Private choice should be private. WHen they become public, I get to object. Of course, pedophiles hurt children and we send them to prison for life for doing such terrible things. I also believe that they were born that way. I just get sick of hearing people try to justify something disgusting by saying, "they were born that way". http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445865,00.html No, I didn't read it too fast. I quoted him verbatim. Do you call homosexuality evolving? Do you think homosexuality is social progress?
Homosexuality doesn't need justifying, certainly not to you. But there is evidence that homosexuals are "born that way" and there is also evidence that it is perfectly natural as all social mammals express homosexual behaviour and bonobos, Interesting the closest related primate to humans, are almost exclusively bi-sexual. But then, Even if they aren't born that way what has it got to do with you? Why are you so interested in what other men do with their penis'? Seriously, If you can't understand the difference between the rape of a child and consensual sex between adults you should go and get some therapy, And possibly have yourself sectioned. I think the only thing i can suggest to you is that if you don't like gay sex, don't do it. But stay out of everyone else's way while they try to live a happy life and keep your bronze age "morality" to yourself.
But it's their private behavior you wish to control, is it not? Would you support a federal amendment declaring that only men and women may marry, for instance? What you, or I, find "disgusting" is completely irrelevant. What is relevant, the only thing that is relevant, is whether another is harmed. So long as another isn't harmed, is it really any of your business? My business? I'd say, no. I did see an article on it. And I reaffirm I agree with you - this was not something that should have been done, and I wouldn't allow it in my school district. You quoted him verbatim, but I believe you drew the opposite conclusion from what he said. Again: and you said: That's not what George said - he didn't say, "evolution is based on religion." He said, quite its opposite; If I have heard him correctly, he said that religion has been a hindrance to progress, and absent religion, we can expect a measure of social progress.
Would that be penii? Actually, I thought I was fairly clear on that point. What you do with your butt in the privacy of your house or your boyfriend's house is your problem. But if you try to change society I get to object. I've already responded to that, but in case you missed it.... No, sorry pal. It's my world too. I have an opinion, a voice and a vote.
Not as long as it is private and yes I would. Whether it is your business or my business was not the point of this statement. It is the use of the phrase "they were born that way" to somehow make homosexuality appear "normal". Ah, now I see. Assuming that George thinks that religion does not evolve, I said: "Evolution is based on religion?" Call it sarcasm if you like, but he was trying to make the point that religion is hindering evolution. Religion has nothing to do with evolution.
That doesn't make any sense. Two married people's lives is a private choice - does it somehow tell you what to do with your marriage, or mine? It doesn't make sense to say, "I do not wish to control the private lives of other consenting adults, so I do believe I have the right to tell them they cannot be married." No, the issue is your conflation of pedophilia - a crime against children - and homosexuality, something that transpires between two consenting adults. It's an improper conflation. I understand your point as well. It might just be a semantic thing. You're saying, religion has nothing to do with "evolution," and I believe George is saying he sees religion as a hindrance to social progress.
No, Though it should have been penises. In what way are they changing society? Or more specifically, In what way does it effect you? No you didn't. You made the facile case that if people support gay rights on the grounds that people are born gay (which nobody does) then by some twisted, manufactured, ad hoc logic they should also support the rape of a child because, according to you, paedophiles are born that way. 1. Nobody has said all things that are "natural" should be permitted 2. Nobody has said gay people should be allowed to get married solely because they are "born that way" 3. One is the forceful rape of a child and the other is a consensual act between two adults - They are not even remotely comparable. And i'm glad you do. It's beneficial for us to be able to identify the bigots, So having them voice their opinions publicly makes it a lot easier for the rest of us to spot them.
No. If two guys want to go at it like rabbits for a month straight in the privacy of their home, then I will say nothing. On the other hand, if they want me to recognize their "marriage" or their politics or their rights, then too bad. Too bad. Are you implying that I think that being gay is a crime? I never said that. My point again, for the third time, is that I am tired of people using the "they were born that way" as some sort of evidence support this as "normal". Pedophiles are "born that way". Pedophiles are not "normal". I understand your point as well. It might just be a semantic thing. You're saying, religion has nothing to do with "evolution," and I believe George is saying he sees religion as a hindrance to social progress.[/QUOTE]
It's very basic, Jazz. Marriage is something between two people, is it not? They exist as a married couple, in the conduct of their lives? What business is it of yours to declare which consenting adults may, or may not, be married? No, I'm saying that your conflation of a crime, and a non-crime, though done quite often by those who oppose homosexuality for any number of reasons, is logically flawed. The two have nothing to do with one another.
They don't. They want the government to recognize their marriage and give them the same benefits as straight married couples.
And yet it is the conflation of "they are born that way" and "they are born that way" that you cannot see?
It's because I don't care, Jazz. I don't actually care whether either are born this way, or both are "choice." What I care about is the conduct of human beings towards one another, here and now; so long as one doesn't harm another, I do not believe it's my purview to pontificate on the sexual mores of another's life. I find it offensive to compare one of the most vile crimes that can possibly be committed with the private life of two consenting adults, living their lives out peacefully and legally. I find it a gross intrusion of privacy to declare it's my right to declare to another what does, and doesn't, constitute a marriage.
Homosexuality in animals is a normal thing to occur, so I would think most gay people are normal. As far as pedophiles, I think most of them are normal too. Only recently have we become so civilized that we take some behavior that a few of us don't agree with and blow it out of proportion through media. Edgar allen Poe by today's standards was a pedophile. I think all throughout history you'll find pedophiles.
I believe lots of folks pissed off about the election have as late as today referred to the notion that numbers don't mean it's right. Is "idiocracy" ideologically-dependent? I expect the law to be overturned in California, by the way, on constitutional grounds.
Just wanted to add that minorities are *always* outnumbered...hence the term. However, our constitution is designed to ensure everyone has equal protection under the law, not just the majority.
It's a common practice for Americans to use the opinion of "the majority" to justify legal discrimination against a minority (like Jazz was doing). I was just trying to point out that our legal system isn't designed to represent the will of the majority (which will almost always lead to discrimination), but to see that everyone is treated equally under the law. Basically, his argument that your opinion on gay marriage was outnumbered in California has no standing.