|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 21, 2007 11:33:48 GMT -4
children learn their behaviour from their parents. this is a psychological fact. So where do homosexuals who have heterosexual parents learn their "behavior" from? And what if the father is extremely effeminite, or the mother extremely butch? I'd like to see you explain that to some of these women. I'd like to see you explain that to a butch lesbian.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 21, 2007 15:52:31 GMT -4
Heck, my mother raised us alone, and I know more about home repair than most of my friends, male or female, who were raised by two parents--or four, in case of remarriage. The fact is, a lot of the arguments against gay marriage invalidate my family or that of a couple who cannot have their own biological children, and they're assuredly not intended to.
And while it is true that children learn a lot from their parents, not all of their behaviour is shaped by their parents. I'm quite different from my mother in a lot of important ways. She's Catholic, for starters, and I haven't been since grade school.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jun 21, 2007 16:51:39 GMT -4
homosexuals can learn this from the absence of the father role or mother role, even if they are present. Abscent fathers created homosexuals, according to a psychology course I took.
can create problems as well
quote]I'd like to see you explain that to some of these women. [/quote] even thaugh they do body building and can even enter the army, this is not their natural role.
you mean men or women? I was speaking about men
this is why you r more feminine. if your mom wasn't there, you would have learned from your father masculine things. maybe you wouldn't be homosexual, but you'll have the tendency to be if you were faced with certain situations.
behaviour is different, I think.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 21, 2007 18:19:02 GMT -4
...with no religious belief to set them straight... Is that suppose to be a pun, because it sure is funny. Perhaps you'd like to join the rest of us here in the 21st century?? Your ideas are very "dated". What a load of CRAP!! I hope you didn't spend any money on that "course", cause you got jipped. ...and as for the rest of your post, I haven't seen such a stereotypical, sexest opinion in quite a while. Are you sure you're not just saying this "stuff" to jerk peoples chains?? I just find it hard to believe that anyone in this day and age could be as ignorant as you are.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 21, 2007 18:53:13 GMT -4
it's up to society as a whole to decide who the licences should be allowed to based on the criteria that society sets. It's not a matter of if society decides to allow gay marriages, it's a matter of when. For the last few years, recognition of the hypocracy of not allowing gays to marry has been increasing almost geometrically. It is really only a matter of time before gay marriage become as "normal" as mixed race marriages. But don't take my word for it....just wait. That may be true, or it might not be. US Society might decide to follow the Dutch model and allow marriage, or follow our model and allow Civil Unions, or they might resist it all together. Whichever way they decide to go it still doesn't make Marriage a basic human right, which was my original point. That is what you called bad reasoning, but as of yet you haven't actually show why it is. Now show why it is bad reasoning or withdraw the comment.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 21, 2007 18:53:14 GMT -4
the absence of the father role or mother role, even if they are present. What a conveniently meaningless distinction. And statistics do not bear out your claim. In 1970, over 30% of black children in the US were raised by single parents. By 1980, it was 50%.(*) Why isn't (eta: a third to) half of the black US adult population (eta: between 27 and 37 years old) homosexual? ETA: In fact, the rate should be even higher, according to your stated theory, because the statistics for children raised by two parents wouldn't take into account your "missing even if present" maternal/paternal role models. *Source: This graph linked from this page. So would a child with homosexual parents, one butch, one femme, be less likely to be homosexual than a child with heterosexual parents who are both butch or femme? You said "women can't do the fight." Clearly women can. You said "homosexual." Lesbians are homosexuals.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 21, 2007 19:44:11 GMT -4
That is what you called bad reasoning, but as of yet you haven't actually show why it is. I see I could have been a bit clearer...when you attempted to introduce polygamy and incest into a discussion about gay marriage, well, that's flawed reasoning, as they have nothing to do with each other. You may disagree with me but I'm not withdrawing any comment. I can't think of any reason for you to try to introduce polygamy and incest into this discussion except to "muddy the waters". You can continue to talk of polygamy and incest "as if" they have something to do with this discussion, but if you do, I will have no choice but to ignore your posts.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 21, 2007 20:14:15 GMT -4
I can't think of any reason for you to try to introduce polygamy and incest into this discussion except to "muddy the waters".
I always wonder why when people are talking about homosexuality they bring up such things as incest, pedophilia, bestiality etc. I;ve heard it happen many times. It kind of goes like this "Well, if we let this happen then the next thing you know..."
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 21, 2007 22:37:03 GMT -4
That is what you called bad reasoning, but as of yet you haven't actually show why it is. I see I could have been a bit clearer...when you attempted to introduce polygamy and incest into a discussion about gay marriage, well, that's flawed reasoning, as they have nothing to do with each other. You may disagree with me but I'm not withdrawing any comment. I can't think of any reason for you to try to introduce polygamy and incest into this discussion except to "muddy the waters". You can continue to talk of polygamy and incest "as if" they have something to do with this discussion, but if you do, I will have no choice but to ignore your posts. Perhaps you need to re-read my posts then. I have already admittted to why I threw them in, it was to stop people from using pat answers, such as "Marriage is a right and therefore...." I put them on the table because many of the reasons people were given could be equally applied to those two situations as well, situations that the arguers would never (or be highly unlikely to) agree with allowing. Consider this analogy. In a segregated society a protester stands outside the cinema demanding that blacks be allowed to watch the movie at the same time as whites. Sure this might be a good thing, but if after they give their arguments you say, what aboput Asians, apply their argments to Asians, and they shake their head abnd say, "No, Asians should be allowed in" then either they are bias themselves or their arguments aren't good enough. If they are claiming that Blacks should be able to see the movie "because it's a right" but asians can't go, then by definition they're saying it's a right but only for some, so that's not a right. If their argument is that it's up to the propretor who he lets in and they simply feel he should expand his list of those he lets in, then they no longer have a disparety in their argument. My whole line from the beginning has been to make people think about themselves and if they are really believe what they are saying, or if they are just being politically correct because otherise they'd be seen as being bigoted. The reality is that we are all bigoted. Jason's bigoted towards gays, Gillianren is bigoted towards incestous couples, I'm bigoted to any couple having PDA around me, it's part of who we are. Better that we think about where our social boundaries lie and face them than sweep them under the carpet like you seem to be intent on doing. So one last thing, since you have repeatedly dodged the question of my so-called wrong doing. Do you believe that Marriage is a human right, and if yes, why shouldn't it apply in all cases then, rather then a selected few? If you don't believe it is a right, then why does it matter if I introduced other senarios where it doesn't apply?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 21, 2007 22:43:49 GMT -4
I can't think of any reason for you to try to introduce polygamy and incest into this discussion except to "muddy the waters".I always wonder why when people are talking about homosexuality they bring up such things as incest, pedophilia, bestiality etc. I;ve heard it happen many times. It kind of goes like this "Well, if we let this happen then the next thing you know..." Well I can't argue for everyone that does it, but I've been pretty open about why I brought it in, and the situation would not apply to pedophilia or bestiality as people have been arguing things like that same sex marriage would be between consenting adults. Obviously neither pedophilia or bestiality is between consenting adults. My point has always been that standing up and waving a banner or "Freedom for all", when you really mean "Freedom for the ones I feel good about" is really hypocritical when you then blast someone else for doing the same. Take this thread. Yes Jason is a bigot for his views on gays, but Gillanren is equally a bigot for her feelings on consentual incest. The only difference is that more of today's society shares Gillanren's bigotry than Jason's. In the end we are all bigots, it's just a case of where we draw our own moral lines. It is a little hypocritical, in my view, however to call someone else a bigot just because their line is not in the same place as your own.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 21, 2007 23:58:00 GMT -4
My whole line from the beginning has been to make people think about themselves and if they are really believe what they are saying, or if they are just being politically correct because otherise they'd be seen as being bigoted. The reality is that we are all bigoted. Oh I'm sure your a bigot, but DON'T YOU DARE even imply that others here are...unless you enjoy being flamed. Other than THAT being what you are basing your argument on, why in the HELL should I have to follow YOUR guidelines to answer this question? I will state my opinion again and perhaps if you listen closely, you'll be able to understand. THERE IS NO REASON WHY GAYS AND LESBIANS SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CALL THEIR LIFE LONG COMMITMENT TO EACH OTHER A MARRIAGE WITH ALL THE "RIGHTS" ASSOCIATED WITH THAT TERM...NO REASON WHATSOEVER. ...and your "attempt" to change what this discussion is about is nothing but a diversionary tactic. So why don't you address the subject of this thread...why don't you tell us why gays and lesbians should or shouldn't be allowed to marry? If you can't answer that question, then I have nothing more to say to you...
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 22, 2007 0:02:20 GMT -4
Uhhh.. RAF? You might want to try decaf for a few days.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 22, 2007 1:03:37 GMT -4
Oh I'm sure your a bigot, but DON'T YOU DARE even imply that others here are...unless you enjoy being flamed.
You're claiming that you have no prejudices at all? That you are absolutely perfectly fine with absolutely any behaviour from your fellow human beings? That there is nothing that is done between consenting people that you find morally repugnant? Somehow I really don't believe that.
Other than THAT being what you are basing your argument on, why in the HELL should I have to follow YOUR guidelines to answer this question? I will state my opinion again and perhaps if you listen closely, you'll be able to understand.
Because that's what you quoted me saying whe you opened with this attack. If you are going to attack me and quote my saying that Marriage isn't a basic human right, I expect you to back it up. So far you haven't done that, you just keep on the attack without any substance.
THERE IS NO REASON WHY GAYS AND LESBIANS SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CALL THEIR LIFE LONG COMMITMENT TO EACH OTHER A MARRIAGE WITH ALL THE "RIGHTS" ASSOCIATED WITH THAT TERM...NO REASON WHATSOEVER.
Have I ever said in any of my posts that there is?
...and your "attempt" to change what this discussion is about is nothing but a diversionary tactic.
No, it is as I have now stated about 5 times, to make people think about their position before resorting to hypocritical reasoning. From your reactions to this all I can assume is that you have indeed realised that your reasoning is indeed hypocritical and can't handle it.
So why don't you address the subject of this thread...why don't you tell us why gays and lesbians should or shouldn't be allowed to marry?
If you can't answer that question, then I have nothing more to say to you...
I already have answered it. I have answered it a number of times, you obviously haven't bothered to read my posts here because if you had, you'd know the answer. I am neither for nor against it.
That might sound like I'm sitting on the fence, but under the laws in New Zealand marriage doesn't mean anything other than a peice of paper, and with Civil Unioins not even that. I think that there were FAR better ways that have resolved the one remaining issue that we had here then going to civil unions, but our Government isn't that bright and so we have a lot of people still in the boat of being in a relationship, but having no rights as next of kin because they are not married. That stinks. Because of the whole gay Marriage issue here, the law makers missed out on a perfect opportunity to help out a HUGE number of people, including solving the issues of the gay community, all in one bit of legisaltion and instead they just ended up duplicating law and inventing another peice of worthless paper.
Overseas, I would far rather see laws put in place that supported and protected all long term couples, married or not, rather then just changing a law to affect one small group. Which is better? Giving property, next of kin and legal protection and benefits to all long term couples regardless of their piece of paper status, or just adding on a few more to being able to get a peice of paper that today is not worth the ink it's written in?
Now if you want to call me bigoted for wanting the law to cover every couple the same regardless of a hideously expensive ceremony and a piece of paper rather then just opening the paper up to a select few more, fine, do so. But in return I'll call you bigoted and a hypocrite for saying that certain groups still aren't allowed that bit of paper because you don't agree with their lifestyles.
Uhhh.. RAF? You might want to try decaf for a few days.
I quite agree with you Data Cable
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jun 22, 2007 3:54:54 GMT -4
no. it is not funny. We tend to do thigs that are instinctual and it is very hard to fight them. people who fight them have a cause. homosexuals don't. Even if women can fight , it is not feminine and doesn't go with the natural tenderness of females. I don't care if you call me outdated. I remembered now it wasn't psychology course, but it was a physician whom I read an interview with. I know a child who acts like girls, and his mom asked the doctor. the doctor said that the parents shouldn't encourage the boy to act as such. raising has to do with it. parent-child relationship has to do with it. www.bible.ca/s-homo-vaccine.htmso you understand more than psychiatrists, don't you? perhaps I should have made myself clearer. even if there is one parent, and the relationship is good with the child, the child can still have normal life. however, the parent should know how to deal with it. read the site..very normal people and verynormal relationships..indeed. and they can change and become normal, but instead, you continue to encourage them by legalizing their marriage.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jun 22, 2007 3:59:15 GMT -4
www.narth.com/read this. and pay attention to the studies you read bcz they may be dependent on biased samples www.narth.com/docs/phelanrev.htmland something important that can answer the title of this thread back to children: "The authors conclude: "Our study provides population-based, prospective evidence that childhood family experiences are important determinants of heterosexual and homosexual marriage decisions in adulthood." " www.narth.com/docs/influencing.htmlnot only they spoiled their life, but they can spoil the lives of their adopted children... "Estimates of heritability are based upon careful analyses of studies conducted with identical twins. Such studies are important and lead to the conclusion that heredity is important in many of these traits. It is important however, to note that even in such studies with identical twins, that heritability is not to be confused as inevitability. As Dr. Collins would agree, environment can influence gene expression, and free will determines the response to whatever predispositions might be present." even if there are certain genes, it is not inevitable if you raise your child well. RAF, you should differentiate between what is right and natural for prosperity of people and what is modern and being oppen-minded and whatever www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html
|
|