Virginia bans homosexual civil unions

[Jerr Conner]

Firstly, Promethius, why assume it's a genetic abberation?

I used to have this website on my Favorites (Before my computer crashed) that had a theory that Homosexuality was evolutionary-based. Luckily I remember the gist of it.

One part of the theory said it's a way to decrease population. Another part went on to explain that not only is the homosexual more free to protect the children of their sibilings, but also enough to ensure protection of their lover's sibiling's children as well. Also making a larger family and community as a result.

Secondly, if it's a choice then why not simply prove me wrong by choosing to be attracted to someone of the same sex?

[Timber Loftis]

The good news (for homosexuals) is that the younger generations DO seem to be more accepting of homosexuality in general, and it's reasonable to assume their children will be even more accepting, etc etc. So the universal acceptance MAY come eventually, but it will take a few generations to accomplish it.

Agreed, Cerek. To add some thoughts, I'm not real happy with the gay lifestyle and a label of gay being accepted amongst young people. What upsets me most are the 12 or 15 year olds who think they can accurately define themselves as "gay." I think that the teen years in life are so confusing, especially where sexuality is concerned, that identifying one's self as "gay" at that age is unfortunate.

It's not that I have a problem with gays, it's just that many teen are disenfranchised and may seek any group to identify with and become accepted amongst -- and "alternative" society's such as the homosexual society are only all-too-willing to embrace new members with welcome arms.

IMO, I think the most a 12 or 15 year old can say is that they are "experimenting" or "bi." Pigeon-holing them at such a formative stage in life can be bad for them, and perhaps for society. I know more than one person who said they were "gay" at 18 and ended up married with children in a traditional sense.

Oh, and regarding your querry about the "self insured" insurance carriers, it is no different. All "self insured" tends to mean these days is that there is a certain amount of coverage the company can cover for itself, before its reinsurance or excess insurance kicks in. Either way, a health provider in VT must accept a civil union couple and give them a family plan.

[Timber Loftis]

Firstly, Promethius, why assume it's a genetic abberation?

I don't think he did that, Jerr. I think he was (perhaps inappropriately) characterizing the argument made by Illumina. I don't think he meant it to be a statement of fact, but he can correct me if he likes.

One part of the theory said it's a way to decrease population.

An interesting point from the evolutionary standpoint -- though I note that evolutionary mutations of a species occur only by happenstance and that whether or not they are genetically selected-for is only decided later. To add a thought, I think that homosexual relationships are win/win from this perspective. If they procreate less, then IMO it is a boon to society. If they choose to procreate/rear children, then a large percentage of them doing so will be via adoption -- another boon to society.

Further, I note that for you it is not a choice, and I appreciate your forthcoming on your prayers as a child. However, I do note that for some it is a choice -- i.e. something chosen later in life and not predisposed at a young age. On this nature/nurture question, it appears we simply have to accept the answer that it is both.

[Jerr Conner]

I still don't think Gay can really be defined as a lifestyle. If it could, what would the definition be?

For instance, let's say I finally say I'm in the gay lifestyle. Well my lifestyle consists of collecting Anime, playing games, reading, enjoying being outside of the house, and a whole bunch of other stuff. My straight friends enjoy the same things to and these things make up their lifestyle as well. Wouldn't that make them living the gay lifestyle then?

Further, I note that for you it is not a choice, and I appreciate your forthcoming on your prayers as a child. However, I do note that for some it is a choice -- i.e. something chosen later in life and not predisposed at a young age. On this nature/nurture question, it appears we simply have to accept the answer that it is both.

Heh, I have a theory on those who are gay later in life. Mostly, I just think that they're bisexual, and/or rather identify as being gay cause bisexuality isn't taken so seriously.

[ 06-01-2004, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Jerr Conner ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: Secondly, if it's a choice then why not simply prove me wrong by choosing to be attracted to someone of the same sex?

We choose who we're attracted to. What do you think having a committed relationship is all about? It's making a series of choices that lead you to continually finding one person attractive above all others.

Love is a choice.

Sexuality is developed. We are not born homosexual of hetrosexual, but make a series of choices that lead to one or the other. I was not born getting hard-ons over certain women. It developed. I allowed certain notions to reside in my head, and restricted and shut out others if they came up. You can fall out of love with someone through choice alone. You can fall in love repeatedly with "wrong people". Or you can be aware of how things work, and choose to love - which includes attraction.

"Taste" is association in any case.

If you honestly believe you have no control over these things, you are completely unaware of the power of the mind, the power of the conscious mind in particular (which controls the subconscious).

[Yorick]

Oh yeah, I never used to find Chinese women attractive until at 30, after living for a time in Asia, I found Singaporean women to be some of the most beautiful humans on the planet.

My "taste" changed. Inclusively.

Are you a slave to desire or are you in control of your life?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Firstly, Promethius, why assume it's a genetic abberation?

I don't think he did that, Jerr. I think he was (perhaps inappropriately) characterizing the argument made by Illumina. I don't think he meant it to be a statement of fact, but he can correct me if he likes.

One part of the theory said it's a way to decrease population.

An interesting point from the evolutionary standpoint -- though I note that evolutionary mutations of a species occur only by happenstance and that whether or not they are genetically selected-for is only decided later. To add a thought, I think that homosexual relationships are win/win from this perspective. If they procreate less, then IMO it is a boon to society. If they choose to procreate/rear children, then a large percentage of them doing so will be via adoption -- another boon to society.

Further, I note that for you it is not a choice, and I appreciate your forthcoming on your prayers as a child. However, I do note that for some it is a choice -- i.e. something chosen later in life and not predisposed at a young age. On this nature/nurture question, it appears we simply have to accept the answer that it is both. [/QUOTE]Actually increases in homosexuality and declining birthrates are indicators of a society in decline. Replaced by a "hungry" and numerically increasing races of people. So WASPS in America are childless? Give it a few generations and they'll be a minority, replaced by the Hispanic Catholics (no contraception). Look at the trend already. Hispanics are the fastest growing group in the USA. Same with Europe. Declining birthrates coinciding with increases in immigration from "poorer" areas teeming with procreating humans. Look at India finally getting it's economic act together.

God/Natures way of making sure no race stays on the top of the heap too long?

The Roman Empire's decline and fall is closely married to the decline in their population. They simply did not have the economic manpower to maintain the legions that had kept the Empire safe - especially in the face of numerically increasing neighbours.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by promethius9594: chewbacca, a gay man has the very same right to marry as a straight man does. if a gay man wants to marry a woman, he can do that. if a straight man wants to marry a woman, he can do that. no inequality. if a gay man wants to marry a man, he can't do that. if a straight man wants to marry a man, he can't do that. no inequality. i hate it when people try to gain pity points for the movement by arguing for "equality" when legalistically its already there. we're not talking about equal rights, we're talking about an expansion of rights to include a new factor... even applied society wide it is STILL an expansion of rights, not correcting an "inequality." so please, cut the BS about unfair or unequal because that arguement just doesnt float.

Ah one of my favorite run-arounds of the issue...the ole- a gay man can marry a woman so the gays already have rights. Its poppycock.

A gay man can't marry the person they love and want to commit to for the rest of their life in a married sort of way.... ie. -another man.

A hetrosexual man can marry the person they love and want to commit to for the rest of their life in a married sort of way- ie. a woman.

So it is unfair and it is unequal..and it certainly floats. [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]And what you're doing is exalting sexual relationships above nonsexual relationships. Poppycock. Why should two men who love each other, but chose to keep their relationship platonic (ie be hetrosexual) be discriminated against. Two brothers for example. Aren't brother who love each other commited for life? Why should they be discriminated against simply because they don't have sex.

It's the same old story from Western society. Sex = love. Sex= love.

No it doesn't. No it doesn't.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: I still don't think Gay can really be defined as a lifestyle. If it could, what would the definition be?

Have sex with members of the same sex. Lifestyle choice.

Your are on defined suxually by your actions, not your intent.

You may wish you were celibate. You may have desires for celibacy, but unless you refrain from sex PHYSICALLY, you are not celibate. Same with adultery. The action defines the definition.

Any and everyone may get tempted, may entertain desires and thoughts, but unless acted on, they are irrelevent in the defenition.

If you have not yet had sex with a member of the same sex, you are not gay. You are celibate, with homosexual desires, perhaps, but still celibate.

If you are sleeping with a woman, while married to another woman, you're an adulterer, no matter how much you wish you weren't.

Really simple when you look at it all like that.

Sexuality is a physical description. A lifestyle choice.

Just as gender is a physical definition. Unless you believe the soul has a gender (which I don't) why would you hold to the notion that you can be a man trapped in a womans body for example.

Expand the definition of what it means to be a man.

Hetrosexual men:
1.Can find men attractive - don't they find themselves attractive?
2.Can express themselves emotionally.
3.Can explore their "feminine" side
...... and yet still be men. It doesn't mean they are a woman, gay or anything else.

Expand the definition, don't make people feel less than what they are.

[Timber Loftis]

Actually increases in homosexuality and declining birthrates are indicators of a society in decline. Replaced by a "hungry" and numerically increasing races of people. So WASPS in America are childless? Give it a few generations and they'll be a minority, replaced by the Hispanic Catholics (no contraception). Look at the trend already. Hispanics are the fastest growing group in the USA. Same with Europe.

A trend for now, Yorick, but as those subcultures develop economic power and an increase in their standard of living and education, declining birthrates are sure to follow. The answer to maintaining cultural dominance is not "reproduce like rabbits." Even if it is, it puts us as humans on a collision course with the environmental limitations of our planet. Actually, a decrease in birth rate is a sign of an advanced and priviliged society -- each individual has a greater chance of social success, so having each sow in the population popping out as many get as possible is not as important. And, yes, I used some possibly-offensive words, there, but my point is my point. Blunt as it may be.