Homosexual Marriage

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Elminister No, it carries some weight. Though not a homosexual act I have both seen and also heard of female dogs mounting males and also female dogs. So where do you want to go with that one?

Your claim was that animals don’t have the capacity for eroticism. The fact that even one animal displays a preference for the same sex refutes this.

Quote by: Elminister Because I have seen the interaction between the two canines before and after said act and also because I can read...."Although humping is considered a sexual action, it can also be used to signal power and rank. Dogs do, in effect, employ humping as a way of asserting authority. Whatever the motivation, when humping is directed toward peoples' legs, or objects in the environment, the result is the same: "...But don't argue with me about it Baconguy, go ahead and argue with people who know.

What evidence have you that homosexual humping is in all cases about dominance and not sex?

Quote by: Elminister I'm un-happy with it when it is shoved in my face daily I.E...hats,bumper stickers ect..

This thread is not about hats and bumper stickers; it is about gay marriage. How is marrying shoving it in your face?

Quote by: Elminister When my government,I'll say this again being a tax paying voting citizen of this Nation yes it is indeed my government too, is leaned apon by the gay community to endorse something I don't agree with"this topic"

And you have yet to justify why you don’t agree with it. Of course you’re free to vote for whatever you want, just as gay marriage advocates are. However, unless you can justify your stance on the issue, it is no more valid than any other stance.
.

Quote by: Elminister When I said this "Homosexuality,as it is defined,is a consious decision to scoff at the fundamental purpose of life. That purpose is to continue on, a process that has been around for quite some time. Homosexuality is un-natural and a same sex marriage should not be endorsed......."

There was nothing linking the statement about procreation and the statement about nature. Hence, nature was not defined.

Quote by: Elminister By your definition my own aversion to homosexuality as a choice in lifestyle,along with everybody else who thinks so, is natural.

I’m not using nature as a basis to dispute your stance.

Quote by: Elminister When I see anything that even romotely starts to sway my veiws then we can start to debate. It's been fifteen years and counting.

You have to explain your view before someone can dispute it. This is why we are getting nowhere.

Quote by: Elminister Homosexuals want to get married just like hetero couples do....Say that several times,out loud, and the differences just might sink in,maybe.

Please address the issue. Heteros can marry who they want; homos can’t.

Quote by: Elminister Apparently I do need to explain. Here is your question I replied to" By that rationale, you would oppose any kind of lifestyle which does not involve having children. You would then I assume wish to prevent infertile couples from marrying, and indeed make reproduction mandatory in all marriages?" Your "any kind of lifestyle" also includes heterosexuals and that's what I went with. Now here is the difference that I have to point out. If one or both in a hetero couple is completely sterile it is not by choice. The "tube" tying procedure can be reversed for a woman as well as the vasectomy procedure for men. If you don't believe me,look it up. In this day and age a great many things are medically possible except these, a man bearing a child or a woman impregnating another woman with her sperm.

If a couple is homosexual it is not through choice. In terms of childbearing ability, a homosexual couple and an infertile couple are no different.

Quote by: Elminister Homosexuality is not for me. Ergo: I don't accept it. If I accept it, I would be saying it would be a possible route I could/have take/taken and it is not. It's that simple.

I am not asking whether you accept homosexuality as part of your own life. This thread is about whether you accept it in the lives of others. You refuse to accept homosexual relationships to the same extent that you will accept heterosexual relationships. I am asking why. Your skirting round the issue with these red herrings is starting to convince me that you have nothing but irrational intolerance to support your stance.

Quote by: Elminister The exact issue here is that I don't like it being thrown in my face and I don't like people leaning on my government for Gay marriage,as I said above.

You don’t like it being thrown in your face because you are against it. You have yet to explain why you are against it though. You don’t seem to have quite got the hang of the whole debate thing.

Quote by: Elminister Read my ten posts worth of text,oh wait you already have. They are full of metaphor. Then feel free to not twist or put words in my mouth anymore,thanks.

They are only full of metaphor in your own mind. Effectively communicating a metaphor involves stating that something = something. In your case, this would mean defining nature, i.e. saying nature = ability to reproduce. You did not do this and as such, it was simply conveyed as an incorrect statement.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Yarnspnr Historically, Marilyn, the idea that marriage was conceived for one man, one woman is a mistruth. For thousands of years, women were considered the property of their parents. Those property rights were passed on to their mate through an act we refer to as marriage. The mate could have one wife or hundreds of wives. It wasn't until rather recently on the historical timeline that women and men could choose their mates in monogamous marriage. And in some nations, even today, that right is still legally withheld.

It was conceived in the US for one man, one woman. I do realize that there have been many changes over the years. The one man/woman idea was probably for property more than anything, and I agree that gays should have these rights simply because it would make life easier for them.

[Yarnspnr]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe It was conceived in the US for one man, one woman. I do realize that there have been many changes over the years. The one man/woman idea was probably for property more than anything, and I agree that gays should have these rights simply because it would make life easier for them.

I'm not sure "conceived" is the correct word here, Marilyn. I agree that the English laws that held women as chattel were gone by the time of settlement in the new world. Women, although looked upon as a lower station to men, had the right to marry whom they pleased. However, after marriage they lost their individual right to own property and in the eyes of the law, they were simply a part of their husband, who maintained all control.

I have my doubts that the one man, one woman idea was given much legal thought until the Mormons came up with plural marriage in the 19th century. Eventually, the same God that told them it was a good idea, told them it was a bad idea when plural marriage became a statehood issue for Utah.

Of course, same-sex marriage had nothing to do with this as it didn't surface as an issue until the late 20th century.

Finally, gays should be allowed to marry not because it will make things easier for them, but because they are American citizens and should enjoy the same rights offered to every other American citizen, including the right to marry the person they love.

[Chris the Chees]

Why aren't people allowed to marry thier pets, if they love each other so much? hmm?

This is a fine example of a strawman argument. There is no comparison between an officially recognised relationship between two adult members of society and one between an animal, which has no ability to give any form of concent to any kind of relationship, and to draw this comparison is ludicrous.

Oh, and for the record so is the consenting child positon - they call it statutory rape for a reason.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Yarnspnr Finally, gays should be allowed to marry not because it will make things easier for them, but because they are American citizens and should enjoy the same rights offered to every other American citizen, including the right to marry the person they love.

I don't think this is a rights issue altogether. Some see it this way, I don't. I see it as being justifiable for their lifestyle. Not all lifestyles are justifiable, and have to be reined in.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Chris the Chees This is a fine example of a strawman argument. There is no comparison between an officially recognised relationship between two adult members of society and one between an animal, which has no ability to give any form of concent to any kind of relationship, and to draw this comparison is ludicrous. Oh, and for the record so is the consenting child positon - they call it statutory rape for a reason.

But you know people are ridiculous in the things they expect for just being alive. People think they are too special. It's the parenting now a days.

[Yarnspnr]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe I don't think this is a rights issue altogether. Some see it this way, I don't. I see it as being justifiable for their lifestyle. Not all lifestyles are justifiable, and have to be reined in.

I agree, Marilyn. I see it as a freedom from religion issue, which is just as constitutionally important as the rights issue. Perhaps even moreso.

[Elminister]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Your claim was that animals don’t have the capacity for eroticism. The fact that even one animal displays a preference for the same sex refutes this. Here was what I said in my reply to "turningtired"...."Do you think erotica or any other concept of the such exists in a dogs' mind or the mind of any other animal? I don't." To start, animals have not been shown to use higer level conceptual thinking. I.E, pondering the concept of time travel. So that leaves us with word 'erotica' and I present for you,"Mr. Terminology", the definitions of erotica. erotica - Definitions from Dictionary.com Erotica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Your claim that what you said about penguins shows irrefutable proof of homosexual preference can be debunked with; statistical math,logic and scientific fact. Would you like to see? As erotica is defined,which was how I meant it,.. no I don't think erotica exists in any animals mind. Twisting my words will not give you grounds. The only contention I see in this that you could make would be refuting my claim that this "scat" thing has any erotic value to the people who do it......Good luck! This attempt cost you originality points but on the plus side you did earn 50 more strawman points.:) What evidence have you that homosexual humping is in all cases about dominance and not sex? I veiw this as a loaded question. I know what you're trying to drag me into saying and it's not going to work;vailant attempt though. I posted that snip and the hyperlink to the rest of the article to refute your claim that what I said previously and I quote "No, that's not the case". If you did not intend to refute my claim that dominance was even a factor you had a chance to clarify but did not so it sticks. You then resorted to your pithy attempt to discredit what I said prior, by asking me if I was and animal psychologist or whatever it was. The question is loaded in that you are trying to add more of a purpose than what was needed to refute your claim. I will say it again.What was said was NOT meant to be one hundred percent inclusive but in fact was enough to prove you wrong and was completely relevant. And you have yet to justify why you don’t agree with it. Of course you’re free to vote for whatever you want, just as gay marriage advocates are. However, unless you can justify your stance on the issue, it is no more valid than any other stance. Most of this seems easily inferable to me and as such had no need to be pointed out, im sorry if that's not the case. The issue the gay community has with the government here is that they are disallowed to marry a partner of the same sex. It has been said several times in this very thread and is a given fact. As such the gay community is making motions,in their various forms to change this. I don't have a problem with a homosexual marriage, I have a problem with my government endorsing it because; 1) Since its founding my government has carried the charge to build a bigger more powerful nation. This is accomplished by maintaining an evirornment that encourages the growth of its populace. A larger populace aquates to more internaly generated revenue; a larger pool to draw from for its military and also a larger pool in which to nurture "tomorrows minds". This list is not complete but I'm sure you get the gist of what else it entails. My government still carries this charge today. We have established in this thread, and hopefully due to a little common sense outside of this thread, that left to its own natural constraints a homosexual relationship/marriage is in fact an open defiance* of the natural order of procreation and thus does not add to the populace of a nation. My government endorsing and thus saying,"We, the only entity guiding the course of our nation, agree with something that fundamentally has a crippling effect on us". Whether homosexuals are here in the states or not there is a difference between their existence and my government,metaphorically speaking, engaging in the civil equivalence of shooting itself in the foot. And yet still this is what the gay community wants. Please come back with what I think you're going to come back with Bacon Guy or whoever else. 2) The U.S is part of the global community and thus global opinion of it matters and as of right now it is not that high. There are bodies in the world that are so fanatically opposed to homosexuality/gay marriage that they are killing people on that basis alone. It's my opinion that we as a nation do not need to further encourage any bodies desires to kill us on site. It would effect me,or anybody else, in their travels abroad. When people within the aforementioned bodies see Americans they may just only see the American governments policies and equate that American as only an extension of said and kill them, heterosexuals and homosexuals one in the same I veiw this as a bad thing. 3) Apon passing a motion or other legal device that allows gay marriage there will be a mass surge in the demands of civil offices to accommodate the needs that will come. Estimates vary but they are in the realm of about five to ten percent of the American populace being homosexual. With the American population count at over 300 million this equates to between fifteen and thirty million people. The surge I speak of would be the amount of people rushing to Town Clerks,City Halls,local Justices to now obtain the marriage certificate they have been so eagerly trying and waiting to get. In essence fifteen to thirty million people "just popped up on the grid". Just for discussion lets say that 1/30th,a conservative figure, of the gay community rush to civic offices in the first week to apply for their marriage license. Nation wide that surge of one million,using the highside of figures, homosexuals on top of the workload of processing hetero marriage certificates and as well as other civic duties conducted by the offices would force said offices to either hire more staff and or upgrade systems to compensate for the increase which equates to "bigger government" thus increasing the tax burden on everybody. Or the civic offices would try to deal with the increase with current staff and equipment levels thus slowing all the processes with which they use to deal with issues for everybody. Tax filling;deed filling, land deed amendements processing ect. would be delayed for all. This would also increase the chances for a mistake in these process as well, that's just basic probability. The densisty of homosexual people varies from area to area as would the magnitude of this problem. Ergo: in places already densely populated where the srains on civic offices are greater so too would the severity of this problem. To me this would be a bad thing. 4) In the same sense of number 3 creating a sudden surge in workload on civic offices there would be one too on private institutions as well. Health insurance companies would need to contend with an above average change rate in policy holders enlistments status. Cost and timelieness of process would be affected for all who belong to said companies. Client status tags are dictated by government definition. Delays in relation to medical care and treatment costs are a bad thing. With all this being said I have a question for you, Baconguy how valuable a thing to you is prudent planning? . There was nothing linking the statement about procreation and the statement about nature. Hence, nature was not defined. There was a question "Who are you to say what is unnatural or not" and I elaborated on both elements of the question in consecutive posts. If a couple is homosexual it is not through choice. In terms of childbearing ability, a homosexual couple and an infertile couple are no different. As it reads you state as fact that homosexuality is not a choice. Most if not all of my contentions are based on homosexuality in fact being a choice. That would behove you to substantiate your claim to indeed be a fact.* I am not asking whether you accept homosexuality as part of your own life. This thread is about whether you accept it in the lives of others. Wrong, this thread originally started as a poll. " In my opinion, homosexual marriage is...." One of the choices is "other, I will describe below." I will give you three guesses what I picked but the first two and a half don't count. I'm explaining why I feel gay marriage should not be endorsed by my governmet. You don’t seem to have quite got the hang of the whole debate thing. Give me time. This forum and the cut-dry motif here are new to me. They are only full of metaphor in your own mind. Effectively communicating a metaphor involves stating that something = something. In your case, this would mean defining nature, i.e. saying nature = ability to reproduce. You did not do this and as such, it was simply conveyed as an incorrect statement.

* The burden of proof is on you.

Haaarrrrr matey! We be exchangin' heavy broadsides haaarrrrr! <comparative,inferred metaphor> ....let's see if you really are a pirate.

[turningitred]

Quote by: Elminister Since its founding my government has carried the charge to build a bigger more powerful nation. This is accomplished by maintaining an evirornment that encourages the growth of its populace. A larger populace aquates to more internaly generated revenue; a larger pool to draw from for its military and also a larger pool in which to nurture "tomorrows minds".

So with this idea that homosexuality is a defiance to the procreation of man, you would have it that two men/women the right to raise a child. You say that the governement carries a charge that includes the nurturing of 'tomorrows minds' yet there are many children left in charge of the states care.. Not only costing the government more and more money, but also causing the grief of a child that moves from foster home to foster home, to state care, and back again. Take into account the fact that most homosexual couples, since they cannot exactly concieve on their own, quite often look at adoption as a way have a child. But since it is illegal for a homosexual couple to marry, it becomes very difficult for them to adopt any of the "homeless young minds".

As far as adding to the populace of our country;
Many will say that our country is getting over-populated as it is.. Consider crack downs on immigration (granted there are other reasons for this as well, but this is one). I doubt that congress is really looking at gay marriage as something that would lead to a de-populization of our country.

Quote by: Elminister There are bodies in the world that are so fanatically opposed to homosexuality/gay marriage that they are killing people on that basis alone. It's my opinion that we as a nation do not need to further encourage any bodies desires to kill us on site. It would effect me,or anybody else, in their travels abroad. When people within the aforementioned bodies see Americans they may just only see the American governments policies and equate that American as only an extension of said and kill them, heterosexuals and homosexuals one in the same I veiw this as a bad thing.

Wow, finally something I can actually agree with you on.. Kill - bad... But that you would resort to an argument as this almost makes my stomach turn. You're right, there are such fanatics that will kill others based on their distaste for homosexuality, but do you really think that we are going to help avoid this problem by adding to the condemnation of it? If anything, we as a country, and as part of the Global Community, should be supporting, and lobbying for it world-wide.. Somehow, this world needs to combat the prejudice, not to the point of telling all what they should believe, but rather, combating the acts of rage based on said beliefs.

Quote by: Elminister Apon passing a motion or other legal device that allows gay marriage there will be a mass surge in the demands of civil offices to accommodate the needs that will come.

First of all, it's called growth.. Countries grow, and they change, and new policies go into effect, and mass surges of various things happen from time to time..
Second, the longer it takes to pass said policies, the more gays there will be waiting at the clerks doors for their chance to marry.

Quote by: Elminister Health insurance companies would need to contend with an above average change rate in policy holders enlistments status.

Many companies, as well as insurance companies are beginning to allow policy holders to include their significant other (hetero or homo) to reap the benifits as well... I don't think that this would be that bad of a thing... You mention prudent planning... Well given the chance to b somewhat warned that such a motion would be going through, insurance companies and the like would obviously have the opportunity to prepare for the surge as well.

I still have yet to see one argument in this forum (please do not confuse this statement with a personal attack on any one person) against gay marriage that can actually hold any weight.. If their is an argument, it generally tends to dance around the topic, or many times, lacks any kind of substance at all..

[The Bacon Guy]

I've declined to continue any of the semantic quibbling: it adds nothing to the thread.

Quote by: Elminister Here was what I said in my reply to "turningtired"...."Do you think erotica or any other concept of the such exists in a dogs' mind or the mind of any other animal? I don't." To start, animals have not been shown to use higer level conceptual thinking. I.E, pondering the concept of time travel. So that leaves us with word 'erotica' and I present for you,"Mr. Terminology", the definitions of erotica. erotica - Definitions from Dictionary.com Erotica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Your claim that what you said about penguins shows irrefutable proof of homosexual preference can be debunked with; statistical math,logic and scientific fact. Would you like to see? As erotica is defined,which was how I meant it,.. no I don't think erotica exists in any animals mind. Twisting my words will not give you grounds. The only contention I see in this that you could make would be refuting my claim that this "scat" thing has any erotic value to the people who do it......Good luck!

You said:

I would presume this behaviour has some kind of erotic value to those that do it. I think it is safe to say it isn't done for the nutritional value. There are many,many fetishes that people indulge. Some involve pain, some involve garden tools.......and pain. Do you think erotica or any other concept of the such exists in a dogs' mind or the mind of any other animal?

So you are talking about the act of coprophilia and you then suddenly, for no immediately apparent reason throw in a completely unconnected sentence about erotic arts? Ok then. Your…interesting concept of structure threw me off and I apologise if my argument was irrelevant (although not a strawman, since this involves a deliberate misrepresentation).

However, on the issue of erotica, I believe you are still wrong. When problems were encountered in getting pandas to breed, it was found that showing them “panda porn” increased copulation by 60%. It’s clear that these animals do have a concept of erotica.

Quote by: Elminister I veiw this as a loaded question. I know what you're trying to drag me into saying and it's not going to work;vailant attempt though. I posted that snip and the hyperlink to the rest of the article to refute your claim that what I said previously and I quote "No, that's not the case". If you did not intend to refute my claim that dominance was even a factor you had a chance to clarify but did not so it sticks. You then resorted to your pithy attempt to discredit what I said prior, by asking me if I was and animal psychologist or whatever it was. The question is loaded in that you are trying to add more of a purpose than what was needed to refute your claim. I will say it again.What was said was NOT meant to be one hundred percent inclusive but in fact was enough to prove you wrong and was completely relevant.

Your original claim was that “As for the whole male on male sex in the Canine species goes, that's about dominance and submission.”. That is a 100% inclusive statement. My response to it was “no, that’s not the case” and I stand by it until you can prove that dominance is the motivating factor in 100% of cases.

Quote by: Elminister 1) Since its founding my government has carried the charge to build a bigger more powerful nation. This is accomplished by maintaining an evirornment that encourages the growth of its populace. A larger populace aquates to more internaly generated revenue; a larger pool to draw from for its military and also a larger pool in which to nurture "tomorrows minds". This list is not complete but I'm sure you get the gist of what else it entails. My government still carries this charge today.

Allowing gay marriage is not going to have any effect on the growth of the population in the US. If gay marriage is allowed, heterosexual people who would otherwise have procreated aren’t suddenly going to become gay. The people who are going to take advantage of gay marriage are homosexuals; people who would not be procreating anyway.

Quote by: Elminister 2) The U.S is part of the global community and thus global opinion of it matters and as of right now it is not that high. There are bodies in the world that are so fanatically opposed to homosexuality/gay marriage that they are killing people on that basis alone. It's my opinion that we as a nation do not need to further encourage any bodies desires to kill us on site. It would effect me,or anybody else, in their travels abroad. When people within the aforementioned bodies see Americans they may just only see the American governments policies and equate that American as only an extension of said and kill them, heterosexuals and homosexuals one in the same I veiw this as a bad thing.

There are people all over the world who oppose the entire foundation of American life. They oppose democracy, social and religious freedom and indeed homosexuality itself. We do not bow to them on any of these issues and there is no reason to do so on the issue of gay marriage.

Quote by: Elminister 3) Apon passing a motion or other legal device that allows gay marriage there will be a mass surge in the demands of civil offices to accommodate the needs that will come. Estimates vary but they are in the realm of about five to ten percent of the American populace being homosexual. With the American population count at over 300 million this equates to between fifteen and thirty million people. The surge I speak of would be the amount of people rushing to Town Clerks,City Halls,local Justices to now obtain the marriage certificate they have been so eagerly trying and waiting to get. In essence fifteen to thirty million people "just popped up on the grid". Just for discussion lets say that 1/30th,a conservative figure, of the gay community rush to civic offices in the first week to apply for their marriage license. Nation wide that surge of one million,using the highside of figures, homosexuals on top of the workload of processing hetero marriage certificates and as well as other civic duties conducted by the offices would force said offices to either hire more staff and or upgrade systems to compensate for the increase which equates to "bigger government" thus increasing the tax burden on everybody. Or the civic offices would try to deal with the increase with current staff and equipment levels thus slowing all the processes with which they use to deal with issues for everybody. Tax filling;deed filling, land deed amendements processing ect. would be delayed for all. This would also increase the chances for a mistake in these process as well, that's just basic probability. The densisty of homosexual people varies from area to area as would the magnitude of this problem. Ergo: in places already densely populated where the srains on civic offices are greater so too would the severity of this problem. To me this would be a bad thing.

The argument about more marriage = more taxes is an argument against any government involvement in marriage (which incidentally I agree with); not against homosexual marriage in particular. If heteros are afforded the right to marry out of the taxpayer’s pocket, homos should also be, regardless of whether it costs more. It would cost less to the taxpayer to deny healthcare to blacks, but we don’t do it. Equality means that the same rights and responsibilities are afforded to everyone. Gays pay their taxes towards the civil offices and it is totally unjust to deny them a service which they are forced to pay for.

Quote by: Elminister 4) In the same sense of number 3 creating a sudden surge in workload on civic offices there would be one too on private institutions as well. Health insurance companies would need to contend with an above average change rate in policy holders enlistments status. Cost and timelieness of process would be affected for all who belong to said companies.

That's up to the private companies to deal with; something they will be more than able to do provided they are given time to prepare for the legislation coming into effect. If a company encounters difficulties with customer information, they deal with it. They don't have a right for the government to bail them out with discriminatory legislation.

Quote by: Elminister As it reads you state as fact that homosexuality is not a choice. Most if not all of my contentions are based on homosexuality in fact being a choice. That would behove you to substantiate your claim to indeed be a fact.*

Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Refute every piece of evidence in this article; then we'll talk.

[kpow]

Man put penis in womans vagina natural. Make babies. Man put penis in mans bum unnatural. Poo on willy. It's not a very abstract concept, you know. If it is natural, then everyone would be going same sex, which would defy the point of having two sexes in the first place.

this post is for anyone who thinks along these lines or anyother arguement about how being homosexual is 'not natural'.


1- HUMANS and DOLPHINS are the only animals that have sex for pleasure
does this make sex for pleasure un-natural?
2- HAVING SEX FOR PLEASURE AND USING BIRTH CONTROL
is not natural so perhaps you 'hetties' should stop doing it! :eek:
-heres an idea perhaps homosexual sex is natural brith control....hey infact.....maybe we should all be homosexual and only have sex IF WE WANT A BABY!......-put that in ya homophobic pipe and smoke it
3- IF YOU REALLY ARE AGAINST HUMANS DOING 'UN-NATURAL THINGS
i hope you dont.....

• live in a house
• use make-up or hair products
• wear clothes made of un-natural (man made) materials
• drive a car
• use birth control
• use a toilet
• use a computer
• own a watch or go by time
• have a tattoo
• own or spend money

shall i go on or is this arguement getting stupid now? (reminds me of another similar arguement )
4- MARRIAGE IS NOT NATURAL.....so how you can use the 'its un-natural' arguement as a reason against gay marriage is....well beyond me......:rolleyes:
5- WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT HOMOSEXUALTIY IS UN-NATURAL?

i think ive made my point so ill stop here......

(if it takes me a LONG time to reply to this message it is because i am working away from home ATM and do not have regular internet acessssss -cant speel-.....:confused: )

[Elminister]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy However, on the issue of erotica, I believe you are still wrong. When problems were encountered in getting pandas to breed, it was found that showing them “panda porn” increased copulation by 60%. It’s clear that these animals do have a concept of erotica. There are several species,more than just man and Dolphin, that do indeed have sex or acts thereof for the sole purpose of receiving the physical pleasure the acts provide. This does not constitute conceptual erotic thought process. It is merely effort and the reward that is sure to accompany it. Animals are trained thru a pain and reward process. Pain/punishment=incorrect, pleasure/reward=correct, this is a process in which to break a communication barrier. For a long time,in all science circles,it has been heralded and thus accepted that wild animal behaviour is mostly if not all instinctualy driven. In short; if a monky has the conscious thought to reach down and play with itself it is going to do it. A monky will also throw a handfull of poo at you if the conscious thought is there. Conceptual thought can include concieving something without; doing it at that moment,doing it within the next five years or even doing it at all. This level of thought process has not been shown in animals. In short; I dont think animals "toy" with ideas beforehand. Your example is just Panda Bears reacting to stimuli that was created and presented by from outside the animal kingdom. I would hazard to say the Pandas would react the same should they have seen other Pandas engaging in sex in the wilds. Your example is not conclusive. Though it did give a chuckle though,thank you. Your original claim was that “As for the whole male on male sex in the Canine species goes, that's about dominance and submission.”. That is a 100% inclusive statement. My response to it was “no, that’s not the case” and I stand by it until you can prove that dominance is the motivating factor in 100% of cases. Your stance,in not allowing a retraction, prompts me to carry that same stance with you. This will play out in your very near future,I promise. Read on.....and oh yeah, I state for a fact that in one-hundred percent of the cases where a female dog assumes the male dogs sexual posistion she is doing it for dominance and not sex. I have a question for you. Is a mother when she breast feeds her child engaging in incestual sexual acts?........How do you like me now? Allowing gay marriage is not going to have any effect on the growth of the population in the US. If gay marriage is allowed, heterosexual people who would otherwise have procreated aren’t suddenly going to become gay. The people who are going to take advantage of gay marriage are homosexuals; people who would not be procreating anyway. Population growth was used to express a function of government. It was not my primary point of content. This was "Whether homosexuals are here in the states or not there is a difference between their existence and my government,metaphorically speaking, engaging in the civil equivalence of shooting itself in the foot" After re-reading my post I realized that I failed to elaborate enough or properly. Please excuse my failure as I am still honing my skill at conveying my thoughts precisely. Considering my deffinitions in my prior post as being clear-cut and for no need of further interpretation.<feel free to dispute me on them if you wish> Essentisaly,by the letter, for my government to endorse homosexual marriage would be a self defeating/ideologically counterproductive insinuation. I veiw it as imprudent gesture. Prudence can and has dictated action in militaries and in governments and societies throughout history. There are people all over the world who oppose the entire foundation of American life. Watching the news and or reading the newspaper yeah,I would say so. They oppose democracy, I was born into this thus not having that choice.Not that I would choose any differently mind you. social and religious freedom <see above> and indeed homosexuality itself. We do not bow to them on any of these issues and there is no reason to do so on the issue of gay marriage. Ahhhhh, now we get to it. A choice that I have to make,in my accepting my government endorsing homosexual marriage or not, and in this case being held accountable for either. So you're saying I should "fight the good fight" for your cause. In the context herein you would be asking me to assume a risk that will only benifit you and not me. The reply both you and "turningtired" gave to my contention is purely selfish. In regards to your and others claims that homosexuality or the will of the gay community would not have a negative effect on me in anyway has just been refuted. Blown right out of the water. I ask you, Baconguy" Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49 " and be careful to not trip over your own veiws as expressed in the "corporal punishment for children" or whatever the thread was called. On what grounds do you/the gay community ask me to potentialy further degrade my basic human right to exist on this planet peaceably? The argument about more marriage = more taxes is an argument against any government involvement in marriage (which incidentally I agree with); Yes, I concur. Getting government out of the marriage process would be an amiable solution for many concerned. Unfortunately the gay community is not pushing for this in particular, hence my grievous stance. If heteros are afforded the right to marry out of the taxpayer’s pocket, homos should also be, regardless of whether it costs more. No, not irregardless of it costing more. On what grounds do you/the gay community persue an action that by reactions would dig deeper into my wallet thus reducing my right,my ability, to provide for myself and for my family? In terms of this discussion the gays are already paying their taxes. This effect on me would be new and would need justification on your behalf because providing gay marriage certficates would not beifit me in any way. Again, a selfish request that only serves the gay community. I spoke of persona traits that I have noticed in a great many homosexual people I have come to know, this is one of them and it is expressed by both you and Ms."turningtired" People say patience is a virture,for me it is a finely honed attribute. Thank you for the affirmation. Equality means that the same rights and responsibilities are afforded to everyone. Except for me in this case, you mean. Gays pay their taxes towards the civil offices and it is totally unjust to deny them a service which they are forced to pay for. The unequivocal math here is, so am I. So I should also, by course of inaction, subject myself to potential delays and or errors in cases of which the civil offices deal with in my behalf as well? You/the gay community is asking a lot of me. On what grounds does this request come from? I think it's funny you didn't touch that point. That's up to the private companies to deal with; something they will be more than able to do provided they are given time to prepare for the legislation coming into effect. If a company encounters difficulties with customer information, they deal with it. Yes and it would be in the manner of which I proposed above, effectually causing me loss. <see above> On a sidenote, a coworker of mine was told that no, he could not in fact get medical coverage for his fiance but within the same conversation he was told that a gay person could get coverage for their "life mate". Is that just?....floodgates for fraud I ask you? This scenario wrought of the actions of the gay community. Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Refute every piece of evidence in this article; then we'll talk.

Hmmmm, to start, right at the top of the page it says "Some information in this article or section has not been verified and may not be reliable.
Please check for inaccuracies, and modify and cite sources as needed".......your fact is not off to a very good start. I'm out of time but will be back to throw shadow over what I can and also to inject some logic and scientific fact for you and also some common sense, I promise.

[Elminister]