Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[numinus]

This is where I see a major fallacy:

No fallacy.

How does allowing homosexuals to marry effect a woman's inherent right to motherhood or ability to get married? I mean, gays aren't exactly going to go around and say - damn, can't marry my true love, guess I'll just go pick up a woman.

It doesn't.

The question you should be asking is why attach a legal imprimatur to something that does not result in a right to motherhood and the family relations consequent to it?

As far as children - I have yet to see any reliable research conclusively show that being raised in a homosexual household is damaging by reason of homosexuality alone.

A right to motherhood is not limited to the act of procreating alone. It has much to do with the relationship of the mother and her child. We, as a society, are very much concerned with our children. In fact, regardless of cultural background, this care can be considered universal. And so, we institute laws that govern not only the children, but the process by which they come to be. No other human relationship other than the conjugal relationship between a man and a woman creates another human being - someone who never consented to anything, is utterly dependent on the family he finds himself in, and YET INCAPABLE OF HELPING HIMSELF.

I have no intentions of questioning the reliability of the research you mentioned and its conclusions. However, I think society is WITHIN REASON to hold the family relations that result in marriage to a higher standard.

 

[numinus]

Quote the opposite in fact. The only discernable difference between children raised in hetero families and homo families are that the homo-raised children are more open-minded about people's differences. Achievement, drinking, drug use, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, car accidents, crime and arrests, and percentage that identify as homosexual, on all of these measurements there is no statistically significance between the two groups. Rather a lot of this research has been done and much of it funded by religious people who have been horrified to discover that their prejudices are not supported by the evidence.

Correct.

There is NO statistically significant factor to separate heterosexuals or homosexuals when it comes to child-rearing. That is because, as HUMANS, we are conditioned to care for our young.

However, child-rearing is a part of THE RIGHT TO MOTHERHOOD. A mother has the NEAR-ABSOLUTE AND INDEFEASIBLE RIGHT to raise her child as she sees fit. The only thing that can supersede it is a CLEAR incapacity to perform this right.

As such, a practicing homosexual, within or without a homosexual union, cannot be supposed to possess a right to rear children simply because their CHOICE prohibits them from having children of their own.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Correct.

There is NO statistically significant factor to separate heterosexuals or homosexuals when it comes to child-rearing. That is because, as HUMANS, we are conditioned to care for our young.

However, child-rearing is a part of THE RIGHT TO MOTHERHOOD. A mother has the NEAR-ABSOLUTE AND INDEFEASIBLE RIGHT to raise her child as she sees fit. The only thing that can supersede it is a CLEAR incapacity to perform this right.

As such, a practicing homosexual, within or without a homosexual union, cannot be supposed to possess a right to rear children simply because their CHOICE prohibits them from having children of their own.

A perfectly semantically null post, thank you. Your underlying assumptions are not provable nor supported by scientific evidence. Why would anyone be inclined to accept your bald-faced statements for which you have no support but your numinous opinions?

 

[numinus]

A perfectly semantically null post, thank you. Your underlying assumptions are not provable nor supported by scientific evidence.

Why would I give scientific evidence for something that is not scientific, hmmm?

When you speak of HUMAN RIGHT - you are not talking of science but jurisprudence, no? There are countless precedents in jurisprudence to support my opinions.

Why would anyone be inclined to accept your bald-faced statements for which you have no support but your numinous opinions?

Because it is right there in the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN AND OF CHILDREN, the us being a signatory of it. These declarations are guided by CLEAR AND RATIONAL PRINCIPLES that the majority of human kind discern and assert.

 

[numinus]

I understand this just fine.

uhm... Hawking's radiation suffices all this, as it allows for entropy.

It sure is. if Planck Constant = a and Dirac's Constant = b, a > b... prove me otherwise. not that it matters, I was referring to the actual value not the relational equality thereof.
While GR and SR allow for area=0, no one like that and everyone knows its somewhat of a give to actually say it's 0 area, Quantum physics does NOT allow for 0 area, which since all matter is compressed to within a plancks length of each other (which is when quantum mechanics comes into a definite full effect) GR and SR really don't count in there, since it all breaks down anyhow ...

Energy does... quantum physics is a far cry from GR however....

Like.... You're actually pretty intelligent!... yeh I agree, absurd.

you try to play this card, where you think everyone backs up your argument, when ANYONE who does a little looking will see that it's all a farce... sure on PAPER infinite density does come up, but alas, that requires them to fudge a bit and give a singularity a null area, which is very problematic when it comes to quantum physics....since nullspace cannot exist. It's easy to see that it's paper description and what is really going on is sort of, well, unknown.




and well they do, everytime I read one of your posts I see a quaint little trailer, with one of those singing billy catfishes on the mantle over the electric wall heater hearth...


yeah , science is quack if it doesn't support god, go ahead and say it. it's not that I'm quoting any quacks here, it's that you're just quoting the go to guys incorrectly.

If you cannot even comprehend EQUALITY in the conversion of PHYSICAL QUANTITIES - a subject matter amply covered in GRADE SCHOOL, how the hell can you hope to understand ANYTHING, eh?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Why would I give scientific evidence for something that is not scientific, hmmm?
When you speak of HUMAN RIGHT - you are not talking of science but jurisprudence, no? There are countless precedents in jurisprudence to support my opinions.
Because it is right there in the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN AND OF CHILDREN, the us being a signatory of it. These declarations are guided by CLEAR AND RATIONAL PRINCIPLES that the majority of human kind discern and assert.

People wrote it, people can rewrite it. Anything written by people will have flaws that need to be fixed as our base of knowledge grows. You are arguing for a discrimantory status quo, a few centuries ago you would have been using human written documents to prove that women didn't have souls. You are using old documents and ideas to perpetuate discrimination and bigotry because YOU LIKE IT, it appeals to weaknesses in you, you are not yet willing to extend to all others the rights and privileges that you guard so fearfully. It's fear, pure and simple.

At one time jurisprudence declared that black people were not really human and could be bought and sold, that women could not own property, that women could not vote, do you still support all of those things? Why is it that people like you have to dragged kicking and screaming into the present--is the past so safe and comforting? It's fear, pure and simple.

 

[numinus]

People wrote it, people can rewrite it. Anything written by people will have flaws that need to be fixed as our base of knowledge grows. You are arguing for a discrimantory status quo, a few centuries ago you would have been using human written documents to prove that women didn't have souls. You are using old documents and ideas to perpetuate discrimination and bigotry because YOU LIKE IT, it appeals to weaknesses in you, you are not yet willing to extend to all others the rights and privileges that you guard so fearfully. It's fear, pure and simple.

The udhr is an integral part of us foreign policy. It is binding not only because it is adopted by a lot of nations, but also by the SELF-EVIDENCE OF THE PRINCIPLES which it DECLARES.

You are seriously miscomprehending the points I am raising. Privacy laws already cover the choices you make - including homosexuality. What you are suggesting is for the state to attach a legal impetus to a particular choice. This is quite different with the right of motherhood because only in the exercise of this right would create ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. And when there is another human being incapable of defending himself that is the subject of a choice, then the state is obliged to protect the interests of that human being.

At one time jurisprudence declared that black people were not really human and could be bought and sold, that women could not own property, that women could not vote, do you still support all of those things? Why is it that people like you have to dragged kicking and screaming into the present--is the past so safe and comforting? It's fear, pure and simple.

The udhr is not a thing of the past. Nor is a present social innovation necessarily good. What any change in the law boils down to is a declaration of some CLEAR AND RATIONAL PRINCIPLE. So, a man may cohabit with as many women as he feels, (pending mutual consent, of course), but there is absolutely no reason for the state to recognize each and everyone of these women as his legal wife.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The udhr is an integral part of us foreign policy. It is binding not only because it is adopted by a lot of nations, but also by the SELF-EVIDENCE OF THE PRINCIPLES which it DECLARES.

You are seriously miscomprehending the points I am raising. Privacy laws already cover the choices you make - including homosexuality. What you are suggesting is for the state to attach a legal impetus to a particular choice. This is quite different with the right of motherhood because only in the exercise of this right would create ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. And when there is another human being incapable of defending himself that is the subject of a choice, then the state is obliged to protect the interests of that human being.
The udhr is not a thing of the past. Nor is a present social innovation necessarily good. What any change in the law boils down to is a declaration of some CLEAR AND RATIONAL PRINCIPLE. So, a man may cohabit with as many women as he feels, (pending mutual consent, of course), but there is absolutely no reason for the state to recognize each and everyone of these women as his legal wife.

Utter twaddle! At one time it was considered a clear and rational principle to burn witches, beat wives, burn animals for sacrifices, and enslave people.

Heterosexuality already has government attached legal impetus, this is a decision by the heterosexual majority only and not some immutable law of the Universe as you are presenting it. You are good at promoting your bigotry and defending the indefesible, as I said before if you were living a few hundred years ago you'd be using the same techniques to argue that women don't have souls. People have been doing what YOU are doing forever, trying to make their own prejudices into God's Will or inviolate laws of nature. I have listened to people saying the same drivel you are putting out but they were arguing against interracial marriage and desegregation.

The idea that there is something special or magical in the heterosexual pattern of marriage and child rearing is a myth--even though it's one you cling too and are trying to promote. People like yourself who are so wedded to the gender binary are causing a huge amount of suffering by denying the scientific truths that are available to human beings today. Your idea in the first paragraph that only babies in heterosexual families need and deserve legal protection is disgusting. Why not all families? Why not all people? So far all the arguments you've presented are based on what people used to do, what people used to know, and on religious traditions that have no basis.

 

[numinus]

Utter twaddle! At one time it was considered a clear and rational principle to burn witches, beat wives, burn animals for sacrifices, and enslave people.

There is nothing rational, nor principle-driven with burning witches, beating wives, and enslaving people. However, the udhr is both rational and principled. And if you wish to refute this, then, by all means, demonstrate where it lacks rationality. Witches and slavery has NOTHING, WHATSOEVER, to do with the udhr.

Heterosexuality already has government attached legal impetus, this is a decision by the heterosexual majority only and not some immutable law of the Universe as you are presenting it.

Is there any other way to create another human person that you know of, hmmm?

You are good at promoting your bigotry and defending the indefesible, as I said before if you were living a few hundred years ago you'd be using the same techniques to argue that women don't have souls.

What have I promoted that is bigoted or indefensible, hmmm?

That procreation is an imperative of ANY specie?

That human procreation can only come from the natural and inherent fecundity of BOTH SEXES?

That procreation itself creates the necessary conditions within which human offsprings should grow?

That the procreative process and the necessary conditions by which it must take place is part of the integrity of creation?

People have been doing what YOU are doing forever, trying to make their own prejudices into God's Will or inviolate laws of nature. I have listened to people saying the same drivel you are putting out but they were arguing against interracial marriage and desegregation.

If one were to consider homosexuality as a moral good, then one must necessarily view it as the situation wherein EVERYONE must exist. That IS the definition of a moral good.

The idea that there is something special or magical in the heterosexual pattern of marriage and child rearing is a myth--even though it's one you cling too and are trying to promote. People like yourself who are so wedded to the gender binary are causing a huge amount of suffering by denying the scientific truths that are available to human beings today. Your idea in the first paragraph that only babies in heterosexual families need and deserve legal protection is disgusting. Why not all families? Why not all people? So far all the arguments you've presented are based on what people used to do, what people used to know, and on religious traditions that have no basis.

You want truth to destroy myths, eh?

NO PROCREATION IS POSSIBLE WITHIN A HOMOSEXUAL UNION.

Truth enough for you?

 

[vyo476]

Numinus, here's the bottom line:

Why must marriage be about this right to motherhood and the production of children?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Numinus, if you don't mind me asking -- what's your profession?

 

[icono1]

Homosexuality has always and will always be a part of the human condition. Some societies accept this and deal with it in an accepting and humane manner while other societies reject homosexuality for a variety of reasons and attempt to eliminate the appearance of or reference to such behaviour in their society often without much success.

 

[numinus]

Numinus, here's the bottom line:

Why must marriage be about this right to motherhood and the production of children?

Because the state has an obvious interest in protecting the rights and welfare of children and the family relations consequent to their existence. And since ONLY heterosexual unions produce children, logic dictates that such unions must be governed by the law.

 

[numinus]

Numinus, if you don't mind me asking -- what's your profession?

Not at all. I am a geodetic engineer by education and profession - which includes small scale land surveys to geomatics for large infrastructure projects (roads, dams, bridges, etc.).

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

There is nothing rational, nor principle-driven with burning witches, beating wives, and enslaving people. However, the udhr is both rational and principled. And if you wish to refute this, then, by all means, demonstrate where it lacks rationality. Witches and slavery has NOTHING, WHATSOEVER, to do with the udhr.

Yes, they do, they are fueled by the same kind of thinking. One group of people using their ideas and morals to prescribe for everyone else. Just because YOU say that there is nothing rational or principle-driven in the burning of witches, etc. doesn't mean that what you say is true for others. How can you speak for all people in all times?

Is there any other way to create another human person that you know of, hmmm?

What has that got to do with it? You act like giving everyone the same rights will cause sterility in all heteorsexual people. Try to be rational here, please.

What have I promoted that is bigoted or indefensible, hmmm?

You keep writing in opposition to gay people having equal rights--which is both bigoted and indefensible (as evidenced by these pitiful excuses for arguments that you are posting).

That procreation is an imperative of ANY specie?

That human procreation can only come from the natural and inherent fecundity of BOTH SEXES?

That procreation itself creates the necessary conditions within which human offsprings should grow?

That the procreative process and the necessary conditions by which it must take place is part of the integrity of creation?

The "integrity of creation"? This is an argument? None of the stuff in this last group has anything to do with equal rights for gay people. None of these things will be impacted by equal rights. Your fear overwhelms your intellect.

If one were to consider homosexuality as a moral good, then one must necessarily view it as the situation wherein EVERYONE must exist. That IS the definition of a moral good.

Why do you demand a one-size-fits-all world? Don't consider homosexuality or heterosexuality a "moral good", stop passing judgment. It isn't necessary for us to pass judgment on others, Num, and then punish the ones that don't match our high moral standards. Your definition of a "moral good" is just that: YOUR definition, lots of other people have their own definitions which are just as valid as yours.

You want truth to destroy myths, eh?
NO PROCREATION IS POSSIBLE WITHIN A HOMOSEXUAL UNION.
Truth enough for you?

So what? You keep posting that idea as if it had some relevance to the discussion. What relevance?