Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Only a ***** would mistake my posts to be of a 'religious perspective'.

And for the benefit of the low-brows still vainly struggling in this thread, the information provided above represents the BASIS OF ANY MARITAL INSTITUTION. It provides the clear and logical IMPETUS for the legal recognition of marriage and family relations by the state.

And so, to uphold the rights of the human person stated above, any contemplation of marriage NECESSARILY involves the union of MAN AND WOMAN.

Your arguments are circular and baseless, Num, come on, you keep appealing to "universal" laws and concepts that don't exist. Just because you put words like "necessarily" in bold and underline them doesn't give them any special authority. You are arguing for religious dogma, but you are trying to disguise it with fluff. It makes me suspect that you don't know anymore about modern biological research than you do about modern physics.

 

[numinus]

Your arguments are circular and baseless, Num, come on, you keep appealing to "universal" laws and concepts that don't exist. Just because you put words like "necessarily" in bold and underline them doesn't give them any special authority.

They are UN documents ratified in its GENERAL ASSEMBLY. It OBLIGATES the signatories to these principles. You do not consider the association of the nations of the world authoritative?

You wanted a basis for my arguments that does not involve philosophy - there it is, as requested. So, do everyone a favor and put up a rational argument or shut up.

You are arguing for religious dogma, but you are trying to disguise it with fluff. It makes me suspect that you don't know anymore about modern biological research than you do about modern physics.

Where have I used religious dogma in my arguments, eh? Or are you naturally inclined to attribute whatever you wish on other people?

And if you are going to question my competence on physics with some nebulous concept of 'foam' (which you are unable to discuss with any academic depth in the first place), then you are in for a very rude awakening.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

They are UN documents ratified in its GENERAL ASSEMBLY. It OBLIGATES the signatories to these principles. You do not consider the association of the nations of the world authoritative?
You wanted a basis for my arguments that does not involve philosophy - there it is, as requested. So, do everyone a favor and put up a rational argument or shut up.Where have I used religious dogma in my arguments, eh? Or are you naturally inclined to attribute whatever you wish on other people?
And if you are going to question my competence on physics with some nebulous concept of 'foam' (which you are unable to discuss with any academic depth in the first place), then you are in for a very rude awakening.

Your interpretation of documents written by other people don't carry much weight--even if you underline and bold some of the words. So far you've only used YOUR interpetation of things other people wrote to support your call for legal discrimination. None of these things has any authority anymore than US laws that allowed slavery or German laws that allowed Jews to be stuffed in ovens. You are using the same tired justifications that other bigots have used to promote their own personal brand of hate. It's just fluff, no substance.

Signing a document does not mean anything to governments, the US government abrogate every single treaty they signed with the indigenous peoples. The US ignores any UN declaration that it doesn't like.

 

[numinus]

Your interpretation of documents written by other people don't carry much weight--even if you underline and bold some of the words. So far you've only used YOUR interpetation of things other people wrote to support your call for legal discrimination. None of these things has any authority anymore than US laws that allowed slavery or German laws that allowed Jews to be stuffed in ovens. You are using the same tired justifications that other bigots have used to promote their own personal brand of hate. It's just fluff, no substance.

It appears you are at the limits of your intellectual abilities. No further argument is required.

Signing a document does not mean anything to governments, the US government abrogate every single treaty they signed with the indigenous peoples. The US ignores any UN declaration that it doesn't like.

But it does to RATIONAL people affected by the laws of thier government. The un has arbitration powers to, fyi.

And just because the us does not conform with all its commitments is no reason to start making irrational laws.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It appears you are at the limits of your intellectual abilities. No further argument is required. But it does to RATIONAL people affected by the laws of thier government. The un has arbitration powers to, fyi. And just because the us does not conform with all its commitments is no
reason to start making irrational laws.

In the end, all of your bolded and underlined words, all the names you call me, all of your denigrating remarks cannot obscure the very simple fact that like all the tyrants and despots and bigots in human history YOU are attempting to claim for yourself rights and privileges that you would deny to others. You can call it God's Will or rational thinking or any other silly obfuscatory term, but the end result is the same: your sophisty is an attempt to promote legal discrimination based on bigotry.

For all my failings and all my weaknesses, I am not trying to deny rights and privileges to others that I claim for my own.

 

[numinus]

In the end, all of your bolded and underlined words, all the names you call me, all of your denigrating remarks cannot obscure the very simple fact that like all the tyrants and despots and bigots in human history YOU are attempting to claim for yourself rights and privileges that you would deny to others. You can call it God's Will or rational thinking or any other silly obfuscatory term, but the end result is the same: your sophisty is an attempt to promote legal discrimination based on bigotry.

For all my failings and all my weaknesses, I am not trying to deny rights and privileges to others that I claim for my own.

Yes. You are claiming additional rights to a group of people. That is just as bad as denying certain rights to certain people.

So, you need to give paid maternity leaves for homosexual men while they go about adopting children, which is their right to do in the first place. Besides, only homosexuals have rights - never mind the rights of the child. Studies show they are better parents anyway. And since they are in fact, mothers, then his partner may claim tax deductions for staying at home as a dependent. And just by staying at home, he gets equal rights over the marital assets. He is, after all, a spouse.

All this, which the state is obliged to enforce.

Brilliant!

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Yes. You are claiming additional rights to a group of people. That is just as bad as denying certain rights to certain people.

So, you need to give paid maternity leaves for homosexual men while they go about adopting children, which is their right to do in the first place. Besides, only homosexuals have rights - never mind the rights of the child. Studies show they are better parents anyway. And since they are in fact, mothers, then his partner may claim tax deductions for staying at home as a dependent. And just by staying at home, he gets equal rights over the marital assets. He is, after all, a spouse.

All this, which the state is obliged to enforce.
Brilliant!

Equal rights means equal rights. Why do you have such a hard-on for gay men? Why shouldn't they have equal rights? If they are raising a family, then their family should have the same legal rights and protections that YOU enjoy and accept for YOUR family. If not, why is the Num family special and deserves special rights?

I'm glad you realize that homosexuals make good parents (see bolded quote above), but studies have shown that there are NO substantive differences between children raised in homo or hetero families.

You are claiming rights and privileges for yourself that you would legally deny to other consenting adults and that abrogates the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law. Any way you slice it, Num, you are arguing for discrimination against people YOU personally don't like: gay men, and you always skip over lesbians (my guess is that you are just another homophobic American male who finds lesbian sex erotic).

You are acting like member of the KKK arguing against civil rights, and you have just exactly the same arguments that they had. It's bigotry, whether racial or religious.

 

[9sublime]

Just because you put words like "necessarily" in bold and underline them doesn't give them any special authority.

Couldn't agree more. Neccessary only makes sense in an analytic statement, and so doesn't really correspond with your ideas of universal laws

 

[numinus]

Equal rights means equal rights. Why do you have such a hard-on for gay men? Why shouldn't they have equal rights? If they are raising a family, then their family should have the same legal rights and protections that YOU enjoy and accept for YOUR family. If not, why is the Num family special and deserves special rights?

This is unbelievable ignorance. I am not at all impressed with your 'equal rights' rhetoric since it is simply absurd.

Do you wish to apply the rights of a child to an adult? Or the rights of a mother to a man? Apparently, you do.

People are NOT equal in the literal sense of the word. Some will have qualities beyond others. Clearly, gender constitutes a fundamental difference. And if you are naive enough to ask how such a difference can be reconciled with the notion of equality - equality arises from the fact that an individual holds NO POWER over his neighbor that the said neighbor doesn't hold over him.

This is explicit in the social contract theory - the basis of the representative democracy that the us government is. So rather than mouth equality in a rhetorical vein, it might do you some good to actually learn about it.

I'm glad you realize that homosexuals make good parents (see bolded quote above), but studies have shown that there are NO substantive differences between children raised in homo or hetero families.

LMAO. It is called IRONY - a figure of speech. It means exactly the opposite of what it says.

I'll leave it to pale to answer this. He gives very compelling evidence that contradicts this.

You are claiming rights and privileges for yourself that you would legally deny to other consenting adults and that abrogates the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law. Any way you slice it, Num, you are arguing for discrimination against people YOU personally don't like: gay men, and you always skip over lesbians (my guess is that you are just another homophobic American male who finds lesbian sex erotic).

Have I denied anything to homosexuals? Are they not free to marry anyone of the opposite sex and found a family from such a union? Is it my fault that `100% of homosexual unions will not produce children within that union - hence NO NEED to legislate it?

You are acting like member of the KKK arguing against civil rights, and you have just exactly the same arguments that they had. It's bigotry, whether racial or religious.

I have already demonstrated how YOU are a bigot. I, on the other hand, am being accused of bigotry for saying that men are men and women are women and children are the result of the union between a man and a woman?

As if your ignorant and totally irrational arguments are not glaring enough, you can't even be expected to know the formal meaning of the words you are using.

LMAO.

 

[numinus]

Couldn't agree more. Neccessary only makes sense in an analytic statement, and so doesn't really correspond with your ideas of universal laws

You do not consider the sexual function of opposite genders as a NECESSARY condition for reproduction? Have you ever seen a couple concieve by humping one's behind, or exclusively oral sex?

If you are inclined to form opinions not based on facts and logic, you might as well save yourself an unnecessary humiliation and just shut up.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

This is unbelievable ignorance. I am not at all impressed with your 'equal rights' rhetoric since it is simply absurd.
Do you wish to apply the rights of a child to an adult? Or the rights of a mother to a man? Apparently, you do.

Nope, you are just dragging in a lot of extaneous stuff to cloud the issue. I am, and have been, discussing the legal rights of consenting adults under the US Constitution and in US Law. The divisions you are making are irrelevant.

People are NOT equal in the literal sense of the word. Some will have qualities beyond others. Clearly, gender constitutes a fundamental difference. And if you are naive enough to ask how such a difference can be reconciled with the notion of equality - equality arises from the fact that an individual holds NO POWER over his neighbor that the said neighbor doesn't hold over him.

Equality also springs from equal footing before the law and your arguments are the same ones used to deny women equal rights. Women were not men, therefore they should not have the same rights as men. Gender is irrelevant in the issue that we are addressing. Any two consenting adults forming a family should have the same rights as all other consenting adults forming a family, this goes as far as practical to insure the protection of children. Any parents--gay or straight--who abuse children will be dealt with according to the laws governing that abuse. Deciding ahead of time that a person is not fit to form a family is not within the purview or abilities of our culture or legal system.

This is explicit in the social contract theory - the basis of the representative democracy that the us government is. So rather than mouth equality in a rhetorical vein, it might do you some good to actually learn about it.

Your definitions and bland statements are useless without something to back them up--it's just the infallible Num speaking ex cathedra from his bellybutton.

LMAO. It is called IRONY - a figure of speech. It means exactly the opposite of what it says. I'll leave it to pale to answer this. He gives very compelling evidence that contradicts this.

Well, by God! That terrifies me, but I'm glad you have someone to make your arguments for you.

Have I denied anything to homosexuals? Are they not free to marry anyone of the opposite sex and found a family from such a union? Is it my fault that `100% of homosexual unions will not produce children within that union - hence NO NEED to legislate it?

Try to think up a rational argument, Num, this is the same tired sophistry that was used by people like you to argue against interracial marriage. It's ridiculous.

I have already demonstrated how YOU are a bigot. I, on the other hand, am being accused of bigotry for saying that men are men and women are women and children are the result of the union between a man and a woman?

If you think that you have demonstrated that I am a bigot, then I'm happy for you to enjoy your fantasies since you're losing the real argument.

As if your ignorant and totally irrational arguments are not glaring enough, you can't even be expected to know the formal meaning of the words you are using.

It's probably a meaningless accusation to deflect attention from your sad showing unless you can provide examples.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You do not consider the sexual function of opposite genders as a NECESSARY condition for reproduction? Have you ever seen a couple concieve by humping one's behind, or exclusively oral sex?

If you are inclined to form opinions not based on facts and logic, you might as well save yourself an unnecessary humiliation and just shut up.

Nice way to talk to Sublime, what a mouth you have. Marriage isn't just about fornication, fecundity, and progeny or else it would be illegal for people past child-bearing age to marry and sterile people would be banned from marriage as well. There would also have to a clause in the marriage contract that ended the marriage if children were not produced within a specified length of time. You are using this silly argument because there isn't any REAL argument against all consenting adults being able to marry and share in all the rights and privileges that you claim for yourself.

You are arguing against the US Constitution. How rational is that?

 

[numinus]

Nice way to talk to Sublime, what a mouth you have. Marriage isn't just about fornication, fecundity, and progeny or else it would be illegal for people past child-bearing age to marry and sterile people would be banned from marriage as well.

Tell me, is that age the same for everyone, hmmm?

Isn't impotence precisely a ground for voiding (and not merely dissolving) a marriage, hmmm?

And is there any particular case when a homosexual act produced a child, hmmm?

There would also have to a clause in the marriage contract that ended the marriage if children were not produced within a specified length of time.

No. Part of motherhood is the determination WHEN to produce a child. It is inalienable right of the mother as well. And everytime a woman have sex, the possibility of getting pregnant, and becoming a mother, IS PRESENT. The state cannot impose a time limit to this choice because it is tantamount to denying the right.

You have the temerity to pretend knowledge on biology when you are not even aware of simple reproductive health?

You are using this silly argument because there isn't any REAL argument against all consenting adults being able to marry and share in all the rights and privileges that you claim for yourself.

THERE ARE NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES ACCORDED TO HETEROSEXUAL MARRIED COUPLES THAT DOES NOT ARISE FROM THE RIGHT TO MOTHERHOOD AND THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN.

You are arguing against the US Constitution. How rational is that?

And you are arguing against LOGIC itself.

 

[numinus]

Nope, you are just dragging in a lot of extaneous stuff to cloud the issue. I am, and have been, discussing the legal rights of consenting adults under the US Constitution and in US Law. The divisions you are making are irrelevant.

They are relevant inasmuch as the state is obliged to accord motherhood and children special protection.

What foolish nonsense you are posting!

Equality also springs from equal footing before the law and your arguments are the same ones used to deny women equal rights. Women were not men, therefore they should not have the same rights as men.

Women have more rights, truth be told. And those rights come from the right of motherhood. Notice how custody of children, especially under a certain age, almost always go to the mother in divorce? Why do you suppose is that, eh?

Gender is irrelevant in the issue that we are addressing. Any two consenting adults forming a family should have the same rights as all other consenting adults forming a family, this goes as far as practical to insure the protection of children.

It is relevant when the right in question is intimately joined to their biological functions. Otherwise, a marriage is simply a contract between two consenting adults.

Now, how does any other contract, outside marriage, bind children who did not consent to such a contract, eh?

Tell me, are you for the legalization of prostitution and the organ trade as well?

Any parents--gay or straight--who abuse children will be dealt with according to the laws governing that abuse.

Correct. Child abuse constitutes a CLEAR incapacity to perform the responsibilities consequent to the right of motherhood. That is a situation when motherhood is defeasible.

Deciding ahead of time that a person is not fit to form a family is not within the purview or abilities of our culture or legal system.

Correct. However, a child has the right to be cared for by his natural mother.

Your definitions and bland statements are useless without something to back them up--it's just the infallible Num speaking ex cathedra from his bellybutton.

You deem the universal declaration of human rights and the rights of women and children useless?

You have NOT given a single basis for your argument - except a hopelessly defective definition of equality. No jurisprudence, nor political theory can give validity to your definition, btw.

Well, by God! That terrifies me, but I'm glad you have someone to make your arguments for you.

Not as terrifying as the IGNORANT nonsense you are posting here.

Try to think up a rational argument, Num, this is the same tired sophistry that was used by people like you to argue against interracial marriage. It's ridiculous.

From your posts, it is ludicrous to assume you are capable of rational thought yourself. Which makes it doubly hilarious how you can ask for a rational argument.

I don't give a rat's ass what you imagine my arguments are similar to. My argument are there for you to refute, if you can.

If you think that you have demonstrated that I am a bigot, then I'm happy for you to enjoy your fantasies since you're losing the real argument.

LMAO.

You haven't refuted any of my arguments, nor have you provided any basis for yours. Pretend all you want.

It's probably a meaningless accusation to deflect attention from your sad showing unless you can provide examples.

Your ignorant or conscious misrepresentation of words and meanings is a systematic defect found in all your arguments. Meaningless is exactly the word to describe such systematic error.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nums,
See my post (#66) on the "...end times" thread.
Mare