Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    I figured someone might say that. I go to threads, scroll down to my last post, and then read up from there in order. I didn't see Sparko's post until after I made my comment and then continued on to the next post - which was his.

    Of course, you only have my word for that. The timestamps certainly make it possible that it happened as you suggest. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.
    It's nitpickery - doesn't matter at all. Just pulling your chain.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      Oh stop with the disparaging language thing, since I never did that. And the other problem is the lack of mother child bonding with the biological mother. Which is a chemical interaction: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3289392/
      I've copied your statement, and made my position clear. At this point it is fairly clear you are in 100% defense of your statement, so I'll leave you to it. I continue to find it offensive, and I suspect most adoptive parents would as well. I'll forward the link to a few (without comment) and see what their reaction is.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Right, so where there is little requirement that could just as easily fall into the step parent camp. So again, biological parents are generally better than non-biological parents.
      At this point, you appear to be trolling. I see no other reason to persist in using a phrase that has been identified as offensive.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Well if a man or an animal is exclusively "gay" and gayness had a strong genetic component then that gene or genes would not be passed on. So exclusive "gayness" does not exist.
      This strongly suggests that you do not know a great deal about genetics OR inheritance. First, as has been noted elsewhere, gayness is more like left-handedness than it is like hair color. It appears to be a complex of genetic interactions, rather than a single gene. Since genes are sliced and diced and swapped at conception, the situation is not as simple as your apparent model of genetics and inheritance. And homosexuality is both a male AND a female phenomenon, remember? Nothing prevents a female homosexual (i.e., a lesbian) from becoming pregnant. And nothing prevents a gay man from contributing sperm to that effort, especially in this age of sperm banks, surrogates, and donated eggs.

      Indeed, it is entirely possible that homosexuality can be coded for by two people who are heterosexual. We see this pretty regularly, so it is likely we will find that to be true genetically.
      Last edited by carpedm9587; 05-24-2018, 03:04 PM.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        So I'm not fascinating?
        Oh you're fascinating all right...

        Kind of like watching a monkey hurl poop at the passing crowd. Very fascinating...
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          It's nitpickery - doesn't matter at all. Just pulling your chain.
          That was NOT my chain...

          Stop that... you're making me nervous... and a little excited...
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            For example - none of you actually know what I think about this issue. But I've been arguing against the PC side of the issue. Most of you that are pro same-sex acceptance come hell or high-water think I am rabidly homophobic. But that is just because of your own rabid ideological biases. The same thing happens anytime I raise for discussion any element that might not support AGW - even though think AGW is real - I get labelled a 'climate change denier'. Most people in this world simply are incapable of a rational, unbiased discussion of any topic that has the potential to directly affect their world-view.

            I would never posit that same-sex attraction is wrong BECAUSE it is a minority trait. That is ridiculous. And the fact that you would think I might take a tack like that is just your own bias and/or lack of knowledge of me shining through. And no, I'm not getting dangerously close to anything. I haven't even tried to argue that point yet - not even sure at this point if I will for the simple reason that a rational discussion of any possible reasoning in that direction is simply impossible in this (or proabably any) forum. My reluctance so far is not based on a lack of ideas, but a lack of desire to take on the rabid hostility and irrational labeling that would accompany such an attempt. Bottom line - none of you are even remotely capable of an objective discussion on this issue. So I have to decide is if there is a sufficiently high probability I will learn something sufficiently useful in such a discussion that it will be worth wading through the mountain high pile of insults and derogatory statements I would have to wade through in such a discussion.
            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              Oh you're fascinating all right...

              Kind of like watching a monkey hurl poop at the passing crowd. Very fascinating...
              And you are the crowd...
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                So, I see that in your case atheism does in fact translate to a lack of common decency. Fortunately it does not appear to be the norm, at least on these pages


                Jim
                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                Comment


                • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  So, I see that in your case atheism does in fact translate to a lack of common decency. Fortunately it does not appear to be the norm, at least on these pages


                  Jim
                  I actually owe the decent folk on this page an apology. It was quite rude of me imply your lack of common decency could be linked to your atheism. IN fact, it probably is wrong to try to deduce the cause.

                  Jim
                  My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                  If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                  This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    And you are the crowd...
                    Yeah...that much I know...
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      I actually owe the decent folk on this page an apology. It was quite rude of me imply your lack of common decency could be linked to your atheism. IN fact, it probably is wrong to try to deduce the cause.

                      Jim
                      Apology accepted....

                      ...so now why don't you make the attempt to assume that some of us are actually interested in the argument, and not the personalities....(despite what our detractors might be saying...)
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        So, I see that in your case atheism does in fact translate to a lack of common decency. Fortunately it does not appear to be the norm, at least on these pages
                        You post a multi-paragraph rant/ramble of insults at us, and I respond with a laugh, and I'm the one of us who's lacking common decency? What a topsy-turvy world you live in.

                        I find it a bit weird you imagine atheism might be linked with a lack of politeness. I live in a country that's about 50% non-religious and 50% Christian according to how people identify themselves on the census, and I've never heard anyone suggest religious affiliation has any connection to politeness.

                        But since you did find it appropriate to do your lecture of us that was lacking in common decency, and told us how we saw you, and how we were incapable of being reasonable, etc, I'm going to actually tell you, no-holes-barred, how I see you in response:

                        1. I strongly suspect you're ideologically driven: You see yourself as a Christian, and you view your religious book and/or your church as teaching that homosexuality is wrong and against God's will. You believe that God has rational reasons for his views and hence you believe that there must exist, out there somewhere, a good reason to be against homosexuality, even if you don't know what it is. So I think you're exploring to see what, in fact, that logical reason is. I think the whole process is thus utterly biased on your part: You know what conclusion you want to arrive at, you just don't know how to get there. So I suspect you're strongly biased and incapable of unbiased reasoning on the matter, and your whole spiel about us being biased and incapable of unbiased reasoning was 100% projection on your part.

                        2. I think you don't know much about the issue. As you've already acknowledged you didn't even realize the basics in regard to how same sex couples have kids currently.

                        3. Your beginner lack of knowledge, contrasts with the informed people whom you are discussing the subject with here, who have spent years learning what there is to know on the subject and who have reached conclusions based on knowledge and evidence and information. Yet, you apparently very arrogantly seem to think it's reasonable for you to accuse informed people who have reached evidence based conclusions of being biased precisely because they are informed and have reached those conclusions. It seems like you think "ha, because you know more than me, you're untrustworthy and can't be any sort of unbiased arbiter of evidence." Somehow you think your own ignorance is a weapon.

                        4. Your lecturing of others about what they can and can't think or reason or be unbiased on, is just incredibly arrogant. I'm pretty arrogant myself, but you've managed to outdo me on this issue.

                        5. The way you insist on approaching the issue, as if it's inherently a 50/50 thing is quite funny, and telling, in and of itself. I see your words as equivalent to "calm down people, and let's have a serious discussion about whether black people ought to be slaves. You guys who think they shouldn't are totally biased. We've got to discuss it fairly and equitably. Anyone who makes any assumptions about me as a person simply because I want to have a serious discussion about whether black people should actually be slaves, is treating me totally unfairly". I think in that analogous case we would be totally justified in making certain assumptions about you, just as we are in this case.
                        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                          You post a multi-paragraph rant/ramble of insults at us, and I respond with a laugh, and I'm the one of us who's lacking common decency? What a topsy-turvy world you live in.

                          I find it a bit weird you imagine atheism might be linked with a lack of politeness. I live in a country that's about 50% non-religious and 50% Christian according to how people identify themselves on the census, and I've never heard anyone suggest religious affiliation has any connection to politeness.

                          But since you did find it appropriate to do your lecture of us that was lacking in common decency, and told us how we saw you, and how we were incapable of being reasonable, etc, I'm going to actually tell you, no-holes-barred, how I see you in response:

                          1. I strongly suspect you're ideologically driven: You see yourself as a Christian, and you view your religious book and/or your church as teaching that homosexuality is wrong and against God's will. You believe that God has rational reasons for his views and hence you believe that there must exist, out there somewhere, a good reason to be against homosexuality, even if you don't know what it is. So I think you're exploring to see what, in fact, that logical reason is. I think the whole process is thus utterly biased on your part: You know what conclusion you want to arrive at, you just don't know how to get there. So I suspect you're strongly biased and incapable of unbiased reasoning on the matter, and your whole spiel about us being biased and incapable of unbiased reasoning was 100% projection on your part.

                          2. I think you don't know much about the issue. As you've already acknowledged you didn't even realize the basics in regard to how same sex couples have kids currently.

                          3. Your beginner lack of knowledge, contrasts with the informed people whom you are discussing the subject with here, who have spent years learning what there is to know on the subject and who have reached conclusions based on knowledge and evidence and information. Yet, you apparently very arrogantly seem to think it's reasonable for you to accuse informed people who have reached evidence based conclusions of being biased precisely because they are informed and have reached those conclusions. It seems like you think "ha, because you know more than me, you're untrustworthy and can't be any sort of unbiased arbiter of evidence." Somehow you think your own ignorance is a weapon.

                          4. Your lecturing of others about what they can and can't think or reason or be unbiased on, is just incredibly arrogant. I'm pretty arrogant myself, but you've managed to outdo me on this issue.

                          5. The way you insist on approaching the issue, as if it's inherently a 50/50 thing is quite funny, and telling, in and of itself. I see your words as equivalent to "calm down people, and let's have a serious discussion about whether black people ought to be slaves. You guys who think they shouldn't are totally biased. We've got to discuss it fairly and equitably. Anyone who makes any assumptions about me as a person simply because I want to have a serious discussion about whether black people should actually be slaves, is treating me totally unfairly". I think in that analogous case we would be totally justified in making certain assumptions about you, just as we are in this case.
                          Yep. That was about the rudest response I think I've ever gotten here. Where I was raised, you don't laugh a people that are trying to be open and honest. Even if you think what they are saying is silly.

                          It would appear that where you were raised, anyone not in your 'little club' is hardly even another human being, or so it would appear from what I've seen from you so far. Have you considered the White House? Lots of folks that take that approach to others over there.

                          -----

                          So your solution is "Unless you are an expert - don't talk about it?" That is ridiculous.

                          And no - it is not at all like discussing if black people should be slaves. For reasons that have been discussed already in this thread multiple times by multiple people.

                          I know some things about this issue, and I am learning other things. I have opinions, which are contrary to yours - and that is your prime irritant. Your responses indicate this is unforgivable. That much is clear. I was wrong to link it directly to Atheism. You'll notice I preceded your response with that acknowledgment - if you look closely enough.

                          So far you've contributed little that isn't derogatory. So IF for some reason you take offense at something not perfectly nice in my posts, you need to take a long look in the mirror first.

                          Yeah - I haven't taken much time to learn about how female gay couples can make babies using modern technology. And? That has little to do with the topics I'm debating. It really didn't change the point in which it came up except in terms of the magnitude of the effect. But I conceded the point. And it would likely have very little to do with a discussion on the morality of same-sex relationships.

                          Other than that - what you will find is that if you approach a conversation with me with respect, you for the most part get respect back. Even now after this exchange I offer you reasoned respectful conversation if that is something you have any desire for.

                          But if you act like a jerk, well there is always 'ignore' - which I have used less times in almost 10 years than I have fingers on one hand. But it may be a legitimate option with you.


                          Jim
                          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-24-2018, 09:55 PM.
                          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            Yep. That was about the rudest response I think I've ever gotten here.
                            Wow. I used to regularly get insulted here by about 5 different posters per page of a thread. It's dropped down, of late, to about one insult toward me per page, as the worst offenders have either ceased posting or stopped doing it as often as they used to. The conservative Christians who post here, are in general, pretty no-holes-barred when it comes to throwing insults at the atheists.

                            Personally, I do prefer discussion forums where such insults are banned by mods and discussion is forced to stay entirely on-topic and not be about the posters in any way shape or form. But I have found it an interesting learning experience here over the years to see just how nasty the US right-wing conservative Christian posters commonly are. The fact that my last post was the worst you've ever received here, shows by contrast, how comparatively polite the atheists on this forum are.

                            I do think though that you are weird for thinking it was reasonable for you to be rude / 'honest' to me and then get upset when I'm rude / 'honest' in response. You seem to have a double standard.

                            So your solution is "Unless you are an expert - don't talk about it?"
                            Of course not. Feel free to ask questions. I'm totally happy to spend a lot of time answering them.

                            So far you've contributed little that isn't derogatory.
                            Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else? I've provided you with many posts that were entirely factual, contained zero insults to anyone, and which caused your to change your mind about one or two things.

                            So IF for some reason you take offense at something not perfectly nice in my posts, you need to take a long look in the mirror first.
                            Pot calling the kettle black there.

                            Other than that - what you will find is that if you approach a conversation with me with respect, you for the most part get respect back.
                            That's exactly what I would say about myself and my own approach to discussing issues with people.

                            And that's how I proceeded with you... up until you did your screed about how we were rabidly ideological, couldn't possibly be unbiased etc. You can apologize and we can continue civil discussion if you wish. However, since you've laid your cards on the table in terms of you not viewing us as able to be rational etc, I'm not totally sure what you are aiming to get from discussion with us.
                            Last edited by Starlight; 05-25-2018, 12:02 AM.
                            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              And no - it is not at all like discussing if black people should be slaves. For reasons that have been discussed already in this thread multiple times by multiple people.
                              I will freely confess to not being able to remember the entire contents of the 87 pages of this thread, so of course, feel free to link back to the previous discussion.

                              However, it seems pretty straightforward to me:

                              Is the issue under discussion whether minority group X, is inferior due to alleged trait Y, and therefore should be denied human right Z?

                              From my understanding of history, this seems to always be the sort of form oppression takes. Whether it's Jews, black people, native peoples, gay people, atheists, a religious minority etc, and whether the alleged issue is their lack of intelligence, their lack of parenting quality, their inability to look after themselves properly, their tendency to criminality, their inability to breed, their high sex drive, their evolutionary deficiency, their carrying of diseases, etc, it's then used by people as an excuse to deny them human rights and to commit atrocities against them.

                              So, for example, for the KKK, or Hitler, it's pretty easy to insert into the above question what X, Y, and Z were. Likewise, to discuss whether gay people are inferior due to alleged traits they have and whether they should therefore be denied human rights like marriage fits the same pattern. It's proven a very problematic and hideous pattern throughout history, so we do well, IMO, to be on guard against it. That is why I see this discussion as being exactly like discussing whether black people should be slaves... it fits into the same dangerous and immoral pattern of oppression of minorities.

                              A wise saying I once heard was "You can’t deny people their rights and be nice about it", which I think fits your apparent desire to be polite on the outside while talking about issues that have hugely damaging consequences to people.
                              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                                Yep. That was about the rudest response I think I've ever gotten here.
                                Jim, I've seen far ruder responses aimed at you. Starlight didn't even hint at you being a drunk duped druggie traitorous quisling, let alone use 'moron' every tenth word.
                                Last edited by Roy; 05-25-2018, 05:28 AM.
                                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                                MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                                MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                                seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                148 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                395 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                113 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                367 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X