Ricky's confused about homosexuality

[Back In Black]

And the people of Iowa chose him over Paul? They must be crazy thinking he could beat Obama with the shit that comes out of his mouth.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrZtlnsBq_Y&sns=fb

[69360]

They are true believers in the crap frothy spews.

[eduardo89]

I kind of agree with him at the end


There are people who have lived the homosexual lifestyle and no longer are gay, I don't know if that's ever been the case with someone being black.

[Back In Black]

I kind of agree with him at the end

Yeah, it's called going back into the closet.

[ConsideringRonPaul]

Nah Rick's right. Doesn't mean I support him.

[eduardo89]

Nah Rick's right. Doesn't mean I support him.

He's right on social issues IMO. His solutions are as scary as his foreign policy though.

[specsaregood]

There are people who have lived the homosexual lifestyle and no longer are gay, I don't know if that's ever been the case with someone being black.
I kind of agree with him at the end

Too soon to make a Michael Jackson joke? I think it applies here.

[eduardo89]

Too soon to make a Michael Jackson joke? I think it applies here.

It's exactly why I think he said he's not sure of many cases in which blacks stopped being black.

[emazur]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPPkhPRg3Ck

People who quit gay were probably just experimenting or bi. Probably a few had psychological issues from growing up sexually abused that they were able to overcome

[Intoxiklown]

I've never understood people's issues with homosexuals. I am heterosexual, and I LOVE gay dudes. If I had my way, and could make it happen, I'd make 85% of the world's men gay. Think of how many women that'd leave for me!

[CaptUSA]

As much as I hate to admit it now, there was a time in my life when I would have made the same type of argument that Santorum's making here. Luckily, I've grown beyond it and have seen the error of my ways. I know Rick won't understand this, but his lack of understanding here is actually a lack of faith.

A person with true faith will understand that God gave free will to people for a reason. And what Rick is afraid of is not that people will use their free will to hurt him or someone else, it's that they are using their free will in a way that he finds objectionable. This demonstrates a huge lack of faith in the wisdom of the Creator. See Bastiat's quote below...

[Agorism]

This guy has the IQ of a small monkey.

[eduardo89]

As much as I hate to admit it now, there was a time in my life when I would have made the same type of argument that Santorum's making here. Luckily, I've grown beyond it and have seen the error of my ways. I know Rick won't understand this, but his lack of understanding here is actually a lack of faith.

A person with true faith will understand that God gave free will to people for a reason. And what Rick is afraid of is not that people will use their free will to hurt him or someone else, it's that they are using their free will in a way that he finds objectionable. This demonstrates a huge lack of faith in the wisdom of the Creator. See Bastiat's quote below...

I completely agree with you. Although I find homosexuality reprehensible, God gave us free will to choose what life we will live and it will be He who judges us for our actions. I do not believe the government has any role in dictating how we must live our lives as long as we are not hurting others.

[CaptUSA]

I completely agree with you. Although I find homosexuality reprehensible, God gave us free will to choose what life we will live and it will be He who judges us for our actions. I do not believe the government has any role in dictating how we must live our lives as long as we are not hurting others.You know, I've even moved beyond finding it reprehensible. Now, I find it kind of humorous. I have some gay friends and I joke about it with them. It's not for me, but hey, whatever they want to do. In fact, I find that socializing with them gives me insights I wouldn't have otherwise. I value that.

[Castrensis]

It's a phenomenon that occurs in nature & history. Conversion therapy has never been shown effective. Santorum's deeply disturbed by homosexuals & he's allowed his personal bias to cloud his politics. Good opportunity to show the difference between RP neither endorsing nor disavowing homosexuality, but protecting their rights as individuals.

[sratiug]

Someone should ask him what he knows about military life and how did he find out what he knows about what goes on in the baracks.

[eduardo89]

You know, I've even moved beyond finding it reprehensible. Now, I find it kind of humorous. I have some gay friends and I joke about it with them. It's not for me, but hey, whatever they want to do. In fact, I find that socializing with them gives me insights I wouldn't have otherwise. I value that.

I've had gay friends but I've never been able to accept their homosexuality as something normal, natural or even acceptable. To me it's just wrong. That doesn't mean I hate someone for being gay or would ban it. The way I see it it's a personal choice and I have no right to interfere with it. Your freedom to sin ends where my freedom to live my life the way I choose begins. Homosexuality is one of those cases. As long as its not pressured on me and I'm not forced to accept it as normal gays can do whatever they want in their bedroom. It's not my problem unless they make it my problem.

[69360]

It wasn't a choice for them just like it wasn't a choice for you to be attracted to women. It's how God created them.

[jersdream]

This will not hurt him in South Carolina.

[Castrensis]

I've had gay friends but I've never been able to accept their homosexuality as something normal, natural or even acceptable. To me it's just wrong. That doesn't mean I hate someone for being gay or would ban it. The way I see it it's a personal choice and I have no right to interfere with it. Your freedom to sin ends where my freedom to live my life the way I choose begins. Homosexuality is one of those cases. As long as its not pressured on me and I'm not forced to accept it as normal gays can do whatever they want in their bedroom. It's not my problem unless they make it my problem.

Not to get too far off topic, but what constitutes making it your problem? Is it something as simple as being audience to a same-sex couple engaged in reasonable affection, i.e. holding hands, kissing each other goodbye? Speaking strictly scientifically, homosexuality appears to be an immutable characteristic of a person so without being too cliche the same arguments made for mixed-race couples could apply. Even if we were to entertain the notion that it is a choice I think the same arguments for free practice of religion or freedom of expression could apply & restricting the public expression of homosexual relationships could be likened to preventing muslims from praying or revolutionaries from speaking controversial views. I think Mormons are whack-jobs, but I'm polite when they knock on the door, and that's certainly more intrusive than a same-sex couple living next door. Otherwise said, it's the same principles that protect your right to engage in consensual relations with an opposite-sex person that protects their right to engage in consensual relations with a same sex person. The prohibition of one or the other is a religious, not legal, matter.

[eduardo89]

Not to get too far off topic, but what constitutes making it your problem? Is it something as simple as being audience to a same-sex couple engaged in reasonable affection, i.e. holding hands, kissing each other goodbye? Speaking strictly scientifically, homosexuality appears to be an immutable characteristic of a person so without being too cliche the same arguments made for mixed-race couples could apply. Even if we were to entertain the notion that it is a choice I think the same arguments for free practice of religion or freedom of expression could apply & restricting the public expression of homosexual relationships could be likened to preventing muslims from praying or revolutionaries from speaking controversial views. I think Mormons are whack-jobs, but I'm polite when they knock on the door, and that's certainly more intrusive than a same-sex couple living next door. Otherwise said, it's the same principles that protect your right to engage in consensual relations with an opposite-sex person that protects their right to engage in consensual relations with a same sex person. The prohibition of one or the other is a religious, not legal, matter.

Making it my problem would include: forcing me to accept that gays can be married, hitting on me, having my children taught that homosexuality is normal or acceptable, having gay pride parades where half naked guys are grinding with each other on public streets, etc.

If two guys want to hold hands on the street, I won't like it, but there's nothing I can do about it. I'm not going to interfere with that, nor do I have a right to. If two guys were holding hands on my property I'd ask them to leave though.

[Agorism]

Google Santorum

[Castrensis]

Making it my problem would include: forcing me to accept that gays can be married, hitting on me, having my children taught that homosexuality is normal or acceptable, having gay pride parades where half naked guys are grinding with each other on public streets, etc.

This really should be framed as the state intruding on marriage & education, not a criticism of homosexuality.

Marriage as a sacrament is a religious matter so the state should probably only have civil unions as a legal entity, recognizing a church-endorsed association. Education is a family's business so home or private schooling should replace state-run indoctrination.

I agree that "pride parades" & its like are distasteful but probably a reaction by homosexuals to only recently rising out of the quagmire of antagonistic culture. Glitterbombs & rainbow flags seem less common than they were even a decade ago & I suspect will probably diminish further as homosexuals become less marginalized.

[Agorism]

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/home/111229-surging-santorum-strikes-gold-with-iowa-seniors.jpg

[COpatriot]

Skip to 2:00 in this vid to get Tony Soprano's take on Rick Santorum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmY6oJmUT7s

[gmc1988]

He's right on social issues IMO. His solutions are as scary as his foreign policy though.

I also agree with him on social issues. However, that doesn't give him the right to enact Unconstitutional legislation. That's the difference between Dr Paul and the rest of Congress, both Republican and Democrat. I don't think Dr Paul believes in gay marriage, but he understands and RESPECTS the boundaries of the Constitution and what he can and can't do.

[gmc1988]

And the people of Iowa chose him over Paul? They must be crazy thinking he could beat Obama with the shit that comes out of his mouth.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrZtlnsBq_Y&sns=fb

Santorum is right, I have a close friend who thought he was gay for several years and now is looking for a wife. :) That still doesn't change the fact that his solutions are unconstitutional.

[gmc1988]

I agree that "pride parades" & its like are distasteful but probably a reaction by homosexuals to only recently rising out of the quagmire of antagonistic culture. Glitterbombs & rainbow flags seem less common than they were even a decade ago & I suspect will probably diminish further as homosexuals become less marginalized.

I highly doubt that. If their behavior was the result of 'antagonistic culture' we would be rioting in the streets right now, and this country would be burning because of the way our nation is being destroyed. ;)

[farreri]

I've never understood people's issues with homosexuals. I am heterosexual, and I LOVE gay dudes. If I had my way, and could make it happen, I'd make 85% of the world's men gay. Think of how many women that'd leave for me!
LOL! I agree too. Gay dudes also buy you free drinks at the bars. They are fuckin' awesome!!!

[farreri]

having gay pride parades where half naked guys are grinding with each other on public streets, etc.
Change the channel.

[eduardo89]

Santorum is right, I have a close friend who thought he was gay for several years and now is looking for a wife. :) That still doesn't change the fact that his solutions are unconstitutional.


I also agree with him on social issues. However, that doesn't give him the right to enact Unconstitutional legislation. That's the difference between Dr Paul and the rest of Congress, both Republican and Democrat. I don't think Dr Paul believes in gay marriage, but he understands and RESPECTS the boundaries of the Constitution and what he can and can't do.

Yup, that's why I could never ever support Santorum. All his solutions involve the unconstitutional use of federal government force.

[Inny Binny]

Well, I probably wouldn't even support a professed libertarian who was blatantly anti-gay. Considering that I think women's rights, LGBT rights and children's rights* among others are some of the most important ethical considerations for a libertarian to take up, to support someone in direct opposition to them would be near impossible for me.

*or if someone is going to blast me for supporting group rights, it would rather be the right of individuals in these groups to have both equal legal status and equal social status (though as a libertarian the latter must achieved outside of the legal sphere).

[eduardo89]

Well, I probably wouldn't even support a professed libertarian who was blatantly anti-gay. Considering that I think women's rights, LGBT rights and children's rights* among others are some of the most important ethical considerations for a libertarian to take up, to support someone in direct opposition to them would be near impossible for me.

*or if someone is going to blast me for supporting group rights, it would rather be the right of individuals in these groups to have both equal legal status and equal social status (though as a libertarian the latter must achieved outside of the legal sphere).

Gays, women, and children already do have the same constitutional rights.

[farreri]

Gays, women, and children already do have the same constitutional rights.
Too bad Gays don't have the same special rights our government affords Straights.

[eduardo89]

Too bad Gays don't have the same special rights our government affords Straights.

Such as?

[farreri]

Such as?
Seriously? You don't know?

[eduardo89]

Seriously? You don't know?

Seriously. I do not know.

[farreri]

Seriously. I do not know.
The government allows straight couples to get married, not gay couples.

[eduardo89]

The government allows straight couples to get married, not gay couples.

Everyone can get married. A gay man can marry a woman if he wants. Everyone is treated to same. Two straight men can't get married. Marriage is one man, one woman so I don't see what the problem is.

[farreri]

Everyone can get married. A gay man can marry a woman if he wants. Everyone is treated to same. Two straight men can't get married. Marriage is one man, one woman so I don't see what the problem is.
OK, Michelle Bachmann. :rolleyes:

[eduardo89]

OK, Michelle Bachmann. :rolleyes:

Ron Paul also believes marriage is between a man and a woman...

[farreri]

Ron Paul also believes marriage is between a man and a woman...
He also believes the government should not dictate which adults can and can not marry. You conveniently left that part out.

[FreeTraveler]

Freedom is popular... except for gay people, apparently. Mote, eye, and all that jazz.

[Xenophage]

Come out already Rick!

[eduardo89]

He also believes the government should not dictate which adults can and can not marry. You conveniently left that part out.

I believe that as well. Doesn't change that I don't think it's possible for two people of the same gender to get married.

And the law doesn't discriminate, a gay can get married if he wants.

[farreri]

Doesn't change that I don't think it's possible for two people of the same gender to get married.
What you mean, they do it all the time (illegally)!


And the law doesn't discriminate, a gay can get married if he wants.
To another gay guy?

[Xenophage]

Honestly, I think if people can get sexually aroused by a stuffed animal for purely psychological reasons, it's not much of a leap to say that you can become sexually aroused by other HUMAN BEINGS of your own sex. It seems like LESS of a logical leap. Therefore, I fully expect that a large number of homosexuals are psychological homosexuals. Simultaneously, there is very likely a biological factor that encourages either homosexuality or heterosexuality.

But the bottom line is that it doesn't matter: sexual attraction is not a moral issue. It is neither good nor evil to HAVE sex, and it is neither good nor evil to be attracted to members of your own gender. It's a personal choice.

All the Bible thumpers will disagree, because GOD *purportedly* said so and so.

[eduardo89]

To another gay guy?

That's not marriage.


Pronunciation: /ˈmarɪdʒ/
noun

the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:

[bluesc]

I really don't give a shit if two men get married. I really don't. The fact that it's a huge political issue is frankly terrifying.

[eduardo89]

I really don't give a shit if two men get married. I really don't. The fact that it's a huge political issue is frankly terrifying.

They can do whatever the hell they want and pretend they're married. Doesn't mean it's marriage.

[farreri]

That's not marriage.
It's not legal marriage. All marriage is technically illegal in the U.S. until the government issues a license for it.

Was your quote from an official government site? I noticed you conveniently left out the link. I notice a pattern with you.

[bluesc]

Was your quote from an official government site? I noticed you conveniently left out the link.

The dictionary.

Eduardo's position on this is identical to Ron's, just to let you know.

[eduardo89]

It's not legal marriage. All marriage is technically illegal in the U.S. until the government issues a license for it.

Was your quote from an official government site? I noticed you conveniently left out the link. I notice a pattern with you.

Google "marriage definition" and thats the definition google gives.

I don't agree that you should need the Government's permission to get married. I think it's a completely private matter best handled by religious institutions. I wouldn't want the government to regulate baptism, so why should it regulate marriage.

[heavenlyboy34]

Honestly, I think if people can get sexually aroused by a stuffed animal for purely psychological reasons, it's not much of a leap to say that you can become sexually aroused by other HUMAN BEINGS of your own sex. It seems like LESS of a logical leap. Therefore, I fully expect that a large number of homosexuals are psychological homosexuals. Simultaneously, there is very likely a biological factor that encourages either homosexuality or heterosexuality.

But the bottom line is that it doesn't matter: sexual attraction is not a moral issue. It is neither good nor evil to HAVE sex, and it is neither good nor evil to be attracted to members of your own gender. It's a personal choice.

All the Bible thumpers will disagree, because GOD *purportedly* said so and so.
What's the "biological function" of homosexuality? It's a biological dead end. /curious

[farreri]

Google "marriage definition" and thats the definition google gives.
Ah, so "Google" says marriage is not between the same sex, so that's the law? I knew Google was powerful, but not that powerful. :rolleyes:

[farreri]

What's the "biological function" of homosexuality? It's a biological dead end. /curious
When I was 13 and choose to be straight...


(Yes, I'm mocking the "Gay is a choice" crowd!)

[eduardo89]

Ah, so "Google" says marriage is not between the same sex, so that's the law? I knew Google was powerful, but not that powerful. :rolleyes:

No I'm just giving you the definition of marriage that's in every single dictionary and has been the norm since the begining of civilization.

As I've already said repeatedly I don't believe government has any role in the marriage business. That said, marriage is between one man and one woman.

[bluesc]

Ah, so "Google" says marriage is not between the same sex, so that's the law? I knew Google was powerful, but not that powerful. :rolleyes:

No, the ultimate definition is down to you. Why should everyone else have to recognize your definition though? That would go against everything Ron believes in.

[farreri]

No I'm just giving you the definition of marriage that's in every single dictionary and has been the norm since the begining of civilization.
Dictionaries amend definitions all the time. They are not government controlled and have no government authority. This is just getting silly.

[farreri]

Why should everyone else have to recognize your definition though?
Who says I want to force others to? If your bigoted church doesn't want to marry certain adult human beings, more power to you all.

[eduardo89]

Dictionaries amend definitions all the time. They are not government controlled and have no government authority. This is just getting silly.

I love how you completely exclude the part of every post I make where I say I'm against the government defining marriage.

[eduardo89]

Who says I want to force others to? If your bigoted church doesn't want to marry certain adult human beings, more power to you all.

How is it bigoted to have the traditional view on marriage?

[bluesc]

Who says I want to force others to? If your bigoted church doesn't want to marry certain adult human beings, more power to you all.

I'm not religious. I don't have a church. I just like everything voluntary. You like the group "rights" which is crap.

[ronpaulitician]

Making it my problem would include: forcing me to accept that gays can be married, hitting on me, having my children taught that homosexuality is normal or acceptable, having gay pride parades where half naked guys are grinding with each other on public streets, etc.
I've been hit on by a guy. What's the big deal? "Are you straight?" "Yes." "Well, I'm not." "That's cool."

That's actually a pretty common misperception of straight guys. "Every gay guy will hit on me." Yeah, like every straight women does.

Gay people are just like you. The only difference is their sexual attraction. They can be pro or anti-war. They can be caring or assholes. They can die in the defense of your liberties. They can be liberal or conservative. Heck, they can even support a guy like Santorum (though I highly doubt that his daughter's "I have gay friends" claim is truthful).

You're perfectly in your right to ask two guys holding hands on your property to leave. I will leave with them.

[farreri]

How is it bigoted to have the traditional view on marriage?
Refusal to serve blacks was a tradition.

[farreri]

You like the group "rights" which is crap.
No I don't. I just dislike preferential treatment worse.

[eduardo89]

I've been hit on by a guy. What's the big deal? "Are you straight?" "Yes." "Well, I'm not." "That's cool."

That's actually a pretty common misperception of straight guys. "Every gay guy will hit on me." Yeah, like every straight women does.

Gay people are just like you. The only difference is their sexual attraction. They can be pro or anti-war. They can be caring or assholes. They can die in the defense of your liberties. They can be liberal or conservative. Heck, they can even support a guy like Santorum (though I highly doubt that his daughter's "I have gay friends" claim is truthful).

You're perfectly in your right to ask two guys holding hands on your property to leave. I will leave with them.

Ok I'll concede on the hitting on me part. It's happened once or twice and all I've had to say is fuck off and it ended. But if gay guys are anything like horny straight guys, they can be annoyingly persistent lol

I've never said gays aren't just like any other person. I believe they should have equal protection under the law to their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. They deserve no more or less rights than anyone straight person. I've never argued anything else. (not that you're accusing me of that).

Still, that doesn't mean I have to accept their lifestyle as normal or acceptable. Just like you have the right to welcome homosexuals with open arms, I have the right to disapprove.

[eduardo89]

Refusal to serve blacks was a tradition.

And if a person doesn't want to serve blacks, Jews, gays, Hispanics, women, people with blond hair, short people, or whomever else is completely within their rights and you have absolutely no right to force them otherwise.


But to compare racial discrimination to a traditional definition of marriage that has been the norm for thousands of years is absolutely idiotic.

[bluesc]

No I don't. I just dislike preferential treatment worse.

All the more reason to get the government out of the business. If they force churches to recognize your definition, that is also preferential treatment.

[farreri]

And if a person doesn't want to serve blacks, Jews, gays, Hispanics, women, people with blond hair, short people, or whomever else is completely within their rights and you have absolutely no right to force them otherwise.
I agree and it's in my right to call them bigots if I so choose.


But to compare racial discrimination to a traditional definition of marriage that has been the norm for thousands of years is absolutely idiotic.
Thousands of years, huh? OK, I'll use the slavery comparison instead.

Peace out.

[farreri]

If they force churches to recognize your definition, that is also preferential treatment.
No one is, or ever has, called for the government to force churches to marry those they don't want to. That's just fear-mongering.

[eduardo89]

I agree and it's in my right to call them bigots if I so choose.

I love how I'm supposed to be tolerant of your views and of homosexuality, but if I disagree with you, you dont have to be tolerant of my views and religion.


Thousands of years, huh? OK, I'll use the slavery comparison instead.

Peace out.

What a great argument.

[Agorism]

http://thumpandwhip.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/santorum-3.jpg

Santorum says bomb bomb bomb Iran


Rick Santorum said today that he would be in favor of launching airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.

“We will degrade those facilities through airstrikes, and make it very public that we are doing that,” Santorum said . .

[Inny Binny]

Gays, women, and children already do have the same constitutional rights.

Oh, please. Two people of the same sex who voluntarily choose to associate in a romantic relationship don't have access to a whole range of rights that individuals of straight relationships do. Some of these are government subsidies that no-one should receive, but others such as visitation and adoption rights are clearly violations of individual rights. People must have the the ability to do anything they want with anyone they want as long as it causes no direct harm to another.

And children? Ha! So even though parents are allowed to beat and abuse them as long as it is part of 'parenting', even though they can't run away without being kidnapped and thrown back in their abusive prison, even though they are often forced against their will into detention camps for doing nothing else apart from being 'delinquent' or 'promiscuous' or 'antisocial', even though they can't have sex, smoke, drink, contract or do anything at all until they reach some ridiculously high and arbitrary age decided by a bunch of totalitarian tools - even after all this, you're telling me that children have the same constitutional rights as adults? What despotic nonsense.

[eduardo89]

And children? Ha! So even though parents are allowed to beat and abuse them as long as it is part of 'parenting', even though they can't run away without being kidnapped and thrown back in their abusive prison, even though they are often forced against their will into detention camps for doing nothing else apart from being 'delinquent' or 'promiscuous' or 'antisocial', even though they can't have sex, smoke, drink, contract or do anything at all until they reach some ridiculously high and arbitrary age decided by a bunch of totalitarian tools - even after all this, you're telling me that children have the same constitutional rights as adults? What despotic nonsense.

Where is beating or abusing your child legal?

[Castrensis]

Oh, please. Two people of the same sex who voluntarily choose to associate in a romantic relationship don't have access to a whole range of rights that individuals of straight relationships do. Some of these are government subsidies that no-one should receive, but others such as visitation and adoption rights are clearly violations of individual rights. People must have the the ability to do anything they want with anyone they want as long as it causes no direct harm to another.

Well said. Inheritance, legal authority to make medical & financial decisions, custody of children, jointly owning property, taxation, &c. are all dependent on the marriage status of persons.


Santorum is right, I have a close friend who thought he was gay for several years and now is looking for a wife. :)

Rather than using this as evidence that conversion therapy works when we know it doesn't, this is probably best seen as your friend having discovered that sexuality occurs on a spectrum & he's less on the limp-wristed side than he thought. Happens to heterosexuals, too.


I highly doubt that. If their behavior was the result of 'antagonistic culture' we would be rioting in the streets right now, and this country would be burning because of the way our nation is being destroyed. ;)

LOL. I know you don't want to understand gays, but come on! Your lack of empathy is appalling. ;)

Fact is that you probably weren't raised in a household where your parents would disown you for a personal characteristic out of your control. They have to hide that characteristic from everyone that they meet & when they don't they're often harassed, sometimes killed. Imagine if the love you feel for your wife was so forbidden that you daren't let anyone know. Friend asks if you've found that special someone, you have to answer no. You go home for the holidays, you have to leave her behind or lie about alternate plans to your family. Business christmas party? Go alone or find a proxy. Friends or family want to hook you up with someone? You're busy. Go on vacation, book a room with two doubles.

I'm guessing that eventually your love for your wife makes you brave enough that you'd suffer anything to make her feel like she's not a dirty little secret. & if gathering in a group of likeminded people & marching down the street helps give you that courage, more power to you.

[ronpaulitician]

Ok I'll concede on the hitting on me part. It's happened once or twice and all I've had to say is fuck off and it ended. But if gay guys are anything like horny straight guys, they can be annoyingly persistent lol

I've never said gays aren't just like any other person. I believe they should have equal protection under the law to their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. They deserve no more or less rights than anyone straight person. I've never argued anything else. (not that you're accusing me of that).

Still, that doesn't mean I have to accept their lifestyle as normal or acceptable. Just like you have the right to welcome homosexuals with open arms, I have the right to disapprove.
And I wouldn't hold it against you, really. (I might leave with the two guys you sent off, but I would be back to share another beer with you :))

[Inny Binny]

Where is beating or abusing your child legal?

Well there's this funny thing called 'reasonable force' in juvenile law, where it's apparently okay to beat your child in purview of 'good parenting'. I'm sure if it was the police whacking some dude for lying or disobeying him we'd all be up in arms, but in today's world parents have extraordinary physical powers over their children. They can use belts and spoons to beat them to bruises (http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/when-is-spanking-child-abuse/), and perform genital mutilation (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/what_is_the_right_size_for_a_c.php?utm_source=feed burner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogs%2Fpharyngula+%28 Pharyngula%29) if they're unhappy with the cosmetics of their child. Any physical pain that cannot be forced upon an adult should never be forced upon a child. It is horrific that even in today's society, things that would be considered rather disgusting in any normal situation is simply discipline if the person is smaller than you/

Apparently force is always bad, except when it's not.

But I would assume you would agree with me on the complete lack of rights children otherwise have, right? That they are forced into homes, detention camps and schools that they don't want to go to? Are subjected to ludicrously strict morality laws such that they can't drink until 21 or mate until 18? Perhaps you think children should essentially be the property of their parents and the state until they are old enough to understand. But if that's the case, don't pretend that children have the same constitutional rights as their 'superiors'.

[Inny Binny]

And someone talked about the natural benefit of homosexuality. Well, there probably isn't any. That doesn't mean it's a choice. Homosexuality is very likely a hormonal thing. Your body and your brain undergo sexual differentiation at different times of pregnancy. If hormones go haywire, this will lead to some people getting female brains in male bodies, and abnormal sexual attractions. It occurs randomly and across all species.

The origin of sexual preference is utterly irrelevant anyway, considering that people also have the right to choose to do anything they want.

[COpatriot]

http://thumpandwhip.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/santorum-3.jpg

Santorum says bomb bomb bomb Iran
Holy shit that picture is scary, but still hilarious. But it's also frighteningly accurate.

[Castrensis]

What's the "biological function" of homosexuality? It's a biological dead end. /curious

Had to hunt a little bit to find it, but here it is from New Scientist:


There are numerous evolutionary mechanisms that might explain homosexual behaviour, which is common in many species of animals

"Simple reasoning shows that evolution cannot explain homosexuality - how would a homosexuality gene get selected for?" "Why have the genetic traits predisposing to homosexuality not been eliminated long ago?"

Such arguments are surprisingly common - and completely wrong.

Homosexual behaviour has been observed in hundreds of species, from bison to penguins. It is still not clear to what extent homosexuality in humans or other animals is genetic (rather than, say, due to hormonal extremes during embryonic development), but there are many mechanisms that could explain why gene variants linked to homosexuality are maintained in a population.

A common assumption is that homosexuality means not having children, but this is not necessarily true, especially in cultures other than our own. Until it became acceptable for same-sex couples to live together in western countries, many homosexual people had partners of the opposite sex. In some traditional societies, various forms of non-exclusive homosexuality were common. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html)

Continued after the link. For a more technical explanation see Science Daily's article. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617204459.htm)

[lilymc]

Interesting thread. *looks for the popcorn smiley*

[Back In Black]

Nah Rick's right. Doesn't mean I support him.

Right about what?

[Back In Black]

Anyone who thinks homosexuality is a lifestyle choice clearly has their head up their ass.

[Xenophage]

What's the "biological function" of homosexuality? It's a biological dead end. /curious

If by 'function' you mean purpose, there is a social theory of evolution that says homosexuality acts to counteract overpopulation in a society. As evidence, a higher prevalence of homosexual behavior among other primates has been observed when populations increase. I don't quite buy this theory, as it seems to contradict the 'selfish gene' theory, but our knowledge of evolution is still imperfect and I don't discount the possibility entirely.

However, the vast majority of mutations fail to serve a useful function. Just because a mutation would be unfavorable to the host's prospects for reproduction doesn't mean much, as there are plenty of those kinds of mutations that survive through generations. The success of homosexuals in actually reproducing despite their homosexuality is proof that a propensity for homosexuality, if biological in nature, is not a biological 'dead end,' as you put it, the way a faulty heart valve might be.

It's indeterminate whether or not there is a biological factor at play in homosexuality, but much of the anecdotal evidence would suggest strongly that there is. It seems quite obvious to me that homosexuality is *possible* for purely psychological reasons, and this may even be the norm in the homosexual community, but even so: much of our psychology is also influenced by our genetics.

The bottom line is that I believe both psychology and biology are probably important factors in determining one's sexual preference, but that ultimately it shouldn't matter at all to anybody else what your sexual preferences are.

[eduardo89]

Anyone who thinks homosexuality is a lifestyle choice clearly has their head up their ass.

As opposed to having a dick up their ass?

[eduardo89]

I could concede that sexual preference isn't a choice, but acting on that attraction is. I'm sure most experts would agree that pedophilia don't choose to like children...

[mczerone]

Anyone who thinks homosexuality is a lifestyle choice clearly has their head up their ass.

Sexual Preference is a continuum, a spectrum, from 100% straight to 100% gay. Some people could choose monogamous relationships with either male or female and be sexually satisfied, while others will only be satisfied with one or the other.

I think this whole "homosexuality is a choice" comes from the personal preferences of those social warriors that are open to homosexual relationships, but choose for social/political reasons to have a 'traditional' relationship. THEY have made a choice to be straight for their own reasons, and they think that it's possible for anyone to do so.

[Back In Black]

As opposed to having a dick up their ass?

That comment comes from a very hateful place.

[Back In Black]

I could concede that sexual preference isn't a choice, but acting on that attraction is. I'm sure most experts would agree that pedophilia don't choose to like children...

Oh come on.

If two men or two women enjoy each other's company then why the hell shouldn't they act on it? Pedophilia is preying upon innocent and vulnerable children. What kind of comparison is that?

[Back In Black]

Sexual Preference is a continuum, a spectrum, from 100% straight to 100% gay. Some people could choose monogamous relationships with either male or female and be sexually satisfied, while others will only be satisfied with one or the other.

I think this whole "homosexuality is a choice" comes from the personal preferences of those social warriors that are open to homosexual relationships, but choose for social/political reasons to have a 'traditional' relationship. THEY have made a choice to be straight for their own reasons, and they think that it's possible for anyone to do so.

Actions are choices, feelings are not.

[Xenophage]

Gay people are not a threat, people. Who CARES? In the future, some five hundred years from now, we won't be having sex at all. Let humanity enjoy some satisfying sex with their gender of preference before sex is obsolete completely! Come on!

[Krugerrand]

Interesting thread. *looks for the popcorn smiley*

Thanks to DamianTV:
http://www.775.net/biobob/images/popcorn.gif

[Krugerrand]

Oh come on.

If two men or two women enjoy each other's company then why the hell shouldn't they act on it? Pedophilia is preying upon innocent and vulnerable children. What kind of comparison is that?

It's a pretty valid comparison. The response was to a "spectrum." There is a HUGE "spectrum" as to what is deemed as an acceptable age of consent historical, geographically - and even currently inside this country.

[eduardo89]

Oh come on.

If two men or two women enjoy each other's company then why the hell shouldn't they act on it? Pedophilia is preying upon innocent and vulnerable children. What kind of comparison is that?


In not comparing the morality of the two, but the fact that you can say that neither are choices. What is a choice is to whether act upon those attractions. Therefore perhaps homosexual attractions are not a choice, a homosexual lifestyle is.

[Kuthreck]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BsLd4Y060Q

They are Born this Way.

Liberty is the Ability to Choose, by being Aggressively Forceful you are Destroying the very Morality of Liberty.

[Mini-Me]

Gay people are not a threat, people. Who CARES? In the future, some five hundred years from now, we won't be having sex at all. Let humanity enjoy some satisfying sex with their gender of preference before sex is obsolete completely! Come on!

Ummm...exactly what kind of dystopian horror do you expect to visit us within 500 years?