America catches up to the modern world (slowly)

[Thud]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
They are already teaching these lies to kids in our schools.  it's gone far enough, as it is even bringing up the fact that homosexuality is immoral is  considered a hate-crime by some.

And yet you claim to be anything but a homophobe. I predicted you'd make the statement about your children's education on the previous page, remember?
What would you like the teacher to answer if a child asks him/her about homosexuality?
And believing that homosexuality is immoral isn't a hate-crime itself, only naive, inhuman and misinformed. Trying to prevent them from gaining equal rights is a hate-crime, though.

[lazs2]

MT... if there are "civil benifiets" handed out to married couples then they should go to couples that may do me some good as I am paying for these "benifiets"...

I can see no benifiet to anyone but the participants of gay marriage in their union.  There is a possible benifiet of conventional marriage in that it possibly creates a family.

I have no interest in subsidizing gay marriage and they have no interest in getting married except to extort money from me.

I have limited interest in subsidizing conventional marriage but they extort limited funds from me.    

lazs

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Thud
And yet you claim to be anything but a homophobe. I predicted you'd make the statement about your children's education on the previous page, remember?
What would you like the teacher to answer if a child asks him/her about homosexuality?
And believing that homosexuality is immoral isn't a hate-crime itself, only naive, inhuman and misinformed. Trying to prevent them from gaining equal rights is a hate-crime, though.

One thing I find entertaining about people that make statements like this. They are usually so certain of their own absolute correctness that they can't help but assume everyone with any intelligence will see the wisdom of their assertion. Therefore anyone that denies it's validity must be stupid.

Homosexuality, if not immoral, is at least a threat to the continuation of the human species. Why wouldn't the revulsion of something that could destroy us be deeply imbedded within us?

[Duedel]

Originally posted by lazs2
MT... if there are "civil benifiets" handed out to married couples then they should go to couples that may do me some good as I am paying for these "benifiets"...

I can see no benifiet to anyone but the participants of gay marriage in their union.  There is a possible benifiet of conventional marriage in that it possibly creates a family.

I have no interest in subsidizing gay marriage and they have no interest in getting married except to extort money from me.

I have limited interest in subsidizing conventional marriage but they extort limited funds from me.    

lazs

Is there nothing more than urself and ur interests?

[Duedel]

double post

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by lazs2
MT... if there are "civil benifiets" handed out to married couples then they should go to couples that may do me some good as I am paying for these "benifiets"...

I can see no benifiet to anyone but the participants of gay marriage in their union.  There is a possible benifiet of conventional marriage in that it possibly creates a family.

I have no interest in subsidizing gay marriage and they have no interest in getting married except to extort money from me.

I have limited interest in subsidizing conventional marriage but they extort limited funds from me.    

lazs

It's not all about money. And I think you'll find that people actually pay a marriage penalty when it comes to taxes. So if it doesn't cost you anything, why not?

[Thud]

Originally posted by AKIron
One thing I find entertaining about people that make statements like this. They are usually so certain of their own absolute correctness that they can't help but assume everyone with any intelligence will see the wisdom of their assertion. Therefore anyone that denies it's validity must be stupid.

You formulated the statement above as if it is a brilliant find while it is actually kicking in a door that is already open to such an extent that even the proverbial hinges were removed ages ago. Of course I am convinced of myself being correct in this matter and the opponents completely wrong, otherwise I would never have posted such an outspoken post in the first place, DUH...
The whole thing is so obvious it almost hurts.  

Homosexuality, if not immoral, is at least a threat to the continuation of the human species. Why wouldn't the revulsion of something that could destroy us be deeply imbedded within us?

According to your logic, I should find an infertile women or men completely repulsive as well. After all they do form a threat to human reproduction as much as homosexuals do. You might want to reconsider sharing your views with that childless couple down the street planning to adopt. You obviously don't want them to be able to marry either...


.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Thud
According to your logic, I should find an infertile women or men completely repulsive as well. After all they do form a threat to human reproduction as much as homosexuals do. You might want to reconsider sharing your views with that childless couple down the street planning to adopt. You obviously don't want them to be able to marry either...


.

I never said it wasn't obvious, only entertaining.

So, you're equating homosexuality with infertility? No one is in danger of being persuaded to become or exercise their infertility. You are making a big assumption that I don't want homosexuals to marry. Never said or implied that. I am saying that revulsion of homosexuality may be a species survival trait that many of us feel not because of prejudice based on ignorance but rather because it is essential to the propogation of our species.

[Thud]

Originally posted by AKIron
So, you're equating homosexuality with infertility?

Not aware of the option to re-read your own posts?
FYI: you said that the revulsion against homosexuality could be attributed to them not being able to procreate, hence I said that according to that logic infertile heterosexuals should be just as repulsive. Your logic, not mine...

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Thud
Not aware of the option to re-read your own posts?
FYI: you said that the revulsion against homosexuality could be attributed to them not being able to procreate, hence I said that according to that logic infertile heterosexuals should be just as repulsive. Your logic, not mine...

OK, let's discuss infertility then. If there were an identifying trait for those that are infertile then I suspect the infertile among us would have been bred out long ago. So yes, if the infertile were easily recognized as being different we would most likely have the same revulsion.

That was too quick of a response. Obviously you cannot "breed" out infertility.

[Thud]

Originally posted by AKIron
OK, let's discuss infertility then. If there were an identifying trait for those that are infertile then I suspect the infertile among us would have been bred out long ago. So yes, if the infertile were easily recognized as being different we would most likely have the same revulsion.

That was too quick of a response. Obviously you cannot "breed" out infertility.

NM, the point is clear. I think your argumentation is flawed because of the following:

1. If you would observe a given infertile couple in a certain social environment the odds are that many people know of their 'condition', thus making it an identifiable trait. Even if the majority of the others present in the environment in question would totally disaprove of homosexuality, it is totally unrealistic to expect that they will label our guineapig couple as repulsive. The most common reaction is one of sympathy, I think we'll agree on that.

2. Although not for the same reasons, couples childless by choice are in practice just as much a threat to the continuity of the human race as infertile and homosexual couples. I think that we don't have to argue for a second about the predominant lack of disgust you'd find for the first category anywhere.

[AKIron]

There are physical attributes that attract opposite sexes. In most of us this uncontrollable attraction is built into us to ensure the survival of our species. If infertility were outwardly manifest (say as that by the member of the same sex) then the attraction would for most of us cease to exist. How do you explain the innate revulsion that so many of us feel towards homosexuality?

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by AKIron
There are physical attributes that attract opposite sexes. In most of us this uncontrollable attraction is built into us to ensure the survival of our species.

Right, and so there must be a purpose for homosexuality.  Some believe that it is to reduce the competion for mates within a family group.  Homosexuals have a great place within a family as people with a genetic stake (say an uncle or aunt) so they would have a desire to contribute to betterment of it, but aren't direct sexual competitors.

How do you explain the innate revulsion that so many of us feel towards homosexuality?

Innate?  My ass.  I guess the Nazis revulsion for the Jews was innate as well.  

It's based on ignorance, biggotry, and stuipid book that tells you it's bad...so it must be.

[Thud]

Originally posted by AKIron
How do you explain the innate revulsion that so many of us feel towards homosexuality?

Prejudice founed by ignorance combined with the assuring effect of being able to look down on someone, i.e. feel morally superior. Oldest thing in the book (of human psychology) actually

[AKIron]

I knew your answers, see my earlier post. It is of course possible to go against your nature, hence homosexuality and the ridiculing of those that find it repugnant.