What a sad, truly sad statement about our homophobic way of thinking!

Why not? Because I've summarized them well to the detriment of your position?

Because as I have shown with quotes from YOUR sources, you often use articles that you have not read or which you do not have the education to interpret.

I agree with you on a lot of subjects, Siho, but you appear to be totally whacked out on this one. I have rarely seen anyone put out the amount of energy and verbiage expressing hatred that you have. Had I not read many of your other posts I would think that you had a mental health diagnosis, but you are pretty rational and thoughtful on many other subjects--it's just this one in which you seem to lose all control.
 
Werbung:
Actually that is just a side-effect. What they're actually doing is trying to set a federal precedent for "equality" for their "minority group" [which doesn't exist because it itself is exclusive of other fetishes]. Once this is established they will use it as a shoehorn for SCOTUS to make homosexual "marriage" legal throughout the states.

Yes some heteros are screwed up to be sure. But Grandma used to always tell us that two wrongs don't make a right.

The problem is all this legalistic mumbo jumbo and group identity rights. Folks is folks. We should treat people as individuals. From a moral point of view, I have a hard time judging gay sex any differently than the multiple forms of unmarried "straight" sodomy or multiple sex partners that many members of the military engage in. Since I use the Bible as my moral standard, all sex outside of marriage is sin, so why should we single out homosexuals for special opprobrium. Let's just enforce good order and discipline--those key behaviors that are important to unit cohesion and effectiveness.

But you do bring up good points about group rights. In my opinion, gays can already get married in every state--just to a member of the opposite sex. ;) The problem is that activists are attempting to change the meaning of marriage from its historical norm--a legal slight of hand. Marriage has existed in almost every culture in some form, and predates recorded history. If gays want to change the meaning of marriage in our society, they should argue their case before the people, not the courts.
 
The problem is all this legalistic mumbo jumbo and group identity rights. Folks is folks. We should treat people as individuals. From a moral point of view, I have a hard time judging gay sex any differently than the multiple forms of unmarried "straight" sodomy or multiple sex partners that many members of the military engage in. Since I use the Bible as my moral standard, all sex outside of marriage is sin, so why should we single out homosexuals for special opprobrium. Let's just enforce good order and discipline--those key behaviors that are important to unit cohesion and effectiveness.

But you do bring up good points about group rights. In my opinion, gays can already get married in every state--just to a member of the opposite sex. ;) The problem is that activists are attempting to change the meaning of marriage from its historical norm--a legal slight of hand. Marriage has existed in almost every culture in some form, and predates recorded history. If gays want to change the meaning of marriage in our society, they should argue their case before the people, not the courts.

Black people have been enslaved in many cultures, if they want to change that historical precedent they should have to argue their case before the people. Right? Women have been chattel, denied the right to vote or own property throughout a large portion of human history even in the US. So much for historical precedent.

Most of the people who talk about marriage always having been one man and one woman are people with little historical education on the subject. Even the Catholic church has two ceremonies that were for the joining of gay couples in marriage (the church used the word "marriage"). Homosexual couples have been legally married at times in most of the world. Marriage is about love and commitment, not about sex organs. Even group or plural marriages have been very common in many cultures--even in the Bible.

According to our Constitution's equal protection clause all people are to have equal standing before the law. Right now some consenting adults are allowed to marry and enjoy the rights and privileges attendant thereto and some are not. The only reason for this is Christian dogma, and the separation of church and State does not allow our laws to be based solely on that.
 
My apologies to "Mare Tranquility" for interrupting his string of ten straight posts without coming up for air. :eek:

Perhaps I'm not the one lacking air in light of the fact that you think a "Mare" is male. Watch out or Siho will have you in her barn.

I've been away working, so I thought I'd try to catch up with the thread. Did you have something to add or is this just a drive-by insult?
 
Don't follow Siho down into a hole in the ground, dog. There is a lot of evidence to show that sexual orientation is genetic. Statistically there is evidence that having a gay son is connected to higher fertility in women. There is an immune response that some women have in which their bodies try to feminize male fetuses. Many of the manmade fat-soluble chemicals act like female hormones in the body, which can cause all kinds of problems for male fetuses and can cause premature puberty in females. There is also a connection between these chemical exposures in utero and the later development of cancer. Don't try to argue the biology of this without a background in the subject.

Read the articles, but don't believe what Siho tells you about them.


I've read loads of papers on the subject over the course of mqany years and I'll process information as I see fit.

What you are describing is not genetic on the part of the homosexual. They started moving away freom the genetic thing years ago.

This research has as many issues as the homosexual animals.
 
Black people have been enslaved in many cultures, if they want to change that historical precedent they should have to argue their case before the people. Right? Women have been chattel, denied the right to vote or own property throughout a large portion of human history even in the US. So much for historical precedent.

Most of the people who talk about marriage always having been one man and one woman are people with little historical education on the subject. Even the Catholic church has two ceremonies that were for the joining of gay couples in marriage (the church used the word "marriage"). Homosexual couples have been legally married at times in most of the world. Marriage is about love and commitment, not about sex organs. Even group or plural marriages have been very common in many cultures--even in the Bible.

According to our Constitution's equal protection clause all people are to have equal standing before the law. Right now some consenting adults are allowed to marry and enjoy the rights and privileges attendant thereto and some are not. The only reason for this is Christian dogma, and the separation of church and State does not allow our laws to be based solely on that.


You may want to consider some unbiased research on your claims of RCC rites of same sex marriage.

Its true that ONE man ONE woman is not totally the rule across history and cultures but same sex has never been a thing outside some very limited situations.
 
Black people have been enslaved in many cultures, if they want to change that historical precedent they should have to argue their case before the people. Right? Women have been chattel, denied the right to vote or own property throughout a large portion of human history even in the US. So much for historical precedent.

You make my point for me. Slavery was ended by constitutional amendment (after a very nasty war--who said violence doesn't solve problems). Woman gained the right to vote by constitutional amendment. Jim Crow laws were abolished by public pressure on politicians to pass civil rights legislation.

Our country was founded by flawed people living in a flawed culture, certainly by our standards today. The solution (for the most part) came from the people not through the courts. My point is the people must decide within the body politic how they will organize their society.

If you want to put your faith in the courts, then I'll have to work harder to make sure we get some judges in there who will overturn Roe-vs-Wade. We average well over a million abortions a year. Nope, we won't vote on it, we'll impose that standard through the SCOTUS.

We can define a million issues to separate us. Can we at least agree on one process for settling our differences (short of the historical norm--violence)?
 
Top Defense Officials Seek to End ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: February 2, 2010
WASHINGTON — The nation’s top two Defense officials called on Tuesday for an end to the 16-year-old “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, a major step toward allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the United States military for the first time in its history.
“No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens,” Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said it was his personal belief that “allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do.”
But both Admiral Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told the committee they needed more time to review how to carry out the change in policy, which requires an act of Congress, and predicted some disruption to the armed forces.
Admiral Mullen is the first sitting chairman of the Joint Chiefs to support a repeal of the policy. In 1993, Gen. Colin L. Powell, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs at the time, opposed allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly but supported “don’t ask, don’t tell” as the compromise passed by Congress. Under the policy, gay men and lesbians may serve as long as they keep their sexual orientation secret.
To lead a review of the policy, Mr. Gates appointed a civilian and a military officer: Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon’s top legal counsel, and Gen. Carter F. Ham, the commander of the United States Army in Europe. Pentagon officials said the review could take up to a year.
In the interim, Mr. Gates announced that the military was moving toward enforcing the existing policy “in a fairer manner” — a reference to the possibility that the Pentagon would no longer take action to discharge service members whose sexual orientation is revealed by third parties or jilted partners, one of the most onerous aspects of the law. Mr. Gates said he had asked the Pentagon to make a recommendation on the matter within 45 days, but “we believe that we have a degree of latitude within the existing law to change our internal procedures in a manner that is more appropriate and fair to our men and women in uniform.”
As the hearing opened, the committee’s chairman, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, welcomed the abolition of the policy, saying it had never made sense to him. Its ranking Republican, Senator John McCain of Arizona, said that he was “deeply disappointed” and that the original rationale, endorsed by Congress in 1993, was as sound as ever.
On one thing, they agreed: many gay men and lesbians are serving honorably and effectively in the military today, despite a policy that has driven thousands of others out of the services. But Mr. Levin said the military should act in this matter as it has in others, as a force against discrimination. And Mr. McCain said the military culture was so different from civilian life that the rules for its members, too, must differ.
Mr. Levin cited an overwhelming view on the part of the public, as seen in polls, that the law should change. Mr. McCain said that a thousand retired admirals and generals had signed a petition against change, and that their views reflected the honest beliefs of military leaders as a whole, whatever Admiral Mullen’s personal view.
Mr. Gates said that the review would examine changes that might have to be made to Pentagon policies on benefits, base housing, fraternization and misconduct and that it would also study the potential effect on unit cohesion, recruiting and retention.
For further information, Mr. Gates said he would ask the Rand Corporation to update a 1993 study on the effect of allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly. That study concluded that gay service members could serve openly if the policy was given strong support from the military’s senior leaders.
Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen were responding to President Obama’s campaign pledge to end “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which the president, after a year of saying of little about it, reaffirmed in his State of the Union address last week.
“The question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for it,” Mr. Gates told the committee. “We have received our orders from the commander in chief and we are moving out accordingly. However, we also can only take this process so far as the ultimate decision rests with you, the Congress.”
Gay rights groups had grown increasingly angry over the past year that Mr. Obama delayed acting on the policy for his first 12 months in office. But Pentagon officials were reluctant to move forward when they were at crucial points in two wars, and Mr. Obama himself did not want another polarizing debate to distract from his 2009 health care fight.
Admiral Mullen told the committee that although he believed “the great young men and women of our military can and would accommodate such a change,” he did not know for sure. “Nor do I know for a fact how we would best make such a major policy change in a time of two wars,” Admiral Mullen said.
Republicans have already signaled that they are concerned about timing and not eager to take up the issue. “In the middle of two wars and in the middle of this giant security threat, why would we want to get into this debate?” Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, said Sunday on “Meet the Press” on NBC.
Some advocates of allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly have pointed to an article last fall in Joint Force Quarterly, an official military journal, that found that the several countries that have lifted bans on such open service had seen few harmful effects.
The article, by Col. Om Prakash of the Air Force, cited evidence that in countries where such bans had been lifted, including Australia, Britain and Canada, there had been no “mass exodus” of heterosexual service members and no impact on military performance. Colonel Prakash’s article had been reviewed in advance by Admiral Mullen’s office.
Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, asked the admiral on Tuesday if he was aware of whether the policies of many NATO allies in Afghanistan, allowing open service, had had any deleterious effect.
The admiral said that he had spoken to many of the NATO partners and that they had reported seeing “no impact” on military performance.
Polls now show that a majority of Americans support openly gay service — a majority did not in 1993 — but there have been no recent broad surveys of the 1.4 million active-duty personnel.
A 2008 census by The Military Times of predominantly Republican and largely older subscribers found that 58 percent were opposed to efforts to repea



Words of Wisdom from "Always", Concerning practicing homosexuals in our Military or really in our society in general.
Void all DADT useless laws, Instead GO BY OUR CREATORS WORD!!
No!, it may not fit your sinful life but call it like his WORD states: Homosexuality is an Abomination! Now how difficult is that to understand?Next!
 
I've read loads of papers on the subject over the course of mqany years and I'll process information as I see fit.

What you are describing is not genetic on the part of the homosexual. They started moving away freom the genetic thing years ago.

This research has as many issues as the homosexual animals.

If you were trying to make a point, it was lost in your rambling semantics.
 
You may want to consider some unbiased research on your claims of RCC rites of same sex marriage.

Its true that ONE man ONE woman is not totally the rule across history and cultures but same sex has never been a thing outside some very limited situations.

I don't know what you mean about reconsidering the research on the Catholic church marrying gays. Two famous Saints were married to each other in the Catholic church. There is an excellent reference work on the subject of marriage down throught history which gives many sources and footnotes.

Gay marriages were far more common than most people realize because the homo-hatred is in no way a universally held attitude. I am more than willing to give sources to those who ask, but my experience is that no one reads books anymore so it's often pointless to give written sources. I have a large library and I don't post stuff for which I don't have sources.
 
You make my point for me. Slavery was ended by constitutional amendment (after a very nasty war--who said violence doesn't solve problems). Woman gained the right to vote by constitutional amendment. Jim Crow laws were abolished by public pressure on politicians to pass civil rights legislation.

Our country was founded by flawed people living in a flawed culture, certainly by our standards today. The solution (for the most part) came from the people not through the courts. My point is the people must decide within the body politic how they will organize their society.

If you want to put your faith in the courts, then I'll have to work harder to make sure we get some judges in there who will overturn Roe-vs-Wade. We average well over a million abortions a year. Nope, we won't vote on it, we'll impose that standard through the SCOTUS.

We can define a million issues to separate us. Can we at least agree on one process for settling our differences (short of the historical norm--violence)?

The Supreme Court in Dredd Scott made black people less than white people, it was the Supreme Court that overturned itself and reinstated their rights. It was laws passed, and integration enforced by law and the National Guard that brought civil rights to fruition.

The subjugation of women and blacks was in direct contravention to the Constitution of the US, just as the denial of equal protection under the law in denying gay people marriage.

Are you really arguing that if the majority of people in this country wanted to enslave blacks again that it would be right to do so? The same with women's rights? Popular vote makes things right or wrong? Laws are not supposed to be passed if they are unConstitutional, that's what the Courts are for, especially the Supreme Court. Remember the sodomy laws that were selectively enforced to harass gay people? The Supreme Court set those aside as being unConstitutional.

I find the idea that gay people have to prove that they deserve equality is not only disturbing, but also a dangerous precedent to set. Who will be next to have to prove they are worthy of equality? Equality should not be a popularity contest.
 
Words of Wisdom from "Always", Concerning practicing homosexuals in our Military or really in our society in general.
Void all DADT useless laws, Instead GO BY OUR CREATORS WORD!!
No!, it may not fit your sinful life but call it like his WORD states: Homosexuality is an Abomination! Now how difficult is that to understand?Next!

The most effective way to dismiss those who promote and encourage homosexuality is to quote our Creator: homosexuality is an "Abomination"!!
Now that is very clear , very understandable, even to "progressives"!
Do you seriously believe your creator ,whom created YOU in his likeness ,advocated homosexuality? Case closed!

Always the American who demands that his relgious views be enforced on all the Americans. The religious bigots are ALWAYS with us, just like the poor.

If you had studied the Bible in any depth you would know that the word "abomination" was not the one originally used. The orginal word was one that was used to describe a Jew who broke one of the Jewish laws, it didn't apply to non-Jews. Most Christians--and almost all of them posting on websites like this--know nothing to speak of about the history of their own religion or the history of the Bible.

Say, Always, why didn't you respond to my post #95? Got nothing to say about your cherry picking Scripture quotes?
 
I don't know what you mean about reconsidering the research on the Catholic church marrying gays. Two famous Saints were married to each other in the Catholic church. There is an excellent reference work on the subject of marriage down throught history which gives many sources and footnotes.

Gay marriages were far more common than most people realize because the homo-hatred is in no way a universally held attitude. I am more than willing to give sources to those who ask, but my experience is that no one reads books anymore so it's often pointless to give written sources. I have a large library and I don't post stuff for which I don't have sources.


poppycock.
 
Werbung:
...lol...Mare believes that quantity will trump quality in posts. He has to since his position is so weak. So you'll see a great preponderance of posts from him next to links I provide from real scientists with references to hundreds of others that refute what he says. Not to mention an entire industry that feeds the world and keeps species alive.

But an industry that banks on acquired sexuality is WRONG! And the field of comparative psychology doesn't exist, dontcha know..
:rolleyes:
 
Back
Top