Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think Darwin would say to be careful of what environment you raise your heterosexual children in because some repeated exposure to unhealthy factors could change their sexuality.
Really? Did Darwin actually say anything about sexual orientation, or are you just making that up in order to create some more scaremongering about homosexuals - which seems to be a daily habit for you.
Last edited by AnUnidentifiedMale; 02-27-2011 at 01:11 PM..
I guess that is why we have laws, rather than anarchy. The rules of society are always determined by the majority, as they are the ones who vote for such rules and hold the power of numbers. That is the way the world works, and thankfully, the way our republic works.
I notice you completely ignored my post where I corrected your misguided views about our country being a majority rule nation.
Not allowing the majority to have dictatorial power is not the same as anarchy. Our constitutional based system is one where our laws are in place to protect each of us from force, fraud and coercion. This includes force from the government against those who are doing nothing other than peaceful, consensual acts.
Anarchy is the absence of ALL laws regarding force.
I will ask you again. Specifically, what will happen to you if 2 guys get married? Walk me through the day, you wake up and know that as of that day homosexuals can get married nationwide, so what changes for you? Not your feelings of anger, hate and rage but what happens, to you, your mariage, your job, your life?
Oh, so you want to play that game with me? Bad move. I'll go toe to toe with anyone on sociopolitical issues, especially if you want to dance on gay rights.
Let's see how smart you really are.
But I thought you were absolutely confident that you would get your way? Now it's "let's wait and see"? Sounds like a man coming to grips with the changing world around him.
Either way, my guess is that in 2-3 years Iowa's law won't matter because the momentum of homophobic laws being overturned will have reached the SCOTUS by then, where the matter will be decided once and for all.
This part is absolute hilarity. First off, not only is your definition of an "activist judge" completely false, you turn around just a few posts later and openly welcome activist judges.
The definition of judicial activism...
...and your post.
Let's face it. You're not nearly as smart as you think you are, and this idiocy shows that pretty conclusively. I have more though!
Forcing their agenda on you eh? Explain to me, very specifically how they are forcing their agenda on you.
Same question as above. Detail, in specifics, how their lifestyle and values are being "pressed upon you".
Oh, I get it. It's all about reproducing right? Wait a minute though, what about all those straight couples who get married with the intention of never having children? That pretty much throws a huge ass wrench into your logic, doesn't it?
Your logic also fails on the basic premise that preventing gay marriage somehow protects heterosexual marriages. I know it may come as a shock to you, but gay couples aren't going to be reproducing (by natural means at least) with or without gay marriage. Your argument holds no water.
So you apparently understand that you can't legislate someone into being straight, so I fail to see what your justification is for denying gay marriage. You have ZERO logical responses to that.
You must have slept through your American Government class in high school, otherwise you would know that a very important part of our checks and balances in a judicial branch that can overturn laws passed by the majority "will of the people" if they are unconstitutional.
And the system worked. Your side failed to provide any rational, logical and legal justification for banning gay marriage and your law was shot down.
As I've already demonstrated, you don't have a problem with activist judges as long as they vote your way and anyways who doesn't gets that label whether it's earned or not.
The will of the people? Of course. You may have the desire or prediliction for robbing convenience stores. The rest of us, as members of society, see it as advantageous to prevent others from robbing and potentially killing other members of society in such acts. That is why it is illegal.
There are rational, legal arguments for preventing robbery, or not allowing someone to own a tank or machine guns.
There is NOT a rational, legal argument for banning gay marriage. If there was, your side wouldn't be getting laughed out of court with regularity.
How is that "higher IQ" working out for you now?
1. Darwin's theory IS all about reproducing. Again, I guess you did not understand this when you first read about it. "Survival of the most fit" does not refer to physical fitness or physique, it is the ability of a species to reproduce and pass on its genetic material- that is it. This has been widely misinterpreted and used in a misguided sense for political reasons.
No reproduction- no passing on genes. In this instance, that organism is a biological "dead end" and thus a waste of resources for that species.
2. MOST heterosexuals reproduce. By definition, NO GAYS reproduce, except potentially in a partial sense through invitro fertilization. Those heterosexual couples who do not re-produce are also "genetic dead ends", as their genetic material dies with them.
3. The tradition of marriage between a man and a women is a cultural tradition that has been developed over thousands of years from a cultural and evolutionary standpoint to make a safe environment from which a species (humans) can insure the transmission of genetic information to the next generations. Those that are most able to adapt to the environment and survive potentially have better genetic traits to survive in their respective environment and thus perpetuate their traits.
In human history, prior to in-vitro fertilization, essentially all "gay" genetic material perished.
4. One cannot "legislate" a person into being strait, however, the society creates cultural norms for its perpetuation to the future. The creation of stable family units and the institution of marriage between men and women is institution developed through external pressure to insure the survival of the species. In the course of human history, if gay marriage was accepted and promoted as a cultural norm (assuming not all gays are "genetically" predisposed to being gay), it would have insured the extinction of that culture.
It would be the equivilent of mass suicide among child bearing adults.
5. There are rational, legal arguments for preventing gay marriage. I just gave them to you, yet you cannot accept it. Further, there are laws preventing gay marriage. My right to own a tank or machine guns, I would offer, is better represented in the Constitution and would be less damaging to society. My owning of a tank would create a few harmless tracks which would be covered in a few years, while endorsing gay marriage would be a cultural act analagous to the introduction of a new disease which has removed a componant of the human population from the gene pool, potentially harming humanity as an aggregate.
6. I do have a problem with activist judges, regardless of HOW they rule. The judicial branch should stick to INTERPRETING existing law, not writing it. That is the function of the legislative branch. When activist judges subvert that process, independent of the legislative branch, action can and will be taken by the people through the voting process to restore order. That is what happened and will happen further in Iowa. Live with it- it is how our republic works.
Wow- You do need to be a little sharper! Drink some more coffee and consider this. Your argument SHOULD HAVE BEEN (this is like playing chess with my kids- I need to give them hints to remain amused) that at this time in human history, Darwin's Theory no longer strictly applies as-
1. Unlike other organisms, WE HAVE MODIFIED those forces of nature which had previously placed pressure on organisms, through natural selection, such that survival of the "most fit" (i.e. those able to reproduce) is no longer relevant. Thus we live in a society in which food, shelter, and ability to reproduce is available to essentially EVERYONE. Thus Bill Gates, being tremendously successful in this "environment" does not necessarily have a genetic advantage, from a fitness standpoint, over a trailer court dweller on public aid with ten children.
Form a social standpoint, we for the most part value Bill Gates more than the trailer park dweller, yet our "environment" allows essentially no advantage regarding "fitness".
2. We live in an environment in which scarce resources, which is the main force in driving natural selection in evolution, no longer exists, as least for most of the civilized world. Therefore, a tall, muscular, fast man has no advantage in obtaining food and shelter over a short, fat, weak man. Both are available, for the most part, to pass on thier genetic material.
3. By virtue of the above two points, gays are neutral in a genetic sense in being removed from the gene pool, as there is no pressure one way or another to select or discard more or less favorable attributes of thier genetics- those pressures do not exist any longer.
4. Further, one would offer, that the presence of adult gays provides a family "structure" (although a non-conventional one) in which the genetic material of others may be perpetuated and fostered (in the form of adoption) to pass on genetic material that otherwise would have perished.
There you have it. It is no fun arguing with myself, but when one is in a conversation with liberals, one is forced to do what one must do. Come back with better, well thought out arguments, instead of the pre-processed liberal sound bytes that are available at the touch of a google search. It is really too bad that people have difficulty reasoning any longer- I don't think that the school system trains people in this manner any longer. It is a shame.
2. MOST heterosexuals reproduce. By definition, NO GAYS reproduce, except potentially in a partial sense through invitro fertilization.
That's not correct. Lots of gays have children through previous marriages with the opposite sex. It's not that difficult to have sex with someone of the opposite sex if you think it's what you're supposed to enjoy.
Quote:
In human history, prior to in-vitro fertilization, essentially all "gay" genetic material perished.
I don't think that makes sense. No one knows exactly what determines sexual orientation, but modern theories mention hormonal levels in the womb more than genetics.
1. Darwin's theory IS all about reproducing. Again, I guess you did not understand this when you first read about it. "Survival of the most fit" does not refer to physical fitness or physique, it is the ability of a species to reproduce and pass on its genetic material- that is it. This has been widely misinterpreted and used in a misguided sense for political reasons.
No reproduction- no passing on genes. In this instance, that organism is a biological "dead end" and thus a waste of resources for that species.
2. MOST heterosexuals reproduce. By definition, NO GAYS reproduce, except potentially in a partial sense through invitro fertilization. Those heterosexual couples who do not re-produce are also "genetic dead ends", as their genetic material dies with them.
3. The tradition of marriage between a man and a women is a cultural tradition that has been developed over thousands of years from a cultural and evolutionary standpoint to make a safe environment from which a species (humans) can insure the transmission of genetic information to the next generations. Those that are most able to adapt to the environment and survive potentially have better genetic traits to survive in their respective environment and thus perpetuate their traits.
Guess what? NONE of this matters at all. Unless you're advocating mass genocide of homosexuals, there will ALWAYS be gay people and denying them the right to marry solely based on their reproductive ability would be no more right or legal than denying straight couples who didn't want kids or those who were sterile.
Bosco - 1
Hawkeye - 0
Quote:
In human history, prior to in-vitro fertilization, essentially all "gay" genetic material perished.
Then why did gays, as a group, survive the dark ages?
Bosco - 2
Hawkeye - 0
Quote:
4. One cannot "legislate" a person into being strait, however, the society creates cultural norms for its perpetuation to the future. The creation of stable family units and the institution of marriage between men and women is institution developed through external pressure to insure the survival of the species. In the course of human history, if gay marriage was accepted and promoted as a cultural norm (assuming not all gays are "genetically" predisposed to being gay), it would have insured the extinction of that culture.
It would be the equivilent of mass suicide among child bearing adults.
LOL WUT? How the hell does gay marriage have ANYTHING to do with the survival of the species? Whether or not you allow gays to marry, they STILL won't be having offspring while the straight people do. Marriage has ZERO effect here.
Bosco - 3
Hawkeye - 0
Better step on the ball here, you're batting zero.
Quote:
6. I do have a problem with activist judges, regardless of HOW they rule.
No you don't. You just cheered on the prospects of a conservative state supreme court overturning the previous court, which is about as textbook definition of judicial activism as you can get.
Quote:
The judicial branch should stick to INTERPRETING existing law, not writing it.
That's exactly what they did here. Two sides brought a case to them where the constitutionality of a law was in dispute. The court heard both cases (laughed yours out of court, I might add) and decided that the law was a violation of the equal protection clause in your state constitution.
The court did exactly what it was created to do. You're just pissed that they ruled against you.
Bosco - 4
Hawkeye - 0
Quote:
That is the function of the legislative branch.
Subject to judicial review and potential invalidation. A key part of our government model.
Bosco - 5
Hawkeye - 0
Quote:
When activist judges subvert that process, independent of the legislative branch, action can and will be taken by the people through the voting process to restore order. That is what happened and will happen further in Iowa. Live with it- it is how our republic works.
Oh I can live with it just fine. Those justices being removed (so they can retire or go back to cushy teaching or legal jobs) is no skin off my nose, especially considering the law they overturned in the process. Considering that none of them even campaigned to save their jobs, I think they're comfortable with their decision too.
Quote:
Wow- You do need to be a little sharper! Drink some more coffee and consider this. Your argument SHOULD HAVE BEEN (this is like playing chess with my kids- I need to give them hints to remain amused) that at this time in human history, Darwin's Theory no longer strictly applies as-
There you have it. It is no fun arguing with myself, but when one is in a conversation with liberals, one is forced to do what one must do. Come back with better, well thought out arguments, instead of the pre-processed liberal sound bytes that are available at the touch of a google search. It is really too bad that people have difficulty reasoning any longer- I don't think that the school system trains people in this manner any longer. It is a shame.
We already know it doesn't apply, hence me treating you like the retarded step child for even bringing it up. I DO find it's funny that you think you were clever by arguing points that we both knew were bunk, but I guess when you're not as smart as you think you are, you think that **** works.
I laugh at the desperation and fear of old, white Republicans. They are in their last throes trying to tell everyone how to live. I can't wait until their generation fades away and a newer, younger, and diverse America replaces their bigotry and racism.
I'm glad I won't be here to see what your generation will have to live through.
4. One cannot "legislate" a person into being strait, however, the society creates cultural norms for its perpetuation to the future. The creation of stable family units and the institution of marriage between men and women is institution developed through external pressure to insure the survival of the species. In the course of human history, if gay marriage was accepted and promoted as a cultural norm (assuming not all gays are "genetically" predisposed to being gay), it would have insured the extinction of that culture.
It would be the equivilent of mass suicide among child bearing adults.
I'm not nearly as intelligent as you claim to be so perhaps you can explain step-by-step and in ultra-simple language how acceptance of gay marriage will "insure [sic] the extinction of a culture".
I'm especially interested in why legalizing gay marriage will ensure extinction, but actual homosexual behavior appears to not have that same effect.
I'd also like you to use your superior intellect to explain to me what factors make our culture dependent on only male-female marriages while other cultures have thrived while allowing polygamous and homosexual marriages and other cultures have survived while having no marriages at all.
odd. A gay (male) couple I know are happily raising 4 children. Yes 4 children. They've been together for 25 years, their oldest is 15 years old. They had their 4 children through surrogate mothers (each of them donated sperm; 2 times from each).
That's 3 more children than another couple (heterosexual) who decided to only have 1 child.
That's 2 more children than my cousin who just had twins and will not be having any more.
Seems that in some cases, gays actually produce more children than heterosexual couples.
I'm glad I won't be here to see what your generation will have to live through.
I'll ask you a similar question I have asked Hawkeye twice now (and been ignored). How will my and my families lives be different, what will we "live through". Walk me through it, I wake up, a few homosexuals are married, now what? What happens to me my wife and kids?
I'll ask you a similar question I have asked Hawkeye twice now (and been ignored). How will my and my families lives be different, what will we "live through". Walk me through it, I wake up, a few homosexuals are married, now what? What happens to me my wife and kids?
gay bashers and anti-gays will never provide an answer to it. I"ve asked this and others on this board have ASKED the prominent gay bashers (bideshi, dlcds, hawkeye) this question and never ONCE have they answered it.
Because they know that they don't have an answer. They know that gays getting married, absolutely will not affect on their well being whatsoever.
Remember their whole belief system is they think what gays/lesbians do are "icky". That's it. that's where all their vitriol and hate comes from, they consider them icky.
Oh they'll use other straw man arguments like gays will show their affections in public (hence icky) or that schools will now teach about gay life styles (hence icky). Of course, its fine when Heterosexuals make out in public . I've yet to see a school teach about heterosexual life styles. Sex education yes (not the same).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
