Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Eeyore[_4_] Eeyore[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 29
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:

Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with defective genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by artificial means,
or otherwise.


I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.

Graham
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:

Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with defective genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by artificial means,
or otherwise.


I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.

Graham


A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

d
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 265
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

On Aug 26, 5:41*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:





On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:


Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:


Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with defective genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by artificial
means,
or otherwise.


I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.


Graham


A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.


d


That might be true if gay people never parented children.


A friend of mine's father came out of the closet after fathering four
children.
  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:26:35 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:

Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with defective
genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by
artificial
means,
or otherwise.

I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.

Graham

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

d

That might be true if gay people never parented children.

Not really because it could be recessive.


True.


There's also experimental evidence to suggest it's environmental or,
if genetic, environmentally triggered as you can alter the incidence
in rats by manipulating population density.

Humans are, of course, more complex but that would indicate it,
assuming genetic, could propagate 'the common way', absent
environmental triggers, even if dominate.

That also suggests if population density is a consistent trigger it
could be a 'natural' population control mechanism. Or not. No one
really knows.



The oxymoron "gay marriage" is an altogether different issue, though.


As opposed to the moronic (without the oxy) legal argument against it.
;-)
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:59:07 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:26:35 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:

Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with
defective
genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by
artificial
means,
or otherwise.

I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How
about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.

Graham

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty
quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

d

That might be true if gay people never parented children.

Not really because it could be recessive.

True.

There's also experimental evidence to suggest it's environmental or,
if genetic, environmentally triggered as you can alter the incidence
in rats by manipulating population density.

Humans are, of course, more complex but that would indicate it,
assuming genetic, could propagate 'the common way', absent
environmental triggers, even if dominate.

That also suggests if population density is a consistent trigger it
could be a 'natural' population control mechanism. Or not. No one
really knows.



The oxymoron "gay marriage" is an altogether different issue, though.


As opposed to the moronic (without the oxy) legal argument against it.
;-)


So far, the only thing 'moronic' is your suggestion that any differing
opinion is, without even having heard it, 'moronic'.


Oh, I've heard the legal arguments. Why would you jump to the
conclusion that I consider any opinion different than mine to be moronic?


I said "oxymoron." a figure of speech that combines
normally-contradictory terms,


I know the word. I was doing a "play" on the word.

because it is.

Marriage is, and has been for thousands of years, defined as a
heterosexual relationship with "gay," by definition, 'monosexual', so
the term, substituting definitions, claims a "monosexual heterosexual
relationship."


Have you looked up the definition of monosexual? I happen to be
monosexual, and I presume that you are as well, since most people are.
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Jenn[_3_] Jenn[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,034
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

On Aug 26, 8:21*pm, flipper wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:11:00 -0700, Jenn





wrote:
In article ,
flipper wrote:


On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:59:07 -0700, Jenn
wrote:


In article ,
flipper wrote:


On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:26:35 -0700, Jenn
wrote:


In article ,
flipper wrote:


On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn
wrote:


In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:


On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:


Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:


Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with
defective
genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by
artificial
means,
or otherwise.


I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How
about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.


Graham


A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty
quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.


d


That might be true if gay people never parented children.


Not really because it could be recessive.


True.


There's also experimental evidence to suggest it's environmental or,
if genetic, environmentally triggered as you can alter the incidence
in rats by manipulating population density.


Humans are, of course, more complex but that would indicate it,
assuming genetic, could propagate 'the common way', absent
environmental triggers, even if dominate.


That also suggests if population density is a consistent trigger it
could be a 'natural' population control mechanism. Or not. No one
really knows.


The oxymoron "gay marriage" is an altogether different issue, though.


As opposed to the moronic (without the oxy) legal argument against it..
;-)


So far, the only thing 'moronic' is your suggestion that any differing
opinion is, without even having heard it, 'moronic'.


Oh, I've heard the legal arguments. *Why would you jump to the
conclusion that I consider any opinion different than mine to be moronic?


Because you said as much.

I said "oxymoron." a figure of speech that combines
normally-contradictory terms,


I know the word. *I was doing a "play" on the word.


because it is.


Marriage is, and has been for thousands of years, defined as a
heterosexual relationship with "gay," by definition, 'monosexual', so
the term, substituting definitions, claims a "monosexual heterosexual
relationship."


Have you looked up the definition of monosexual? *I happen to be
monosexual, and I presume that you are as well, since most people are.


I used it as an adjective to relationship and you know darn good and
well what was meant by it.


Kind of like you knew darn good and well that the onymoron/moron thing
was a play on words, right?

Bottom line: definitions change. There is no logical reason to not
legalize same-sex marriage. The Prop. 8 decision states it perfectly.


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:38:34 -0700 (PDT), Jenn
wrote:

On Aug 26, 8:21*pm, flipper wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:11:00 -0700, Jenn





wrote:
In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:59:07 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:26:35 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:

Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with
defective
genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by
artificial
means,
or otherwise.

I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ?
How
about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.

Graham

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty
quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

d

That might be true if gay people never parented children.

Not really because it could be recessive.

True.

There's also experimental evidence to suggest it's environmental or,
if genetic, environmentally triggered as you can alter the incidence
in rats by manipulating population density.

Humans are, of course, more complex but that would indicate it,
assuming genetic, could propagate 'the common way', absent
environmental triggers, even if dominate.

That also suggests if population density is a consistent trigger it
could be a 'natural' population control mechanism. Or not. No one
really knows.

The oxymoron "gay marriage" is an altogether different issue,
though.

As opposed to the moronic (without the oxy) legal argument against it.
;-)

So far, the only thing 'moronic' is your suggestion that any differing
opinion is, without even having heard it, 'moronic'.

Oh, I've heard the legal arguments. *Why would you jump to the
conclusion that I consider any opinion different than mine to be moronic?

Because you said as much.

I said "oxymoron." a figure of speech that combines
normally-contradictory terms,

I know the word. *I was doing a "play" on the word.

because it is.

Marriage is, and has been for thousands of years, defined as a
heterosexual relationship with "gay," by definition, 'monosexual', so
the term, substituting definitions, claims a "monosexual heterosexual
relationship."

Have you looked up the definition of monosexual? *I happen to be
monosexual, and I presume that you are as well, since most people are.

I used it as an adjective to relationship and you know darn good and
well what was meant by it.


Kind of like you knew darn good and well that the onymoron/moron thing
was a play on words, right?


Nice try but that's not a 'play on words', it's just an opportunistic
excuse for using it.

Bottom line: definitions change.


Then give it a few thousand years.

If and when definitions change they do so gradually through colloquial
usage and not by arbitrarily deciding it suits someone's political
goals to mangle the language.

There is no logical reason to not
legalize same-sex marriage.


There are lots of logical reasons with one being there is no such
thing as "same-sex marriage" and it's Orwellian newspeak gibberish to
mangle the language.

Too bad we didn't think of this 50 years ago. We could have solved the
'race problem' by simply declaring everyone is 'white'.

The Prop. 8 decision states it perfectly.


The Prop 8 decision is 'PC' gibberish.


I see, counselor.

Did Loving vs. Virginia "mangle the language"? Was it "PC gibberish"?
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

On Aug 26, 10:07*pm, Eeyore
m wrote:


You use the term 'parented' very freely. 2 homosexuals cannot create a
child themselves,


certainly they can, a gay man and a gay woman
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Glanbrok[_2_] Glanbrok[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 90
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

Poofie, are you having an aneurysm?

I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.


For a slavish devotee of Homer Simpson, you're pretty dumb even so.



  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Glanbrok[_2_] Glanbrok[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 90
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

On Aug 26, 3:58*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.


No, one wouldn't "imagine" such a thing. Do you know what a recessive
gene is?




  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Glanbrok[_2_] Glanbrok[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 90
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

On Aug 26, 6:10*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"

A friend of mine's father came out of the closet after fathering four
children.


I heard that in Nebraska, your friend could get his father neutered
because of that duplicity.




  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On Aug 26, 10:07*pm, Eeyore
m wrote:


You use the term 'parented' very freely. 2 homosexuals cannot create a
child themselves,


certainly they can, a gay man and a gay woman


gay man, hetero woman; hetero man, gay woman.
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:27:09 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:38:34 -0700 (PDT), Jenn
wrote:

On Aug 26, 8:21*pm, flipper wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:11:00 -0700, Jenn





wrote:
In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:59:07 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:26:35 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:

Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with
defective
genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes
by
artificial
means,
or otherwise.

I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality
?
How
about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.

Graham

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool
pretty
quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

d

That might be true if gay people never parented children.

Not really because it could be recessive.

True.

There's also experimental evidence to suggest it's environmental
or,
if genetic, environmentally triggered as you can alter the
incidence
in rats by manipulating population density.

Humans are, of course, more complex but that would indicate it,
assuming genetic, could propagate 'the common way', absent
environmental triggers, even if dominate.

That also suggests if population density is a consistent trigger
it
could be a 'natural' population control mechanism. Or not. No one
really knows.

The oxymoron "gay marriage" is an altogether different issue,
though.

As opposed to the moronic (without the oxy) legal argument against
it.
;-)

So far, the only thing 'moronic' is your suggestion that any
differing
opinion is, without even having heard it, 'moronic'.

Oh, I've heard the legal arguments. *Why would you jump to the
conclusion that I consider any opinion different than mine to be
moronic?

Because you said as much.

I said "oxymoron." a figure of speech that combines
normally-contradictory terms,

I know the word. *I was doing a "play" on the word.

because it is.

Marriage is, and has been for thousands of years, defined as a
heterosexual relationship with "gay," by definition, 'monosexual',
so
the term, substituting definitions, claims a "monosexual
heterosexual
relationship."

Have you looked up the definition of monosexual? *I happen to be
monosexual, and I presume that you are as well, since most people are.

I used it as an adjective to relationship and you know darn good and
well what was meant by it.

Kind of like you knew darn good and well that the onymoron/moron thing
was a play on words, right?

Nice try but that's not a 'play on words', it's just an opportunistic
excuse for using it.

Bottom line: definitions change.

Then give it a few thousand years.

If and when definitions change they do so gradually through colloquial
usage and not by arbitrarily deciding it suits someone's political
goals to mangle the language.

There is no logical reason to not
legalize same-sex marriage.

There are lots of logical reasons with one being there is no such
thing as "same-sex marriage" and it's Orwellian newspeak gibberish to
mangle the language.

Too bad we didn't think of this 50 years ago. We could have solved the
'race problem' by simply declaring everyone is 'white'.

The Prop. 8 decision states it perfectly.

The Prop 8 decision is 'PC' gibberish.


I see, counselor.


I doubt it.


What in the decision isn't legally sound?



Did Loving vs. Virginia "mangle the language"? Was it "PC gibberish"?


You tell me. Just what words do you imagine the court saw fit to
redefine against thousand year meaning or oxymoron to invent?


Loving changed the definition of marriage in the U.S.
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 265
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

On Aug 26, 10:38*pm, Jenn wrote:
On Aug 26, 8:21*pm, flipper wrote:





On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:11:00 -0700, Jenn


wrote:
In article ,
flipper wrote:


On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:59:07 -0700, Jenn
wrote:


In article ,
flipper wrote:


On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:26:35 -0700, Jenn
wrote:


In article ,
flipper wrote:


On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn
wrote:


In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:


On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:


Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:


Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with
defective
genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by
artificial
means,
or otherwise.


I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How
about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.


Graham


A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty
quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.


d


That might be true if gay people never parented children.


Not really because it could be recessive.


True.


There's also experimental evidence to suggest it's environmental or,
if genetic, environmentally triggered as you can alter the incidence
in rats by manipulating population density.


Humans are, of course, more complex but that would indicate it,
assuming genetic, could propagate 'the common way', absent
environmental triggers, even if dominate.


That also suggests if population density is a consistent trigger it
could be a 'natural' population control mechanism. Or not. No one
really knows.


The oxymoron "gay marriage" is an altogether different issue, though.


As opposed to the moronic (without the oxy) legal argument against it.
;-)


So far, the only thing 'moronic' is your suggestion that any differing
opinion is, without even having heard it, 'moronic'.


Oh, I've heard the legal arguments. *Why would you jump to the
conclusion that I consider any opinion different than mine to be moronic?


Because you said as much.


I said "oxymoron." a figure of speech that combines
normally-contradictory terms,


I know the word. *I was doing a "play" on the word.


because it is.


Marriage is, and has been for thousands of years, defined as a
heterosexual relationship with "gay," by definition, 'monosexual', so
the term, substituting definitions, claims a "monosexual heterosexual
relationship."


Have you looked up the definition of monosexual? *I happen to be
monosexual, and I presume that you are as well, since most people are.


I used it as an adjective to relationship and you know darn good and
well what was meant by it.


Kind of like you knew darn good and well that the onymoron/moron thing
was a play on words, right?

Bottom line: *definitions change. *There is no logical reason to not
legalize same-sex marriage. *The Prop. 8 decision states it perfectly.


I think the easier route would be for there to be no "marriage
licenses" issued by the government. If boneheads like Flipper want to
argue definitions they would recognize that "marriage" has been a
religious term for the same thousands of years he argues.

Have the government issue civil union licenses and let each church
determine who they will marry or not marry.
  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 265
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

On Aug 26, 11:03*pm, flipper wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:38:34 -0700 (PDT), Jenn
wrote:





On Aug 26, 8:21*pm, flipper wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:11:00 -0700, Jenn


wrote:
In article ,
flipper wrote:


On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:59:07 -0700, Jenn
wrote:


In article ,
flipper wrote:


On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:26:35 -0700, Jenn
wrote:


In article ,
flipper wrote:


On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn
wrote:


In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:


On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:


Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:


Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with
defective
genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by
artificial
means,
or otherwise.


I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How
about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.


Graham


A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty
quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.


d


That might be true if gay people never parented children.


Not really because it could be recessive.


True.


There's also experimental evidence to suggest it's environmental or,
if genetic, environmentally triggered as you can alter the incidence
in rats by manipulating population density.


Humans are, of course, more complex but that would indicate it,
assuming genetic, could propagate 'the common way', absent
environmental triggers, even if dominate.


That also suggests if population density is a consistent trigger it
could be a 'natural' population control mechanism. Or not. No one
really knows.


The oxymoron "gay marriage" is an altogether different issue, though.


As opposed to the moronic (without the oxy) legal argument against it.
;-)


So far, the only thing 'moronic' is your suggestion that any differing
opinion is, without even having heard it, 'moronic'.


Oh, I've heard the legal arguments. *Why would you jump to the
conclusion that I consider any opinion different than mine to be moronic?


Because you said as much.


I said "oxymoron." a figure of speech that combines
normally-contradictory terms,


I know the word. *I was doing a "play" on the word.


because it is.


Marriage is, and has been for thousands of years, defined as a
heterosexual relationship with "gay," by definition, 'monosexual', so
the term, substituting definitions, claims a "monosexual heterosexual
relationship."


Have you looked up the definition of monosexual? *I happen to be
monosexual, and I presume that you are as well, since most people are..


I used it as an adjective to relationship and you know darn good and
well what was meant by it.


Kind of like you knew darn good and well that the onymoron/moron thing
was a play on words, right?


Nice try but that's not a 'play on words', it's just an opportunistic
excuse for using it.

Bottom line: *definitions change.


Then give it a few thousand years.

If and when definitions change they do so gradually through colloquial
usage and not by arbitrarily deciding it suits someone's political
goals to mangle the language.


Bull****.You have never studied linguistics, that much is clear.


  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 265
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

On Aug 27, 12:23*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn





wrote:
In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:


On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:


Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:


Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with defective genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by artificial
means,
or otherwise.


I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.


Graham


A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.


d


That might be true if gay people never parented children.


You don't need it to be "never". More rarely work quite nicely in
evolution.


What about that whole random thing?
  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

On Aug 27, 11:42*am, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:

On Aug 26, 10:07*pm, Eeyore
m wrote:


You use the term 'parented' very freely. 2 homosexuals cannot create a
child themselves,


certainly they can, a gay man and a gay woman


gay man, hetero woman; hetero man, gay woman.



of course! but
he said "2" gays, so I answered it in the fashion that he asked it.
  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:37:28 -0700 (PDT), "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to
Reason!" wrote:

On Aug 27, 12:23*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn





wrote:
In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:


On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:


Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:


Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with defective genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by artificial
means,
or otherwise.


I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.


Graham


A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.


d


That might be true if gay people never parented children.


You don't need it to be "never". More rarely work quite nicely in
evolution.


What about that whole random thing?


That's part of it. As long as you have two populations, one of which
breeds better than the other, the worse will eventually die out. I
think we can agree that homosexuals have a poorer breeding record than
heteros. This observation alone should be enough to convince that
homosexuality isn't an inherited trait.

d
  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 07:15:58 -0700 (PDT), Glanbrok
wrote:

On Aug 26, 3:58*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.


No, one wouldn't "imagine" such a thing. Do you know what a recessive
gene is?


Yes I do. It is a gene that is only expressed when it is inherited
from both parents. Now, what has that to do with any of this?

d
  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

On Aug 27, 5:53*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 07:15:58 -0700 (PDT), Glanbrok

wrote:
On Aug 26, 3:58*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:


A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.


No, one wouldn't "imagine" such a thing. Do you know what a recessive
gene is?


Yes I do. It is a gene that is only expressed when it is inherited
from both parents. Now, what has that to do with any of this?

d


but it does not have to be expressed in both parents, just present in
the DNA


  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

On Aug 27, 5:51*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:37:28 -0700 (PDT), "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to





Reason!" wrote:
On Aug 27, 12:23*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn


wrote:
In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:


On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:


Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:


Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with defective genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by artificial
means,
or otherwise.


I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.


Graham


A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.


d


That might be true if gay people never parented children.


You don't need it to be "never". More rarely work quite nicely in
evolution.


What about that whole random thing?


That's part of it. As long as you have two populations, one of which
breeds better than the other, the worse will eventually die out. I
think we can agree that homosexuals have a poorer breeding record than
heteros. This observation alone should be enough to convince that
homosexuality isn't an inherited trait.


But they are not really two populations, it is one population
and two expressions of one trait, within that population.
the populations are not separated.
Homosexuals can and do act normal, from time to time.
  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:16:47 -0700 (PDT), Clyde Slick
wrote:

On Aug 27, 5:53*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 07:15:58 -0700 (PDT), Glanbrok

wrote:
On Aug 26, 3:58*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:


A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.


No, one wouldn't "imagine" such a thing. Do you know what a recessive
gene is?


Yes I do. It is a gene that is only expressed when it is inherited
from both parents. Now, what has that to do with any of this?

d


but it does not have to be expressed in both parents, just present in
the DNA


"Expressed"means becoming active and producing the trait.

d
  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

On Aug 28, 1:28*am, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:33:23 -0700 (PDT), "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to





Reason!" wrote:
On Aug 26, 10:38*pm, Jenn wrote:
On Aug 26, 8:21*pm, flipper wrote:


On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:11:00 -0700, Jenn


wrote:
In article ,
flipper wrote:


On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:59:07 -0700, Jenn
wrote:


In article ,
flipper wrote:


On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:26:35 -0700, Jenn
wrote:


In article ,
flipper wrote:


On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn
wrote:


In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:


On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:


Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:


Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with
defective
genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by
artificial
means,
or otherwise.


I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How
about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.


Graham


A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty
quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.


d


That might be true if gay people never parented children.


Not really because it could be recessive.


True.


There's also experimental evidence to suggest it's environmental or,
if genetic, environmentally triggered as you can alter the incidence
in rats by manipulating population density.


Humans are, of course, more complex but that would indicate it,
assuming genetic, could propagate 'the common way', absent
environmental triggers, even if dominate.


That also suggests if population density is a consistent trigger it
could be a 'natural' population control mechanism. Or not. No one
really knows.


The oxymoron "gay marriage" is an altogether different issue, though.


As opposed to the moronic (without the oxy) legal argument against it.
;-)


So far, the only thing 'moronic' is your suggestion that any differing
opinion is, without even having heard it, 'moronic'.


Oh, I've heard the legal arguments. *Why would you jump to the
conclusion that I consider any opinion different than mine to be moronic?


Because you said as much.


I said "oxymoron." a figure of speech that combines
normally-contradictory terms,


I know the word. *I was doing a "play" on the word.


because it is.


Marriage is, and has been for thousands of years, defined as a
heterosexual relationship with "gay," by definition, 'monosexual', so
the term, substituting definitions, claims a "monosexual heterosexual
relationship."


Have you looked up the definition of monosexual? *I happen to be
monosexual, and I presume that you are as well, since most people are.


I used it as an adjective to relationship and you know darn good and
well what was meant by it.


Kind of like you knew darn good and well that the onymoron/moron thing
was a play on words, right?


Bottom line: *definitions change. *There is no logical reason to not
legalize same-sex marriage. *The Prop. 8 decision states it perfectly.


I think the easier route would be for there to be no "marriage
licenses" issued by the government. If boneheads like Flipper want to
argue definitions they would recognize that "marriage" has been a
religious term for the same thousands of years he argues.


You'd have a hard time proving that in prehistory but, setting that
aside, just which religion do you propose 'invented' it and how did
they force it upon all the others?

Have the government issue civil union licenses and let each church
determine who they will marry or not marry.


I'll go ya one better. Why is government making laws or issuing
anything about 'unions'?-


property rights, inheritance, living wills, etc.
  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Trevor Wilson[_3_] Trevor Wilson[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

Eeyore wrote:
Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:

Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with defective
genes (the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by
artificial means, or otherwise.


I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.

Graham


**Graham,

Please contact me ASAP.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 06:49:43 -0700 (PDT), Clyde Slick
wrote:

On Aug 28, 1:28*am, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:33:23 -0700 (PDT), "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to





Reason!" wrote:
On Aug 26, 10:38*pm, Jenn wrote:
On Aug 26, 8:21*pm, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:11:00 -0700, Jenn

wrote:
In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:59:07 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:26:35 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:

Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:

Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people
with
defective
genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective
genes by
artificial
means,
or otherwise.

I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for
homosexuality ? How
about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.

Graham

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool
pretty
quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

d

That might be true if gay people never parented children.

Not really because it could be recessive.

True.

There's also experimental evidence to suggest it's
environmental or,
if genetic, environmentally triggered as you can alter the
incidence
in rats by manipulating population density.

Humans are, of course, more complex but that would indicate it,
assuming genetic, could propagate 'the common way', absent
environmental triggers, even if dominate.

That also suggests if population density is a consistent
trigger it
could be a 'natural' population control mechanism. Or not. No
one
really knows.

The oxymoron "gay marriage" is an altogether different issue,
though.

As opposed to the moronic (without the oxy) legal argument
against it.
;-)

So far, the only thing 'moronic' is your suggestion that any
differing
opinion is, without even having heard it, 'moronic'.

Oh, I've heard the legal arguments. *Why would you jump to the
conclusion that I consider any opinion different than mine to be
moronic?

Because you said as much.

I said "oxymoron." a figure of speech that combines
normally-contradictory terms,

I know the word. *I was doing a "play" on the word.

because it is.

Marriage is, and has been for thousands of years, defined as a
heterosexual relationship with "gay," by definition, 'monosexual',
so
the term, substituting definitions, claims a "monosexual
heterosexual
relationship."

Have you looked up the definition of monosexual? *I happen to be
monosexual, and I presume that you are as well, since most people
are.

I used it as an adjective to relationship and you know darn good and
well what was meant by it.

Kind of like you knew darn good and well that the onymoron/moron thing
was a play on words, right?

Bottom line: *definitions change. *There is no logical reason to not
legalize same-sex marriage. *The Prop. 8 decision states it perfectly.

I think the easier route would be for there to be no "marriage
licenses" issued by the government. If boneheads like Flipper want to
argue definitions they would recognize that "marriage" has been a
religious term for the same thousands of years he argues.

You'd have a hard time proving that in prehistory but, setting that
aside, just which religion do you propose 'invented' it and how did
they force it upon all the others?

Have the government issue civil union licenses and let each church
determine who they will marry or not marry.

I'll go ya one better. Why is government making laws or issuing
anything about 'unions'?-


property rights, inheritance, living wills, etc.


I'm not sure what you mean by property rights, unless you mean it as
embodied in the other two, as I can buy a car, house, land, or
anything else without being 'married', in a 'civil union', or anything
else.

You can leave anything to anything in a living will including, as at
least one famous person did, a dog. No 'union' required.

Absent direction there are some inheritance assumptions but that half
way begs the question because how is it we talk about inheritances?

The answer, of course, is limited life span, procreation, and
children, without which there would be no 'next generation' to inherit
from the previous. Of course, the species would cease to exist without
them too.


I don't understand the point of your last paragraph. Is this somehow
related to same-sex marriage?


  #31   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:49:38 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 06:49:43 -0700 (PDT), Clyde Slick
wrote:

On Aug 28, 1:28*am, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:33:23 -0700 (PDT), "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to





Reason!" wrote:
On Aug 26, 10:38*pm, Jenn wrote:
On Aug 26, 8:21*pm, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:11:00 -0700, Jenn

wrote:
In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:59:07 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:26:35 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article
,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m
wrote:

Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:

Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people
with
defective
genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective
genes by
artificial
means,
or otherwise.

I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for
homosexuality ? How
about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.

Graham

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool
pretty
quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

d

That might be true if gay people never parented
children.

Not really because it could be recessive.

True.

There's also experimental evidence to suggest it's
environmental or,
if genetic, environmentally triggered as you can alter the
incidence
in rats by manipulating population density.

Humans are, of course, more complex but that would indicate
it,
assuming genetic, could propagate 'the common way', absent
environmental triggers, even if dominate.

That also suggests if population density is a consistent
trigger it
could be a 'natural' population control mechanism. Or not.
No
one
really knows.

The oxymoron "gay marriage" is an altogether different
issue,
though.

As opposed to the moronic (without the oxy) legal argument
against it.
;-)

So far, the only thing 'moronic' is your suggestion that any
differing
opinion is, without even having heard it, 'moronic'.

Oh, I've heard the legal arguments. *Why would you jump to the
conclusion that I consider any opinion different than mine to be
moronic?

Because you said as much.

I said "oxymoron." a figure of speech that combines
normally-contradictory terms,

I know the word. *I was doing a "play" on the word.

because it is.

Marriage is, and has been for thousands of years, defined as a
heterosexual relationship with "gay," by definition,
'monosexual',
so
the term, substituting definitions, claims a "monosexual
heterosexual
relationship."

Have you looked up the definition of monosexual? *I happen to be
monosexual, and I presume that you are as well, since most people
are.

I used it as an adjective to relationship and you know darn good
and
well what was meant by it.

Kind of like you knew darn good and well that the onymoron/moron
thing
was a play on words, right?

Bottom line: *definitions change. *There is no logical reason to not
legalize same-sex marriage. *The Prop. 8 decision states it
perfectly.

I think the easier route would be for there to be no "marriage
licenses" issued by the government. If boneheads like Flipper want to
argue definitions they would recognize that "marriage" has been a
religious term for the same thousands of years he argues.

You'd have a hard time proving that in prehistory but, setting that
aside, just which religion do you propose 'invented' it and how did
they force it upon all the others?

Have the government issue civil union licenses and let each church
determine who they will marry or not marry.

I'll go ya one better. Why is government making laws or issuing
anything about 'unions'?-

property rights, inheritance, living wills, etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by property rights, unless you mean it as
embodied in the other two, as I can buy a car, house, land, or
anything else without being 'married', in a 'civil union', or anything
else.

You can leave anything to anything in a living will including, as at
least one famous person did, a dog. No 'union' required.

Absent direction there are some inheritance assumptions but that half
way begs the question because how is it we talk about inheritances?

The answer, of course, is limited life span, procreation, and
children, without which there would be no 'next generation' to inherit
from the previous. Of course, the species would cease to exist without
them too.


I don't understand the point of your last paragraph.


Sorry but what's to not understand? The previous poster brought up
inheritance as a 'government interest' and I pointed out that without
procreation the matter, as well as the species, is moot in short
order.


I'm simply not sure what that has to do with anything under discussion.


Is this somehow
related to same-sex marriage?


I'm not sure how anything relates to an oxymoron.


Oh that's right; definitions never change.
  #32   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 08:44:19 -0700, Jenn
wrote:


What in the decision isn't legally sound?


No decision that fails to understand the definition of words can be
sound, legally or otherwise.


You're kidding, right?


To wit, a court decision that applied 14'th amendment protections to
cats would be unsound because cats, regardless of how affectionately
we may view them, are simply not, by definition, persons. Similarly a
'same sex union', regardless of how affectionately we may view it, is
simply not, by definition, a "marriage."

(I picked cat and person merely for the obviousness of it. No 'hidden
meaning' implied).

I'll note that the wording of Prop 8 suffers the same affliction.

But credit where credit's due, the proponents of, so called, "gay
marriage" have done an excellent job of framing the matter as fete
accompli with hardly a soul noticing.

Did Loving vs. Virginia "mangle the language"? Was it "PC gibberish"?

You tell me. Just what words do you imagine the court saw fit to
redefine against thousand year meaning or oxymoron to invent?


Loving changed the definition of marriage in the U.S.


That is simply not so. The meaning of marriage was not changed by
Loving v. Virginia nor was it changed by the "Racial Integrity Act of
1924" that had prohibited interracial "marriages," just as the
prohibition, or not, of possessing marijuana doesn't alter the
definition of possession or of marijuana.

In fact, you cannot prohibit, or make illegal, a thing, whatever that
thing might be, unless you know what the definition of the thing is.

The meaning of "marriage" has, on average, always been the union of
man and woman, including the well know ramifications of such, and, in
fact, it is precisely the well known ramifications of such a
relationship that motivated the "Racial Integrity" laws as well as all
the other, whether just or unjust, attendant laws; not to mention
culture, social morays, religious ceremony, and so on. These things
were not whole cloth inventions but, rather, evolved from conditions
and behavior, including the ramifications of such, well known long
before even recorded history. That is why the word exists: to describe
that well known condition and behavior, including the ramifications of
such.

The word has no meaning and purpose the way you wish to 'redefine' it.


Of course it does, your objections not withstanding. Loving "changed
the definition of marriage" exactly the same way that the Prop. 8
judge's ruling "changed the definition of marriage". Legally, the
restrictions were considered arbitrary, without harm, and were contrary
to equal protection under the law.
  #33   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 19:18:21 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:49:38 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 06:49:43 -0700 (PDT), Clyde Slick
wrote:

On Aug 28, 1:28*am, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:33:23 -0700 (PDT), "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening
to





Reason!" wrote:
On Aug 26, 10:38*pm, Jenn wrote:
On Aug 26, 8:21*pm, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:11:00 -0700, Jenn

wrote:
In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:59:07 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:26:35 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article
,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m
wrote:

Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:

Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where
people
with
defective
genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these
defective
genes by
artificial
means,
or otherwise.

I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for
homosexuality ? How
about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.

Graham

A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the
pool
pretty
quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for
infertility.

d

That might be true if gay people never parented
children.

Not really because it could be recessive.

True.

There's also experimental evidence to suggest it's
environmental or,
if genetic, environmentally triggered as you can alter
the
incidence
in rats by manipulating population density.

Humans are, of course, more complex but that would
indicate
it,
assuming genetic, could propagate 'the common way',
absent
environmental triggers, even if dominate.

That also suggests if population density is a consistent
trigger it
could be a 'natural' population control mechanism. Or
not.
No
one
really knows.

The oxymoron "gay marriage" is an altogether different
issue,
though.

As opposed to the moronic (without the oxy) legal argument
against it.
;-)

So far, the only thing 'moronic' is your suggestion that any
differing
opinion is, without even having heard it, 'moronic'.

Oh, I've heard the legal arguments. *Why would you jump to the
conclusion that I consider any opinion different than mine to
be
moronic?

Because you said as much.

I said "oxymoron." a figure of speech that combines
normally-contradictory terms,

I know the word. *I was doing a "play" on the word.

because it is.

Marriage is, and has been for thousands of years, defined as
a
heterosexual relationship with "gay," by definition,
'monosexual',
so
the term, substituting definitions, claims a "monosexual
heterosexual
relationship."

Have you looked up the definition of monosexual? *I happen to
be
monosexual, and I presume that you are as well, since most
people
are.

I used it as an adjective to relationship and you know darn
good
and
well what was meant by it.

Kind of like you knew darn good and well that the onymoron/moron
thing
was a play on words, right?

Bottom line: *definitions change. *There is no logical reason to
not
legalize same-sex marriage. *The Prop. 8 decision states it
perfectly.

I think the easier route would be for there to be no "marriage
licenses" issued by the government. If boneheads like Flipper want
to
argue definitions they would recognize that "marriage" has been a
religious term for the same thousands of years he argues.

You'd have a hard time proving that in prehistory but, setting that
aside, just which religion do you propose 'invented' it and how did
they force it upon all the others?

Have the government issue civil union licenses and let each church
determine who they will marry or not marry.

I'll go ya one better. Why is government making laws or issuing
anything about 'unions'?-

property rights, inheritance, living wills, etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by property rights, unless you mean it as
embodied in the other two, as I can buy a car, house, land, or
anything else without being 'married', in a 'civil union', or anything
else.

You can leave anything to anything in a living will including, as at
least one famous person did, a dog. No 'union' required.

Absent direction there are some inheritance assumptions but that half
way begs the question because how is it we talk about inheritances?

The answer, of course, is limited life span, procreation, and
children, without which there would be no 'next generation' to inherit
from the previous. Of course, the species would cease to exist without
them too.

I don't understand the point of your last paragraph.

Sorry but what's to not understand? The previous poster brought up
inheritance as a 'government interest' and I pointed out that without
procreation the matter, as well as the species, is moot in short
order.


I'm simply not sure what that has to do with anything under discussion.


The question had to do with why is government involved at all with
'unions'?


Is this somehow
related to same-sex marriage?

I'm not sure how anything relates to an oxymoron.


Oh that's right; definitions never change.


I gather you imagine that misrepresenting what someone said is somehow
'clever' as I never said any such thing.


So you're only against SOME definitions changing.
  #34   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 265
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

On Aug 27, 4:51*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:37:28 -0700 (PDT), "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to





Reason!" wrote:
On Aug 27, 12:23*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn


wrote:
In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:


On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m wrote:


Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:


Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with defective genes
(the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by artificial
means,
or otherwise.


I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.


Graham


A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.


d


That might be true if gay people never parented children.


You don't need it to be "never". More rarely work quite nicely in
evolution.


What about that whole random thing?


That's part of it. As long as you have two populations, one of which
breeds better than the other, the worse will eventually die out. I
think we can agree that homosexuals have a poorer breeding record than
heteros. This observation alone should be enough to convince that
homosexuality isn't an inherited trait.


I disagree. As long as there's discrimination there's a reason to hide
one's orientation. Look at all the "conservative republicans" who have
been outed, yet have families. Ditti those in the military. And those
are just two examples.

In a vacuum your argument might even work. It doesn't in real life
though.
  #35   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 265
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

On Aug 28, 12:28*am, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:33:23 -0700 (PDT), "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to
Reason!" wrote:
On Aug 26, 10:38*pm, Jenn wrote:


Bottom line: *definitions change. *There is no logical reason to not
legalize same-sex marriage. *The Prop. 8 decision states it perfectly.


I think the easier route would be for there to be no "marriage
licenses" issued by the government. If boneheads like Flipper want to
argue definitions they would recognize that "marriage" has been a
religious term for the same thousands of years he argues.


You'd have a hard time proving that in prehistory but, setting that
aside, just which religion do you propose 'invented' it and how did
they force it upon all the others?


Pick your poison. The LDS made polygamy "normal". Every religion has
it's marital views. Aren't four OK in Islam?

Aren't the children who come from a non-Jewish mother not Jews?
There's some rule like that. And so on. So the answer is "all of
them".

Have the government issue civil union licenses and let each church
determine who they will marry or not marry.


I'll go ya one better. Why is government making laws or issuing
anything about 'unions'?


Fair enough. That's too radical for now but I agree. Throw it back on
the churchs were it belongs.


  #36   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:07:09 -0700 (PDT), "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to
Reason!" wrote:

What about that whole random thing?


That's part of it. As long as you have two populations, one of which
breeds better than the other, the worse will eventually die out. I
think we can agree that homosexuals have a poorer breeding record than
heteros. This observation alone should be enough to convince that
homosexuality isn't an inherited trait.


I disagree. As long as there's discrimination there's a reason to hide
one's orientation. Look at all the "conservative republicans" who have
been outed, yet have families. Ditti those in the military. And those
are just two examples.

In a vacuum your argument might even work. It doesn't in real life
though.


I have no idea how your response addresses my post. I am talking about
genetics; no more and no less. Whether - and even how - anybody is
"outed" has absolutely no bearing on the matter.

d
  #37   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 04:26:02 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:55:39 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:07:09 -0700 (PDT), "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to
Reason!" wrote:

What about that whole random thing?

That's part of it. As long as you have two populations, one of which
breeds better than the other, the worse will eventually die out. I
think we can agree that homosexuals have a poorer breeding record than
heteros. This observation alone should be enough to convince that
homosexuality isn't an inherited trait.

I disagree. As long as there's discrimination there's a reason to hide
one's orientation. Look at all the "conservative republicans" who have
been outed, yet have families. Ditti those in the military. And those
are just two examples.

In a vacuum your argument might even work. It doesn't in real life
though.


I have no idea how your response addresses my post. I am talking about
genetics; no more and no less. Whether - and even how - anybody is
"outed" has absolutely no bearing on the matter.


Sure it does, because humans can counter or, at least, mask what would
otherwise be instinctive behavior and I presume he's proposing that
cultural taboo would be one incentive to do so.

Your 'genetic' presumptions, especially in the context of behavior,
are too simplistic. For example, the gene could also require an
environmental trigger to be expressive.


What you say refers to particular individual circumstances. Genetics
doesn't work that way. It operates at the level of the huge. You can
manipulate all you like at the local level, and in the short term, but
in the end evolution will win.

Anyway, the effect would have occurred long before societies started
developing opinions about homosexuality. No, it is clear that there is
no gene for homosexuality.

d
  #38   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 05:10:57 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:34:58 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 04:26:02 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:55:39 GMT,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:07:09 -0700 (PDT), "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to
Reason!" wrote:

What about that whole random thing?

That's part of it. As long as you have two populations, one of which
breeds better than the other, the worse will eventually die out. I
think we can agree that homosexuals have a poorer breeding record than
heteros. This observation alone should be enough to convince that
homosexuality isn't an inherited trait.

I disagree. As long as there's discrimination there's a reason to hide
one's orientation. Look at all the "conservative republicans" who have
been outed, yet have families. Ditti those in the military. And those
are just two examples.

In a vacuum your argument might even work. It doesn't in real life
though.

I have no idea how your response addresses my post. I am talking about
genetics; no more and no less. Whether - and even how - anybody is
"outed" has absolutely no bearing on the matter.

Sure it does, because humans can counter or, at least, mask what would
otherwise be instinctive behavior and I presume he's proposing that
cultural taboo would be one incentive to do so.

Your 'genetic' presumptions, especially in the context of behavior,
are too simplistic. For example, the gene could also require an
environmental trigger to be expressive.


What you say refers to particular individual circumstances.


No, that 'individual circumstance' is only an example.

Genetics
doesn't work that way. It operates at the level of the huge. You can
manipulate all you like at the local level, and in the short term, but
in the end evolution will win.


As I said before, your view of genetics is too simplistic.


Anyway, the effect would have occurred long before societies started
developing opinions about homosexuality. No, it is clear that there is
no gene for homosexuality.


Then they really are masters of propaganda and linguists
extraordinaire as they've apparently been duping laboratory rats and
mice into defying their genes for decades, at the very least.

Nope, we are still apparently engaged in two unrelated conversations
here. I propose we stop before the confusion is total.

d
  #39   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:45:40 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:54:04 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 05:10:57 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:34:58 GMT,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 04:26:02 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 06:55:39 GMT,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:07:09 -0700 (PDT), "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to
Reason!" wrote:

What about that whole random thing?

That's part of it. As long as you have two populations, one of which
breeds better than the other, the worse will eventually die out. I
think we can agree that homosexuals have a poorer breeding record than
heteros. This observation alone should be enough to convince that
homosexuality isn't an inherited trait.

I disagree. As long as there's discrimination there's a reason to hide
one's orientation. Look at all the "conservative republicans" who have
been outed, yet have families. Ditti those in the military. And those
are just two examples.

In a vacuum your argument might even work. It doesn't in real life
though.

I have no idea how your response addresses my post. I am talking about
genetics; no more and no less. Whether - and even how - anybody is
"outed" has absolutely no bearing on the matter.

Sure it does, because humans can counter or, at least, mask what would
otherwise be instinctive behavior and I presume he's proposing that
cultural taboo would be one incentive to do so.

Your 'genetic' presumptions, especially in the context of behavior,
are too simplistic. For example, the gene could also require an
environmental trigger to be expressive.


What you say refers to particular individual circumstances.

No, that 'individual circumstance' is only an example.

Genetics
doesn't work that way. It operates at the level of the huge. You can
manipulate all you like at the local level, and in the short term, but
in the end evolution will win.

As I said before, your view of genetics is too simplistic.


Anyway, the effect would have occurred long before societies started
developing opinions about homosexuality. No, it is clear that there is
no gene for homosexuality.

Then they really are masters of propaganda and linguists
extraordinaire as they've apparently been duping laboratory rats and
mice into defying their genes for decades, at the very least.

Nope, we are still apparently engaged in two unrelated conversations
here. I propose we stop before the confusion is total.


No confusion here and the conversation is about the possibility of
homosexuality having a genetic component.

No, that's my conversation. Yours is about sexual politics,
propaganda, linguistics etc. etc. I have no interest in that
conversation.

d
  #40   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Jenn[_2_] Jenn[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

In article ,
flipper wrote:


Making new misrepresentations is not an improvement as I was explicit
in the discussion of how definitions change over time and usage but
that summary declarations for political purposes is not legitimate.


Why do you presume that gay people call their committed relationships
marriages for political reasons? Could it be that they do so simply
because that is how they view them and there is no difference between
same-sex marriage and hetero marriage, aside from legal issues?
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If he actually cares about doing a good job as President [email protected] Audio Opinions 0 May 26th 09 04:27 AM
Who Cares If MSM Dies? [email protected] Audio Opinions 0 April 24th 09 08:31 PM
NYT Says Gay Marriage Less Yucky. BretLudwig Audio Opinions 1 June 11th 08 03:22 AM
If anyone cares about using budget hi-fi for near fields... Tonehenge[_3_] Pro Audio 22 September 12th 07 05:41 PM
Who cares about Stereophile J.C. Vacuum Tubes 3 June 20th 05 07:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:00 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"