Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    7:44 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Was DOMA legal in the first place? Back to Topics
michaelphoenix2

All-Star Author
Tucson

Posts:887
Points:12,080
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 28, 2013 5:09:37 PM

A big part of yesterday's DOMA Supreme Court hearings were focused not on gay marriage itself, but whether or not DOMA could have even been passed in the first place.

Justice Kennedy questioned whether DOMA whould be struck down for the simple fact that marriage is something that has traditionally been handled at the state level and the DOMA was a federal attempt at regulating marriage by allowing states to not reconize marriages done in other states for the fact that are same sex marriages.

What is your take? Not on gay marriage, but on whether the federal government even had the power to pass DOMA in the first place?
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,110
Points:747,400
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 21, 2013 8:14:04 AM

gas_too_high “Playing semantics nw, ar we/ Find.”

No, rjhenn isn't “playing semantics”. He's actually sticking to the biological and dictionary definition of the word “innate” instead of redefining it to fit his own argument like you are.

“Then homosexuality isn't *ideal* and therefore not the basis of rights,”

Just because something isn't “ideal” doesn't mean that it can't have rights. If that was true, then you'd be activating just as strongly to deny marriage rights to heterosexuals who are alcoholics, drug users, abusers or criminals.

“.. but rather should be the focus of therapy to at least allow people not to yleid to homosexual attraction, instead of building a false identity around this "non-ideal" condition.”

There's no “false identity” about being homosexual any more than there's a “true identity” about being heterosexual. A person's identity is their identity – period. Sexual orientation doesn't change that, unless of course a homosexual entered into a heterosexual marriage as you wish them to – that would be a false identity since they'd be just pretending to be heterosexual.

And saying that homosexuals need therapy is just another way of you saying that you think they have some sort of disease. Not only is that wrong and insulting to homosexuals, but since when would being sick be an approved basis to discriminate?

gas_too_high “BT insists on the first definition, and only that. Clearly, I was referring to "belong to the essential nature of something".”

BT: "No, not “clearly” since at other times and in other threads you have very specifically referred to genetics and whether you consider homosexuals born that way or being so by choice. Whether you disagree with them or not, it's hardly as if you're unaware that the majority of biologists and psychiatrists think that homosexuality is “innate” in a biological sense."

“Typical of you. Having lost the argument based on your own quoted definition, you try to change what I said, in this case (among others) by refusing to distinguish between normal genetic conditions and genetic defects. If you call homosexuality "normal" then you have no choice to call evident genetics defects "innate" as well.”

Actually, no, it's typical of YOU. Just because you * say * I've lost the argument doesn't mean that I have. You have to actually disprove my argument which you haven't done. All you've done is crow about victory without actually having it.

There's no biological distinction between “normal genetic conditions” and “genetic defects” in the meaning of the word “innate”, no matter how much YOU want to play with semantics to redefine the word. As rjhenn said to you, any number of genetic defects are still “innate” to the individual. “Innate” doesn't mean “normal” as you seem to think it does.

“Either genetics determines what is innate/inherent in a person, or it doesn't. You don't get to have it both ways.”

Talk about somebody distorting what's been said, you take the cake there. I've never said that genetics doesn't determine what's innate in a person. In fact, quite the opposite. That's what you've been claiming. That's the danger when you redefine words to suit your own argument, you block yourself into a corner where you stop making sense.

But thanks for once again demonstrating that you don't have any understanding of even the most basic biological concepts.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,292
Points:3,830,710
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: May 21, 2013 3:23:57 AM

In another age, people were railing against "redefining" to allow them uppity black people to vote, but probably would have railed against "wimmin voting" a well, because they didn't have the sensibility to handle it.

Your opinion of other opinions doesn't matter, GTH, because your opinion is just that, your opinion. You have tried to use doubt, and several times the fear factor, but you have failed to prove any of the studies, psychological projects, or scientific reports wrong, despite your many assertions.
Best of all, in the last year especially, you have failed to stop any state in the US, or any country in the world, considering the legalization of gay marriage, from allowing our gay brethren to claim the same right to marry for love that you would deny them.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,324
Points:2,797,895
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 21, 2013 2:39:51 AM

gas_too_high - "By what justification? Gender is clearly innate. And gender identify and sexual attraction, in a healthy person aligns with physical gender. The sexual attraction mismatch called "homosexuality", and the gender identity mismatch called "transgender" both pit physical gender against \psychology. That does not describe a person who is healthy mentally."

Again, that's just your opinion. I don't doubt that there are some cases where gender identity or sexual attraction are based on psychology, but most cases appear to be physical, being based on brain development in the womb.

And much of the unhealthy mental state among such people seems to be due to the attitudes of people like you.

"Playing semantics nw, ar we/ Find. Then homosexuality isn't *ideal* and therefore not the basis of rights, but rather should be the focus of therapy to at least allow people not to yleid to homosexual attraction, instead of building a false identity around this "non-ideal" condition."

What's false about such an identity? And why is there any need to correct it?

And why does something need to be "ideal" in order to be the basis of rights?

I mean, other than your religious beliefs. And your semantic games.

"Typical of you. Having lost the argument based on your own quoted definition, you try to change what I said, in this case (among others) by refusing to distinguish between normal genetic conditions and genetic defects. If you call homosexuality "normal" then you have no choice to call evident genetics defects "innate" as well. Either genetics determines what is innate/inherent in a person, or it doesn't. You don't get to have it both ways."

You're the only one trying to have it both ways.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,132
Points:2,522,895
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 20, 2013 11:07:32 PM

rjhenn: "Homosexuality is a fundamental characteristic in the sense that gender identity and sexual attraction are fundamental characteristics. So, just like heterosexuality."

By what justification? Gender is clearly innate. And gender identify and sexual attraction, in a healthy person aligns with physical gender. The sexual attraction mismatch called "homosexuality", and the gender identity mismatch called "transgender" both pit physical gender against \psychology. That does not describe a person who is healthy mentally.

GTH: "So any condition that is "set in the womb" is innate, natural and normal?"

rjhenn: "Yep."

GTH: "What about spina bifida, deviated septum, cleft palate, or any number of other things usually called "birth defects"?"

rjhenn: "Those would still be innate, natural and normal, but the usual definitions of those words. That doesn't make them ideal."

Playing semantics nw, ar we/ Find. Then homosexuality isn't *ideal* and therefore not the basis of rights, but rather should be the focus of therapy to at least allow people not to yleid to homosexual attraction, instead of building a false identity around this "non-ideal" condition.

gas_too_high “BT insists on the first definition, and only that. Clearly, I was referring to "belong to the essential nature of something".”

BT: "No, not “clearly” since at other times and in other threads you have very specifically referred to genetics and whether you consider homosexuals born that way or being so by choice. Whether you disagree with them or not, it's hardly as if you're unaware that the majority of biologists and psychiatrists think that homosexuality is “innate” in a biological sense."

Typical of you. Having lost the argument based on your own quoted definition, you try to change what I said, in this case (among others) by refusing to distinguish between normal genetic conditions and genetic defects. If you call homosexuality "normal" then you have no choice to call evident genetics defects "innate" as well. Either genetics determines what is innate/inherent in a person, or it doesn't. You don't get to have it both ways.

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,324
Points:2,797,895
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 20, 2013 7:02:50 PM

reb4 - "Since this topic has been dragged into a topic about nothing but alternative marriage, here is a story that at least discusses legal aspects and what the "agenda" is all about..."

As usual, what are you talking about?

That case clearly has little or nothing to do with gay marriage and everything to do with freedom of/from religion. It's no different than if someone claimed their refusal to do business with a mixed-race couple was because miscegenation was against their religion.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,324
Points:2,797,895
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 20, 2013 6:59:29 PM

gas_too_high - "Says the one who has called homosexuality a "fundamental characteristic." Sounds like *you* are defining someone who has a homosexual attraction."

Homosexuality is a fundamental characteristic in the sense that gender identity and sexual attraction are fundamental characteristics. So, just like heterosexuality.

"All of which is separate from the individuals -- unless they choose to create "relationships,"families," and raise children (procreated by heterosexual, not homosexual relationships) in the homosexual lifestyle -- a lifestyle ill-suited to any of those things."

All of which is your opinion, and not reality. The evidence is that homosexual relationships, on average, are no worse than the average heterosexual relationship at establishing families and raising children. And, I might mention, that should probably be "procreated by often defective heterosexual relationships".

"None of those legal rights are denied anyone with a homosexual attraction, provided *marriage* and not a pale imitation, is what they *really* want, which would require exiting the homosexual lifestyle."

Again, it's only your opinion that a SSM is a "pale imitation". What it really is, is not in accordance with your religious beliefs.

"But of course, you are confused about what marriage really is, and you want our laws to reflect your confusion. Containing that confusion is exactly why DOMA was passed."

No, I've got an excellent idea of what both civil marriage and the Constitution are, and how they relate. You're the one confusing civil marriage with religious marriage.

"So any condition that is "set in the womb" is innate, natural and normal?"

Yep.

"What about spina bifida, deviated septum, cleft palate, or any number of other things usually called "birth defects"?"

Those would still be innate, natural and normal, but the usual definitions of those words. That doesn't make them ideal.

Much like the properties of poison ivy, rattlesnakes and jellyfish.

"Just how do you distinguish between birth defects and normal human development? That is, how do you distinguish between innate and non-innate characteristics that are either genetic or develop during pregnancy? (BT's "biological" definition of the word "innate" is unable to make that distinction)."

Characteristics "that are either genetic or develop during pregnancy" are innate by definition, so your question is nonsense..

"I neither used the word "abomination" nor referred to Genesis, merely to reason and logic about human nature, which you and others willfully ignore. Apparently those are invisible to you, so you settle on the only thing at least slightly visible -- religion and the Bible -- as a source for my arguments."

No, the Bible is clearly your source for what you regard as "human nature". Biology says different.

"No wonder you are always being proved wrong, while remaining oblivious to it."

More projection.
Profile Pic
plastic
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:47,693
Points:3,021,420
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: May 20, 2013 12:27:39 PM

Oh wow. I just checked and the profile is gone but yeah, what's up with the topics and comments still being here? Strange.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,065
Points:2,979,695
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: May 20, 2013 12:23:18 PM

I thought when they wiped someone out all of their posts disappeared. It looks like that's not happening. I sure hope they don't have to go through and remove them one by one.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,110
Points:747,400
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 20, 2013 11:54:12 AM

Good call on the Bunyon post sgm4law. Didn't quite make it until noon.

I'm surprised that so many of his other posts are still extant.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,110
Points:747,400
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 20, 2013 11:51:53 AM

gas_too_high “BT insists on the first definition, and only that. Clearly, I was referring to "belong to the essential nature of something".”

No, not “clearly” since at other times and in other threads you have very specifically referred to genetics and whether you consider homosexuals born that way or being so by choice. Whether you disagree with them or not, it's hardly as if you're unaware that the majority of biologists and psychiatrists think that homosexuality is “innate” in a biological sense.

And the definition of “inherent" is:

“The definition of inherent is an essential quality that is part of a person or thing.

An example of inherent is a bird's ability to fly.”

Hardly something that's not affected by genetics.

It goes on to add:

“existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality, characteristic, or right; innate; basic; inborn”

So you can quibble all you want, but it still boils down to a misunderstanding of basic biology on your part, or that you have the definition of “innate” and “inherent” wrong and just like several other words now, you're redefining them to fit your own argument.

“Most people informed of this definition would have inferred the correct sense of the word from the context. BT refuses to do so, despite obviously being aware of it.”

More projection on your part, since it really describes what you're saying?
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,065
Points:2,979,695
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: May 19, 2013 4:02:33 PM

Maybe you should move to a country friendlier to your beliefs? (Referring to Bunyan's comment, which will disappear by Monday at the latest.)

[Edited by: sgm4law at 5/19/2013 4:03:54 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,132
Points:2,522,895
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 18, 2013 10:40:22 PM

From BT's link:

"Definition of INNATE

1: existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual from birth : native, inborn <innate behavior>

2: belonging to the essential nature of something : INHERENT

3: originating in or derived from the mind or the constitution of the intellect rather than from experience"

BT insists on the first definition, and only that. Clearly, I was referring to "belong to the essential nature of something". Most people informed of this definition would have inferred the correct sense of the word from the context. BT refuses to do so, despite obviously being aware of it.

"'Innate' is not involved in distinguishing between birth defects and normal human development. Innate refers to the individual, not the species. The biological meaning of the word isn't meant to make the distinction that you imagine it does."

The second definition, referring to the "essential nature of something" (and arguably the third definition as well), does not depend on biology.

GTH
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,110
Points:747,400
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 18, 2013 8:20:19 PM

gas_too_high "No wonder you are always being proved wrong, while remaining oblivious to it."

Projection again.

When have you ever proved anybody wrong here?

Meanwhile, you yourself have been proved wrong over and over again, while apparently remaining oblivious to it.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,110
Points:747,400
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 18, 2013 8:18:01 PM

gas_too_high "So any condition that is "set in the womb" is innate, natural and normal? What about spina bifida, deviated septum, cleft palate, or any number of other things usually called "birth defects"?"

Innate

"existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual from birth"

If something is "existing ... from birth", then a birth defect is definitely "innate".So it's obvious that you're misusing or misunderstanding the meaning of the word "innate", a basic concept in biology.

'Innate' is not involved in distinguishing between birth defects and normal human development. Innate refers to the individual, not the species. The biological meaning of the word isn't meant to make the distinction that you imagine it does.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,132
Points:2,522,895
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 18, 2013 4:57:26 PM

rjhenn: "And, once again, you're promoting your religious dogma, and trying to make an entire class of people second-class citizens."

GTH: "No, you are, by tying people to a condition unnecessarily, and convincing them that this condition defines "who they are"."

rjhenn: "You're the one trying to define them…"

Says the one who has called homosexuality a "fundamental characteristic." Sounds like *you* are defining someone who has a homosexual attraction.

"…and their relationships and families and children, as inferior because of their sexual orientation…"

All of which is separate from the individuals -- unless they choose to create "relationships,"families," and raise children (procreated by heterosexual, not homosexual relationships) in the homosexual lifestyle -- a lifestyle ill-suited to any of those things.

"…and denying them the legal rights that heterosexuals get automatically by marrying."

None of those legal rights are denied anyone with a homosexual attraction, provided *marriage* and not a pale imitation, is what they *really* want, which would require exiting the homosexual lifestyle.

But of course, you are confused about what marriage really is, and you want our laws to reflect your confusion. Containing that confusion is exactly why DOMA was passed.

GTH: "Given that this condition is (by any reasonable as opposed to quibbling, definition) non-innate, that denigrates them."

rjhenn: "Which is your opinion, unsupported by any scientific evidence. OTOH, there's considerable evidence that sexual orientation is largely set in the womb."

So any condition that is "set in the womb" is innate, natural and normal?

What about spina bifida, deviated septum, cleft palate, or any number of other things usually called "birth defects"?

Just how do you distinguish between birth defects and normal human development? That is, how do you distinguish between innate and non-innate characteristics that are either genetic or develop during pregnancy? (BT's "biological" definition of the word "innate" is unable to make that distinction).

GTH: "No one but you redefiners mention religion. I do not. The issue is not religion, but human nature, the basis of families and the well-being of children."

rjhenn: "Your original arguments were based on homosexuality as an "abomination". Now they're all based on procreation, so the Biblical injunction to "be fruitful and multiply"."

I neither used the word "abomination" nor referred to Genesis, merely to reason and logic about human nature, which you and others willfully ignore. Apparently those are invisible to you, so you settle on the only thing at least slightly visible -- religion and the Bible -- as a source for my arguments.

No wonder you are always being proved wrong, while remaining oblivious to it.

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 5/18/2013 5:00:51 PM EST]
Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,287
Points:2,425,290
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: May 18, 2013 12:09:06 PM

Since this topic has been dragged into a topic about nothing but alternative marriage, here is a story that at least discusses legal aspects and what the "agenda" is all about...


Washington Florist Who Refused to Make "GAY SEX wedding" Decorations Countersues the State

It is apparent as was previously discussed that this is about the "Un Natural" preferences of others on all of society...



[Edited by: reb4 at 5/18/2013 12:12:39 PM EST]
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,110
Points:747,400
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 18, 2013 10:46:47 AM

gas_too_high Given that this condition is (by any reasonable as opposed to quibbling, definition) non-innate, that denigrates them.”

That you're still using the word 'innate' incorrectly show that you ARE ignorant of biology. That you continue to do so even after the definition of 'innate' has been posted and linked to shows that you either don't bother to read posts that refute your dogma or that you choose to redefine words to fit your own argument.

There is no quibbling whatsoever in your misuse of the word innate. You're using a different definition of the word, period.

“Instead, I separate the condition from those persons. Doing so can help them deal with same-sex attraction constructively, instead of constructing an identify and lifestyle around it that will not satisfy them.”

So in your opinion, the only constructive way to deal with homosexual orientation is to change it?

And the only way to be satisfied is to be heterosexual?

“I have no objection to same-sex couples.”

So then, you'd be quite happy with same-sex couples living either side of you?

“My objection is to calling such unions "marriages" when in fact they are radically different from marriages, as already described.”

That you have described something does not mean that you have shown it to be true. In any scientific test, describing the condition is only the beginning.

“No one but you redefiners mention religion. I do not.”

When all your arguments are based on religion, the connection is obvious.
“The issue is not religion, but human nature, the basis of families and the well-being of children.”

And homosexuality is a part of basic human nature.

The issue isn't “families and the well-being of children”, since marriage does not necessarily include children. It's only your imagination that equates the two.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,324
Points:2,797,895
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 17, 2013 1:12:27 PM

gas_too_high - "No, you are, by tying people to a condition unnecessarily, and convincing them that this condition defines "who they are"."

You're the one trying to define them, and their relationships and families and children, as inferior because of their sexual orientation, and denying them the legal rights that heterosexuals get automatically by marrying.

"Given that this condition is (by any reasonable as opposed to quibbling, definition) non-innate, that denigrates them."

Which is your opinion, unsupported by any scientific evidence. OTOH, there's considerable evidence that sexual orientation is largely set in the womb.

"Instead, I separate the condition from those persons. Doing so can help them deal with same-sex attraction constructively, instead of constructing an identify and lifestyle around it that will not satisfy them."

All of which is your biased opinion. How is marrying someone they love NOT dealing with their sexual attraction constructively? How do you know that a marriage to someone they love won't satisfy them? How do you know that heterosexuals are "satisfied" with their relationships? Based on the divorce rate, that last doesn't seem likely.

"I have no objection to same-sex couples. My objection is to calling such unions "marriages" when in fact they are radically different from marriages, as already described."

Again, more opinion, not supported by any rational argument. And contradictory to your previous paragraph. A committed monogamous union is a committed monogamous union is, basically, all the legal institution of marriage is. Same-sex marriages can and do raise children and function identically to a heterosexual marriage in all the ways that are relevant to the civil institution of marriage.

"No one but you redefiners mention religion. I do not. The issue is not religion, but human nature, the basis of families and the well-being of children."

Your original arguments were based on homosexuality as an "abomination". Now they're all based on procreation, so the Biblical injunction to "be fruitful and multiply".

Based on all of the available evidence, same-sex couples are just as capable, on average, of forming families and raising children as heterosexual couples.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,292
Points:3,830,710
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: May 17, 2013 1:36:25 AM

"My objection is to calling such unions "marriages" when in fact they are radically different from marriages, as already described."

Oh yes, so different, marriage is between two people who have committed to love and life together, whereas same-sex marriage is between two people who have committed to love and life together.

You have NOT separated a condition from a person, you have DEFINED one group of people by what YOU call a "condition".
High blood pressure is a condition, COPD is a condition, chronic fatigue is a condition.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,065
Points:2,979,695
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: May 17, 2013 12:10:21 AM

<<I have no objection to same-sex couples. My objection is to calling such unions "marriages" when in fact they are radically different from marriages, as already described.>>

That's not even true. You don't have to call them married. They can call themselves married in, what is it, 11 states now?, and you don't have to worry about it.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,132
Points:2,522,895
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 16, 2013 11:06:15 PM

heterosexuality, but defective, I seem to have really offended the believers in the "homosexual equality" dogma. Too bad."

rjhenn: "And, once again, you're promoting your religious dogma, and trying to make an entire class of people second-class citizens."

No, you are, by tying people to a condition unnecessarily, and convincing them that this condition defines "who they are". Given that this condition is (by any reasonable as opposed to quibbling, definition) non-innate, that denigrates them. Instead, I separate the condition from those persons. Doing so can help them deal with same-sex attraction constructively, instead of constructing an identify and lifestyle around it that will not satisfy them.

sgm4law: "I think your beliefs are wrong-headed and would prefer that you not impose them on other people."

I have no objection to same-sex couples. My objection is to calling such unions "marriages" when in fact they are radically different from marriages, as already described.

"No one is making your church allow marriage equality."

No one but you redefiners mention religion. I do not. The issue is not religion, but human nature, the basis of families and the well-being of children.

GTH
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,065
Points:2,979,695
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: May 16, 2013 12:06:12 PM

<<I seem to have really offended the believers in the "homosexual equality" dogma.>>

I don't know if "offended" is the right word. I think your beliefs are wrong-headed and would prefer that you not impose them on other people. No one is making your church allow marriage equality. So just let the people who don't believe the same way as you have their freedoms. Simple, really.

[Edited by: sgm4law at 5/16/2013 12:06:43 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,292
Points:3,830,710
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: May 14, 2013 5:10:04 PM

The Minnesota state Senate has voted to legalize gay marriage, putting Minnesota in the spot of becoming the 12th to allow same-sex couples to marry.
Gov. Mark Dayton has promised to sign it and could do so Tuesday.
The state Senate voted 37-30 to pass the bill.
It allows same-sex weddings beginning Aug. 1.

Just six months ago, Minnesota voters rejected an effort to ban gay marriage in the state constitution.

The respect and equality train keeps rolling down the track.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,110
Points:747,400
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 14, 2013 7:00:30 AM

gas_too_high “By suggesting that a same-sex attraction is, not only not equal to heterosexuality, but defective, I seem to have really offended the believers in the "homosexual equality" dogma. Too bad.”

By suggesting that somebody should be treated as second class citizens because they don't fit into a religious dogma, you ARE being offensive to anybody who respects the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence.

“The most ironic posting was that I am somehow ignorant of biology, for asserting what biology and anatomy makes painfully obvious -- except for the "true believers".”

Since “irony” means “the use of words to convey the opposite of their literal meaning”, there is no irony involved at all. I DO mean literally that you have little or no understanding of biology.

Unless of course you're now redefining 'irony' to fit your argument as you have so many other words.

As a biologist in the field of human health, I'm well aware of the meaning of “innate”, and it ain't what you seem to think it is. That you ignored the dictionary definition, when I helpfully linked it for your edification, shows that like many believers, you can't be swayed by evidence. Anatomy is also not the deciding factor that you seem to think think it is, as there are individuals that YOU would classify as being of a different gender than they really are biologically if based purely on their genitalia.

“Refuting those claims makes discussion of homosexuality necessary.”

Refuting entails actually presenting evidence or at the very least, logical arguments. That being the case, you've rarely if ever refuted anything about homosexuality.

“Too much about homosexuality is assumed, when it should be challenged.”

We challenge you all the time, but you just keep making assumptions.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,324
Points:2,797,895
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 13, 2013 12:21:37 PM

gas_too_high - "By suggesting that a same-sex attraction is, not only not equal to heterosexuality, but defective, I seem to have really offended the believers in the "homosexual equality" dogma. Too bad."

And, once again, you're promoting your religious dogma, and trying to make an entire class of people second-class citizens.

"The most ironic posting was that I am somehow ignorant of biology, for asserting what biology and anatomy makes painfully obvious -- except for the "true believers"."

Which must mean that you want to put observers in every bedroom in America, to make sure no one ever does anything "unnatural".

"In any case, the only reason I make that assertion, is the constant claims that "homosexuals" need marriage redefinition, or (in another thread) access to the Boy Scouts, to be "equal"."

To be treated equally. As the Constitution, and simple morality, requires.

"Refuting those claims makes discussion of homosexuality necessary. Too much about homosexuality is assumed, when it should be challenged."

Which is just what we've done with your assumptions about homosexuality.

None of which you've been able to refute, just deny.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,292
Points:3,830,710
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: May 13, 2013 3:41:38 AM

It is painfully obvious that GTH has no idea what equality REALLY is, or he really wouldn't be saying the things we have challenged and disproven many times.
Much about homosexuality HAS been challenged, and it has been pointed out the APA has come to conclusions. The fact GTH fails to accept the conclusions of many intelligent and educated persons with specialized education who have done specialized research does not in any way invalidate those conclusions. The fact GTH refuses to accept he has been proven wrong in advance of any of these threads on GB just means he is part of a shrinking group of persons engaging in discrimination for idealogical, not scientific, reasons.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,132
Points:2,522,895
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 12, 2013 10:57:42 PM

By suggesting that a same-sex attraction is, not only not equal to heterosexuality, but defective, I seem to have really offended the believers in the "homosexual equality" dogma. Too bad.

The most ironic posting was that I am somehow ignorant of biology, for asserting what biology and anatomy makes painfully obvious -- except for the "true believers".

In any case, the only reason I make that assertion, is the constant claims that "homosexuals" need marriage redefinition, or (in another thread) access to the Boy Scouts, to be "equal". Refuting those claims makes discussion of homosexuality necessary. Too much about homosexuality is assumed, when it should be challenged.

GTH
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,292
Points:3,830,710
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: May 12, 2013 5:15:35 PM

"choosing to live the lifestyle is itself living a lie"

A homosexual choosing to live a lie, to marry somebody he is not attracted to, just to satisfy the likes of you, lives a lie, and devalues marriage.
I want my neighbours to be in a happy, devoted relationship, and part of the community, whether they be heterosexual, or homosexual, not people who are trying to please society by pawning off a sham marriage.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,324
Points:2,797,895
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 12, 2013 3:54:32 PM

gas_too_high - "No, choosing to live the lifestyle is itself living a lie, contravening their human nature under the influence of a deformed and defective orientation."

You mean the orientation God gave them.

"I feel for those in that situation, but trying to replace a relationship with the other, complementary gender with a mimicry relationship with the same gender, is living a lie."

So is a left-hander pretending to be right-handed. It's you that's promoting the lie.

"Do we encourage an alcoholic to go on drinking? I hope not, but that is exactly what you are doing here."

Not in the least, as BabeTruth has detailed.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,110
Points:747,400
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: May 12, 2013 8:11:30 AM

gas_too_high “No, choosing to live the lifestyle is itself living a lie,..”

And how is it “living a lie” when that is their true orientation? Living a lie would be pretending to be heterosexual when in reality they aren't.

So, what is the “lie” they're living by being themselves?

“.. contravening their human nature..”

THEIR nature is to be homosexual. It isn't to be heterosexual.

There seems to be some confusion by you as to the meaning of “natural” and an assumption that because MOST humans are one way that of necessity all humans MUST be that way, but that just isn't true. Just like the meaning of “innate”, your position shows that you don't understand basic biology.

“.. under the influence of a deformed and defective orientation.”

And this part of your sentence reveals your true feeling of revulsion and what is driving your POV.

“Do we encourage an alcoholic to go on drinking? I hope not, but that is exactly what you are doing here.”

No, it's not. There's no comparison between the two.

Alcoholics endanger their health by drinking. Homosexuals do not.

Alcoholics endanger other people's lives (DUI). Homosexuals do not.

Alcoholics lose the ability to function to society. Homosexuals do not.

Alcoholics destroy the relationship with their spouses. Homosexuals do not.

Alcoholics lose the ability to contribute to society. Homosexuals do not.

Alcoholics often become abusive to others. Homosexuals do not.

Alcoholics become a drain on society. Homosexuals do not.

Alcoholics disrupt the workplace. Homosexuals do not.

Alcoholics sometimes turn to crime because of it. Homosexuals do not.

Alcoholics reek of alcohol. Homosexuals don't reek of anything.

Alcoholism is a disease that can be cured. Homosexuality is not.

So how is alcoholism and homosexuality the same?
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,132
Points:2,522,895
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 11, 2013 9:51:03 PM

rumbleseat: "all it does is extend the same legal rights and responsibilities to gay persons who wish to marry that the privileged class of straight people enjoy."

GTH: "Which are already available to them now -- unless they choose to reject then in favor of their freely chosen lifestyle."

rjhenn: "You mean, if they choose to ignore who they are and live a lie."

No, choosing to live the lifestyle is itself living a lie, contravening their human nature under the influence of a deformed and defective orientation. I feel for those in that situation, but trying to replace a relationship with the other, complementary gender with a mimicry relationship with the same gender, is living a lie.

Do we encourage an alcoholic to go on drinking? I hope not, but that is exactly what you are doing here.

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,324
Points:2,797,895
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 12:25:52 PM

sgm4law - "There are still gay people who believe that instead of expanding marriage to include them, the institution of marriage is itself fatally flawed and should no longer be supported. I debate this with one of them on a regular basis."

I would agree with them, if they're talking about the religious institution of marriage. The civil institution of marriage is a different story.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,324
Points:2,797,895
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 12:24:28 PM

gas_too_high - "Once again, a red herring. Redefining marriage will change *society* at large, and everyone in it =, married or not, "gay" or "straight"."

Yet, you have no idea how it will change society, just vague blather.

"Which are already available to them now -- unless they choose to reject then in favor of their freely chosen lifestyle."

You mean, if they choose to ignore who they are and live a lie.

Your argument of "freely chosen lifestyle" is also a lie. Did you freely choose to be heterosexual?
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,065
Points:2,979,695
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 10:15:54 AM

<<Only hard-core "gay-rights" radicals were saying that in 1991, and not that many of them, then.>>

There are still gay people who believe that instead of expanding marriage to include them, the institution of marriage is itself fatally flawed and should no longer be supported. I debate this with one of them on a regular basis.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,292
Points:3,830,710
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 3:39:04 AM

"Which are already available to them now -- unless they choose to reject then (sic) in favor of their freely chosen lifestyle."

You really like the idea of saying to people "here is a carrot. Live the way I believe you should live, you can have it. Be different from me, tough noogies, no carrot for you".
One more state has legalized same sex marriage, you weren't able to stop it. One more state has made it possible to marry for love without debasing marriage by living a lie to satisfy your requirements.
The tide of acceptance keeps flowing in the US, and around the world.
You don't accept it. You join the governments of Uganda and Iran in that opinion.

"That smells like BS."
Funny, when anybody calls BS on you, you get all offended and defensive, even call people "angry", but you have no problem calling BS on anybody else.

[Edited by: rumbleseat at 5/9/2013 3:41:10 AM EST]
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,132
Points:2,522,895
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 9, 2013 3:23:33 AM

rumble: "The vocal radical minority you are posting quotes from represent a minute percentage of gays, and fear of them is irrational."

GTH: "20 years ago people were probably saying the same thing about "gay marriage", even though there was a lawsuit in Hawaii to redefine marriage there in 1991. I bet most everyone probably would go nowhere, but it did (and led directly to DOMA's pasage). So -- where were you saying about 2 men or 2 women "marrying" each other in 1991? The same as what you are saying now, about the "vocal minority"? How did that work out for ya?"

rumble: "I would have said the same thing I say now. Why not?"

That smells like BS. Only hard-core "gay-rights" radicals were saying that in 1991, and not that many of them, then. I have already posted links about Harvey Milk, who was not a fan of redefining marriage.

Had you said that in 1991, you would have been considered crazy -- or one of those radicals. I don't see that in you. What you are saying now, happens to be a popular thing to say -- now.

"Extending marriage to allow gays to marry doesn't force you or me or anybody else who isn't gay to marry same sex…"

Once again, a red herring. Redefining marriage will change *society* at large, and everyone in it =, married or not, "gay" or "straight".

"all it does is extend the same legal rights and responsibilities to gay persons who wish to marry that the privileged class of straight people enjoy."

Which are already available to them now -- unless they choose to reject then in favor of their freely chosen lifestyle.

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,324
Points:2,797,895
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 8, 2013 10:28:42 PM

Almost on topic. 7;-]
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,292
Points:3,830,710
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: May 8, 2013 6:43:26 PM

July 1, Delaware officially becomes the 11th state in the USA to allow same-sex marriage after Gov. Jack Markell signed a gay marriage bill into law.
"Delaware should be, is and will be a welcoming place to live and love and to raise a family for all who call our great state home," Markell said.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,065
Points:2,979,695
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: May 2, 2013 1:01:41 PM

People can change their minds, you know.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,292
Points:3,830,710
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: May 1, 2013 5:57:17 PM

"So -- where were you saying about 2 men or 2 women "marrying" each other in 1991?"

I would have said the same thing I say now. Why not?
I have had gays in my circle of friends and co-workers as far back as I can remember, even had a good friend who was in the closet in high school in the 1960s.
It doesn't affect me or my marriage in the least. Extending marriage to allow gays to marry doesn't force you or me or anybody else who isn't gay to marry same sex, all it does is extend the same legal rights and responsibilities to gay persons who wish to marry that the privileged class of straight people enjoy.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,324
Points:2,797,895
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 1, 2013 5:46:02 PM

gas_too_high - "They are, however, from the very group that is supposed to benefit from redefined "marriage" -- practicing homosexuals, and "gay-rights" activists, at that."

So extremists define the group they're 'from'?

Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,132
Points:2,522,895
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 1, 2013 2:04:41 PM

'Many of them seem to be against SSM. So hardly "the SSM crowd".'

They are, however, from the very group that is supposed to benefit from redefined "marriage" -- practicing homosexuals, and "gay-rights" activists, at that.

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,324
Points:2,797,895
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 1, 2013 12:49:49 PM

BlkynB - "Some VERY relevant quotes from the SSM crowd."

Many of them seem to be against SSM. So hardly "the SSM crowd".

"Death of marriage = 'progress'"

Realize that that's a response to your "traditional" view of marriage, where the male is the head of the household and the female is his willing slave.

"rj"

You don't even pay attention to who's posting what you're responding to.

And half your quotes have nothing to do with changing marriage.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 5/1/2013 12:52:21 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,132
Points:2,522,895
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 1, 2013 12:31:35 PM

"There is a group of people that want to give human rights to monkeys, including the right to vote. Whoopee ding dong poopoo! It isn't going to happen. We don't let them frighten us. The vocal radical minority you are posting quotes from represent a minute percentage of gays, and fear of them is irrational."

20 years ago people were probably saying the same thing about "gay marriage", even though there was a lawsuit in Hawaii to redefine marriage there in 1991. Ibet most everyone probably would go nowhere, but it did (and led directly to DOMA's pasage).

So -- where were you saying about 2 men or 2 women "marrying" each other in 1991? The same as what you are saying now, about the "vocal minority"? How did that work out for ya?

GTH
Profile Pic
BlkynB
Champion Author San Diego

Posts:25,019
Points:3,009,905
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: May 1, 2013 11:53:47 AM

rj <"The vocal minority likes to shock people. So what?>"

Your saying this is a vocal minority does not make it so. Looking over the quotes it appears to represent a wide spectrum of the gay movement, and this is not by any means an exhaustive list. I'll provide even more later on in this post.

rj <"There is a group of people that want to give human rights to monkeys, including the right to vote. Whoopee ding dong poopoo! It isn't going to happen. We don't let them frighten us. The vocal radical minority you are posting quotes from represent a minute percentage of gays, and fear of them is irrational.>"

Pathetic try with the "reductio ad absurdum", meaningless point.


rj <"They do NOT represent all homosexuals.....>"

LOL, you would be very hard pressed to find anyone, or any organization to represent all members of a groups agenda, another meaningless grasping at straws.

Here are some more thoughts from the gay community on this subject:

Who needs marriage anymore
"The real question that should be debated is not whether gay marriage should be allowed, but rather, is marriage really something we need anymore?"
-- David Vakalis

Marriage erodes "freedom"
"Marriage should not be a goal; it should be a choice. One choice available out of many recognized as valid by society. But it isn’t. Not yet. Right now, as far as society is concerned, you are married or you are not yet married. And as that notion becomes further codified our freedom to make other choices steadily erodes."
-- David McGee

A moral revolution
"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."
-- Paul Varnell,
Chicago Free Press

Transform society
“Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. ... We must keep our eyes on the goal ... of radically reordering society’s views of reality." [source]
-- Paula Ettelbrick
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

Marriage should not exist
"... fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist."
-- Masha Gessen, journalist
During a pannel discussion at the Sydney Writers Festival

It should not come as a surprise to you, that this has been a sub Rosa target of he gay movement all along, just not openly discussed until recently when the movement has been more emboldened,.

.







Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,292
Points:3,830,710
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: May 1, 2013 5:01:40 AM

The vocal minority likes to shock people. So what?
There is a group of people that want to give human rights to monkeys, including the right to vote. Whoopee ding dong poopoo! It isn't going to happen. We don't let them frighten us. The vocal radical minority you are posting quotes from represent a minute percentage of gays, and fear of them is irrational.
They do NOT represent all homosexuals any more than some bigots that still believe in segregation (see the thread RNorm started about prom) represent all Americans.
Profile Pic
BlkynB
Champion Author San Diego

Posts:25,019
Points:3,009,905
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: May 1, 2013 3:12:51 AM

Some VERY relevant quotes from the SSM crowd.

Death of marriage = "progress"

"Opting out of marriage altogether will provide a quicker path to progress, as only the death of marriage can bring about the dawn of equality for all."
-- Dr. Meagan Tyler,
Lecturer in Sociology at Victoria University

Redefine the institution

"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. [Legalizing "same-sex marriage"] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.”
-- Michelangelo Signorile,
OUT magazine, December/January 1994

We are advocating destruction

"And after all, we are advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit... ."
-- Ryan Conrad

Next step: Abolish

"But perhaps the next step isn’t to, once again, expand the otherwise narrow definition of marriage but to altogether abolish the false distinction between married families and other equally valid but unrecognized partnerships."
-- Sally Kohn,
Prop 8: Let’s Get Rid of Marriage Instead!

The death of marriage

"Wouldn't marriage's death as a state institution, including for straight people, be the best solution? ...Scrap the civil register; make no distinction in the state's eyes between married and unmarried citizens."
-- Alex Gabriel,
Politics.co.uk

Stoke the flames

"Marriage is the proverbial burning building. Instead of pounding on the door to be let in... queers should be stoking the flames!"
-- National Conference on Organized Resistance

Abolish the family

"We must aim at the abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there."
-- Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto,
London, 1971, revised 1978

Transform society

“Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. ... We must keep our eyes on the goal ... of radically reordering society’s views of reality." [source]
-- Paula Ettelbrick
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

SMOKING GUNS ALL.

.

Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,292
Points:3,830,710
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: May 1, 2013 12:45:31 AM

"Of course, everyone who wants to redefine marriage wants to, in effect, destroy marriage as it is now"

Baloney, we are interested in strengthening marriage.
You have yet to explain, despite being asked repeatedly, how allowing a gay couple to marry can possibly have an adverse effect on your marriage.
It sure as heck doesn't have an adverse effect on mine, or on that of anybody I know who is secure in their own marriage.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,324
Points:2,797,895
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: May 1, 2013 12:21:40 AM

gas_too_high - "Probably, only a relatively few consciously have that intent. Of course, everyone who wants to redefine marriage wants to, in effect, destroy marriage as it is now -- a heterosexual institution that exists to ensure children are raised by their mothers and fathers -- and remake it into a tool of convenience for "consenting adults". That is probably not how they think of it, like rjhenn calling redefinition a "minor extension," but it is true."

Yet you can't explain how a committed monogamous relationship that raises children is different just because the partners in that relationship are of the same sex. Or how a committed monogamous homosexual relationship is somehow "a tool of convenience for 'consenting adults'", when the equivalent heterosexual relationship isn't.

All you've got is a desire to keep some families and children in a second-class status because that's what your religion says is right.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,132
Points:2,522,895
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 30, 2013 9:28:33 PM

"Seriously, who can believe gays are a giant cabal, intent on destroying marriage?"

That overstates what is likely true (all the better to discredit it).

Probably, only a relatively few consciously have that intent. Of course, everyone who wants to redefine marriage wants to, in effect, destroy marriage as it is now -- a heterosexual institution that exists to ensure children are raised by their mothers and fathers -- and remake it into a tool of convenience for "consenting adults". That is probably not how they think of it, like rjhenn calling redefinition a "minor extension," but it is true.

And at least one other homosexual activist, the late Harvey Milk, had this to say:

'The real Milk was a sexual liberationist of a very specific 1970s type. "As homosexuals, we can't depend on the heterosexual model," [homosexual journalist Randy] Shilts quotes him as saying to one boyfriend in San Francisco by way of explaining why he had another boyfriend in Los Angeles. "We grow up with the heterosexual model, but we don't have to follow it. We should be developing our own lifestyle. There's no reason you can't love more than one person at a time." Shilts adds: "That ultimately was what his politics were all about, Harvey decided."'

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 4/30/2013 9:29:47 PM EST]
Post a reply Back to Topics