Same sex Marriage

Well gee, since your claimed and unverifiable anecdotal evidence, based on a survey of the LGBT people you claim to know says they are fully supporting cousin marriage, it must be true! Comedy to see you post that immediately after asking me for statistics to support my opinion.
Try reading ANY political forum where the issue is brought up. Just mention cousin marriage and polygamy and you will see the "marriage equality" crowd immediately dive into disparaging use of those forms of marriage in reference to "rednecks".

There are people taking up that fight. I stated my beliefs in the last post. It certainly isn't my job to go campaign for the "marriage rights" of polygamists and the incestuous.

Anti-gay? Gee, who knew Harvard was anti-gay. Do you call everyone who points out poverty in the black community a racist? I bet you do.

Of course citation of scientific fact didn't stop you from stating the following in ignorance.

More comedy really. So sure you are right, you need no facts at all.

And then there was this little gem, where you demonstrated yet again your poor reading comprehension.

Of course I never equated the legality of the two sexual orientations, only the fact that they are both sexual orientations, with one being considered an illness, like every gender identity disorder, and the other being politically stricken from the medical books as a disorder. If arguing the facts of the argument is too difficult for you, by all means, continue with your strawman. I'm sure you and Solid can like each others arguments enough to get that "winning" feeling. You have my complete support.

Those who can't focus are deemed mentally defective as well. Males who think they are females are deemed mentally defective as well. The list of things the APA considers mental illnesses is long and detailed, and likely encompasses conditions shared by the majority of the people on the planet. If you had read my the link in my previous post (to a scientific journal) you might have picked up on that fact.

Setting aside your laughable reading comprehension issues (possibly indicative of your own mental deficiencies), what exactly do you have against people who like to have sex with animals? More morality based mindless left wing totalitarian bigotry I'm sure. Do continue!

 

Wow. Spot on. You are awesome.

You honestly don't believe that political pressure can sometimes be applied in pursuit of a truth?

Would you have opposed the civil rights movement, on the grounds that it was a bunch of white men caving to political pressure?

 

Its incredibly sad and additionally twisted to see somebody trying to equate being gay with pediophilia. Pediophiles are people who abuse children. It doesn't matter whether its considered a medical condition or not and the medical classification doesn't equate pediophilia with influenza, heart disease or any other medical condition.

Pediophilia involves abusing children. Big powerful adults use their power, size and age to abuse younger weaker smaller people.

Its abuse.

It has ZERO connection to people being gay. It also has zero connection to diabetes, iron poor blood, the measles or any other medical diagnosis in that it is abuse. Plain and simple.

Its a disgrace and a joke to enter that description into a discussion of gay marriage rights and an example of twisting the conversation from simple discussions of treating adults similarly in the US, or any other nation that has reached the recognition that old forms of prejudice no matter where it stems from is abusive to a society that has spent its entire history to create equality of rights.

I suppose those that are willing to equate pediophilia with other medical conditions be it dandruff, cancer, or the sniffles are similarly willing to introduce their children to pediophiles just as they would be willing to introduce their children to people with dandruff.

Its an oratorical or written trick to switch the conversation from one of equal rights for adults. On top of that it is sick on its own merits, simply equating people with a tendency to abuse others with people who don't have those traits.

 

If it doesn't matter whether it is a medical condition or not, why do you go on to argue that it is not a medical condition?

Does your feeling about whether or not it is a medical condition have even the smallest effect on the factual nature of whether it is or is not a medical condition? Does the effect of a medical condition on others (abuse as you claimed) have any bearing on whether something is a medical condition?

I find such arguments humorous in light of the fact one of the most popular claims of the left is that the right is somehow "anti-science". You and your friends would happily live in denial.

By the way, though it has nothing to do with the topic, the idea that pedophilia entails abuse is as well a social construct based on the idea that a child cannot give consent. I lost my virginity at age 11 (to another minor), and let me assure you, I gave consent, as did she.

Setting aside your erroneous assumptions of motive and objective, you are starting to hit on one of the issues actually at play, that being discrimination against the sick. We don't hate people who have cancer. We don't hate people with ADD. We actually celebrate most psychopaths specifically for their psychopathic traits.

What we don't do is change science to accommodate people's hurt feelings. That is about as anti-science as it gets. No surprise for the party with a stranglehold on the poor and uneducated (Democrats).

 

Yes, it is a social construct. It's a social construct borne out of the idea that young girls with undeveloped bodies, which are incapable of safely giving birth, (a dangerous proposition for even a fully developed woman) should not be subjected to such experiences. Nor should they be subjected to the guile of adults, who capitalize on the gullibility of children for their own selfish pleasures. In other words, it's ABUSE. For little boys, there is no child bearing involved, but it's the same concept. Unfortunately for the human race, our bodies develop faster than our minds. That makes us vulnerable. Unless you believe that we should relegate women back to the role of simply a baby making factory or a semen receptacle, living in mud huts. In that case, probably it would make perfect sense. I don't know about you, but I'm all for social constructs that are based in sound logic.

So you are right, your example has nothing at all to do with the topic.

I'm squarely in the camp of science, and I don't think for one minute that this is a case of hurt feelings. You sound to me like someone who is very far removed from anything remotely technical or scientific, with strong opinions and an acute case of Google finger. (not sure if that's a medical or mental condition, btw)

If you really want to play politics, then consider this, from someone who is completely independent. (haven't ever voted, don't associate myself with any party) When I read about all things political, Democrats constantly tout themselves as intellectually superior. And while I find this to be a very pompous assertion, the unfortunate reality is that their Republican counterparts pretty much consistently prove this out, by the positions they take, and the "evidence" they cite. (which often isn't evidence at all) Yes, "right wing" positions, as they're sometimes referred to, tend to be steeped in tradition, inflexible, and with little academic brainpower driving them. Mind you, I'm the same guy that pointed out that the world is "chock full of educated idiots". But in a world where image tends to be everything, and first impressions matter, it's little wonder why Democrats have the legions of poor and uneducated behind them.

 

That wonderful synopsis of your thinking puts the exclamation point on practically everything else you have put to print.

 

Yeah, there are plenty of people like you that "claim to be independent" but trash republicans every chance they get. I am not sure what is so "independent" about that, but whatever you wanna call it. . .

Please, hold for one second:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Ok, I am done now. Thank you for the laugh.

 

It's not an obligation. It's a right extended. Saying that I have no opinion, because I haven't exercised my right to vote, is the same as saying that you can't have an opinion on religion if you don't choose to go to church. Or that you can't speak in favor of gun rights if you don't own one. It's bullshit, through and through. There may come a day which I decide to pull the lever, in which case that will still be my right. In the meantime, I would prefer to give the firepower to those who do vote. Seeing that being independent in my views doesn't put me on enough common ground with any available candidates, I reserve the right NOT to vote for the "lesser of 2 evils". Furthermore, I don't want to end up like so many others - yourself included - that trade my intellectual honesty, for the obligation of towing a party line. Fuck that. It's not going to happen.

 

So I guess you are so blind in your Republican virtues, that you missed the point where I also spoke less than flatteringly of Democrats?

If you think that I'm a closet Democrat, you've got another thing coming! I'm in this topic because I care about real people. EVEN if they happen to be homosexuals.

Is that clear enough for you?

 

And this from the guy who brags about never having voted.

I thought the real comedy in his post was his claim that he was "squarely in the camp of science", as if such an anonymous claim had merit or would lend credibility to his argument. When his argument turned out to be that I am not technical or scientific, otherwise known as an ad hominem attack, it became even funnier.

Next he'll claim to be Stephen Hawking on this anonymous forum, and as Stephen Hawking, he can authoritatively say that everyone who disagrees with him is wrong and he is right, without providing a single quotation from a single credible source to argue his point.

Where do these people come from? I blame Ronald Reagan, for shutting down funding for the sanitariums.

 

Save your breath. Everything about you - from your screen name, down to your recycled arguments - is indicative of your full-blown partisan hackery. I understand that you are totally out of your comfort zone (threatened) when somebody has the balls to debate you on academic merits - and even to persist in finishing you off. But please understand, you have run your full course.

As it stands, you are down to your final breath on this subject. Exhausted are all of your arguments, and you're left with nothing but your own feeble attempts at being clever. Your sarcastic jabs don't make good arguments, though. You would have done well to stay out of the topic when you previously withdrew, as you would have at least retained some respectability, for staying true to your word. Instead, you've just proven that this topic bothers you to no end, and you can't let it go. That could be a mental disorder, by the way. (ask your psychologist to help you understand your obsessional tendencies)

 

Same sex marriage has been legal here for quite some time now. Nothing bad has happened as a result. Although I'm not gay, I don't care if someone else is. As long as it's not affecting my life negatively, why would I or anyone?

If you were gay and had only two choices - live miserably according to other people's opinions, or be happy living the way you want in a gay marriage, what would you choose?

Seriously people, what hell does it hurt? Nothing, as far as I can see and we've had somewhere in the neighbourhood of ten years for anything horrible to show. That's about how long it's been legal. The positive aspect is that there are now a whole of people who are much happier. How can that be bad?

 

WOW, what a RADICAL concept!

 

The obvious difference being that you suggested your opinion was scientific fact, while I stated my OPINION and my EXPERIENCE with the opinions of those I know. As anyone can see, these are two totally different things.

I haven't seen that anywhere.
The conversations I have had in LGBT forums and groups (and being a gay man I involve myself in such discussions of equality) I have seen exactly what I suggest I have seen - the majority believe that those who want to fight for their right to have adult relationships with whoever they want should be permitted to do so.

I couldn't care less if three men and two women all want to marry each other. If that's what makes them happy, so be it! It has NO BEARING ON MY LIFE. That is the point that the anti-equality crowd seem to forget, others rights to equality are not yours to decide when those rights have NO BEARING on your existence.

Only those who misrepresent the causes and resulting research to suit a political racist argument.

There we go, the usual baffling nonsense from the right-wing. It's "left wing totalitarian bigotry" to support equality, fight against the right-wing totalitarianism of wanting to inflict your moralistic and religious ideals on an entire society... right, okay, whatever you say!

The hypocrisy really is astounding.

It's like a fascist complaining that they are prevented from being fascist, and therefore their opponent is fascist! Utter tripe.

 

You know, I'd never really thought of it like that before, but that's exactly right. In our society, however, the equivalent would be the "traditionalists" ranting and raving about us become a bunch of socialists, while proceeding to tell us how they know better than everyone what this country needs. (saving us from ourselves)

It's rather ironic, now that you point it out.

 

It is your own fault to make it sooooo easy. If most "Reublicans" had half a brain, it wouldn´t be so easy to make fun of them.

 

I cited my opinion as scientific fact? This seems like yet another reading comprehension issue for you. Why don't you paste in the relevant quote and we will pick it apart together. Until then, you just keep on citing your "EXPERIENCE" as the only evidence that is meaningful.

Then I suspect you are blind to it. Not surprising really. Most racists don't see themselves and their friends as racist either.

"The majority". Comedy. Again, you need to re-read what I wrote. I'll clip it in here for your benefit.

"I find it rather humorous that the "Marriage Equality" crowd doesn't seem to be behind "marriage equality" at all, if there is such a thing. Most of the same sex marriage crowd looks down their noses at polygamy and cousin marriage as if it is somehow morally inferior to their own brand of "morality", and is more than happy to simply join the dictatorship of those with the stranglehold on the definition of marriage. "
​

Now that you have it here, in front of your face, a few questions. 1) Where is the claim you said I made that my opinion is scientific fact? 2) Where did you get the idea that the "Marriage Equality" crowd is only the LGBT community? I got news for you. Your community is tiny in relative terms. The only way "Marriage Equality" becomes law is when the majority of people outside your community say it does, and right now, that crowd consists primarily of your fellow left wing bigots, you know the people who look down their nose at incest and polygamy?

Terrific! Then we can remove hypocrite from your list of shortcomings. Too bad we can't say the same for most people of your fellow lefties.

What research do you feel was misrepresented? One thing is certain. It wasn't something you presented because you haven't presented anything but your personal, unverifiable, and questionably truthful experiences.

Comedy. I'm reminded of the recent Duck Dynasty kerfuffle where a certain individual gave voice to his moralistic ideals in an interview, only to have GLAAD actively campaign to have him driven out of business because his values were not in line with their "moralistic ideals". I got news for you pal. Of the two groups of people there was only one trying to inflict their moral code on the other, and it wasn't Phil Robertson.

As an atheist liberal, I can honestly say that narrow minded bigots like yourself that keep me voting Republican.

 

OK, I will take the challenge and like to argue that polygamy is good and should be legal for both men and women. In fact, Polygamy is very beneficial for society and will be the ideal marriage form for the future. The only real reason for monogamy was the question of knowing the father of the child so we will know who should inherit, but now we have DNA so that question is easily answered. Let's imagine a household where three men and three women are married together and all the pros of such arrangement.

1) The economy

A) Housing- Even you need a bigger house, many aspects of a house do not need to be replicated, which makes more efficient housing situation and lower cost.
B) Food preparation- Most supermarkets are having big packages and I usually throw half of the package out because it goes bad before I can use it, but with big family you use all of it and because you can divide the cooking task you don´t need to eat out and you save.
C) Transport- car pooling will be practical and lower the transport cost and number of cars needed.

2) Comfort and well being

A) Companionship- Most men don´t like to talk and have the same activities as women. The husbands can talk about the sport while wives can discuss latest sales.
B) Most families for a different reason adapting for having only one child, but this way the children can have bother and sisters that live in the same house so they won´t be alone.
C) Even if one man and woman decide to divorce, the family won´t break up because they are still wife and husband of others in the same household.

3) Sexual pleasure

A) Lets face it, no matter how much you love your wife or husband, sex gets boring after 10 years. This way sex life doesn´t get boring because of different variation and the possibility of adding new partners.

As you can see, polygamy is the sensible, logical and most importantly fun and sustainable form of the family for the future.

 

I don't think you are correct in your assertion. First off, it becomes law when politicians representing the collective districts of the United States, based on a *weighted* majority, agree to ratify it into law. It has NOTHING to do with popular opinion. However, providing that it DID hinge on popular opinion, seeing that you like hard fact so much, perhaps you should choke this one down: The latest published polls indicate that the majority of people in the US do, in fact, support gay marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States
http://www.gallup.com/poll/163730/back-law-legalize-gay-marriage-states.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162398/sex-marriage-support-solidifies-above.aspx

I would agree with you on that. GLAAD is an overzealous organization, and they sometimes need to be sat in the corner. However, the sooner you start to give some ground on what they're (supposed to be) fighting for, the sooner that nonsense should, by rights, go away. When you back a dog into a corner, it's going to fight with an intensity that is disproportionate to the situation. When you tell somebody for long enough that they can't do something, without giving a good reason, what do you expect to happen? We are still paying the price, in this country, for hundreds of years of mistreatment of blacks.

 

Al Queda says the same thing about terrorism. I think Camille Paglia has Democrats summed up about right.

"In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as they have the right to support homosexuality – as I 100 percent do. If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again they have a right to religious freedom there … to express yourself in a magazine in an interview. This is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, okay? – that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades. It’s the whole legacy of the free-speech 1960s that have been lost by my own party.”​

On an interview yesterday, she went off on GLAAD for about 10 minutes straight, calling them brown-shirts, fascists, breaking Godwin's law left and right. She described them(GLAAD) as people with no souls, dead eyes, and blind hatred. Their goal is not equality, it is conformity of thought.

One has only to read the responses on this thread to a reasoned statement of scientific facts to know GLAAD has been so successful in their crusade against free speech and free thought. They have changed discussions of scientific fact into discussions of feelings and politics. Whats next, will they be burning books?