Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 163

Thread: Gay Marriage ruling

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    24,086

    Gay Marriage ruling

    it just seems perfect that the Ronald Reagan man put this through

    what a party

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Jerseystrong
    Posts
    18,703
    Hernandez arrested, doma struck down, good day so far.

  3. #3
    If thats the ruling, good. I'm pro-gay marriage generally speaking (on libertarian private-contract grounds).

    With that said, I do find funny that we live in a time where being fat or hoarding are considered "diseases" of the mind, but being homosexually is considered perfectly normal, not a disfunction of any kind or in any way.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    If thats the ruling, good. I'm pro-gay marriage generally speaking (on libertarian private-contract grounds).

    With that said, I do find funny that we live in a time where being fat or hoarding are considered "diseases" of the mind, but being homosexually is considered perfectly normal, not a disfunction of any kind or in any way.
    Other than the usual moral stuff, how is homosexuality disfunctional in any practical terms?

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    If thats the ruling, good. I'm pro-gay marriage generally speaking (on libertarian private-contract grounds).

    With that said, I do find funny that we live in a time where being fat or hoarding are considered "diseases" of the mind, but being homosexually is considered perfectly normal, not a disfunction of any kind or in any way.
    I agree with you. I am all for equal rights and protection under the law but I do not see it as normal or natural.

    If homosexuality was normal or natural behavior we would be extinct.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    If thats the ruling, good. I'm pro-gay marriage generally speaking (on libertarian private-contract grounds).

    With that said, I do find funny that we live in a time where being fat or hoarding are considered "diseases" of the mind, but being homosexually is considered perfectly normal, not a disfunction of any kind or in any way.
    I agree with you. I am all for equal rights and protection under the law but I do not see it as normal or natural.

    If homosexuality was normal or natural behavior we would be extinct or at least witness more immaculate conceptions. The primary purpose of a species is to reproduce, to ensure survival.
    Last edited by DDNYjets; 06-26-2013 at 12:00 PM.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    I agree with you. I am all for equal rights and protection under the law but I do not see it as normal or natural.

    If homosexuality was normal or natural behavior we would be extinct.
    I think homosexuality is "normal" for a percentage of the population as it is in other species as well.

    I dont think everyone has to be the same.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Other than the usual moral stuff, how is homosexuality disfunctional in any practical terms?
    Besides it being an obvious dysfunction of the biological design of human beings?

    Be it genetic or behavioral, I do not agree with the AMA that it's "normal", not something that should be treated thus. I have always believed it to be a dysfucntion, either based upon some faulty wiring or by some behavioral/social issue(s).

    Note, that doesn't mean I'd legislate against the behaviour in any way. I've been very clear in my support. But my support does not extend to the political correct lie that it's "normal" or somehow equally biologicly valid as hetero. It's not.

    I take no moral position on sex, gay or strait, outside of infidelity in marriage (which I loathe and loathe those who engage in it).

    /shrug

    Quote Originally Posted by FF2® View Post
    I think homosexuality is "normal" for a percentage of the population as it is in other species as well.
    So is being born blind, using your definition of "normal". Just like blindness (a lack of correct function of the eyes), I see Homosexuality as a lack of correct function of the human sexuality/attraction/mental system.

    I wouldn't legislate against bline people either, I shouldn't have to point out.
    Last edited by Churchill; 06-26-2013 at 12:11 PM.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,793
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2® View Post
    I think homosexuality is "normal" for a percentage of the population as it is in other species as well.

    I dont think everyone has to be the same.
    Kind of like it is "normal" for a car manufacturer to make a few lemons. They all seem to do it.


  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Besides it being an obvious dysfunction of the biological design of human beings?

    Be it genetic or behavioral, I do not agree with the AMA that it's "normal", not something that should be treated thus. I have always believed it to be a dysfucntion, either based upon some faulty wiring or by some behavioral/social issue(s).

    Note, that doesn't mean I'd legislate against the behaviour in any way. I've been very clear in my support. But my support does not extend to the political correct lie that it's "normal" or somehow equally biologicly valid as hetero. It's not.

    I take no moral position on sex, gay or strait, outside of infidelity in marriage (which I loathe and loathe those who engage in it).

    /shrug



    So is being born blind, using your definition of "normal". Just like blindness (a lack of correct function of the eyes), I see Homosexuality as a lack of correct function of the human sexuality/attraction/mental system.

    I wouldn't legislate against bline people either, I shouldn't have to point out.
    I get where you're coming from, which essentially is a "tolerance" position. Reality is that homosexuality is in our genetic code from the beginning and has not in any way affected our ability as a species to propagate. There are a good number of our species who don't produce children for a variety of reasons. Therefore, if producing children is the criterion for "normalcy" or "healthy functioning" you're going to have a hard sell. Homosexuality has zero impact on the ability of homosexuals to functions as responsible and productive members of society. Zero. They do not equate to someone who is blind or deaf or paraplegic, etc. It is NOT a disability. The only arguments against homosexuality as a lifestyle are moral and that is highly relative and religion-bound. If we are going to explore what is normal "wiring" and what isn't, the results would not look pretty for a good many of our species. It's a really really poor argument.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,793
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    I get where you're coming from, which essentially is a "tolerance" position. Reality is that homosexuality is in our genetic code from the beginning and has not in any way affected our ability as a species to propagate. There are a good number of our species who don't produce children for a variety of reasons. Therefore, if producing children is the criterion for "normalcy" or "healthy functioning" you're going to have a hard sell. Homosexuality has zero impact on the ability of homosexuals to functions as responsible and productive members of society. Zero. They do not equate to someone who is blind or deaf or paraplegic, etc. It is NOT a disability. The only arguments against homosexuality as a lifestyle are moral and that is highly relative and religion-bound. If we are going to explore what is normal "wiring" and what isn't, the results would not look pretty for a good many of our species. It's a really really poor argument.
    I'm not sure if that makes it "normal". All that means is that we are able to sustain a certain percentage of our species that doesn't reproduce (for whatever reason) b.c we have a large percentage that does.

    I agree, I do not consider it a disability b.c technically homosexuals could reproduce if they chose to. A blind person cannot see no matter how badly they want to.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    I get where you're coming from, which essentially is a "tolerance" position.
    Have you ever known me to support anything other?

    Reality is that homosexuality is in our genetic code from the beginning...
    So has a large number of genetic disorders and disabillities. That may make a certain percentage of them occuring to be expected (i.e. a normal frequency of occurence) but it does not make the specific dysfunction "normal" or fully and correctly functioning.

    Also, I was unaware the homosexuallity had been locked down as a genetic issue. Source?

    Therefore, if producing children is the criterion for "normalcy" or "healthy functioning" you're going to have a hard sell.
    I'm not "selling" first of all, the AMA/Docs have already had their say and tehy say it's normal.

    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 (a t least the old way we defined normal) not normal, but a specific dysfunction that does not permit normal sexual reproduction as we are evolved to do.

    The choice to actually do so or not is irrelevant to whats is being discussed here.

    Pretty much all of your spirited defense of homosexuality are points I agree with, and are good reasons for social tolerence. They are no, IMO< good reasons to describe a blind person as "normal" or "equally but differently functional" or some other PC tripe. I fully support homosexual rights equal to heterosexual rights in every way, that does not change my opinion that we (as a society) have, due to social pressures, chosen to describe an obvious dysfunction as a normal and good to be thing.

  13. #13
    Again, interesting groupings on the various rulings.

    In the decision upholding the original California district court decision on Prop 8, the majority opinion (that the Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to review the decision once the State accepted it and declined to appeal) included Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Breyer. The dissent was from Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor and Kennedy.

    I love these types of groupings, because it drives home the point that for all the claims that these folks are monolithic party-line robots, the reality is that they are making decisions based on their sincere understanding of the law and constitution. Of course, the philosophy that led their nominating party to nominate them will animate much of those decisions, but the idea that you can say "Scalia will vote X because it's what the Republicans want" or "Sotomayor will vote Y because it's what the Democrats want" just isn't accurate.

    I hope that point doesn't get lost in the discussion of these rulings, since the general politicization of the SC and the ensuing lack of trust in and respect for it is, I believe, one of the more profound long term issues facing the US

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    I hope that point doesn't get lost in the discussion of these rulings, since the general politicization of the SC and the ensuing lack of trust in and respect for it is, I believe, one of the more profound long term issues facing the US
    You mean Liberal Radio all week this week discussing how to fire SC Justices or hold them to term limits or how their power isn't legitimate, etc, etc, etc?

    Same stuff Mark Levin and many righties trot out when rulings go against their beliefs?

    Seems neither side trusts the court, regardless of how they rule.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Have you ever known me to support anything other?



    So has a large number of genetic disorders and disabillities. That may make a certain percentage of them occuring to be expected (i.e. a normal frequency of occurence) but it does not make the specific dysfunction "normal" or fully and correctly functioning.

    Also, I was unaware the homosexuallity had been locked down as a genetic issue. Source?



    I'm not "selling" first of all, the AMA/Docs have already had their say and tehy say it's normal.

    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 (a t least the old way we defined normal) not normal, but a specific dysfunction that does not permit normal sexual reproduction as we are evolved to do.

    The choice to actually do so or not is irrelevant to whats is being discussed here.

    Pretty much all of your spirited defense of homosexuality are points I agree with, and are good reasons for social tolerence. They are no, IMO< good reasons to describe a blind person as "normal" or "equally but differently functional" or some other PC tripe. I fully support homosexual rights equal to heterosexual rights in every way, that does not change my opinion that we (as a society) have, due to social pressures, chosen to describe an obvious dysfunction as a normal and good to be thing.
    Using your line of thinking, shouldn't any sexual gratification that isn't specifically for procreation be considered "abnormal"? In no way is oral sex natural or necessary to keep us going as a species. Yet I assume you consider that normal when between a man and woman?

    Kudos on your support of equal rights, but I'm not sure I agree with the way you got there.

  16. #16
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    30,480
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    With that said, I do find funny that we live in a time where being fat or hoarding are considered "diseases" of the mind, but being homosexually is considered perfectly normal, not a disfunction of any kind or in any way.
    What kind of wormy statement is that?

    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Other than the usual moral stuff, how is homosexuality disfunctional in any practical terms?
    Can you believe this Churchill?

    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    I agree with you. I am all for equal rights and protection under the law but I do not see it as normal or natural.

    If homosexuality was normal or natural behavior we would be extinct.
    what

    Quote Originally Posted by FF2® View Post
    I think homosexuality is "normal" for a percentage of the population as it is in other species as well.

    I dont think everyone has to be the same.
    +1

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    I agree with you. I am all for equal rights and protection under the law but I do not see it as normal or natural.

    If homosexuality was normal or natural behavior we would be extinct or at least witness more immaculate conceptions. The primary purpose of a species is to reproduce, to ensure survival.
    If sex was just for procreation 17 year old boys we be encouraged to have sex with 12 to 15 year old girls.

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,515
    It's abnormal, and will always be so

    Thanks to the 60's radical hippies and other fruits nuts and flakes running the nation it's legal

    No law in favor of it will make this social climbing exercise approximate anything more than a similacrum of normalcy

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by OBENjet View Post
    Using your line of thinking, shouldn't any sexual gratification that isn't specifically for procreation be considered "abnormal"?
    No. Sexual activity (of any kind) simply for enjoyment is no different that any other activity just for enjoyment.

    Exclusive sexual attraction to the same sex is not the same thing.

    In no way is oral sex natural or necessary to keep us going as a species. ?
    Again, it's not the action that counts, but the evolutionary design of the species. This is not about choices.

    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.

    In the same vein, we are designed by evolution to be a sexual reporducting, heterosexual species. Hence being homosexual is not normal, it's a dysfunction, even if 10% of us might like our own sex.

    the only reason it is called "normal" desite not meeting the definition of the word is to A. reduce abuse of gays (a good purpose) and B. to make gays feel better about being gay. It's the same as why we can no longer use "retarded" even if someone is, by the definition fo the term, metally retarded by their specific problem or ailment.

    It's PC speak. I reject it.

    Kudos on your support of equal rights, but I'm not sure I agree with the way you got there.
    Could care less if people agree tbqh, although I never cease to be amazed at how brainwahsed most are by current era political correctness and fear of offending anyoen about anything.

    Rightiousness and consensus are two different words for a very good reason. As some say about freedom of speech, I may disagree with what you say completely but would defend your right to say it with my life. I feel the same way here, I may disagreew ith teh claimed "normality" of homosexuality, but I do defend their rights to be free from descrimination abuse or any other unequal treatment under the law fully and completely.

    If that isn't good enough, if )like the freedom of speech issue) it's not enough to support the right, but to be forced to support the content too.....well, too bad.

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    26,975
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Besides it being an obvious dysfunction of the biological design of human beings?

    Be it genetic or behavioral, I do not agree with the AMA that it's "normal", not something that should be treated thus. I have always believed it to be a dysfucntion, either based upon some faulty wiring or by some behavioral/social issue(s).

    Note, that doesn't mean I'd legislate against the behaviour in any way. I've been very clear in my support. But my support does not extend to the political correct lie that it's "normal" or somehow equally biologicly valid as hetero. It's not.

    I take no moral position on sex, gay or strait, outside of infidelity in marriage (which I loathe and loathe those who engage in it).

    /shrug



    So is being born blind, using your definition of "normal". Just like blindness (a lack of correct function of the eyes), I see Homosexuality as a lack of correct function of the human sexuality/attraction/mental system.

    I wouldn't legislate against bline people either, I shouldn't have to point out.
    This

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us