Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
Gay Marriage: Who Cares?
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
Gay Marriage: Who Cares?
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. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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. ;-) |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
Gay Marriage: Who Cares?
Jenn wrote:
In article , (Don Pearce) wrote: 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 use the term 'parented' very freely. 2 homosexuals cannot create a child themselves, so if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out thousands of years ago. Clearly homosexual behaviour is a social issue. Look at Bonobo chimpanzees for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#...ocial_behavior Graham |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
Gay Marriage: Who Cares?
In article ,
Eeyore m wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , (Don Pearce) wrote: 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 use the term 'parented' very freely. 2 homosexuals cannot create a child themselves, so if homosexuality was genetic it would have been bred out thousands of years ago. Homosexual people are not generally sterile. Gay people consistently contribute to the gene pool. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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"? |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
Gay Marriage: Who Cares?
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. d |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
If he actually cares about doing a good job as President | Audio Opinions | |||
Who Cares If MSM Dies? | Audio Opinions | |||
NYT Says Gay Marriage Less Yucky. | Audio Opinions | |||
If anyone cares about using budget hi-fi for near fields... | Pro Audio | |||
Who cares about Stereophile | Vacuum Tubes |