U.S. Supreme Court halts gay marriage in Utah

[Texashiker]

I'm talking about all the friends and associates that you have that are gay.

And yes, they are there.

I used to work with a gay man, he was alright in my book.

My wife (ex-wife now) and I invited him over for movies and dinner a couple of times.

 

[Retro Rob]

Intelligence is not the exclusive domain of humans. We know that quite well.

Of course. There's animal intelligence, and human intelligence. The distinction is quite clear, if you're willing to be intellectually honest enough to admit it.

murder, canabilism, child abandonment...these are survival strategies. Humans act on them as well, right or wrong. They aren't necessarily the preferred, or even common, order of things in certain critter communities, but they are made necessary when resources are scarce.

LOL -- MURDER isn't a "survial strategy" in the human world...killing, OTOH, is.

Child abandonment is simply inexcusable.

No one chooses to be gay--that is simple truth (seriously--go choose to be gay. do it. it should be easy, right? choose to be part of one of the most oppressed communities out there. let us know how it works out)

You're putting words in my mouth..I spoke nothing of homosexuality being a choice.

What you are doing is comparing survival strategy--response behavior--with someone's born identity. One can't not be black. One can't not be gay.

I don't know WTF you're talking about.

 

[OCGuy]

I used to work with a gay man, he was alright in my book.

My wife (ex-wife now) and I invited him over for movies and dinner a couple of times.

Do you know what could be reasonably assumed using your simplistic logic?

 

[zinfamous]

Sorry there is no proof that being gay is genetic. Certainly no more proof that it is inherited than things like like criminality(murder)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...search-suggests-criminal-behaviour-genes.html

And hey we could perform the same thought experiment for crime as we do for homosexuality. On the way home today stop at a convenience store and steal a candy bar.

nehalism #2 again. your thought experiment is obviously silly, because one does not choose to be gay.

Your idea of proof, and evidence, have been laughable at best. I can again link, as I have done in the past, dozens of peer-reviewed papers that present sufficient evidence for a genetic component, and even fetal components. You will read them, and scoff, because you haven't the ability to scrutinize data.

this is why you post a daily mail link. lol

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

I think what's meant by "unnatrual" is from the standpoint of two persons of the same-sex not being able concieve on their own. Darn near all opposite-sex partners can, conversely.

As has been pointed out, that's irrelevant as we don't force heterosexual couples to have offspring. In addition, not all heterosexual couples choose to have offspring. So it doesn't matter that homosexual couples can't biologically reproduce since heterosexual couples aren't forced/required to.

It depends on how you define "unnatrual". Once we define that, we can understand what we all mean when we say it.

I prefer the commonly accepted definition, and propose we use Marriam Webster as our source:
: different from how things usually are in the physical world or in nature

: different from what is normal in a way that is seen as wrong, disturbing, etc.

: not real

Under that definition, the first one doesn't fit since it is not unusual in the physical world/nature. The third one doesn't apply since it is real and we aren't talking about "what if there are gay people." So that leaves the second definition, which the majority of US society (52% as of June 2013 Gallup poll here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/163730/back-law-legalize-gay-marriage-states.aspx) would/have vote for. So while I'll say that gay marriage is a small percentage of the population (I'll be generous to the gay marriage side and use 20%) which fits the first half of not being "normal" assuming normal is the "majority", the second half doesn't fit. The reason it doesn't is because people are unlikely to support something that is wrong/disturbing as far as civil liberties are concerned.

I've never seen the animal kingdom argument as a valid one because, unlike them, we're governed by intelligence, not instinct and nature. In other words, we decide right and wrong based on our intelligence, NOT what goes on with animals.

The majority of US society view it wrong to prohibit same sex marriages.

 

[OCGuy]

Sorry there is no proof that being gay is genetic. Certainly no more proof that it is inherited than things like like criminality(murder)

Be honest...do you have the logical fallacy guide-book up when you post?

Arguing from Ignorance


Explanation

Arguments from ignorance infer that a proposition is true from the fact that it is not known to be false. Not all arguments of this form are fallacious; if it is known that if the proposition were not true then it would have been disproven, then a valid argument from ignorance may be constructed. In other cases, though, arguments from ignorance are fallacious.

Example

(1) No one has been able to disprove the existence of God.
Therefore:
(2) God exists.

This argument is fallacious because the non-existence of God is perfectly consistent with no one having been able to prove God’s non-existence

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/arguing-from-ignorance/

 

[zinfamous]

You're putting words in my mouth..I spoke nothing of homosexuality being a choice.

no, you didn't. I inferred, because that is the differentiation you make between things animals/humans choose--canabilism/murder/abandonment, and why we punish things differently.

I reasoned that these are not part of any discussion on natural/unnatural behavior in the animal kingdom, in this topic, because these are choices, being gay is not a choice.

Therefore, it seems to me that the only reason to bring these up, is to also believe that homosexuality is a choice, or even a survival strategy.


oh, and murder--well, you used "murder" in the animal kingdom. I think murder is very rare in animals, and is probably uniquely human. I just used your words, but killing would be more appropriate for the animal kingdom.

I don't know WTF you're talking about.

Same part of the previous comment.

 

[MrPickins]

Sorry there is no proof that being gay is genetic.

I don't know if it's nature or nurture, but it was pretty obvious that my gay friends were that way from a very early age.

It may not be genetic, but it's not a choice either.

 

[nehalem256]

nehalism #2 again. your thought experiment is obviously silly, because one does not choose to be gay.

Your idea of proof, and evidence, have been laughable at best. I can again link, as I have done in the past, dozens of peer-reviewed papers that present sufficient evidence for a genetic component, and even fetal components. You will read them, and scoff, because you haven't the ability to scrutinize data.

this is why you post a daily mail link. lol

So you are saying it is influenced by genetics. That is far different from a blanket people are "born" gay statement.

And my thought experiment is perfectly valid. I am saying people don't choose to be criminals either.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

I used to work with a gay man, he was alright in my book.

My wife (ex-wife now) and I invited him over for movies and dinner a couple of times.

What you did there was unnatural getting divorced! We should ban divorce.

I'm kidding with that, but you're basically saying "I'm not a racist, I have lots of black friends." Right.

 

[Exophase]

Sorry there is no proof that being gay is genetic. Certainly no more proof that it is inherited than things like like criminality(murder)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...search-suggests-criminal-behaviour-genes.html

And hey we could perform the same thought experiment for crime as we do for homosexuality. On the way home today stop at a convenience store and steal a candy bar.

Whether or not it's always partially or entirely hereditary (and I can easily see some argument that it isn't) doesn't make it voluntary. That's all that actually matters. Homosexuality isn't a choice. Not that that should really matter either, saying it's a choice is just a rationalization to justify condemning them for it.

In some cases society restricts the behaviors people can take even if they are determined by involuntary impulses, because they're harmful. Allowing homosexual relationships isn't harmful. Extending marriage benefits to include gay couples isn't harmful. The practical arguments against it have all been stupid.

 

[zinfamous]

So you are saying it is influenced by genetics. That is far different from a blanket people are "born" gay statement.

And my thought experiment is perfectly valid. I am saying people don't choose to be criminals either.

Here is the funny thing (I am a geneticist, by the way), Everything is 100% genetics, and yet very few things are 100% genetics.

....it truly comes down to that.

The studies that are "searching for a 'gay gene'" and what they find, never completely proves or excludes the genetic component. That is a fact.

You have a particular BRCA1 mutation! Does that mean you will get Breast cancer? no, no it does not.

It's as equally likely that there is a "gay gene" that there is not one, and also that it is a more complicated and nuanced system of transcription factors doing their thing in a very specific moment--hence, the time of expression for this to happen occurs in a very short window during development, which makes it difficult to detect later in life.

Here is the answer: Is it genetic? of course it is. Is it environment? Yes, probably also true.

 

[Retro Rob]

As has been pointed out, that's irrelevant as we don't force heterosexual couples to have offspring. In addition, not all heterosexual couples choose to have offspring. So it doesn't matter that homosexual couples can't biologically reproduce since heterosexual couples aren't forced/required to.

I didn't say it was relevant...I was explaining my definition to you. No, reproduction isn't a requirement, but good grief, you guys act is if its "wrong" to object to SSM. That's probably why people use the "natrual" argument because you demand a reason why some object to it.

Why can't you live and let live yourselves? Why can't I simply not agree with it without being stigmatized?

The majority of US society view it wrong to prohibit same sex marriages.

So what? My point is that has NOTHING to do with gay animals. There was a point in time when it was banned. That had nothing to do with animals, did it?

 

[Exophase]

I didn't say it was relevant...I was explaining my definition to you. No, reproduction isn't a requirement, but good grief, you guys act is if its "wrong" to object to SSM. That's probably why people use the "natrual" argument because you demand a reason why some object to it.

Context is everything. Or for some people, taking things out of context appears to be everything. The only reason homosexuality in nature was brought up was to illustrate that it's not a dead-end that'll get quicklly weeded out of the genepool. Not as some kind of natural = ethical equivalency.

I personally demand a reason why some reject anything that only takes from other people who aren't otherwise taking anything from them.

 

[berzerker60]

I didn't say it was relevant...I was explaining my definition to you. No, reproduction isn't a requirement, but good grief, you guys act is if its "wrong" to object to SSM. That's probably why people use the "natrual" argument because you demand a reason why some object to it.

Why can't you live and let live yourselves? Why can't I simply not agree with it without being stigmatized?




So what? My point is that has NOTHING to do with gay animals. There was a point in time when it was banned. That had nothing to do with animals, did it?

If you genuinely have a hard time understanding why people judge you for being against allowing same sex marriage, consider in its place 'interracial marriage.' It used to be banned, with some of the same arguments used against it (IT WILL DESTROY TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE!). Of course there are differences, but that's sort of what it sounds like to us. Of course you have a right to be against interracial marriage, but we're still going to look down on that viewpoint. Everyone gets to have an opinion, but you don't get to have an opinion without being judged for it.

 

[Texashiker]

Do you know what could be reasonably assumed using your simplistic logic?

My wife ran off with the gay guy?

Na, she went bat crap crazy and I left her.

What you did there was unnatural getting divorced! We should ban divorce.

I'm kidding with that, but you're basically saying "I'm not a racist, I have lots of black friends." Right.

When my wife and I had our house warming party I invited my black work-wife and her husband over. I told her not to worry about being the only black people there.

They had other stuff to do and did not attend.

 

[Exophase]

So you are saying it is influenced by genetics. That is far different from a blanket people are "born" gay statement.

And my thought experiment is perfectly valid. I am saying people don't choose to be criminals either.

You're only a criminal if you actually commit a criminal act, which is behavioral and for the most part voluntary. Nobody is born a criminal. That dailymail article title is as stupid as that one I saw that alcoholism is hereditary. There are other competing factors that could influence something with a more hereditary inclination towards something to not actually do that thing.

The analog is that homosexuality is involuntary, having a sexual relationship with someone of the same gender isn't. Some people, for whatever reason, choose not to act on their homosexuality. Those people are often going to be pretty frustrated and missing something in their lives vs others, because they don't want to do something just because society ignorantly disapproves.

Most people against gay marriage at least understand this, but you still get some who think that some people have gay sex just because they want to do something they know is "bad." Some of the language against homosexual behavior in the Bible makes it sound like this is what the writers were thinking.

 

[Retro Rob]

If you genuinely have a hard time understanding why people judge you for being against allowing same sex marriage, consider in its place 'interracial marriage.' It used to be banned, with some of the same arguments used against it (IT WILL DESTROY TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE!). Of course there are differences, but that's sort of what it sounds like to us. Of course you have a right to be against interracial marriage, but we're still going to look down on that viewpoint. Everyone gets to have an opinion, but you don't get to have an opinion without being judged for it.

I have a hard time understanding all the reverse bigotry, which is all this is, and demanding people be politically correct instead of genuinely honest. This is all a form of bullying...convert or die (socially-speaking), lynch-mob mentality, and its ok for you to do this.

We all talk about "tolerance" and repect,...if I judge gays as being deviants, I can't do that, but then the same idiots, right out of the sides of the necks, justifiy "judging" me...as you so willingly admit to doing.

You guys don't want tolerance. You don't know what it means.

 

[Victorian Gray]

That is not true.

Stuff like this is why,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkt1vAX0MRM

You believed this clip? Seriously? If so, that's really funny. If not, that was well played.

Gay Army is a Danish[1] comedy reality television series featuring nine effeminate gay men put into the hands of a drill sergeant. The show was first broadcast in Sweden, Norway and Denmark. The show has also been sold to Italy, Germany, Canada, and Poland, although protests led to the show's being cancelled in the latter country before it aired.[1]

In each episode the gay “recruits” face new training missions of stereotypically "masculine" tasks. In the final episode they face the "real" army in "war". Contestants are treated to party nights and rewards as missions are accomplished.

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

 

[Retro Rob]

I personally demand a reason why some reject anything that only takes from other people who aren't otherwise taking anything from them.

I agree, generally, but you can't "take" something from someone who never had it.

"Denying" is a more accurate description.

 

[Texashiker]

You believed this clip? Seriously? If so, that's really funny. If not, that was well played.

I'll have you know I just apologized to a gay guy on facebook over something I told him 20 years ago.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Murder, cannibalism, child abandonment, etc all happen in the "natrual world" too, so how dare we criminalize that behavior when it's natrural to "lower man" lifeforms.

Talk about trotting out a wrongheaded argument to justify homosexuality...an argument that can be used to justify virtually anything under the Sun.

That was not an argument to 'justify homosexuality'. It was a counter to the idea that in the real world homosexuality is a 'genetic dead end'.

Pay attention please.

 

[Retro Rob]

That was not an argument to 'justify homosexuality'. It was a counter to the idea that in the real world homosexuality is a 'genetic dead end'.

Pay attention please.

Yea I reread -- my bad guys. It's often trotted out as a rebuttal to the "it's wrong" argument. I thought that was part of his argument.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Yes. But so is infertility

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounds_for_divorce_(United_States)

So then by your very own argument you must concede that since infertility is grounds for divorce clearly procreation is part of marriage

So what, doesn't have anything to do with the original point.

Having problems following your own arguments? Not surprised.

You stated "There is no requirement to fidelity in marriage. So by the exact logic courts used to dismiss "marriage being about procreation" we can dismiss marriage being about fidelity."

You were wrong.

So, were you attempting to lie? Or are you simply ignorant?

 

[MrPickins]

You guys don't want tolerance. You don't know what it means.

It's hard to be tolerant of homophobia, just like it's hard to be tolerant of racism.

snip

But, but, he used the sunglasses emoticon. You should be feeling devastated by his logical prowess!!1!