Does anyone else think the phrase "tend to" indicates a generalization rather than an observation based on history?

Find the generalization:
A) "People tend to dislike the movie Gigli."
B) "Everyone hated Gigli."
C) "Every single person who saw Gigli hated it."

If you answered A, you're stupid. If you answered B, you might be correct, but popular usage gives you some leeway. Ergo, C is a generalization, because Billy Joe Bob Carl Tom Sam Dan Frank Frankson of Short Hairs, Georgia enjoyed Gigli.

And weren't we talking about gay marriage? Is there anything to debate? Come on, I want to see some people who have the guts to come out (no pun intended) against gay marriage and discuss it in a civil manner. Debate is pointless if we don't touch the issue.

Caligula married his horse. Rome fell into indefensible population slide that led to the collapse of western civilisation. People are basing their opinions on FACTS that have occured in the past.
Rome plummetting population was a direct cointributor in it's fall. Europe's has been falling for a fair while, as has Americas. That is where people draw similarities. Hedonism, leading to a culture of SELF SELF SELF, instread of looking out for each other, or the society as a whole. Giving homosexual marriages the same benefits and encouragements as hetrosexual ones, is a SYMPTOM of a situation, not the REASON for it. Again, very historical. Precedents abound. Rome and Greece in particular.

Also at issue, is that polygamists are being refused legal marriage licences. What is at issue is the defenition of marriage. Kept at one man, one woman, it is simple and clear cut. We will not see the end of this. Polygamy will be legal, just as homosexual marriages are legal. And then we will see bestial marriages, child brides (as has occured in history) and whatever else takes peoples fancy - BECAUSE IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE.

America is not a vacuum. Learning how to develop society in isolation. You are not the posessors of unique experiences. Theses issues have occured before and will occur again.

Society NEEDS strong child-producing hetrosexual marriages if it is to perpetuate. When these are not encouraged and supported society DOES collapse. Every society that has lost sight of that has in fact collapsed.

But the world will go on. We'll just find that Roman Catholics and Muslims, who will end up outnumbering the rest of us, will be able to enforce their harsher brands of morality on us. ;)

Right on! No nation that recognizes polygamy can be anything but absolutely evil. :rolleyes: *cough* Can it? *cough*

Society NEEDS strong child-producing hetrosexual marriages if it is to perpetuate. When these are not encouraged and supported society DOES collapse. Every society that has lost sight of that has in fact collapsed.
</font>[/QUOTE]Polygamistic societies strongly favor procreation.

Quote:

But the world will go on. We'll just find that Roman Catholics and Muslims, who will end up outnumbering the rest of us, will be able to enforce their harsher brands of morality on us. ;)

Now, you've done it. You've tied the culture to their morality. I say we don't want the irresponsibly-propogating societies of the Earth -- including Catholics and Muslims -- to overcome the rest of us -- with that I can agree. However, in my mind gay marriages only fight AGAINST such a fate. Why? Because if gays can marry, they can adopt -- meaning they can "procreate" their ideas onto their children, making those children their own liberal-minded offspring -- even if they had to go adopt them from Azerbaijan or Indonesia. ;)

Wow. In case you didn't know, Santorum compared acts of homosexuality with bestiality and incest. I find all three deplorable: Bestiality, incest, and comparing homosexuality to these. Your non-arguments are warped in nature, and you've now more or less run *both* threads on homosexuality into the ground. Is there any reason at all I should listen to a word you say? Or should I just publicly call for your banning and call it a day?
Yeesh.
::wanders off until people decide to start debating again::

[ 08-08-2004, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Illumina Drathiran'ar ]

And yet none survived outside small enclaves in Tibet and Utah. It doesn't make for a strong society. Weakens the gene pool as well, as you have only one father (or mother in Tibets case) adding to the gene pool. My point stands.

Quote:

Because if gays can marry, they can adopt -- meaning they can "procreate" their ideas onto their children, making those children their own liberal-minded offspring -- even if they had to go adopt them from Azerbaijan or Indonesia. ;)

Ah yes. Where are these children going to come from? In America, abortion is legal, so unwanted children are killed, meaning there are not nearly enough children to satiate the demand for adoption meaning, yes, people go to China, or your aforementioned Indonesia to adopt. It doesn't make for a healthy perpetuating society if those within continually have to go without to simply perpetuate.

That's the beauty about a hetrosexual child producing family. It is it's own source of growth and sustainence.

I find you hypocritical.

You have a problem with incest and bestiality, and I preume paedophilia, yet take issue with someone having a problem with homosexuality. Seems semantic to me. ;) It's all a matter of where you draw the line, not having a line at all. You have a line between included and excluded tolerated sexual practices.

You are no different from Santorum, it's just that where you have placed your dividing line is different. Your excercise of judgement, condemnation and intolerance is exactly the same - hence, is hypocritical, as you are doing the same thing, just arguing about where the line should be.


Why should someone that loves their pet be derided and condemned? Why should two siblings that manifest their love in sexual expression be condemned? It's all love isn't it? What is your reasoning in condemning one, but not the other? Nature?

Cross species attempts at intercourse is natural. So is incest. If your argument is that homosexuality is natural, but theses others is not, you are deluded.

What other arguments are there? C'mon, you must have strong ones, seeing as you're so prepared to condemn them, and yet condemn condemnation of homosexual sex.

A dividing line exists between homosexuality and bestiality/paedophilia, Yorick -- it's called CONSENT.

Now, I argued against your point about a heterosexual couple being able to produce their own child long ago, and feel I won that little bout. In fact, when I pointed out that if only couples that could procreate should raise children, then we should deny adoptions to infertile couples. When you retorted with "well, they could procreate, if it weren't for the infertility" than I knew I'd won that one fair and square -- because it's equally true that a homosexual male couple could procreate so long as one had a working uterus. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] So, needless to say, I'm not going down that road again with you.

What I do want to address are the glaring factual mistakes you've made above.
Well, we are one world community, so as long as unwanted children are getting homes, who cares where the homes are located? More importantly, there are a lot of children in America to adopt -- not all unwanted children get aborted. I presume you realize that, but your post doesn't read that way. People will skip over unwanted children here and adopt elsewhere for several reasons, including (1) want to get a very young child, (2) don't want a crack baby, and (3) would prefer to circumvent annoying U.S. red tape in the adoption process. This does not, however, mean there are no children here to adopt.

Now, if your point is really that whitebread Americans are a dying breed, just like whitebread Euros, and they should procreate more to keep their kind from being bred out of existence, well you may have a point. I'll get my sheet, and we can continue the discussion. I did hear a funny comedian the other night say that he and all like-minded black men had a vested interest in making sure white men didn't die out, because they need us: no more white men, no more white women. ;)

Here's your other factual fallacy. You've ignored quite a large polygamistic society that exists in the Middle East, and has been quite successful. Just how many wives does one of Osama's 50 brothers have, I wonder? I'll send them and the Saudi royalty a note that this guy in NYC said they weren't a strong society. ;)

Consent exists in some forms of incest. How are we to know whether consent doesn't exist in bestial circumstances? I've seen rabbits try to hump consenting ducks. I've seen roosters try and hump nonconsenting ducks. (and nonconsenting hens mind you).

I'm waiting to hear Illuminas reasons in any case. I did not regard your arguments as hypocritical, jsut his, as he was so eager to condemn a process of judgement, despite having the same process, just a different dividing line.

Quote:

Now, I argued against your point about a heterosexual couple being able to produce their own child long ago, and feel I won that little bout. In fact, when I pointed out that if only couples that could procreate should raise children, then we should deny adoptions to infertile couples. When you retorted with "well, they could procreate, if it weren't for the infertility" than I knew I'd won that one fair and square -- because it's equally true that a homosexual male couple could procreate so long as one had a working uterus. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] So, needless to say, I'm not going down that road again with you.

Not at all. You certainly did not. I retorted that if you were going to be hard arsed about it, then you could easily only grant adoption rights to fertile procreating couples - so the child has siblings born from the two parents, and slots into a working family. It's quite an easy line of division. Why are the couple infertile? Age? Is it right to grant adoption rights to parents who will not be able to live to an age where they can raise their kids?

I move the adoption rights to couples, that, were they in normal health, could have children by natural means - ie. a child cannot adopt, nor can a post menopausal woman, nor a same sex couple, nor a human-animal couple. Really really simple, and uses the line of division nature already uses.

Quote:

What I do want to address are the glaring factual mistakes you've made above. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In America, abortion is legal, so unwanted children are killed, meaning there are not nearly enough children to satiate the demand for adoption meaning, yes, people go to China, or your aforementioned Indonesia to adopt.

Well, we are one world community, so as long as unwanted children are getting homes, who cares where the homes are located?
</font>[/QUOTE]It is quite distressing that levels of poverty should be so rampant that parents in the third world should feel a need to hand their children to western tourists to raise. I for one care about where those children come from, and the circumstances they are put up for adoption.

Quote:

More importantly, there are a lot of children in America to adopt -- not all unwanted children get aborted. I presume you realize that, but your post doesn't read that way. People will skip over unwanted children here and adopt elsewhere for several reasons, including (1) want to get a very young child, (2) don't want a crack baby, and (3) would prefer to circumvent annoying U.S. red tape in the adoption process. This does not, however, mean there are no children here to adopt.

Regardless, there are millions of babies being killed, and a decided lack of available children to adopt.

Quote:

Now, if your point is really that whitebread Americans are a dying breed, just like whitebread Euros, and they should procreate more to keep their kind from being bred out of existence, well you may have a point. I'll get my sheet, and we can continue the discussion. I did hear a funny comedian the other night say that he and all like-minded black men had a vested interest in making sure white men didn't die out, because they need us: no more white men, no more white women. ;)

I don't understand what you're saying. "I'll get my sheet?"

Quote:

]Here's your other factual fallacy. You've ignored quite a large polygamistic society that exists in the Middle East, and has been quite successful. Just how many wives does one of Osama's 50 brothers have, I wonder? I'll send them and the Saudi royalty a note that this guy in NYC said they weren't a strong society. ;)

Shall we compare western society to Islamic societies then? On what levels. Average income? Age expectancy? Social programs like health care? Average health of the citizenship? Literacy levels? Career options? Certainly it is a source of embarresment and shame to numbers of proud middle easterners, that the level of civilisation leadership attained in the middle ages, could have slipped to the level it did, so that the "decadent western civilisation" was so easily able to run all over the strongest military of the area. Twice.

Polygamy does not make a strong and functional society. In Islamic society, just as in preRoman middle eastern society, it is evidence of a lack of career options for women, rather than pure romantic choices. In Tibet, apparently it is again, economically driven. Two men for a woman.

In any case, in America, why is it illegal? If homosexuals can marry, why not three or more CONSENTING adults? Seeing as consent was your issue with paedophilia.

Yep. But, enough people in this country prefer to-may-toes to to-mah-toes that the gay rights movement is really buggering itself by making a big deal about the term "marriage."

If they just would be smart enough to go for "all the substantive rights of marriage, no matter what you bigots want to call it" then they would have the support of the vast majority, including both presidential candidates. And, it is my personal experience, from knowing a LOT of gay people, that by and large they just care about the substantive rights (if they care at all -- some don't give a rat's ass about marriage in the least).

But, it's the agenda of the extreme gay rights groups -- Lambda, B-GLAD, Rainbow Coalition -- that have hijacked the whole gay population and misrepresented the majority of what gays believe and want in order to pursue their more radical political agenda. It's currently backfiring on them.

A lot of people get pissed when you give someone an inch and they try to take a mile. For the majority of small-brained conservatives, civil unions are fine, but gay marriages aren't. That's a long way for small-brained conservatives to have come in the last decade or two. Unfortunately, that paradigmatical change in attitude in this country cannot be capitalized upon because the small group of small-brained gay rights groups insist that "that isn't enough."

Anyway, [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] over -- for now. </font>[/QUOTE]Preach it Brother T.L. Preach IT!!!! I vote for your original proposel(sp?) and call it "Bob" instead of marriage.

I believe it is funny to see there are those complaining about one side holding onto something YET they themselves hold on to something. I say hold on to what you want to hold on too, if you are able to keep ahold of IT great if you lose IT great. At least you are alive to try and hold on to something.

Again, it's a very narrow view of the world presented. Environmentalism is not the exclusive domain of the west, or Europe or in fact agrarian societies.

Aboriginal and Amerindian societies had what amounts to environmental policies in their SUBSISTENCE economies. Respect for the land, care for the cycle, for the balance, living in harmony with their environment rather than changing it unrecognisably.

Certainly these cultures clung to the environment long before the west began threatening it. Their cultures were built around such concepts. </font>[/QUOTE]Yorick I don't know about the Aborignal societies of downunder, but you might want to check out the history of the Anistazy(sp?) Indians(anceistors of most of the SW Indians) of the SW USA they destroyed their enviroment(over farming), and eventually sunk to the level of canabilism. Check out the Mississippian (mound builders) they eventually it is believed sank into civil war, and any rate they ceased to exsist. Sorry Yorick but there is NO way you can sell me the bill of goods about the Indians being the most wonderful and perfect people that ever walked the face of the earth. Don't even try this they only killed what they could eat crap. They killed what they could get their hands on. Throughout the west there are archiology digs at many sites where the most eviromental friendly people that ever walked the face of the earth, ran entire herds of buffalo off cliffs and then took what they could carry, and left the rest to ROT.

Subsistence cultures. Not just Amerindian. Subsistence involves a respect for the continued balance of the environment, rather than unchecked growth as found in agrarian city cultures.

Yorick, by a "sheet" I meant the white kind, that you wear when visiting friends around a bonfire. ;) Obscure reference -- sorry.

Now, as for consenting animals, once you figure out how to talk to a duck and obtain its consent, then as far as I'm concerned it's okay for you to ____ the duck.

As for paedophilia, I don't think you made the argument that children can consent. I'm not going there -- unless you make the argument.

As for the consanguinity laws, I don't disagree -- they probably aren't needed. EXCEPT, to the extent they can prevent legitimizing molestation in the home, which may be where the laws originated to begin with.

As for polygamy, I've got no problem with it philosophically. In reality, the polygamistic families I've seen tend to be scary patriarchal enclaves, where fathers do marry their daughters, etc. And, they exist in places other than Utah, FYI. There are quite a number of polygamist societies all over the American west. Anyway, what do I care -- why is it my place to tell a man he can't put up with 2 women if that's what he wants?

Now, this does present a problem because marriage is not just moral or religious, but also legal. And, with multiple people benefitting from the same legal protection, we could have a problem. All the more reason to do away with legal marriage altogether and make it purely a religious thing...

Anyway, with all due respect, I still see your take on who can adopt as ludricrously illogical:
Only couples who could procreate, if they were in perfectly working order as nature intended, may adopt. Well, that's just silly, man. In fact, it targets couples who generally don't need to or want to adopt.

Would you let single people adopt?

Anyway, I'll say it again, two fathers is way better than none.

For all your "love is everything" message you spout, on this issue you're as guilty as drawing an arbitrary line as any of us are.

Oh, and while we're at it, you keep referring to nature, and every mammal in nature exhibits homosexual tendancies. So, you're barking up the wrong tree there, too.

Consentual incest between a brother and a sister is not paedophilia.

Quote:

As for polygamy, I've got no problem with it philosophically. In reality, the polygamistic families I've seen tend to be scary patriarchal enclaves, where fathers do marry their daughters, etc. And, they exist in places other than Utah, FYI. There are quite a number of polygamist societies all over the American west. Anyway, what do I care -- why is it my place to tell a man he can't put up with 2 women if that's what he wants?

For the same reason you'd tell him it's not o.k. to steal a car: Because in a democracy you are able to influence the direction your society takes. You have a right to have an opinion on, how your society will be and what shape it is, whether that is communist, democratic, tolerant of homosexuality, intolerant of nose picking or mandatory arse wiping.

Quote:

Now, this does present a problem because marriage is not just moral or religious, but also legal. And, with multiple people benefitting from the same legal protection, we could have a problem. All the more reason to do away with legal marriage altogether and make it purely a religious thing...

The legality is the whole point. Economic encouragement. Who do you want your taxes to benefit. As a taxpayer you have the right to express who you wish to favour, be that everyone, no-one, or particular couples only.

Quote:

Anyway, with all due respect, I still see your take on who can adopt as ludricrously illogical:

No worries. Offense taken. Try and understand that just because a viewpoint does not match yours, it does not mean it is devoid of reason or logic. I have shown cause, effect and attampted to contruct illumination of the process of my opinion. Declaring it "illogical" is simply stupid, and could mean you don't actually grasp what logic is. Illogical is devoid of reason. Mad. Though you may disagree with my outcomes you cannot suggest there is no logic in them.

Quote:

Only couples who could procreate, if they were in perfectly working order as nature intended, may adopt. Well, that's just silly, man. In fact, it targets couples who generally don't need to or want to adopt.

Yet emphasises the best environment for the child.

Quote:

Would you let single people adopt?

It would depend on the circumstances.

Quote:

Anyway, I'll say it again, two fathers is way better than none.

Two abusive fathers is worse than none.

Quote:

For all your "love is everything" message you spout, on this issue you're as guilty as drawing an arbitrary line as any of us are.

But I am not condemning people for drawing a line. I am in fact point out the hypocrisy of criticising people for simply excercising judgement about what they want in a society, when everyone here is doing exactly the same thing. People have as much right to express problems with homosexual activity as they do to express the joys of it.

Quote:

Oh, and while we're at it, you keep referring to nature, and every mammal in nature exhibits homosexual tendancies. So, you're barking up the wrong tree there, too.

I used that as MY argument Timber. Pointing out that homosexuality, bestiality and incest are all occuring in nature. My issue with homosexual behaviour has nothing to do with whether it occurs in nature or not. There are plenty of things in nature that we don't incorperate into society. I was asking Illumina what his reasoning for being so vehemently derisive of incest and bestiality were. You've kept ignoring consentual incest might I add.

I did not ignore consenting incestuous acts:
If you would let a single person adopt, you've blown your argument against the adoption by a homosexual couple. Especially since one of the members of the couple could adopt as a single person. Moreover, you've taken away your argument that only couples which could procreate, if they could procreate :rolleyes: , should adopt -- because except in the rare case of hermaphrodites like Eric Cartman's mother (and father), a single person cannot have a child.

Either this is a red herring to throw us off course into discussing only abusive families, which is a deviation from the discussion so far, or it is an assertion that all gay men would be abusive to their children. Which one is it?

[ 08-09-2004, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!! They are Subsisting, barely making it, they are not living in harmony with nature they just haven't figured out how to get more out of what they have. They don't have a population growth problem, because a growing population Would harm Nature/Mother Earth/Kota/Ki or what ever they beleive. They don't have population growth problems because they can't gather enough food to feed the extra people. And if they thought another group of nature loving subsistence people were incroaching on their food supply they'd slit the entruders thoats with out blinking. You have to know that when the bow and arrow were invented there was a large population explosion, in peoples using bow&arrows over peoples using spears. Same is true for then the Horse was re-introduced to the Americas the Plains Indians had a large population explosion. Had NATURE SUDDENLY made a change that could now support a larger population amoung the peoples? Did the Buffalo gestation period suddenly shorten so there could be more buffalo? Did Mother nature say to the Indians ok since your over the years were so nice to me I'm going to make more kernels on an ear of corn? "HALE NO"! What happened is the Indians could now get more food/Kill more cute furry creatures to feed more people. They learned if they planted the seeds from the biggest pods of a certain type of grass, they could GET MORE FOOD in the next years crop. They conintued doing this for generations of this grass until it became corn. Check it out you'll see corn came from Central America, Mexico IIRC it was a grass that had large seeds that they could eat. They learned if they drop a seed in the dirt LO & Behold a plant would come up. Wal-la/Eureka/Sha-Zaaaammmmm no more walking around to look for seeds now they could plant the seeds in the ground. Ripping up Mother earth with sticks and stones killing the other non big seed producing grass. Plant their favorite seed, and not have to walk as far to get these seeds.

Yep. American Indians did import and cultivate corn. As JD says, it was a high mountain grass from Mexico. It was one of our first nonindigenous species invasions. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

Wouldn't that make them Agrarian?

Indians also burned the entire state of Kentucky every few years. Set the whole thing on fire. Was it to promote ground fertility or was it to ensure that none of the Indian nations bordering around Kentucky could ever inhabit Kentucky and increase their territory? Hmmm......

I said it depends on the circumstances. Say a couple has a child, one dies, So the other remarries. The child has one parent, one "step-parent". The parent dies, the "step-parent" adopts.

Plently of scenarios where it would make perfect sense for the single parent to adopt. Bob Geldof is another example. He could adopt Tiger-Lily so she is incorporated into the same family as her half-sisters, despite losing both parents.

None of this makes my reasoning hypocritical nor the argument invalid.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!! They are Subsisting, barely making it, they are not living in harmony with nature they just haven't figured out how to get more out of what they have. They don't have a population growth problem, because a growing population Would harm Nature/Mother Earth/Kota/Ki or what ever they beleive. They don't have population growth problems because they can't gather enough food to feed the extra people. And if they thought another group of nature loving subsistence people were incroaching on their food supply they'd slit the entruders thoats with out blinking. You have to know that when the bow and arrow were invented there was a large population explosion, in peoples using bow&arrows over peoples using spears. Same is true for then the Horse was re-introduced to the Americas the Plains Indians had a large population explosion. Had NATURE SUDDENLY made a change that could now support a larger population amoung the peoples? Did the Buffalo gestation period suddenly shorten so there could be more buffalo? Did Mother nature say to the Indians ok since your over the years were so nice to me I'm going to make more kernels on an ear of corn? "HALE NO"! What happened is the Indians could now get more food/Kill more cute furry creatures to feed more people. They learned if they planted the seeds from the biggest pods of a certain type of grass, they could GET MORE FOOD in the next years crop. They conintued doing this for generations of this grass until it became corn. Check it out you'll see corn came from Central America, Mexico IIRC it was a grass that had large seeds that they could eat. They learned if they drop a seed in the dirt LO & Behold a plant would come up. Wal-la/Eureka/Sha-Zaaaammmmm no more walking around to look for seeds now they could plant the seeds in the ground. Ripping up Mother earth with sticks and stones killing the other non big seed producing grass. Plant their favorite seed, and not have to walk as far to get these seeds. </font>[/QUOTE]Not quite sure what bias you're bringing into this John, but it appears to be strongly defensively anti-Amerindian. Plently of emotive language. Not sure why you're arguing the point actually. Seems fairly straightforeward to me. Subsistence as a concept involves taking enough to survive, and ensureing survival is perpetuated by leaving whatever is not needed. Agrarian captialist city cultures have been known to dump wheat in the ocean and offer double beef cheesburgers despite all the eco-warnings that suggest less beef in human diets would be advisable for the planet.

Kind of elementary. Growth doesn't occur in a vacuum, but is at the expense of something else. If you base your entire financial plan around sprouting new franchises everywhere, it's not a sustainable way to exist. Sooner or later every corner will have a macDonalds on it. What then?

Australian plants need fire to germinate. I'm not sure what you guys have against Amerindians, but it sure seems like they made better use of the great plains than western civilisation. Only now are farmers looking at developing PERENNIAL crops, as opposed to ANNUAL crops, to replicate what thrives naturally. Again, it was you guys that wiped out the perennially feeding buffalo, replacing it with the cow. Consequently, looking at the population exodus, one wonders why you took it from the Indians in the first place.

From a Midnight Oil song about the Australian Aboriginie:

A taxpayer can generally express who they wish to favor (unless it has to do with employment, housing, providing service, and other basic rights), but in America they can't actually favor who they wish based on conditions like gender, race, religion, handicap, without facing the penalty of law. Go read the text of the Civil Rights Act I posted in this topic.

Of course one can always deny the gay issue has anything to do with civil rights. This viewpoint in turn ignores the guidelines and laws of the Federal government and many juridstictions that gaurantee equal rights regardless of a persons legal adult consentual romantic sexual orientation.

*Prophetic SOAPBOX*
One day, barring the slim chance of a federal Constitutional Amendment, the Gay marriage issue will land in the SCOTUS and based on precedents the SCOTUS will probably strike down the MO amendment and all similiar laws. When this day inevitably arrives opponents of Gay marriage will be stuck merely expressing who they wish to favor while Gays across the land will enjoy the equal rights to marry and care for children that they earn and deserve as taxpaying citizens.
*/SOAPBOX*

[ 08-10-2004, 01:50 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Illumina- I wouldn't blame you one bit if you choose not to respond to this flamebait. Yorick knows some folks here have taken issue with the overt and subtle derision of homosexuals and I think he is simply trolling for flames.

Unless of course abortion does not actually kill children. Last time I checked an abortion removes an embryo or fetus that is part of a woman's body.

Children have been born, taken breath and are no longer part of a woman's body.

Aint semantics fun. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

Illumina- I wouldn't blame you one bit if you choose not to respond to this flamebait. Yorick knows some folks here have taken issue with the overt and subtle derision of homosexuals and I think he is simply trolling for flames. </font>[/QUOTE]The action not the person. People who practice homosexual sex can be some of the most beautiful, caring, creative and friendly people I've known. People are not defined and limited by their sexual relations as you so willingly seem to do. There is a huge difference between deriding an ACTION, and deriding a PERSON. You seem to think a persons sexuality is the be-all and end-all or else you wouldn't keep making the same inane and mistaken comments that I am in any way deriding homosexual people.

I don't see sexuality when I converse with a homosexual person. I see a human being. You on the other hand seem to think that a persons sexuality is their total being.

[ 08-10-2004, 02:19 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Unless of course abortion does not actually kill children. Last time I checked an abortion removes an embryo or fetus that is part of a woman's body.

Children have been born, taken breath and are no longer part of a woman's body.

Aint semantics fun. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Children are formed in the womb. They have brains, blood, a heart, limbs, can move, hear, feel and grow. Yes, children are killed during abortion. Any suggestion otherwise is denial meant to cover over the guilt we collectively face due to the millions of children we have killed.

A taxpayer can generally express who they wish to favor (unless it has to do with employment, housing, providing service, and other basic rights), but in America they can't actually favor who they wish based on conditions like gender, race, religion, handicap, without facing the penalty of law. Go read the text of the Civil Rights Act I posted in this topic.</font>[/QUOTE]So a person can't stipulate who benefits from their will? Last I checked they could. Last I checked they could also VOTE for the candidate that will do the most preferable things with the taxpayers money.

Quote:

Of course one can always deny the gay issue has anything to do with civil rights. This viewpoint in turn ignores the guidelines and laws of the Federal government and many juridstictions that gaurantee equal rights regardless of a persons legal adult consentual romantic sexual orientation.

There is equality. Any man can marry any woman, regardless of sexual orientation, religion, race or handicap.

Marriage is not love. Love and marriage are two totally different things.

Quote:

*Prophetic SOAPBOX* One day, barring the slim chance of a federal Constitutional Amendment, the Gay marriage issue will land in the SCOTUS and based on precedents the SCOTUS will probably strike down the MO amendment and all similiar laws. When this day inevitably arrives opponents of Gay marriage will be stuck merely expressing who they wish to favor while Gays across the land will enjoy the equal rights to marry and care for children that they earn and deserve as taxpaying citizens. */SOAPBOX*

What the SCOTUS does is interpret the will of the people as reflected in the constitution and the laws. The will of the people Chewbacca. If Americans do not wish to give same sex couples the same encouragement as heterosexual couples, then it will not happen. Laws will change. Constitutions will change.

At the end of the day, a same sex couple is DISADVANTAGED as they can never have children naturally, no matter what law or SCOTUS declaration is made. There is INEQUALITY. Nature has deemed it so. No ranting and raving and getting "equal rights" removes that very simple fact. They do not EARN the right to raise children, they are GIVEN children from OTHERS. Heterosexual couples EARN children. (Namely the mother during her pain in labour.) They conceive, grow and birth them.

Speaking of inane and/or mistaken comments...

edit to add one-
[ 08-10-2004, 02:47 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Excuses, excuses...

Conversely:

There was equality when any many could mary any woman of the same race and religion, regardles of his sexual orientation, religion, race or handicap. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

Nice Midnight Oil song -- sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't.

You sure did lay a whole lot on my and John Harris's shoulders. Apparently, we're personally responsible for the demise of the buffalo.

Look, I haven't got anything against Native Americans, and sure as hell don't appreciate the implication that I do. I'm sure John D. feels the same way. What we (presuming he doesn't mind me putting words in his mouth) were trying to point out is that the myth of what the Native Americans were is not always accurate -- and history has been very kind in overlooking their faults and highlighting more of their virtues. We're just trying to make sure this very warlike culture which had many shortcomings, as all cultures do, is not incorrectly viewed as some sort of "perfect society."

I don't know that you'll find a perfect human society that can truly live sustainably. Now, Dolphins on the other hand, they've got something figured out that we don't. :D

Excuses, excuses... </font>[/QUOTE]Excuses? You define, limit, restrict and label a person purely on their sexual preference. Making them :them". An "other". Pile of horsemanure if you ask me. People are more than their sexual preference. Sexual preferences CHANGE bucko, in a VAST VAST number of cases. The homo becomes bi. The hetero becomes homo, the bi becomes hetero. Maybe you live in a sheltered coocoon where the media is all you reference, I don't know, but I've known too many who've moved around, changed, experimented and decided aspects of their sexuality to either have a generalisation about people who practice homosexuality, a prejudice, or the kind of limiting labelling you seem to vehemently perpetuate.

Again. The action is not the person. The action is something I have every right to decide against in my own life, in my spouses life, or in what I wish to encourage socially, religiously, economically or anything else. The PERSON, who is so much MORE than a sexual object, is not the object of that derision. Any further attempts to qualify my words as being derisive of people perperpuates the limitations I have described in this post.

People are more than their gender, or their orientation. Try and see it a little that way.

I'm not saying growth occurs in a vacuum, in fact the exact opposite growth occur evrywhere. With the growth of man comes man's effect on the enviroment, ALL MEN throughout history have an effect on nature NONE have lived in the modern "in Harmony with nature" philosophy that is so domainate in the people of the western countries. In short that philosophy is a LIE and everything based on it is a lie. Last night there was a great show on the discovery science channel about the evolution of man. in less then 1,000 after the arrival of man to the land of your birth, several types of furry creatures became extinct, around 60,000 years ago. These are the first people to arrive downunder, the original aboriginies, the people that INVENTED sudsistence societies they killed off lots of animals(giant kangaroos, giant turtoses, gaint flightless birds). Same thing happened all over the earth, in the Americas the mamoths, mastodons, giant buffalo, saber tooth cats, camels all disapeared after man arrived, who were the men that arrived why it was the Indians.

I was alive when the first "Earthday" occured 35 years ago I remember it, I also remember the predictions of doom and gloom that were going to befall the Planet in the next 5-10 years. Guess what 35 years has passed no doom and gloom, we and the earth are still here and still going strong.

From what I can see it is mostly people of European decent living in concret jungles(excuse me concret rainforrests there are no jungles anymore ;) ) using energy for their homes, movement, exsistance consumming natural resources, that are doing the most complaining/longing for a simpilar way of life, fine. Move out of the city sell all you have give the money to the poor, rip off your modern clothes, walk out into the wilderness pick up 2 rocks beat them together until you have a stone tool and start trying to live off the land. See how long they survive, don't come complaining to me when you/they start dieing off from stavation, dieses(sp?) The eveidence from archielogy(sp?) does not support the "they lived in harmony with nature" and thus were better people then us philosphy in any shape form or fashion. I don't know about you but I like pooping in a toliet, my ancestors crawled out of Africa and spreadout arcoss this planet dominating it just so I could drop a load in a porcilean(sp?) toliet pull a metal handle and send it to the sanation plant. I'm proud to be at the pincle of the top of the food chain, it sure as "Hale" beats the alternative.

Now having said all that, IT DOESNOT mean we should destroy nature, not that we could anyway, God/Mother nature/the Great Spirit/Gia/Querk of fate/whatever anybody wishes to give credit for this phsyical world we live in made this Earth a "Hale" of a lot stronger then we can even fathom. This planet has taken direct hits from asteroids that had many more times the destructive power of all our explosives(nuclear & non nuclear) combined and keep on going. It has taken ice ages, thaws, where the Entire ice caps were GONE, and kept on ticking. Every day the sun send enough energy on this planet to supply the current energy needs of the entire world fo 30 years!!!! And we think the little energy we use is destroying the earth, give me a break simple math debunks that excuse. 50 years fo man vs 50x365.25x30 of sun? There is eviedence the sun is burning brighter and hottter over the last 1,000 years. Now think of that!figure out the effect to the temperture of the earth with 30 years of energy hitting this planet every day and that energy getting hotter and stronger over the last 1,000 years. Look at that vast amount of energy vs. the amount we as humans cause. "Hale" there are enigneers on this board that work with bigg numbers and complecated math, get one of them to run the numbers see what they come up with then get back to me.
Are there things we can do to work better with nature? Sure there are! Should we? Yes by all means!!! It is stupid to take a dump in your kitchen. "Hale" I love to camp, hunt, fish, just plain walk around in the woods, I do it all the time. I apperciate(sp?) nature, I comune with nature more then I bet the vast majority of people on this board, or those dewell in cities on this entire earth.
My son-in-law and I are planing to go on hiking/fishing trips, where we drop the ladies off at cabin with a pool and restaurant all the comforts of home, hot & cold running water (for some reason the ladies of the Harris clan don't like pooping in the woods an using leaves go figure ;) ). We will hike for several days fishing and enjoying the wonders of nature until we get back to the cabin.

I don't buy the They were better in the old days, if they were better why did we change? Beef hurts the human diet, tell that to the Atkins diet people [img]smile.gif[/img] . Cows fart to much methan(sp?) give me a break, there were herds of buffalo in the plains that numbered in the tens of millions of animals. Herds that were so large to took DAYS for the herd to pass by. Buffalo are larger animals than cattle, the larger the animal the large the fart. ;) Now cattle are are keep in smaller herds spread out over a wider area, doing much less damage to the enviroment. Spreading out the smaller damage making it easier for nature to recover. The buffalo's hoves alone tore up the ground like millions of plowshears, leaving vast swaths of parrie ripped up and bare of grass. Nature took and said give me more!

All these facts can easly be found just by watching a year or so's worth of discovery/TLC/science channels, and realizing nothing works in a vacuum it all works together.

</font>[/QUOTE]Truth. You arguements have that effect. Your words, protestations and constant misinterpretation of my words indicates a perception that a person IS their sexual orientation. You have repeatedly failed to see any difference, any hint that the person is so much more than their orientation, or their gender.


Oh yeah? What else is it. It certainly is denial. "They're not children, they're embryos". Total utter utter horsecrap. In one ward you have an abortion taking place, and in another a child YOUNGER than the murdered child is being treated for premature birth. They are children. Limbs, eyes, ears, brains, hearts, oxgenated blood, emotions. They are mammals. Any words otherwise are in serious denial.

For, what does it mean if they ARE children Chewbacca? What horror is that? What if you are wrong? What horrific catastrophy have we inflicted on the planet by destroying the lives of innocents before they even get out of the womb?

You HAVE to be right. I can be right or wrong. Hence the denial. Try and see it my way for just two seconds, and experience the grief I have for the planet when I conceive of the millions of deaths STILL GOING ON!

There is. Again. Truth. Are you suggesting I'm lying and that certain men are forbidden from marrying women based on their sexual preference?


[/QUOTE]

We are all disadvantaged in one way or another. We all have our pit, our mountain to climb. Some worse than others. No-one is preventing homosexuals from living together, from making life commitments to each other, from enjoying sexual relations. They can do what they will. The line is currently drawn at receiving the financial and social ENCOURAGEMENT reserved for a single man, and single woman who choose to cohabit together in life commitment.

But people can exist together outside of that definition without penalty.

I guess you haven't heard of that little thing called the "hole in the ozone layer" which touches the bottom of Tasmania during winter.

Being from that part of the world and experiencing the far greater sunburn opportunities than exist up here, I can tell you there is a problem. SUVs and hummers driven by one person should be the first to go. MacDonalds double cheesburgers should be next.

This is quite plainly untrue.

Where did I isolate the Amerindian societies? I repeatedly said "sibsistence cultures". What is with the Amercentricity???? The world is bigger than America! Keep your problems with the Amerindians then if you must. Let's just say you're correct on every point about the Amerindians. IT DOESN'T CHANGE WHAT I SAID. Subsistence cultures at one point covered most of the planet. City cultures have only been around for 4000 odd years. If you're an evolutionist, then that's a heck of a long time for subsistence cultures to be getting it right.

I never said they were better in the old days. I enjoy living now. Somethings have changed for better, others for worse. Again, doesn't take anything away from what I've said. Some things now, could be better, some things have already improved. Doesn't mean we should rest on our laurels or stop learning from the past.

Yoric your all over the place! If you think children can consent to a parents need for a sexual relationship, you haven't had enough experiences with abusive families. Abuse starts very early on and clouds any childs judgement as well as an adults.

To argue gay marrige is wrong because you support paedophilia and incest seems shortsighted to me. I don't mean to be condescending it just sounds like you support it.

Maybe I missed it but you haven't given a reason why you think gay marridge should be illegal. Most people in support of gay marridge are in support because it is guarenteed by the constitution. I paraphrase when I say, no laws should be made to deprive people of their pursuit of happiness. Marridge is a legal right to all citisens of the United States who are of legal age to enter into a contractual agreement. I have not heard any argument for this ban based on anything but opinion.

Also, Native Americans don't need to build casinos and destroy the land. Not all Native Americans are conservationist just like any society.

Diversity is what makes this world great. You yourself said Gay people are fantastic people, why would you want to limit that resource? I agree with you when you say "people are more than Their sexual preferances" so why pass laws based on that preferance. There is nothing different other than sexual preferance when you compare a heterosexual person with a homosexual person. They can still have children wether they adopt or through artificial means.

Moved the subsistence to this thread: http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/cg...&f=27&t=001306
sorry about the Hijacking ;)

[ 08-10-2004, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

It this point gay marriage is only consitutional in one state under that states constitution. It is not found to be constitutional under the US Constitution as of the writing of the post. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Gay marriage is a right in 1 state. Civil Unions are a right in another, and that state's Civil Union law provides that every reference to "marriage" in the law shall apply equally to Civil Unions -- so despite the nomenclature, it is the SAME thing. ;)