always has been and always will be. But the norm that those deviant conditions reflect against must be preserved in law. That's the quasi-legal state of law anyway. The laws accept the fact that they will be broken by anything from minor infractions to serious felonies. But if we have an absence of a "norm" framework to establish basic majority rules of conduct, we have anarchy. And anarchy historically isn't a very pleasant state of being.

On the other hand we have a group of people, fixated in puberty towards a certain sexual lifestyle, who want descrimination against them to stop. They want to walk with whoever they "love" down the street, arm in arm and not be lambasted.

*thinks for a moment*

Well, again, we can enact laws to protect them from harm, from descrimination in jobs, loans, survivorships and such, but the law must allow for breaches outside it, as always. And part of the GLBT angst might always be "being a member not recognized as the norm" within a human society. It is possible that this is their cross to bear. We all have our crosses to bear. And perhaps their very existance and angst should inspire all of us to study the issue of deviant sexuality, courtesy of the AI industry and human behavioralists and anthropologists (all three and none without the other) in order to help minimize future angst in our society on behalf of those who have been fixated in deviant preference early in life.

Having deviant sexuality be stamped as "normal" is not the way to resolve the situation before we fully understand the deviant sexual phenomenon fully. That is to say before the human behavioralists factually accept what the animal behavioralists already know and have built thriving businesses upon.

 

[top gun]

Sihouette;90481]So we do agree on one point at least. Homosexuality is a decision at some point, and not an inborn trait. I would go one step further and say it is even imposed upon impressionable young and pubescents in the case of inappropriate contact...or errant example. And hence the debate we're having here.

That's not what I was saying. I'm saying that the human brain and the make up of overall human sexuality from birth is different than some BS dumb animal in heat scenario you keep trying to heap on everybody.

Do some choose the lifestyle because they just like it? Sure some do. Have many others felt like they were in the wrong body as far as their sexuality goes from as long back as they can remember without any sexual trauma whatsoever?

There's absolutely no denying it! So you might as well quit trying... you know that dog won't hunt!

This country is not totally free BTW. You cannot feel free to rob a bank, cheat on your taxes or marry more than one person. We have laws regulating certain behaviors that we don't want our children to emulate as 'normal'.

Now you're all over the place just floundering! Those things are illegal because the hurt someone else or deprive someone of something rightfully theirs... not the case at all with two adults getting married straight/gay regardless.

Also the thing you're really TRYING to "keep kids away from" is from growing up having gay sex... which is 100% totally as legal as heterosexual sex everywhere in the United States of America. So that ain't working for ya!

And BTW, I notice you still haven't given comments on why you think bigamists, specifically, should be eliminated from inclusion in the CA Supreme Court's decision that is pending for other sexual deviants to be able to "marry".

Answered it... answered it again... answered it in my last post yet again... kinda done answering it. You can strike it down because it targets one particular group that are acting in a totally legal way (being gay & having gay sex) and the marriage license does neither stop this nor does it hurt ANYONE ELSE. You don't have overturn every morals law... just the neon obvious stupid ones!

As far a deviants... from listening to you I think you yourself may have some deep seated tendencies that just scare the heck out of you. It's not easy to be uneasy with your own sexuality.

I've personally known others with similar problems. I myself can be around gay people and I could care less because I'm secure in my own sexuality.

They on the other hand are so afraid of being found out they overcompensate. It's a secret they keep to themselves and will do almost anything to keep the rest of the world from finding out about.

 

[Sihouette]

Whether or not I have or don't have "deep seated tendencies" is outside the scope of this debate. I realize though it would be a welcome diversion for you at this point..


You have not outlined clearly why you think bigamists should be excluded in the CA Supreme Court's decision should they overturn Prop 8.

I'll wait patiently amidst your attempts at diverting the subject.

Meanwhile, if your only retort to my excellent points about needing to understand deviant sexual behavior first before we normalize it in society,is that I "have homosexual tendencies" and this explains my motivation to debate this matter so fiercely, then you have lost the debate. My motivation for arguing this issue isn't the issue. The issue is whether some sexual deviants from what we now consider "normal marriage" may succeed in pressuring a group of justices to overturn the Will of the People in establishing parameters under which people must abide in order to be married. In CA's current law it stands at "between one man and one woman".

Thank goodness the justices of the Supreme Court (hopefully) won't be debating each others alleged sexualities when they come to a decision on this matter. Hopefully they will consult with the AI industry, human behavioralists and anthropologists before they decide that something they don't fully understand yet, with potential to open legal precident to other things they understand even less.

 

[Sihouette]

I'm going to keep asking for your specifics on why bigamists should not be included under the GLBT umbrella in the current pleas to Court.

Topgun, it's going to look bad for you if you don't give specific reasons and continue instead to badger and divert the subject.

 

[laymen]

Every mind is a mosaic. Not pink minds and blue minds. Does anyone remember thier original reaction to the idea of gay sex? As childeren did you clearly understand how men had sex with men and women with women or did you ask an older sibling, parent or pier?....probably not .....you probably were slowly exposed to it by making ignorent remarks and then being corrected by someone else, mabey on the play ground. How old were you when you understood falacio, cunaligus or rectal penetration. Were you discusted? How long did you ponder the Idea? Did your religious upbringing terrify you into never letting the idea enter your mind again? Were you just as discusted with the notion of multiple partners, premarrital sex?
No one sin is greater than another. I think we come to accept or reject whats acceptable behavior based on our own fears and convictions that are developed over a lifetime..Every mind is a mosaic.

Let freedom ring.....eventualy the Supreem Court will take up this matter and have to decide....change the constitution or remove the word marriage from all fedral, state and county licenses. Marriage is a religious institution.

 

[Sihouette]

I guess the majority of voters will decide if that is what we should do or not. Meanwhile I think it is better to clearly understand the mechanics of how sexual preference is acquired. We need to understand that if as we already know, human behavior is spongy, malleable, and sexual preference can be trained at puberty (thanks to the AI folks) to become permanent fixation on "x". With those two facts in mind, and yes, they are facts and totally accepted by the scientific communties, both ag science and human behavioralists (who for some reason refuse to communicate their data to one another), we are forced to accept that what sexual deviants are up to, knowingly or unknowingly (see molestation blackout syndrome and high statisitcal data for molestees to become perps themselves in adulthood), is a recruitment drive.

So when they freak out and cry foul about people pointing this out, it is with good reason actually. Denial fights hard to preserve itself. And because most people just sense this instinctively and don't really have the info to explain why, the intellectual deviants claim "victory!" in debates against such poorly "armed" opponents. However, I just did point out the bio facts about malleable sexuality in humans. So now the cat's out of the bag, she can't go back in.

We need to take a close and honest look at what the AI people already bank on: sexual deviant preference is a trained acquired fixation introduced around puberty. It can even be trained to preference for inanimate objects only. I doubt we'll see a petition for those people who have the same fixations, and yes, they're out there. But we need to pull the veil back from deviant sexuals even for their own information about the source of their "passionate drive" to be recognized as normal. But it is sad that they never can be. Normal, in our society, thanks to a majority description, is heterosexual. We can only mitigate their condition for them by allowing them civil unions outside the range of what we have legislated as normal. If they can convince the majority of society to say homosexual is normal, then at that point we could have gay, lesbian, bisexual, transvestite (but not bigamist) "marriage".

Perhaps this is what they're after, after all...eventually having a majority rule... That would explain the inventing of catchy "crossover-the-bridge" phenomenon like the word "metrosexual", the parties I see them throwing around my area inviting "bi-curious" (adolescents), having parades lewdly flaunting their sexuality as "pride" parades (see kids, you don't have to be ashamed to try it our way!), and so on. I have been descriminated against time and again for being a woman, but I don't go around town with crotchless pants and no top on to "show" the world my "feminity" to further my cause. That is what is known as exhibitionism and in my neck of the woods it can get you in jail. But deviants gyrate, strip down and dry hump in public and that's OK...you know...because they are a "suffering minority".. Truly they are a suffering minority, but not in the way they are thinking. And now they want what they do to be normal.

Maybe we should try an experiment and let any sexual deviant marry. We should see where that takes us as a society. I'm a scientist, always game for a good trial run, and seems like the tide is going their way anyway; you whine enough, you get what you want usually. So let's open our mind's eye and imagine a society where any sexual deviant (why not any?) may marry and carry on as they please. Let's pretend it isn't a learned condition that becomes fixated. Let's pretend everyone that is deviant is "born that way". Then lets see what monkey-see monkey-do will bring us to.. Sure, why not. Let's go with the flow. It's always worked for people before, right?

 

[laymen]

Majority? The majority does'nt even partisapate in the electoral prosess. I agree that radical activism is the squeeky wheel. I think the majority of glbtg are satisfied with current civil union laws wich address the issues of inheritance, medical, and other equality rights issues. However givin the current inviorment of vilafying any tradishinalists as being a hate monger or racist. I think the trend will continue to the point of a complete collapse of our civil society. History shows us that every great civilization eventualy fails. The division of cultures, languages and values are becoming more apparent in this country every day. I think we can look to Europes history and gain a glipms of whats to come here.

 

[Sihouette]

I think great civilizations fall apart because people rally around denial and refuse to look plainly at the truth. If you dissect any culture that has failed, you will see that in the kernel of its center.

You have hit the nail on the head as to my passion though. It may disappoint topgun and other "homophobic" accusers to learn that some of us have a rational and well-thought opposition to their seeking to make a learned behavioral deviance become mainstream...and the ultimate harm it can do. We're not talking about the harm the initial pebble splash will make, we're talking about the ripple effect over generations after making grossly deviant behaviors normalized.

Sex outside heterosexual relations (the purpose for which the sex act even exists...the reason why males and females have different complimentary gentalia gonads and accessory organs to procreate the species), is wholly deviant. That's why I brought up the discussion of smoking. How do I tell my son that smoking cigarettes is wrong because it is outside the body's normal functions and can harm him, while meanwhile I'm prancing around declaring gay sex as 'normal' and permissable? He will learn about the harm to anal tissues with gay men particularly. He will learn about the statistics of gay and bisexual men being the largest spreaders of HIV due to the trauma their tissue encounter, increasing blood-to-blood contact via intercourse. All these things are scientifically upheld. Moreover, if he works in the AI industry, he will see that deviant sexuality is learned, taught and isnt' normal. So how much weight will my argument have against smoking, (abusing the body to acheive momentary pleasure) when he sees society supporting abusing the body to acheive momentary pleasure as normal????

It's the ripple effect of this vastly denied phenomenon and all the other reasons I stated above why society should at once show compassion to fixated deviants and at the same time teach its young generations that deviants from normal bodily function are not "normal". Instead of holding the GLBT out as something to aspire to, we should hold them out as something to be pitied and avoided, all the while teaching compassion for others in how we handle their condition. Just like you would any other person with a behavioral disability. But normalize it? Jesus H. Christ.

And if my argument still falls on deaf ears, just watch Southpark's episode where Mr. Garrison goes home to confront his father as to why he didn't molest him as a boy. Pay close attention not just to their interaction, but mostly to the peripheral players who mitigate the insanity with the ripple-effects of opting for political correctness, or group-think, over just plain sanity. Garrison's neurotic mother, the guys at the bar exploring possibilities where they might commit incest if pressed hard enough, the school counselor confronting Mr. Garrison Sr., admitting that molestation is wrong but what is "worse" is not giving into Mr. Garrison Jr.'s demands for deviant sexual fantasy realized.... That episode clearly demonstrates how far a society will bend to accomodate trends, no matter how twisted.

And if that fails to illuminate it for you, just study up on nazi Germany. Not the nazis, but GERMANY and how an entire nation lined up behind one of those twisted trends. Human behavior: know it or be doomed by it.

 

[top gun]

Whether or not I have or don't have "deep seated tendencies" is outside the scope of this debate. I realize though it would be a welcome diversion for you at this point..


You have not outlined clearly why you think bigamists should be excluded in the CA Supreme Court's decision should they overturn Prop 8.

I'll wait patiently amidst your attempts at diverting the subject.

Meanwhile, if your only retort to my excellent points about needing to understand deviant sexual behavior first before we normalize it in society,is that I "have homosexual tendencies" and this explains my motivation to debate this matter so fiercely, then you have lost the debate. My motivation for arguing this issue isn't the issue. The issue is whether some sexual deviants from what we now consider "normal marriage" may succeed in pressuring a group of justices to overturn the Will of the People in establishing parameters under which people must abide in order to be married. In CA's current law it stands at "between one man and one woman".

Thank goodness the justices of the Supreme Court (hopefully) won't be debating each others alleged sexualities when they come to a decision on this matter. Hopefully they will consult with the AI industry, human behavioralists and anthropologists before they decide that something they don't fully understand yet, with potential to open legal precident to other things they understand even less.

No actually your mindset is extremely relevant as to how you act out or overreact to sexual situations. But at least I am glad you are starting to see what I'm talking about with the "tendencies". That's the first step.

On overturning Prop 8 I've said it very clearly & understandably. They can overturn it on the grounds that this particular so called "moral" issue is without merit because... A) the underlying act everything up to marriage (sex... living together etc.) is legal and the act of an official legal marriage creates no harm or undue burden on spouses or children as it would in your strawman bigamist charade!

This will all work itself out. Either the courts will overturn it or it will come back up for a re-vote. This whole Prop 8 thing is very similar in intent to the Jim Crow laws set up to limit Blacks from voting in the south... while still trying to say they were free men. It cannot stand the test of time...

 

[Sihouette]

No actually your mindset is extremely relevant as to how you act out or overreact to sexual situations. But at least I am glad you are starting to see what I'm talking about with the "tendencies". That's the first step.

Actually, until deviants tried to get marital status I had no real vehemence about them one way or another. I sort of off-handedly pitied their entrenched denial. I've had some as great friends and many hetero friends as well. It was when this issue threatened to make their tweak mainstream and my knowledge of their learned deviance that set off alarm bells in my head. I never hated gays. In fact I was in love with a bisexual man once. He later died of AIDs and I was quite saddened about it. It was many years after we had parted ways but it still twisted up my guts to hear about it.

You wish that you were right about me. That's part of the hypnotic recruitment. Your assertions about me are like this: "look deeply into the pendulum...you're getting sleepy...you have hidden homosexual tendencies....when I snap my fingers, you will awake, become gay and start lusting after the same gender..." The overt recruitment is "hey kids, come to our GLBT parties. We encourage bi-curious people to come too!" Or, "you don't have to be homosexual, you can be cool being metrosexual. Once your comfortable with that, you can slide right over into bisexual and from there right into homo plate."

Then there is "we aren't satisfied having civil unions. We want the stamp of normalcy on what we do sexually. We want society to uphold us in the most sacred and sanctioned of unions: marriage" Translation: "there's no real reason we're seeking marriage outside that of being seen as "normal" so that others won't fear 'joining the team'. It's all about making homosexuality pervasive (knowing it's learned) within our society.

Like I said, homosexuals do and will always exist. We agree on that point. They are fixated in their preference once it is set or learned. We agree there too. They are deserving of compassion and understanding. Another agreement. They deserve to form unions where they aren't penalized for their set behavioral condition. Still another agreement.

Where we diverge is giving the stamp of "normal" to the deviant phenomenon. For normal is what they are not.

 

[Segep]

Sex outside heterosexual relations (the purpose for which the sex act even exists...the reason why males and females have different complimentary gentalia gonads and accessory organs to procreate the species), is wholly deviant.

And if my argument still falls on deaf ears, just watch Southpark's episode where Mr. Garrison goes home to confront his father as to why he didn't molest him as a boy. Pay close attention not just to their interaction, but mostly to the peripheral players who mitigate the insanity with the ripple-effects of opting for political correctness, or group-think, over just plain sanity. Garrison's neurotic mother, the guys at the bar exploring possibilities where they might commit incest if pressed hard enough, the school counselor confronting Mr. Garrison Sr., admitting that molestation is wrong but what is "worse" is not giving into Mr. Garrison Jr.'s demands for deviant sexual fantasy realized.... That episode clearly demonstrates how far a society will bend to accomodate trends, no matter how twisted.

hehe some things never change, I see. Still using a fictional animated show as proof of concept and maintaining that all sex that occurs without reproduction is a sin...

For normal is what they are not.

And thank God for that, if you are supposed to be representing normal!

 

[Sihouette]

Hey idjit, it isn't that Southpark is reality. Southpark is successful because it reflects reality. Art imitates life? Ever hear of that one?

That episode if watched, illustrates in a comprehensive manner the way that society can go to extremes to accomodate political correctness. That's the beauty of art, it says more than words can about a slippery concept.