Gay marriage in minesota

[Inferno]

Last post on this, because this is hugely derailing.

I don't understand what could even be construed as hurtful in these messages. The first bit was clearly sarcastic and was even tagged as sarcasm. Should I hang up big flashy signs next time?

The second post was one about parts of my family, which connects to other people how?

I also understand that the "madness" part was misunderstood. I was referring to them being brought up as intolerant as being madness, not being vegetarian/vegan in general.

 

[Metalgod]

wtf?

 

[australopithecus]

wtf?

My word! What a stunning contribution!

 

[Metalgod]

The prevalence of homosexuality within the wider animal kingdom, proving homosexuality is entirely natural and normal.

There is a prevalence of countless forms of behavior within the animal kingdom which we should not/do not permit humans to engage in.

 

[Frenger]

There is a prevalence of countless forms of behavior within the animal kingdom which we should not/do not permit humans to engage in.

And those things (if I assume correctly) usually involve harm to someone. Can you outline what harm, homosexuality causes?

As of yet, you have simply stated you don't like it, which is fine, but your own personal dislikes shouldn't stop others in leading their lives. You seem to think that because you don't like something, it should be stopped. Austra doesn't like cheese, Inferno doesn't like the word Cunt, I hate Carol Smilie, but they are our things to deal with, not the rest of the worlds.

 

[australopithecus]

There is a prevalence of countless forms of behavior within the animal kingdom which we should not/do not permit humans to engage in.

What Frenger said. The context is harm. Homosexuality, universally, harms no one. You're grasping at straws, and you have no argument other than "Ewwww, I think it's icky!", regardless of how articulately your say it.

 

[Noth]

The prevalence of homosexuality within the wider animal kingdom, proving homosexuality is entirely natural and normal.

There is a prevalence of countless forms of behavior within the animal kingdom which we should not/do not permit humans to engage in.

The point about homosexuality being natural because it occurs within the animal kingdom is not to say humans should do everything that animals do. It is simply to counteract the - frankly rather inane - claim that homosexuality is "unnatural". You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you claim homosexuality is unnatural and are shown evidence that argues against this, namely that it is a phenomenon found everywhere in nature, then that is the end of that particular strain of argumentation.

You could further claim it is unnatural on different grounds, although that has never been done successfully either. To go from here, however, to saying that acknowledging nature's homosexuality leads down a slippery slope to allowing other animal-like behaviour in humans is 1) to completely miss the point and 2) an enormous goal-post change.

Homosexuals today thankfully benefit from extensive research into the matter. It has been proved rather conclusively that homosexuality is not something you learn/ are taught/ have forced upon you at some point in your life. If anyone argues against this I'll be happy to inform them they are unequivocally, utterly and demonstrably, wrong. The logical inference from this is that homosexuality is something you are born with, just as heterosexuality is something most other people are born with, and bisexuality is something some people are born with, etcetera. This makes it, without a shadow of a doubt, natural.

You can further argue about the morality of homosexuality, but I find this, quite frankly, rather pointless. Earlier proved facts kept in mind, we might as well argue about the morality of heterosexuality. Once people understand and accept the simple fact that you are born homosexual and cannot, at any later state, change your sexual orientation, it is a short gap to bridge for them to accept homosexuality as a normal and everyday aspect of human existence.

That said I'd be happy to argue any other points one might have 'against' homosexuality - however much such points would baffle me.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Seconded, Noth.

I touched on this in my post - back on page two of this thread - which appears to have been missed.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Metalgod]

There is a prevalence of countless forms of behavior within the animal kingdom which we should not/do not permit humans to engage in.

And those things (if I assume correctly) usually involve harm to someone.

Another reason why I see no reason to consider the behavior of animals when determining what kind of sexual behavior should be promoted in our society. I could have sworn I already stated this at least once.

Can you outline what harm, homosexuality causes?

I suppose I could. The Center for Disease Control does so every year.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Another reason why I see no reason to consider the behavior of animals when determining what kind of sexual behavior should be promoted in our society. I could have sworn I already stated this at least once.

If this is your position, than what did you mean by it not being natural? How can you claim something is not natural, but when it is pointed out that it happens in the natural world (among animals), you turn around and say, "... I see no reason to consider the behavior of animals..." Please, spell out what you mean by natural. You are obviously using a different definition of natural then is being employed by the other users here.

 

[australopithecus]

Another reason why I see no reason to consider the behavior of animals when determining what kind of sexual behavior should be promoted in our society. I could have sworn I already stated this at least once.

You've repeated yourself but you've not actually addressed the criticism of your claim. Again, behaviour that is harmful is not permitted, despite it having an analogy in nature. Homosexuality is not harmful, therefore your protest is useless.

I suppose I could. The Center for Disease Control does so every year.

The CDC also outlines the harm heterosexuality causes too. You want to carry on down this useless path, or do want to concede that your only objection is that you don't like the thought of gay sex. If you don't like gay sex, I have a tip for you; don't have sex with another man.

As an aside, I infer from your line of protest that you'd be happy with an homosexual marriage? Would that be an accurate inference, or do you have some more mental gymnastics to justify ignoring all your previous claims?

 

[Metalgod]

Another reason why I see no reason to consider the behavior of animals when determining what kind of sexual behavior should be promoted in our society. I could have sworn I already stated this at least once.

You've repeated yourself but you've not actually addressed the criticism of your claim. Again, behaviour that is harmful is not permitted, despite it having an analogy in nature. Homosexuality is not harmful, therefore your protest is useless.


The CDC also outlines the harm heterosexuality causes too. You want to carry on down this useless path, or do want to concede that your only objection is that you don't like the thought of gay sex. If you don't like gay sex, I have a tip for you; don't have sex with another man.

As an aside, I infer from your line of protest that you'd be happy with an homosexual marriage? Would that be an accurate inference, or do you have some more mental gymnastics to justify ignoring all your previous claims?

Austra,

(When I questioned the significance of a report Inferno linked to, on the health of children adopted by homosexuals your response to me was that the study could have been "easily swayed to show conflicting results, had the same-sex couples adopted children who had been impregnated by the xenomorph 'face hugger'" Is this the criticism you claim I've been dodging?)

Why do you keep making statements about the supposed prevalence of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom, as if you are countering something I have said? You are the one suggesting that we consider the behavior of animals when determining what types of behavior should be permitted or even encouraged in our society.

I am not the one making that arguement, Austra, it's you. You are. You confuse yourself.

You are confused because you dont really understand your own arguement. You and others here first claim homosexuality doesnt harm anyone and then go on to say "So what? Heterosexual behavior is harmful too."
This entire thread demonstrates the confusion that the idea of allowing homosexuals to marry and adopt children causes you. You promote it but cant explain why. And I see no reason to present and promote a worldview to our children that has reduced you Austra, a grown man, to the lowly and confused state that you are now in.

 

[Metalgod]

As an aside, I infer from your line of protest that you'd be happy with an homosexual marriage?

 

[Gnug215]

You are confused because you dont really understand your own arguement. You and others here first claim homosexuality doesnt harm anyone and then go on to say "So what? Heterosexual behavior is harmful too."
This entire thread demonstrates the confusion that the idea of allowing homosexuals to marry and adopt children causes you. You promote it but cant explain why. And I see no reason to present and promote a worldview to our children that has reduced you Austra, a grown man, to the lowly and confused state that you are now in.

Emphasis mine.

This is ironic, really.

You are the one who can't explain why you're against it. Oh sure, you've tried, but you've been shot down at every turn.

Not normal? Right, as if that is a proper argument for not allowing people to do something in society. Is this some kind of lame "majority rules" argument? If so, I hope I don't have to ask you to take it to its logical conclusion and show you what a failed argument that is.

Harmful? Well, aside from the fact that everything is harmful, your argument is EXTREMELY hollow, because it is evident that you don't give a rats ass about these people, since you want to curb their civil rights so much.
And don't for a second try to act as if you actually do care.

Unnatural? Well... reading the thread, I'm not even sure if you've actually made this argument. You've certainly had people respond to you on it. If you haven't tried to make this argument, and still have people respond to it, then that's probably because "it's not natural!" is a staple argument from religious people who are against homosexuality.
In cae you've missed the counterargument, I'll just reiterate it here real quick:

Premise 1: If it occurs in nature, then it cannot be said to be "unnatural".
Premise 2: Homosexuality occurs in nature, in many species.
Conclusion: Homosexuality is natural. Or: Homosexuality is not unnatural.


So what's left?

You have even admitted in a post that you have no clue what the consequences of allowing gay marriages will be.

I am not smart enough to quantify the impact of promoting homosexual behavior to the extent of even honoring gay marriages will have on society as a whole. But I believe its pretty naive to say it will have no effect. Do you agree?

This is probably the most insightful thing you've actually said in this whole thread, really. But it also seems to reveal that the real reason you're against gay marriage is because you have some kind of feeling about it inside.

But if you do have a reason, could you try to explain? What IS your argument? Why should we as a society curb the civil rights of a huge number of people (a real an obvious consequence of NOT allowing gay marriage)? What is your real reason for being against this?

 

[Frenger]

Another reason why I see no reason to consider the behavior of animals when determining what kind of sexual behavior should be promoted in our society. I could have sworn I already stated this at least once.

We are animals sir, get used to it. The point of showing non-human animals as having homosexual populations (or at least bi-sexual) was to rebut the idea that homosexuality wasn't natural.

Also, this idea that homosexuality is promoted in our society, has already been dealt with.

So, to conclude, homosexuality is natural, as we can see in other species as well as the fact that 10% of our population is LGBT (which Inferno has pointed out).

And, homosexual relationships are not promoted, they are simply another form of relationship, equal in every way to other forms of relationships.

I suppose I could. The Center for Disease Control does so every year.

I see, so it's health reasons is it? Well, I assume you are vehemently against smoking, drinking, over eating (bearing in mind heart disease is one of the leading causes of death), driving, and as Austra points out, heterosexual activity which carries similar risks?

When you see some smoking in the street, does it make your stomach turn? When some one is having a glass of wine, do you knock it from their hand? When you see heterosexuals walking hand in hand, do you wonder about what diseases may have been passed on earlier?

Or does this again come down to, homosexuals are icky.

 

[Inferno]

I would like to jump onto the doggy-pile.

Metalgod, did you or did you not claim that homosexuality was not normal? Let me remind you:

Metalgod[/url]"]I'm against any attempt to normalize homosexuality.

The first question one would have to clear up is: "What is normal?"

In this case I'd say "anything that's part of human nature is normal". That would make homosexuality very normal indeed.

So what is your counter to that? What makes it "not normal"?

You claim that this is normal:

Metalgod[/url]"]a normal family. 1 mom and 1 dad who have kids.

So are you equally against couples who do not wish to have kids? Couples who can't have kids? Asexual couples? Because only if you're against those too can you claim any stance on your position. If you're not against these families, then you've simply revealed yourself as a bigot.

But there's another point to the "normal" debate:

Metalgod[/url]"]How do you expect me to interpret the fact that both you and Austral keep asking me to consider the behavior of animals in a discussion on gay marriage/gay adoption

If we are to define what is "normal", we may also have to look at what is "natural". If animals also engage in homosexual sex, that means it is natural and also the norm in the animal kingdom, therefore normal. Animals do engage in homosexuality, so it must be considered both natural and normal.

How can you possibly refute that?

 

[IBSpify]

Can you outline what harm, homosexuality causes?

I suppose I could. The Center for Disease Control does so every year.

And as i pointed out in my previous post those concerns would be mitigated if the religious right would get over their homophobia and allow comprehensive sex ed, including talking about homosexual activity.

The numbers would also be diminished by allowing gay marriage, as it would promote monogamy and having fewer sexual partners obviously decreases the chances of spreading STDs.

my point is it doesn't make sense to oppose gay marriage based on the spread of STDs in the homosexual community, when you have to consider that those numbers are larger due to the opposition to gay marriage.

 

[Vivre]

Why do you keep making statements about the supposed prevalence of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom, as if you are countering something I have said?
...
I am not the one making that arguement, Austra, it's you.

If it wasn't for your successfull blackouting me by putting me pretty early on your ignorelist you might be able to know that I introduced this argument in the very first reply you've received on this thread.

And it stands in direct coherence to your 'normalize'.

Don't repeatedly blame the wrong persons just because it suits your counteraggression

 

[australopithecus]

(When I questioned the significance of a report Inferno linked to, on the health of children adopted by homosexuals your response to me was that the study could have been "easily swayed to show conflicting results, had the same-sex couples adopted children who had been impregnated by the xenomorph 'face hugger'" Is this the criticism you claim I've been dodging?)

Clearly not as I've already clarified, and you've already repeated a non-answer. Though, yes, you have failed to address this.

Why do you keep making statements about the supposed prevalence of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom, as if you are countering something I have said? You are the one suggesting that we consider the behavior of animals when determining what types of behavior should be permitted or even encouraged in our society.

We are countering something you've said, that being homosexuality is not normal. It is normal, it's completely natural. You're wrong.

I am not the one making that arguement, Austra, it's you. You are. You confuse yourself.

No, that's a straw man and you know it. The argument I am making is that when someone says a behaviour is not natural, despite it appearing in almost all mammal and bird species, then they are wrong. At no point have I argued that acceptable behaviour should be based on it's emergence in other species. Again, the context is harm.

You are confused because you dont really understand your own arguement.

I understand my argument exceptionally well, you're the one with the reading comprehension issues.

You and others here first claim homosexuality doesnt harm anyone and then go on to say "So what? Heterosexual behavior is harmful too."

Swing and a miss. You claimed that homosexuality is harmful because of disease spreading. If that's your definition of harmful then heterosexuality is equally as harmful, if not more so because it's more prevalent. Neither homosexuality or heterosexuality are harmful in and of themselves. Sex has consequences, regardless of orientation. The harm comes from irresponsibility, not who you have sex with.

This entire thread demonstrates the confusion that the idea of allowing homosexuals to marry and adopt children causes you.

I'm not confused at all, gay people should be allowed to marry and adopt, and ll the other equal rights that heterosexual couples have. No confusion whatsoever.

You promote it but cant explain why.

I can explain why in one word; equality.

And I see no reason to present and promote a worldview to our children that has reduced you Austra, a grown man, to the lowly and confused state that you are now in.

You know, calling me confused doesn't make me confused. Though I expect your inability to comprehend what people are saying to you confuses the piss out of you.

Let me summarise for you, just to dispell your confusion:

Homosexuality is normal, there is no valid reason that gay couples should not be granted equal rights with straight couples re: adoption and marriage, all of your arguments against are non-arguments, you have no valid case.

Also, allow me to correct my previous error:

As an aside, I infer from your line of protest that you'd be happy with a celibate homosexual marriage?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

This entire thread demonstrates the confusion that the idea of allowing homosexuals to marry and adopt children causes you. You promote it but cant explain why. And I see no reason to present and promote a worldview to our children that has reduced you Austra, a grown man, to the lowly and confused state that you are now in.

Someone seems to be projecting a bit.

I also must point out that my earlier comment was pointless. After re-reading this thread, I see that Metalgod never made the claim that homosexuality is unnatural. However, he did claim that it is not normal. It would be nice if Metalgod could define normal for all of us. That way one would be able to see why one mother and one father couplings are normal, while no other couplings are normal.