Equality run amok!

[Busyman]

Actually, the onus is on you since you did say earlier in the thread that you had some proof to back up your odd colour preference/sexuality congruence notion.

Sad to say that appears to have evaporated, along with your argument.

Do you mean this

Homosexuality is not hard-wired and it has not been proven to be.

I was never asked to prove it wasn't hard-wired. I said it hasn't been proven. So the anus is not on me.

I just used the logic that it is all preference. I'm sure some fellas in jail would have preffered a woman but nevertheless they reverted men.

If anything my argument is condensed...... not evaporated just because you say so.

[manker]

Yes I see what you mean, I'm sure it wasn't that when I read it the yesterday, but likely I'm in error.

Anyway, this logic you speak of is all over the place. How about the logic which says a 13 year old kid, every 13 year old kid in the UK, will do all he can to fit in. This includes being attracted to women. So by your logic there should be no gay men in the UK except for those that decide to turn gay all of a sudden when they've left school.

This is what I mean when I say your argument has evaporated, it doesn't make sense.

Besides. I was asking why you opposed gay marriage, by persuing this nature Vs nurture line it's as if you're justifying yourself by saying 'They choose to be gay, therefore we shouldn't let them marry'. Well, That's madness too. Is this what you mean

Or is it because of the kiddies.

You're saying we should not allow gay people to marry so we can teach kids from a very early age that gay people are different from us straight folk. So different that even the government won't officially recognise their relationships.

Or what?

What is your reason for opposing some adults getting married but not others.

When you break it down to it's constituents - two people in love who want to commit themselves to each other in a potentially permanent, completely legal sense - denying some that right smacks of discrimination.

[JONNO_CELEBS]

So you know in your heart that your feelings are genetic.

Uhhhh....no.

I don't discount your feelings whatsoever but that sounds ridiculous.

Have you ever fallen in love with someone you can't have or can't be with?
Can you control your feelings?

Likes and dislikes are genetic, what you like is uncontrolable, if you like something you can't just decide you don't like it, you can pretend, but deep down you know you like it, same as dislike, these are all emotions, not choices!
You do not "Choose" to like something or someone, you are drawn to it/them naturally, you have no control, are you getting my point yet?

Also agree with Manker (yes I know, don't faint)

Jonno

[Busyman]

Yes I see what you mean, I'm sure it wasn't that when I read it the yesterday, but likely I'm in error.

Anyway, this logic you speak of is all over the place. How about the logic which says a 13 year old kid, every 13 year old kid in the UK, will do all he can to fit in. This includes being attracted to women. So by your logic there should be no gay men in the UK except for those that decide to turn gay all of a sudden when they've left school.

This is what I mean when I say your argument has evaporated, it doesn't make sense.

That's your evaporated analogy not mine. That 13 year-old kid's preference is what? We don't really know because he's still developing emotionally and even then it can change.

Besides. I was asking why you opposed gay marriage, by persuing this nature Vs nurture line it's as if you're justifying yourself by saying 'They choose to be gay, therefore we shouldn't let them marry'. Well, That's madness too. Is this what you mean

Or is it because of the kiddies.

You're saying we should not allow gay people to marry so we can teach kids from a very early age that gay people are different from us straight folk. So different that even the government won't officially recognise their relationships.

Or what?

What is your reason for opposing some adults getting married but not others.

When you break it down to it's constituents - two people in love who want to commit themselves to each other in a potentially permanent, completely legal sense - denying some that right smacks of discrimination.

Homosexuality is not natural. It goes against the very nature of sexuality and procreation. What people do in the comfort of their home is their business. Just don't ask the government recognize and for that matter condone it.

I will admit that if I wasn't thinking about the greater influence it will have on children I probably would be totally cool with it.

[manker]

Setting all else aside, I think that this is where we will disagree.

I want (my) children to think of homosexuals as regular people. You want (your) children to think of homosexuals as unnatural.

Each to his own.

[JONNO_CELEBS]

That's your evaporated analogy not mine. That 13 year-old kid's preference is what? We don't really know because he's still developing emotionally and even then it can change.

So you're saying you would'nt want "Him" (for some reason it's male) to see 2 people of the same sex in love in case it makes him a poof? , man that's so USA 60's
Ok, fair enough, you made your point
When you catch up with evolution and the 21st century let me know
We will welcome you to the modern age, mean while......what's it like living in the dark ages?

Jonno

[spinningfreemanny]

One's beliefs about morality and decency are subjective.
For instance, Bush's code of morality and decency is total bullshit,,,in my subjective opinion.
I believe in the right for gays to marry if they so desire, I believe in abortion rights, I believe there should be no church and state, I don't think there should be mandatory minimum sentences, etc.

Morality is not Universal.

You cannot interpret the Morals of another country, with your own values.

BAM!...
There's your "right and wrong are subjective" group, folks...

Now we can go 'round and 'round with the whole 'Hitler has his moral code, was he right?' deal but we will spin useless circles and no matter how important the concept of right and wrong is in our society you will never admit it...in a rather pitiful attempt at open mindedness you sacrifice kids and culture because there is no connection with morality and evil (because everyone knows that evil is just perception and everything's just different, not evil nor good)...

excuse me; I think I just induced myself to vomit...

(there's a great talk station here in Phoenix called KFYI; every friday two hosts, Liddy and Hill, have a P.C. friday for an hour and induce nausea for entertainment...boy is it ever entertaining.)

[spinningfreemanny]

Ruthie;

You are hearby crowned as queen 'loony lib' due to your exquisite and impressive display of insanity. Rat Faced, give her your Burger King crown; go on, give it up...

[DirtyDan]

If some(one)(thing)(boy)(girl) is raised to obtain its food by hunting animals, say, rabbits, then they would think nothing of it when they reached an AGE OF REASON, because they would know nothing different. If they were raised to respect and play with the animals, then telling them to kill them would raise an eyebrow, hurt feelings, etc. because there would be an aquired instinct or liking to that thing. My dog licks himself. Was he born to be attracted to himself? Or was the lack of others of his kind what drove him to ermm... Explore this? The same would apply if one were raised to kill their own kind. Simply compare old cultures: they have obvious differences in what they believe to be right or wrong. So who is to say that one is born homosexual? If I say "I was born to kill people" Or "I was born a habitual liar" Or "I was born to have sex with animals", should I be given the right to do so? Or should I have counseling for obviously either

1. Being born into an environment which influenced me to be this way (the example)

Or

2. I was born with some genetic retardation, which renders me irresponsible for my actions

In that case, I hold homosexuals either born into CONDITIONS that made them attracted to the same sex, or born with a genetic disorder. Past that, you are argueing morals, and thats way more complicated. So shoot me

[Biggles]

BAM!...
There's your "right and wrong are subjective" group, folks...

Now we can go 'round and 'round with the whole 'Hitler has his moral code, was he right?' deal but we will spin useless circles and no matter how important the concept of right and wrong is in our society you will never admit it...in a rather pitiful attempt at open mindedness you sacrifice kids and culture because there is no connection with morality and evil (because everyone knows that evil is just perception and everything's just different, not evil nor good)...

excuse me; I think I just induced myself to vomit...

(there's a great talk station here in Phoenix called KFYI; every friday two hosts, Liddy and Hill, have a P.C. friday for an hour and induce nausea for entertainment...boy is it ever entertaining.)

Have you tried anything for your delicate condition. Milk of Magnesia is good.

What are they that are held as common values amongst most peoples and most times? Murder, theft, violence, exploitation, again and again appear as traits and behaviour people hate - if at least amongst themselves.

I think you will have little difficulty in agreeing with Ruthie and RF on these. It is evil to kill and it is evil to exploit the poor and oppressed. By comparison, what consenting individuals do in a bedroom is a triviality, a distraction from the real ailments afflicting the world. It sometimes seems to me that the obsession with other peoples' sexuality as opposed to whether Nike should be employing 8 year olds to glue shoes together is a deliberate diversionary tactic.

Never mind capitalist exploitation there are some nekkid people over there - get the pitch forks! (Note: totally gratuitous prod in the capitas - merely because it was funny)



I have no interest in political correctness - it all too often falls into the same witch hunt mentality of that which it seeks to dislodge. To label things like homosexuality as evil merely reflects one tradition. It is, however, a value judgement rather than a reasoned argument. Moral relativism has its place (with the appropriate caveats) and it is sophistry to lurch to the extremes to try and counter it. There is no comparison between Ruthie's compassion and Hitler or Pol Pot or any other lunatic ruling by fear and the gun. After your Milk of Magnesia and a settled tummy you would see that.