to suit social climbing closet cases. Whole Milk is not the same as 1% Milk and is not labelled as such, now my wholesome marriage has to be degraded
for the sake of the sausage smuggling 1%? Bah!
Any other bright questions?
Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 06-26-2013 at 03:46 PM.
My point is strictly limited to two things:
1. Full support for equallity and equal treatment under the Law, including when entering into civil contracts with other peope (i.e. marriage under the State).
2. Homosexuality is not normal, i.e. it lies outside the norm. Normal is Heterosexuality in Homo Sapiens. It is normal that some small percentage exhibit this trait in our species, but it not the norm to be Homosexual anymore than it's normal to be blind, or have any other genetic or mental divergence from the average/normal. While I appreciate that may in fact make people with these non-normal traits feel bad, we should not redefine basic language and terms to protect them from these facts.
If you ask, I don't really hold an opinion of judgement on homosexuality itself. If thinking, consenting adults want to do it, or are compelled by genetics to do it, and wish to engage in a contract do exclsuively do it with added benefits and rights other couples enjoy.....awesome, cool for them, and I support their desire to do so.
P.S. Sorry about Hernandez. I know alot of Jets Fans will pile on, but this really isn't funny and I can see how mcuh it would suck if it happened to my team or one of the guys I liked and rooted for. Condolences.
Last edited by Churchill; 06-26-2013 at 03:42 PM.
Anywho about Hernandez...when a dead body is discovered in your town...you can imagine your feelings about the football team you root for are just about at the bottom of your list.
Second, the idea that the "normalcy" issue is strictly a religious stance is absurd, almost as much as the suggestion that it could possibly provide any evolutionary benefit. It, like all traits, it a genetic mutation. Those random mutations over generations prove to be benetial to survival and propagation of the species, or not. Homosexuality has no evolutionary advantage, therefore it certainly can be considered as abnormal as blindness, as the Fist pointed out. I find it particularly amusing when these facts are dismissed by the very same folks who tout evolution so much when confronted with creationists. Guess you get to pick and choose when science applies and when it doesn't?
Lastly, have to wonder how many have yet thought about the budget implications. There's about to be massive payoffs to folks who were denied deductions since DOMA's implementation.
Last edited by JetPotato; 06-26-2013 at 04:16 PM.
Same sex marriage, girls playing boys sports, one parent households etc. etc. idk.
1. When I said purpose, I was referencing natural selection. It is indeed local adaptation not some overall teleology. On that we agree. Random variation is indeed a driving force of selection. We are not in disagreement.
2. You seem to be defining "normalcy" based on statistical variance, not on evolutionary advantage. The fact that there is more of something does not necessarily establish that it is more adaptive. Species have evolved themselves out of existence, so "mistakes" do indeed occur from a selection point of view.
3. High intelligence is not the norm, nor is being wealthy, or having perfectly symmetrical features. Yet all three may indeed be advantageous to survival and selection. On the other hand, these may all ultimately be their own death warrant, as they can also lead to reduced procreation. We frankly don't know if consciousness itself is an artifact and useless -- even dangerous -- to the survival of our species or beneficial. Before the advent of the atomic bomb, it was all good and we looked like we had the recipe for dominance. Who knows? There are lots of insects out there doing quite well while we toy with our own doom.
4. So in the end, I don't really give a damn about the normalcy argument, as it does establish anything but a circular kind of logic that tells us nothing.
5. As for the Biblical moral arguments, they are as primitive and useless as slavery, not eating pork, avoiding combining milk and flesh, and other stupidities of a dead age.
I am happy for gay people that they can join in equality where states permit it. It just seems fundamentally correct to me. As a married heterosexual, I find the argument that my marriage or anyone's has been "watered down" to be the most palpable idiocy of a frightened reactionary element in our society. They should join Paula Deen on her ante-bellum island of long-long ago.
Re the financial issues, so be it. It's just.
Your "replying" is worse than normal today. Once again I find that I'm not even sure you're reading the content my posts before you immediately wargarbl in some vague related but non-reply-to-me way at them.
Probably time to simply say good day my friend.
Oh, and lame dig at Deen btw.
So to you, is gayness a choice or is it the way you're born/genetic?Again, it's not the action that counts, but the evolutionary design of the species. This is not about choices.
But, homosexuals can reproduce. Whether you believe being gay is a choice or hardwired into them, a gay male and gay female can engage in reproductive sex and produce offspring. They still possess the necessary...'tools'.To answer your issue we (homo sapiens) are a sexual reproducing organism, and as such, the reproductive norm in our specific species is hetero. Deviation from that is by definition not normal, but a specific dysfunction that does not permit normal sexual reproduction as we are evolved to do.
So accordingly, they are not abnormal if they can produce offspring...right?
But, gays engage in sexual activities with each other simply for enjoyment. Obviously, there can be no other motive for it. So how is that different from oral sex which is simply for entertainment?Sexual activity (of any kind) simply for enjoyment is no different that any other activity just for enjoyment.
Blind people still have eyes, they just don't work. That is the dysfunction. Gay people have reproductive parts which work but aren't being used to reproduce. Not an apples to apples comparison IMO.We are designed by evolution to have eyes, hence lacking eyes is not normal, it is a dysfunction, even if 10% of us might lack vision.
I'm actually against homosexuality. However, like you, I believe in tolerating it. I don't believe it's up to the government to make it a legal issue. It's a human issue. And on those merits, I believe it should be tolerated. Maybe it's my financial background, but I fiercely believe in a small government.
I just wanted to correct/comment on/question some of the discrepancies in your posts.
Forgetting the part which you quoted about it being a choice or not, at least try to comment on the other three points.