Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[Mare Tranquillity]

The udhr states that the family is the NATURAL AND FUNDAMENTAL GROUP UNIT OF SOCIETY.

In what form of nonsense logic do you suppose this definition includes gay unions, hmmm?

Why wouldn't it include gay unions since many of them are raising children. If you are using children as the yardstick, then what about the heterosexual unions that do not have children? You are using the wording to exclude people you don't like--a very religious practice that has worked well for bigots, racists, homophobes, misogynists, and the like for many centuries.

Again, all WOMEN has a right to motherhood. That is exclusive enough to the female gender -- with or without whatever 'religious' interpretation you imagine I'm making.

Of course, when you say that gay men have a right to motherhood, you are actually asserting something that is not only contrary to the udhr, it also serves to destroy this particular right.

Nothing in expanding the right of motherhood to all who are involved in "mothering" damages any woman's right to motherhood. It isn't like there is only a certain amount of motherhood to go around and it has to be saved for the "real" mothers.

A country's set of laws are NOT the basis of its culture.

I didn't say they were, I was quoting from the founding documents of our country, those documents ARE the basis of our cultural perspective.

That is correct. Everyone has a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. What you don't have a right to is compel the state to legislate whatever it is that makes you happy.

No one is trying to compel the State to legislate what makes us happy, we are trying to get the Federal and State governments to simply prevent the majority from continuing to deny us equality. There is no rational reason for homosexual people to be treated any differently than heterosexuals under the law, consenting adults should be able to marry other consenting adults

It means your facts and logic are chemically-induced.

Well, there's another of your ideas shot to Hell, I don't take hormone shots. You should do a bit more research, these dumb ideas make you look like the north end of something south-bound.

 

[numinus]

Why wouldn't it include gay unions since many of them are raising children. If you are using children as the yardstick, then what about the heterosexual unions that do not have children? You are using the wording to exclude people you don't like--a very religious practice that has worked well for bigots, racists, homophobes, misogynists, and the like for many centuries.

I am not interpreting anything on religious grounds.

Tell me, what human society considers gay unions as 'a natural and fundamental group unit of society'?

Nothing in expanding the right of motherhood to all who are involved in "mothering" damages any woman's right to motherhood. It isn't like there is only a certain amount of motherhood to go around and it has to be saved for the "real" mothers.

What???

Motherhood is an INALIENABLE RIGHT. It is not conferred by the state -- especially to men, homosexual or otherwise. Nor is it conferred simply by obtaining a marriage contract. It is the natural function of a WOMAN'S FECUNDITY.

Conferring this right by positive law to gay men is absurd and prejudicial to straight men. After all, what does your sexual preference have to do with motherhood?

And if all men and women have a right to motherhood, hence requiring special assistance by the state, then it renders the concept of motherhood, family and most of the rights of children MOOT.

I didn't say they were, I was quoting from the founding documents of our country, those documents ARE the basis of our cultural perspective.

Of course you did say such absurd things.

It is your right to live according to your own culture. The state does not compel you to live according to any specific culture. Notice how ethnicity isn't a hindrance to citizenship in the us -- unlike say, germany or japan?

No one is trying to compel the State to legislate what makes us happy, we are trying to get the Federal and State governments to simply prevent the majority from continuing to deny us equality. There is no rational reason for homosexual people to be treated any differently than heterosexuals under the law, consenting adults should be able to marry other consenting adults

Nonsense.

The special privileges legally accorded to married couples are based on the statements of the udhr and crc -- motherhood, natural group unit of society, etc.

None of these are applicable to gays or gay unions. And yet you are asking for these special privileges on the grounds of your absurd idea of equality -- which brings you to the equally absurd conclusion that men have an inalienable right to motherhood.

DuH?

Well, there's another of your ideas shot to Hell, I don't take hormone shots. You should do a bit more research, these dumb ideas make you look like the north end of something south-bound.

You're the one who consented to having a vagina sewed on to where your penis used to be and I'm the one with dumb ideas, eh?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Tell me, what human society considers gay unions as 'a natural and fundamental group unit of society'?

Spain, Belgium, Canada, Sweden, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont. Traditionally, most indigenous societies have been accepting of gay and transgendered members. And same sex unions have been historically accepted in Japan, in China under the Yuan and Ming dynasties, Native American tribes in North and South America, South-East Asia, Russian, other parts of Asia, and by the Catholic Church in times gone by.

Motherhood is an INALIENABLE RIGHT. It is not conferred by the state -- especially to men, homosexual or otherwise. Nor is it conferred simply by obtaining a marriage contract. It is the natural function of a WOMAN'S FECUNDITY.

So, by your own admission, any woman who is sterile can not express her "motherhood" because she is not fecund.

Conferring this right by positive law to gay men is absurd and prejudicial to straight men. After all, what does your sexual preference have to do with motherhood?

And if all men and women have a right to motherhood, hence requiring special assistance by the state, then it renders the concept of motherhood, family and most of the rights of children MOOT.

Here we have the crux of the matter, I think. You are worried about money.

Of course you did say such absurd things.

Give us a quote, Nums, or admit that you are bullsh1pping.

The special privileges legally accorded to married couples are based on the statements of the udhr and crc -- motherhood, natural group unit of society, etc.

So the inalienable right to motherhood didn't exist until the UDHR and CRC were written? I don't think so, many cultures who weren't as worried about money as you appear to be accorded the acceptance of motherhood to anyone who "mothered". You simple attempts to make "motherhood" exclusive to only fertile women is ridiculous.

None of these are applicable to gays or gay unions. And yet you are asking for these special privileges on the grounds of your absurd idea of equality -- which brings you to the equally absurd conclusion that men have an inalienable right to motherhood.

Anyone who "mothers" has the right to motherhood, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, or whatever.

You're the one who consented to having a vagina sewed on to where your penis used to be and I'm the one with dumb ideas, eh?

You really should study up a bit more, first you get the hormone shots wrong and now this... biological-educationally you appear to be one of the deadend boys.

Now that science has realized that there is no way to define "male" or "female" with scientific certainty, now that the Olympics no longer bothers to try to determine gender, it would seem that perhaps we should move out of the sexual bigotry dark ages and begin treating people according to who they are and what they do, rather than mindlessly focusing only on visible genitalia and the idiotic pigeon-holing of traditional gender roles.

In a previous post you said, "And you have NOT given any evidence for me to look at." Now this was said by you despite the fact that I have posted a website with presentation by a doctor and researcher from Texas, I gave you the title and author of a book about animal sexuality compiled from the work of hundreds of researchers over many years time, and finally I have presented the book THE FEMALE BRAIN by Louanne Brizendine, a doctor and researcher whose book is a compendium of her life's work and the works of many others. In the back of her book she gives more than 50 pages, single spaced, references from journals like NATURE, NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY, NEUROSCIENCE, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY, JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC PRACTICE, SCIENCE, NATIONAL REVIEW OF NEUROSCIENCE, BEHAVIORAL NEUROSCIENCE, and many more. More than 1000 papers are cited in support and explanation of her findings.

BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE by Bruce Bagemihl (which you characterized as a gay self-help book) cites hundreds of research papers from such obvious gay-front journals as JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE PSYCHOLOGY, PROCEEDINGS OF THE WORLD LAGOMORPH CONFERENCE, APPLIED ANIMAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL BEHAVIOR MONOGRAPHS, BIOLOGY OF REPRODUCTION, JOURNAL OF THE FACULTY OF SCIENCE, APPLIED ANIMAL ETHOLOGY, PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY, to name a few.

But of course none of that will be good enough for you.

 

[numinus]

Spain, Belgium, Canada, Sweden, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont. Traditionally, most indigenous societies have been accepting of gay and transgendered members. And same sex unions have been historically accepted in Japan, in China under the Yuan and Ming dynasties, Native American tribes in North and South America, South-East Asia, Russian, other parts of Asia, and by the Catholic Church in times gone by.

Good god!

They may permit gay marriages but that IS NOT, IN ANY WAY, MEANT TO BE THE NATURAL AND FUNDAMENTAL GROUP UNIT OF SOCIETY.

Again, what part of 'natural' don't you understand, hmmm?

So, by your own admission, any woman who is sterile can not express her "motherhood" because she is not fecund.

Of course she can express it. It is not a right, though.

Here we have the crux of the matter, I think. You are worried about money.

Partly. In general, anything that is prejudicial for a woman to exercise her right to motherhood.

Give us a quote, Nums, or admit that you are bullsh1pping.

You want me to quote you back to you, eh?

So the inalienable right to motherhood didn't exist until the UDHR and CRC were written? ...blah blah blah

Are you even aware of how stupid your argument has degenerated into?

An inalienable right is INDEPENDENT OF POSITIVE LAW. You don't need a document like the udhr or crc for inalienable rights to exist.

Prior to the udhr, people may have argued that the biological mother's right is defeasible by the rights of the person who reared the child, or even the state itself.

Not any more.

Now, if you are suggesting that the state of human affairs prior to the udhr is somehow conducive to gay marriages, then by all means, remove yourself (and your gay friends with you) from civilized society and go where the udhr isn't recognized, and fashion therein, as many absurd laws as your stomach can bear.

Anyone who "mothers" has the right to motherhood, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, or whatever.

At no point in time did anyone have a right to 'mother' someone else's child -- especially if you are a man to begin with.

Duh?

You really should study up a bit more, first you get the hormone shots wrong and now this... biological-educationally you appear to be one of the deadend boys.

Now that science has realized that there is no way to define "male" or "female" with scientific certainty, ...blah blah blah...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex

Humans and other mammals have an XY sex determination system: the Y chromosome carries factors responsible for triggering male development. The default sex, in the absence of a Y chromosome, is female. Thus, XX mammals are female and XY are male. XY sex determination is found in other organisms, including the common fruit fly and some plants.[19] In some cases, including in the fruit fly, it is the number of X chromosomes that determines sex rather than the presence of a Y chromosome.

Is that scientifically certain enough for you?

In a previous post you said, "And you have NOT given any evidence for me to look at." Now this was said by you despite the fact that I have posted a website with presentation by a doctor and researcher from Texas,

No. You gave a news article about genetic influences on human behavior.

I gave you the title and author of a book about animal sexuality compiled from the work of hundreds of researchers over many years time,

That you did.

What you did not give is any text in that book that somehow supports your claims.

and finally I have presented the book THE FEMALE BRAIN by Louanne Brizendine, a doctor and researcher whose book is a compendium of her life's work and the works of many others. In the back of her book she gives more than 50 pages, single spaced, references from journals like NATURE, NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY, NEUROSCIENCE, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY, JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC PRACTICE, SCIENCE, NATIONAL REVIEW OF NEUROSCIENCE, BEHAVIORAL NEUROSCIENCE, and many more. More than 1000 papers are cited in support and explanation of her findings.

BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE by Bruce Bagemihl (which you characterized as a gay self-help book) cites hundreds of research papers from such obvious gay-front journals as JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE PSYCHOLOGY, PROCEEDINGS OF THE WORLD LAGOMORPH CONFERENCE, APPLIED ANIMAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL BEHAVIOR MONOGRAPHS, BIOLOGY OF REPRODUCTION, JOURNAL OF THE FACULTY OF SCIENCE, APPLIED ANIMAL ETHOLOGY, PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY, to name a few.

But of course none of that will be good enough for you.

Then post the links to those references that have identified the gay gene (or group of genes).

I simply have no inclination reading the books you are infatuated with. Frankly, this is getting quite old.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Good god!

They may permit gay marriages but that IS NOT, IN ANY WAY, MEANT TO BE THE NATURAL AND FUNDAMENTAL GROUP UNIT OF SOCIETY.

Please give us a link giving YOU the right to tell us what all the people in those countries and States meant when they decided to allow gay people to marry.

If you haven't read BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE then you have no idea what is "natural". Arguing without knowledge emphasizes your "north-end" appearance.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Again, what part of 'natural' don't you understand, hmmm?

Please define "natural" in scientific terms and give your sources.

Partly. In general, anything that is prejudicial for a woman to exercise her right to motherhood.

You have not yet established that gay marriage will be "prejudicial" in any way when it comes to the exercise of the right to motherhood. Please support your position with something other than your own invincible ignorance. How about some scientific journal citations like you always ask me to provide?

You want me to quote you back to you, eh?

Or admit that you're lying, either way is okay with me.

Are you even aware of how stupid your argument has degenerated into?

If it has, then you are at least partly responsible since my question to you was based on your quote (below)
"The special privileges legally accorded to married couples are based on the statements of the udhr and crc -- motherhood, natural group unit of society, etc."
If the "special privileges..." are BASED on the UDHR and CRC, then how could they have existed before the documents were written? You continually use these documents to shore up your argument and claim that they are the BASE for your position, now you are backing away and saying that they are not the BASIS? Make up your mind, Nums.

At no point in time did anyone have a right to 'mother' someone else's child -- especially if you are a man to begin with.

So orphans and adopted or abandoned children cannot be "mothered" by anyone else because no one else has the right? I think your quote from above would be appropriate here: "Are you even aware of how stupid your argument has degenerated into?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex

Humans and other mammals have an XY sex determination system: the Y chromosome carries factors responsible for triggering male development. The default sex, in the absence of a Y chromosome, is female. Thus, XX mammals are female and XY are male. XY sex determination is found in other organisms, including the common fruit fly and some plants.[19] In some cases, including in the fruit fly, it is the number of X chromosomes that determines sex rather than the presence of a Y chromosome.

Is that scientifically certain enough for you?

I love it, Nums, you demand scientific journal citations from me and then you quote the Wiki, which is just about as dependable as a thrown rock. I will assume that the Wiki failed to mention that there have been 9 chromosome patterns found in human beings? That the XX and XY we all grew up learning about are NOT necessarily the determining factor in gender now that we know that the XXXX, XXX, XXY, XO, and other patterns occur in humans? Nor, I'll wager, did Wiki tell you about the conditions that can occur during gestation in which tiny failures in the hormone system of the fetus (controlled by the fetal genetic pattern) can interfere with the development of primary and secondary sexual characteristics? Nums, you don't know diddly-squat about this subject and you look silly floundering around trying to make an argument.

No. You gave a news article about genetic influences on human behavior.

Previously on this thread and others I have provided a number of sources which you have refused to examine.

What you did not give is any text in that book that somehow supports your claims.

Then post the links to those references that have identified the gay gene (or group of genes).

I simply have no inclination reading the books you are infatuated with. Frankly, this is getting quite old.

No one has managed to define what genes or combinations of genes cause a whole host of human attributes. Your insistence on a specific gene or gene group is simply a way for you to defend your ignorance by not looking at the sources provided. You won't read, you won't listen, you won't look. Yep, your invincible ignorance is holding its own. Avoid mirrors.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

What you are trying to peddle in this forum is that homosexuality is a genetic adaptation -- at the same time ignoring the fact that such an adaptation guarantees the extinction of the specie when applied.

Implicit in this statement is an assumption: That if homosexuality is a genetic adaption, then all members of the specie will adopt it and die out.

This is a completely unwarranted assumption based on your fear and not in any science.

It would also be good to note that homosexual pairing is very common in geese and gay male pairs of geese are the most successful pairs at raising broods. This is due to the fact that two ganders--which are larger and stronger--are able to provide better than a goose and gander pair. Female geese donate eggs to gander pairs and often the donating females are the most fertile ones and produce far more eggs than they could ever care for, so by donating eggs to gander pairs the success rate for producing offspring is actually increased. Don't let your fear keep you from learning, Nums.

If you would read the BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE book you would learn a lot of really interesting things about sexuality in nature--and not the twisted nonsense that Siho practices with the poor domesticated creatures that she abuses.

 

[numinus]

Please give us a link giving YOU the right to tell us what all the people in those countries and States meant when they decided to allow gay people to marry.

If you haven't read BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE then you have no idea what is "natural". Arguing without knowledge emphasizes your "north-end" appearance.

Uhmm, have I not given a link to the udhr?

Isn't the meaning of the udhr self-evident enough?

Round and round and round.....

 

[numinus]

Please define "natural" in scientific terms and give your sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.[1] The phrase natural law is sometimes opposed to the positive law of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law. In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be evoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), although most contemporary political and legal theorists separate the two.

Natural law theories have exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[2] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, and John Locke. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence.

Is there anyone in this forum dumb enough to misunderstand what 'natural' means?

You have not yet established that gay marriage will be "prejudicial" in any way when it comes to the exercise of the right to motherhood. Please support your position with something other than your own invincible ignorance. How about some scientific journal citations like you always ask me to provide?

As I recall, I was responding to your comment that its all about money.

Marriage and family laws are there to mitigate prejudice to a woman's right to motherhood. Take note that this is not about gay unions. Gay unions simply do not enter the equation when it comes to the right to motherhood, marriage and family.

Or admit that you're lying, either way is okay with me.

Your responses are in disarray. Why don't you take a pill before posting more nonsense in this thread.

If it has, then you are at least partly responsible since my question to you was based on your quote (below)
"The special privileges legally accorded to married couples are based on the statements of the udhr and crc -- motherhood, natural group unit of society, etc."
If the "special privileges..." are BASED on the UDHR and CRC, then how could they have existed before the documents were written? You continually use these documents to shore up your argument and claim that they are the BASE for your position, now you are backing away and saying that they are not the BASIS? Make up your mind, Nums.

Sigh.

Inalienable rights are those that are inherent to the human person. It is independent of positive law.

Before you post more kilometric nonsense, try answering these yourself.

Is the udhr a form of positive law or is it a formal declaration of the natural and inalienable rights of man?

What about marital and family laws? Are they positive laws or are they formal declaration of some natural and inalienable right(s)?

So orphans and adopted or abandoned children cannot be "mothered" by anyone else because no one else has the right? I think your quote from above would be appropriate here: "Are you even aware of how stupid your argument has degenerated into?"

Of course anyone can rear a child. Rearing a child, however, does not grant one a right to motherhood. Or isn't this piece of information already covered by the meaning of 'inalienable rights'?

Duh?

I love it, Nums, you demand scientific journal citations from me and then you quote the Wiki, which is just about as dependable as a thrown rock. I will assume that the Wiki failed to mention that there have been 9 chromosome patterns found in human beings? That the XX and XY we all grew up learning about are NOT necessarily the determining factor in gender now that we know that the XXXX, XXX, XXY, XO, and other patterns occur in humans? Nor, I'll wager, did Wiki tell you about the conditions that can occur during gestation in which tiny failures in the hormone system of the fetus (controlled by the fetal genetic pattern) can interfere with the development of primary and secondary sexual characteristics? Nums, you don't know diddly-squat about this subject and you look silly floundering around trying to make an argument.

Are you impugning the scientific fact that there are only two genders of the human species -- male and female?

Feel free to continue floundering away anytime.

Previously on this thread and others I have provided a number of sources which you have refused to examine.

Just answer the question.

Wasn't the link you provided IN THIS THREAD a news article about an uncorroborated research concerning genetic factors on human behavior?

A yes or no would suffice, thank you.

No one has managed to define what genes or combinations of genes cause a whole host of human attributes. Your insistence on a specific gene or gene group is simply a way for you to defend your ignorance by not looking at the sources provided. You won't read, you won't listen, you won't look. Yep, your invincible ignorance is holding its own. Avoid mirrors.

Nonsense.

The human genome has already been mapped. Certain genes controlling certain traits are KNOWN SCIENTIFIC FACT.

What is speculative fancy is this silly gene purportedly being the cause of homosexual behavior.

I believe that settles it, as far as the thread question is concerned.

 

[numinus]

Implicit in this statement is an assumption: That if homosexuality is a genetic adaption, then all members of the specie will adopt it and die out.

This is a completely unwarranted assumption based on your fear and not in any science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype which gives a reproductive advantage will increase in frequency over the following generations. Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms.

Not based on any science, indeed!

It would also be good to note that homosexual pairing is very common in geese and gay male pairs of geese are the most successful pairs at raising broods. This is due to the fact that two ganders--which are larger and stronger--are able to provide better than a goose and gander pair. Female geese donate eggs to gander pairs and often the donating females are the most fertile ones and produce far more eggs than they could ever care for, so by donating eggs to gander pairs the success rate for producing offspring is actually increased. Don't let your fear keep you from learning, Nums.

If you would read the BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE book you would learn a lot of really interesting things about sexuality in nature--and not the twisted nonsense that Siho practices with the poor domesticated creatures that she abuses.

Absolutely nothing in political philosophy suggests that human society craft laws based on animal behavior. Is that not what you are doing?

How many more times do I need to say this before you give your senses leave to understand, hmmm?

Biological exuberance, indeed! It sounds depressing, if you ask me.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Uhmm, have I not given a link to the udhr?

Isn't the meaning of the udhr self-evident enough?

Round and round and round.....

the udhr is simply a document written by people, it doesn't speak for everyone nor to every situation. You're giving it almost Biblical power there, Nums. It doesn't define "natural" for all situations in any kind of scientific terms.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.[1] The phrase natural law is sometimes opposed to the positive law of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law. In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be evoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), although most contemporary political and legal theorists separate the two.

Natural law theories have exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[2] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, and John Locke. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence.

So homosexuality is natural, thank you, I'm glad we have that settled. Therefore since it's natural then we should stop discriminating agaisnt gay people and denying them equality.

As I recall, I was responding to your comment that its all about money.

Marriage and family laws are there to mitigate prejudice to a woman's right to motherhood. Take note that this is not about gay unions. Gay unions simply do not enter the equation when it comes to the right to motherhood, marriage and family.

What does that phrase mean? I don't know of any prejudice to a woman's right to motherhood.

You stating that gay unions don't even enter the equation... etc. is just another pointless, baseless comment of yours with nothing to back it up. Gays raise children, lesbians raise children, and your denial of this fact only shows up your own bigoted attitude.

Your responses are in disarray. Why don't you take a pill before posting more nonsense in this thread.

You lied and don't want to admit it, so what's new?

Inalienable rights are those that are inherent to the human person. It is independent of positive law.
Before you post more kilometric nonsense, try answering these yourself.
Is the udhr a form of positive law or is it a formal declaration of the natural and inalienable rights of man?
What about marital and family laws? Are they positive laws or are they formal declaration of some natural and inalienable right(s)?

"The special privileges legally accorded to married couples are based on the statements of the udhr and crc -- motherhood, natural group unit of society, etc." So here's your quote, and you are now backing away from it since you have contradicted yourself.

Your questions are an irrelevant attempt at obfuscation because you can't make a case for your bigotry. Equality for gay people will have no effect on anyone's right to motherhood or fatherhood or even hooded sweatshirts.

Of course anyone can rear a child. Rearing a child, however, does not grant one a right to motherhood. Or isn't this piece of information already covered by the meaning of 'inalienable rights'?

Again, entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand. The "right to motherhood" is a term, so what? If those words were taken out of the human lexicon people would still raise families, your incessant blather about motherhood is completely extaneous to the actual discussion. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness cover all the rights necessary, and everyone should have full access to these rights--gay or straight.

Duh?

One of your clearest statements of your position.

Are you impugning the scientific fact that there are only two genders of the human species -- male and female?

No, I'm saying that we can't scientifically define them nor always tell them apart with certainty. Science has discovered that gender is on a continuum and there are people all the way across from male to female.

Just answer the question. Wasn't the link you provided IN THIS THREAD a news article about an uncorroborated research concerning genetic factors on human behavior?

One link I provided was about genetic research on human behavior and I explained very clearly what I intended with that citation--but you didn't read what I wrote or you couldn't figure out the complexities of it.

Nonsense.
The human genome has already been mapped. Certain genes controlling certain traits are KNOWN SCIENTIFIC FACT.

What is speculative fancy is this silly gene purportedly being the cause of homosexual behavior.
I believe that settles it, as far as the thread question is concerned.

The human genome has been mapped, but we have yet to figure out what parts of it work together to produce many human attributes: genius is one of them, people without consciences, dermal-optical perception, esp, even the tendency to believe in God is not yet explained. Your idea that we know all about the human genome is just more evidence of your lack of education.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype which gives a reproductive advantage will increase in frequency over the following generations. Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms.

Not based on any science, indeed!

Great quote from the Wiki (don't you ever use real, dependable sources?), but completely irrelevant to the question at hand. The fact that homosexuality has not died out suggests that it has some kind of survival value that we have yet to discover. Your fear is baseless, Nums, be of good cheer.

Absolutely nothing in political philosophy suggests that human society craft laws based on animal behavior. Is that not what you are doing?

How many more times do I need to say this before you give your senses leave to understand, hmmm?

Biological exuberance, indeed! It sounds depressing, if you ask me.

The point I was trying to make was that YOU don't know anything about the survival value of homosexuality and I used the example of the geese to give you just one example where homosexuality DID HAVE SURVIVAL VALUE. I'm not talking about political philosophy, I'm talking about biology.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nums,
Your reliance on the UDHR and CRC as the be-all and end-all authority in human existence, and your bigoted attempts to use them to hurt people you don't like makes you look like a garden variety religious bigot. Bible-beaters do the same thing with the Bible, they pretend it's some kind of authoritative source and then they use it as a weapon against people they don't like.

All the blather about the right to motherhood and the prejudice to the practice of motherhood are just meaningless crap. Motherhood is not in short supply, and letting other people practice motherhood to the best of their abilities with the children they are raising does nothing to any woman's inalienble right to anything. You're bullshipping us because you have no rational argument to make against homosexuality.

 

[numinus]

Great quote from the Wiki (don't you ever use real, dependable sources?), but completely irrelevant to the question at hand.

Again, irrelevant.

If the information is incorrect, it is so because it is incorrect, not because wiki said it.

So, is the information incorrect?

The fact that homosexuality has not died out suggests that it has some kind of survival value that we have yet to discover. Your fear is baseless, Nums, be of good cheer.

The fact that bulls still have tits suggests that something entirely useless can survive regardless.

The point I was trying to make was that YOU don't know anything about the survival value of homosexuality and I used the example of the geese to give you just one example where homosexuality DID HAVE SURVIVAL VALUE. I'm not talking about political philosophy, I'm talking about biology.

Nonsense.

Lots of genetic abnormalities are inherited. That does not mean these genetic abnormalities have any survival value, now, does it?