12th February 2004, 4:01 PM
A Black Falcon Wrote:You are incredibly deluded if you think biology will actually DISPROVE homosexuality as a thing that has zero choice involved.
You're deluded if you think homosexuality is a zero-choice behavior. There is no such thing.
Quote: One of the few places I can think of that's better (politically) would be Massachusetts... though Vermont is pretty good too. :)
With China and France falling somewhere in between.
Quote: Yeah, have fun dying decades younger of now-curable diseases... but I'd rather stay here thank you very much. As I said 'the past was better' is an eternal complaint, and eternally incorrect.
Medically, things are better now. Socially, things are far, far worse.
Quote: And teenage pregnancy is down... I bet it's WAY below where it was at just about any point in our history. As for drugs, how about the late 1800s and early 1900s when anything was legal and snake oil "medicines" filled with toxic things or drugs were the norm?
Well, obviously at one point in our history teenage pregnancy was normal because people didn't live nearly as long. But by those standards, adjusting for longetivity, today's problem would be as if 8 year olds were having babies then... and usually, back then people were MARRIED that young, out of necessity.
Quote:Didn't say it was proof and never told you to take it that way. Just said it makes your position less tenable in some ways.
No, I beleive your exact words were: "Makes arguements that it's anything other than natural sound even more absurd than they already do."
That sounds like you thought you found a bit of proof.
Quote: Oh come on, that is absurd...
How? Explain yourself.
Quote: No, divorce is here to stay, obviously. But getting these people into committed relationships would obviously help...
I disagree. At best, it would just make the problem numerically larger. At worst, it would excaberate it.
Quote: Listen. As in actually consider what you read. You people don't, and at this point I never expect you to.
Eh? You quoted the same piece of text from before...
Quote: I already said why! Polygamy by definition is discrimination!
If it makes them happy, it's discrimination to disallow it! Your logic at work!
Quote: Other than the unfairness, the biggest problem is that homosexual couples don't get the legal benefits of being married. That is a major problem and a huge wrong we must right... call them Civil Unions for now, as I said at this point it's all I can really hope for, but give them the benefits they deserve. Fairness should be the basis for what we do... but of course you don't believe in fair so that doesn't matter to you.
No. Life isn't fair. What's right is more important than what's fair.
Quote: And you're ignoring me because I already said how homosexuality is fundamentally different from those things.
Our argument that homosexuality is fundamentally different from heterosexuality doesn't seem to matter. Why should yours?
Quote: They eventually drafted, but not at the beginning, and a lot of people volonteered... and my point about wanting a class below them is hardly my idea. It is a fact. You feel better when you know you aren't the worst... they knew that if blacks got free they'd at least be an equal class with the poorest whites and those people did not want blacks of all people to raise themselves up... it's simple logic, and as I said I've read it in plenty of places. And as I said same with the Irish in the North.
The early volunteering was much more a matter of state (or they would consider, national) pride. There were very few confederate soldiers who gave a damn outside of society what happened with the slaves.
Quote: Heh... using my words against me... but there is a difference here. We legally say that what your religion is is protected by law. We do not for sexuality. And you can't just bottle up homosexuals and say 'live together but you can never marry (or whatever you call it)' becuase as I said that is a massive, massive act of discrimination, as they don't get any of the marriage benefits that mean so much!
Because they don't fit the rules. Tough shit. There are a lot of people who can claim the same thing. It doesn't mean we should change the rules to suit them.
Besides, with the liberal assault on Christianity in America, I beg to differ considerably. How liberals feel that any sight of God or Christ in any public place is violating some questionable church-and-state statute, and is inherently offensive to anyone who doesn't follow Christ's teachings.
We're told that if we don't like legal gay marriage to ignore it. Why can't people do the same for Christ? No, instead you mobilize the ACLU and whitewash every trace dry. For the sake of not offending someone. Yet, you are perfectly okay with offending a lot of people by further trashing what was once the most sacred bond human beings could share... before you first got your hands on it.
YOU CANNOT HIDE FOREVER
WE STAND AT THE DOOR
WE STAND AT THE DOOR