disorder of assumption

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated G through PG-13.
User avatar
subgenius
God
Posts: 12772
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by subgenius »

honorentheos wrote:Interesting.

Conflating homosexuality (an innate characteristic)

What is interesting is that there is absolutely no evidence that supports this claim about homosexuality. But please...prove otherwise.

honorentheos wrote: with volitional activities is a common problem with those who hold your position, sub. I doubt anyone will convince you otherwise. But just so you know.

Again, the mistaken belief that homosexual behavior is innate is simply that...mistaken.

honorentheos wrote:And I literally LOL'd at the argument you have with health care premiums going up because of some people's gluttony, as you claim, without consideration other people's lifestyle choices impacted the premiums we all paid long before the PPACA. On top of that, it wasn't that long ago health care premiums were rising at an alarming rate, year over year, to feed another kind of gluttony...the primary reason the PPACA was a campaign issue in 2008. I know, I know, too many campaign cycles in the past...all we need to remember about '08 is that was the year America elected the anti-Christ, right?

which was the point...i recall writing, "if you believe it is right" to support gluttony, then the point is lost.

honorentheos wrote:
hey looky there...is that irony humping your leg? (left a little hypocrisy on your shoe there)

Irony is such a horny bastard. Seems he's making the rounds around the room. ;)

Not to worry, he will always call your posts...home.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent

User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 10376
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by honorentheos »

Amore wrote:Very rarely am I speechless, but I am now... :eek:

How in this informative world, can anybody deny the means by which they came to exist?
Didn't anybody ever sit you down and explain sex - and how babies are conceived?
Did you ever look at an anatomy book - or just look at yourself naked and learned how things worked and fit?

I'm really curious if you guys that entertain special "rights" based on "certain" sexual substitutes, have consciously realized you've been brainwashed by a new herd, or if it's subconscious.
If I suck my thumb, what rights do I get?

Two issues with this.

First, a broad question could be asked of you, "What is the harm to society if LGBT persons are not interfered with by society?"

Second, I take issue with the idea that we are taking about "special" right. We're talking about rights. Period.

To review your arguments to wit -

You stated that it, " I consider pretending something that is disordered is healthy as unloving." Given mental health professionals recognize mental health disorders associated with one's gender identity or sexual identity arise from distress caused by cultural pressures and essential hate behavior as you've demonstrated in this thread, it seems you either ought to amend your behavior in enabling the distress that causes the disorder or acknowledge you do so out of something other than love.

You have pointed out that there are health risks associated with anal sex. It's been pointed out to you that there are health risks associated with vaginal sex. One could argue that historically becoming pregnant is one of the most risky things a woman could do, calling into question the premise of your argument that it's about procreation as well.

You've argued anecdotally that because you feel your own sexual identity gradually over time, thus the idea a person could know they were gay from a young age or be born gay must be wrong. This ignores both the distinction between gender identity and sexual preferences (a mistake not unlike that sub made earlier in condensing the entire issue into volitional action being the primary issue at hand) and a large and growing body of research on the subjects showing there is more than environment involved.

You've argued that the issue has to do with rights and so-called "sexual substitutes". A person educated on the issue would see a homosexual man being married to a woman due to cultural pressures as fitting this description quite well. You seem to then wish to reduce the argument to one of forms. Essentially, men have keys and women have locks and keys go in locks, so end of discussion. In which case, I refer you back to the first point of yours already refuted. This perfect form of nature that supposedly exists in your mind and hold up as a standard for judging people...it has a history. Not a particularly nice one, either.

So, back to the question: "What is the harm to society if LGBT persons are not interfered with by society?"

Because it is well demonstrated that society's interference is creating mental health issues and contributing to the prevalence of physical health issues.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa

User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 10376
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by honorentheos »

subgenius wrote:
honorentheos wrote:Interesting.

Conflating homosexuality (an innate characteristic)

What is interesting is that there is absolutely no evidence that supports this claim about homosexuality. But please...prove otherwise.

Absolutely no evidence? That's an overreach, subgenius. While a person could rightly argue there is no evidence that sexual preferences are immutable from birth, there is plenty of evidence that choice isn't even a minor consideration let a long the primary consideration. Sexual preference isn't volitional. You can dig around here for something that supports your position if you like: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

subgenius wrote:
honorentheos wrote:And I literally LOL'd at the argument you have with health care premiums going up because of some people's gluttony, as you claim, without consideration other people's lifestyle choices impacted the premiums we all paid long before the PPACA. On top of that, it wasn't that long ago health care premiums were rising at an alarming rate, year over year, to feed another kind of gluttony...the primary reason the PPACA was a campaign issue in 2008. I know, I know, too many campaign cycles in the past...all we need to remember about '08 is that was the year America elected the anti-Christ, right?

which was the point...i recall writing, "if you believe it is right" to support gluttony, then the point is lost.

You recall writing? We can click back a link and read what you wrote. Here it is:

And yes, eating poorly is a risk that has no real benefit except to Con-Agra...but none of those human behaviors are asking for taxpayer subsidy of social validation.
Well, except it is arguable with health care is it not? You think it is right for your health care premium to go up so that a glutton can get health care to continue his gluttony? - if so, then no wonder you support SSM.


You were clearly attempting to make a differentiation based on a cost to society, and comparing supporting SSM to supporting the PPACA based on your perceived costs to taxpayers. That personal lifestyle choices such as smoking, eating poorly, alcohol abuse, or not exercising, etc., etc., cost everyone in the insurance system and have done so long before the PPACA isn't a question of belief. It's a verifiable fact. It makes what you attempted to say into nonsense.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa

User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 8404
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by canpakes »

subgenius wrote:
honorentheos wrote:Interesting. Conflating homosexuality (an innate characteristic)
What is interesting is that there is absolutely no evidence that supports this claim about homosexuality. But please...prove otherwise.
honorentheos wrote: with volitional activities is a common problem with those who hold your position, sub. I doubt anyone will convince you otherwise. But just so you know.
Again, the mistaken belief that homosexual behavior is innate is simply that...mistaken.


1. What evidence can you give that heterosexuality is an innate characteristic?

2. What evidence can you give that The Gay Agenda causes many non-human species to display examples of homosexual behaviour?

User avatar
subgenius
God
Posts: 12772
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by subgenius »

honorentheos wrote:Absolutely no evidence? That's an overreach, subgenius. While a person could rightly argue there is no evidence that sexual preferences are immutable from birth, there is plenty of evidence that choice isn't even a minor consideration let a long the primary consideration. Sexual preference isn't volitional. You can dig around here for something that supports your position if you like: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

Yep...absolutely no evidence...as you undoubtedly discovered with your subsequent google search. Sorry, but there is no scientific evidence that a person is born gay....no matter how badly you believe it...yours is but a faith based argument.....that irony is crunchy, ain't it?

honorentheos wrote:You recall writing? We can click back a link and read what you wrote. Here it is:

And yes, eating poorly is a risk that has no real benefit except to Con-Agra...but none of those human behaviors are asking for taxpayer subsidy of social validation.
Well, except it is arguable with health care is it not? You think it is right for your health care premium to go up so that a glutton can get health care to continue his gluttony? - if so, then no wonder you support SSM.


You were clearly attempting to make a differentiation based on a cost to society, and comparing supporting SSM to supporting the PPACA based on your perceived costs to taxpayers. That personal lifestyle choices such as smoking, eating poorly, alcohol abuse, or not exercising, etc., etc., cost everyone in the insurance system and have done so long before the PPACA isn't a question of belief. It's a verifiable fact. It makes what you attempted to say into nonsense.

What is clear is that I was illustrating how some "lifestyle choices" are indeed taxpayer subsidized - yet that does not validate those choices...in fact, even the 1st lady is quite outspoken about gluttony. In fact, it is clear that i was promoting the idea that neither gluttony nor SSM are appropriate or qualified for taxpayer subsidy or for social endorsement....and neither are virtuous.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent

User avatar
subgenius
God
Posts: 12772
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by subgenius »

canpakes wrote:
1. What evidence can you give that heterosexuality is an innate characteristic?

First - I did not claim that it was, did I? Second - It is an easy claim to make. The theory of evolution requires heterosexual activity, does it not?
So, if we believe that the will to survive, or that a species fundamentally reproduces, is an "innate characteristic" then heterosexual activity is natural....innate.

canpakes wrote:2. What evidence can you give that The Gay Agenda causes many non-human species to display examples of homosexual behaviour?

Psychological defects and minority occurrences of defective behavior is not a sole human characteristic. Other animals murder each other, other animals commit infanticide, other animals are born blind, other animals are even born with severe behavioral abnormalities....none of that merits their condition as being virtuous, preferred, desirable, etc.
However, among humans...
the New Family Structures Study, which is famous and controversial-because-it-contradicts-HRC-money-message, led by Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas at Austin, found that children raised by homosexual parents are dramatically more likely than peers raised by married heterosexual parents to suffer from a host of social problems. Among them are strong tendencies, as adults, to exhibit poor impulse control; suffer from depression and thoughts of suicide; need mental health therapy; identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; be unfaithful to partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana.

Nevertheless, the idea that because a behavior or characteristic is found within another animal must surely make that behavior or characteristic natural among humans is absurd. If a human was born today and a full ivory tusk was protruding from its nose no one would be blamed for considering that "unnatural"....and no one would argue that since the rhinoceros has one, it must be considered natural. Chances are, doctors would examine it and try to "correct" the situation - even it only posed a cosmetic challenge to the human in question.

Even more to the point is recognizing that marriage, as a legal contract, is bound to sexual activity - so obviously society legislates sexual activity and raises some sexual activity to the level of being more virtuous, more natural, and more worthy than other sexual activity. Currently I have not seen, heard, nor read any argument that elevates same sex activity to that level.....and certainly the idea that SSM should be permitted because a small minority of monkeys are caught is homosexual activity after throwing their poo at zoo visitors is not convincing on any level.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17547
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by EAllusion »

I gathered that subgenius probably has cited the extremely flawed and widely condemned Regnerus study in the past. I imagined some people probably took the time to explain in detail what is wrong with it:

search.php?keywords=+Regnerus&terms=all&author=&sc=1&sf=all&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search

Yep. Repeatedly.

So I don't think you can look at the above post as anything but intellectually dishonest at this point.

Amore
God
Posts: 1090
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:27 am

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by Amore »

subgenius wrote:
canpakes wrote:
1. What evidence can you give that heterosexuality is an innate characteristic?

First - I did not claim that it was, did I? Second - It is an easy claim to make. The theory of evolution requires heterosexual activity, does it not?
So, if we believe that the will to survive, or that a species fundamentally reproduces, is an "innate characteristic" then heterosexual activity is natural....innate.

canpakes wrote:2. What evidence can you give that The Gay Agenda causes many non-human species to display examples of homosexual behaviour?

Psychological defects and minority occurrences of defective behavior is not a sole human characteristic. Other animals murder each other, other animals commit infanticide, other animals are born blind, other animals are even born with severe behavioral abnormalities....none of that merits their condition as being virtuous, preferred, desirable, etc.
However, among humans...
the New Family Structures Study, which is famous and controversial-because-it-contradicts-HRC-money-message, led by Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas at Austin, found that children raised by homosexual parents are dramatically more likely than peers raised by married heterosexual parents to suffer from a host of social problems. Among them are strong tendencies, as adults, to exhibit poor impulse control; suffer from depression and thoughts of suicide; need mental health therapy; identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; be unfaithful to partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana.

Nevertheless, the idea that because a behavior or characteristic is found within another animal must surely make that behavior or characteristic natural among humans is absurd. If a human was born today and a full ivory tusk was protruding from its nose no one would be blamed for considering that "unnatural"....and no one would argue that since the rhinoceros has one, it must be considered natural. Chances are, doctors would examine it and try to "correct" the situation - even it only posed a cosmetic challenge to the human in question.

Even more to the point is recognizing that marriage, as a legal contract, is bound to sexual activity - so obviously society legislates sexual activity and raises some sexual activity to the level of being more virtuous, more natural, and more worthy than other sexual activity. Currently I have not seen, heard, nor read any argument that elevates same sex activity to that level.....and certainly the idea that SSM should be permitted because a small minority of monkeys are caught is homosexual activity after throwing their poo at zoo visitors is not convincing on any level.

Impressive!
And it supports many other studies, besides axiomatic truth.
It simply amazes me how some otherwise intelligent people are so brainwashed by the homosexual herd mentality that they deny such basic truths as how they came to exist.

Maybe like my husband said, they know they're wrong, but search desperately for straws, to shift the blame to make themselves feel more right.

It's as if they go from singing "Follow the prophet"... To "Follow the Liberals!"

User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 8404
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by canpakes »

canpakes wrote:1. What evidence can you give that heterosexuality is an innate characteristic?
subgenius wrote:First - I did not claim that it was, did I? Second - It is an easy claim to make. The theory of evolution requires heterosexual activity, does it not?
So, if we believe that the will to survive, or that a species fundamentally reproduces, is an "innate characteristic" then heterosexual activity is natural....innate.

'Will to survive' and 'reproduces' are not synonyms, nor do they limit sexual activity itself to a particular standard. So, we can toss aside use of the word, 'innate', as an argument for or against gay behavior in critters.


canpakes wrote:2. What evidence can you give that The Gay Agenda causes many non-human species to display examples of homosexual behaviour?
subgenius wrote:Psychological defects and minority occurrences of defective behavior is not a sole human characteristic. Other animals murder each other, other animals commit infanticide, other animals are born blind, other animals are even born with severe behavioral abnormalities....none of that merits their condition as being virtuous, preferred, desirable, etc.

Interesting list. I must admit to not seeing a lot of animal murder occur except when one eats another (the Way Things Are). They generally don't get their jollies out of simply killing each other, like we do. Same for animal infanticide. Regardless, either - along with blindness and other abnormalities - may not be virtuous, preferred or desirable as we see it, but this is a personal judgement, is it not? Perhaps you'd like to argue with the lion after killing the antelope for his meal that he was not virtuous in doing so. He may beg to differ. But we digress.


subgenius wrote:However, among humans...
the New Family Structures Study, which is famous and controversial-because-it-contradicts-HRC-money-message, led by Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas at Austin, found that children raised by homosexual parents are dramatically more likely than peers raised by married heterosexual parents to suffer from a host of social problems. Among them are strong tendencies, as adults, to exhibit poor impulse control; suffer from depression and thoughts of suicide; need mental health therapy; identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; be unfaithful to partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana.

1. The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families comes to a completely different conclusion. How do you reconcile this?

2. Regardless, this paragraph concerns children raised within G/L-partner households. This would have no bearing on s/s marriages themselves, should that be the question.


subgenius wrote:Nevertheless, the idea that because a behavior or characteristic is found within another animal must surely make that behavior or characteristic natural among humans is absurd.

As the behavior is found within so many higher-order critters, it is a natural occurrence. Perhaps not the predominant mode of coupling, but not unnatural. Natural is defined as, "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind". Use of the word, 'natural', as some kind of argument against s/s relationships therefore fails at the outset. Methinks that the term is being conflated for 'preferred', or 'typical', or somesuch.


subgenius wrote:if a human was born today and a full ivory tusk was protruding from its nose no one would be blamed for considering that "unnatural"....and no one would argue that since the rhinoceros has one, it must be considered natural. Chances are, doctors would examine it and try to "correct" the situation - even it only posed a cosmetic challenge to the human in question.

It would still be a natural occurrence... not necessarily preferred by our own standards of beauty, practicality or normality, but one that occurred naturally nonetheless. See previous paragraph.


subgenius wrote:Even more to the point is recognizing that marriage, as a legal contract, is bound to sexual activity - so obviously society legislates sexual activity and raises some sexual activity to the level of being more virtuous, more natural, and more worthy than other sexual activity. Currently I have not seen, heard, nor read any argument that elevates same sex activity to that level.....

1. Can you point to any legal or Biblical source that requires that marriage must be bound to sexual activity of any type to be allowed; i.e., one cannot be married unless one engages in sexual activity?

2. Can you point to any legal or Biblical source that requires that all sexual activity between two individuals in a marriage is limited to the purpose of procreation?

3. Can you point to any legal or Biblical source that denies marriage between two people based solely on the fact that they cannot or may not choose to have sexual relations for the sole purpose of creating children?


subgenius wrote:and certainly the idea that SSM should be permitted because a small minority of monkeys are caught is homosexual activity after throwing their poo at zoo visitors is not convincing on any level.

I don't think that I've seen this argument of 'poo flinging = allow s/s marriage' from anyone, ever. Can you elaborate?
Last edited by canpakes on Wed Sep 10, 2014 9:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 8404
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by canpakes »

Amore wrote:Impressive!
And it supports many other studies, besides axiomatic truth.
It simply amazes me how some otherwise intelligent people are so brainwashed by the homosexual herd mentality that they deny such basic truths as how they came to exist.

Maybe like my husband said, they know they're wrong, but search desperately for straws, to shift the blame to make themselves feel more right.

It's as if they go from singing "Follow the prophet"... To "Follow the Liberals!"

I like to follow biology. : )

By the way - I was curious, a few posts back, about the 'special rights' that you were referring to with regards to s/s marriage or other s/s activity. Do you have a list of some of these?

User avatar
SteelHead
God
Posts: 8246
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:40 pm

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by SteelHead »

And canpakes gives sub a lesson on the coherent use of language.

Kudos canpakes!
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin

User avatar
just me
God
Posts: 9070
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:46 pm

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by just me »

The discussion about children raised in gay vs straight homes is not really pertinent to the discussion of the right to marry since marriage is not necessary for child raising and child raising is not necessary in a marriage.

Image

Neil Patrick Harris and his husband didn't need a marriage certificate to have babies. But I am so happy for their new marriage and wish them every happiness.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~

User avatar
just me
God
Posts: 9070
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:46 pm

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by just me »

The argument that homosexuality is some kind of mental illness or disease also does not have any bearing on the right for homosexuals to marry.
We allow people with all mental illnesses and diseases to marry. Society allows all consenting adults to have sex. We allow people with mental illness and disease to have babies and raise children. We even allow people with genetic disorders that are certain to be passed to a child to procreate.

In the healthcare field we are taught that consumers have a basic right to sexual expression. Even in long-term care facilities people can have consensual sex with another regardless of sex or marital status. And they are far beyond childbearing years.

Society allows all these things regardless of the emotional, financial or health risks involved.

We've already talked about the risk inherent in ANY sexual contact. There are various levels of risk and we still don't police individual adults on what they choose to engage in. Many straight couples engage in anal sex. Many straight couples have sex where one is positive for an STI and the other is not.
The risks to a woman in reproducing are not limited to physical, as it also impacts her emotional health and finances. That is true regardless of her marital status.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~

User avatar
just me
God
Posts: 9070
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:46 pm

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by just me »

Allowing trans individuals to transition is not going to make someone who is not trans want to become so. That is ridiculous.

Assisting a trans individual in transitioning through whatever means they feel comfortable, from dressing to full surgery, is the most compassionate answer. Not only that, they are adults who can choose for themselves what they want to do to their body. Trust me, a lot goes into choosing a candidate for reassignment surgery. It's not like they hand them out to anyone walking in the door. They go through evaluations to make sure this is the best choice for them.

Regardless of what is involved in being transexual, society doesn't disallow people with body dysmorphia from having cosmetic surgery.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~

User avatar
subgenius
God
Posts: 12772
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by subgenius »

EAllusion wrote:I gathered that subgenius probably has cited the extremely flawed and widely condemned Regnerus study in the past. I imagined some people probably took the time to explain in detail what is wrong with it:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... mit=Search

Yep. Repeatedly.

So I don't think you can look at the above post as anything but intellectually dishonest at this point.


even a cursory review of these criticisms will find that they are not unlike the criticisms research receives, even on the other side of this argument. The Regnerus study was merely inflammatory because it bucked the heavily funded Hillary Clinton message machine.
And, as has been posted several times before...there are several more studies that reach similar conclusions.
Point being, the bulk of the actual scientific community cannot refute the bulk of his study.
The only dishonesty here is that your post is reactionary and uninformed on the topic...study the subject yourself and then return and report.
(i got an inclination that you have not even read one page of the Regnerus study...and that my friend is the best display of disingenuity to date).
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent

User avatar
subgenius
God
Posts: 12772
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by subgenius »

canpakes wrote:They generally don't get their jollies out of simply killing each other, like we do.

we generally do not either...which was the initial point...generally speaking, animals do not engage in homosexual behavior.

canpakes wrote:1. The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families comes to a completely different conclusion. How do you reconcile this?

As usual...in the case of conflicting "studies" which is not that uncommon...i believe a rational resolution is reached by determining what is the "best interest of the child". So, you seem to consider that given ambiguity or uncertainty about the safety and welfare of a child, society should allow the situation to play out...and see what happens...hope for the best.
My resolution is that given the broad range of variables that seemingly increase risk for a child in a same-sex environment - that we proceed with caution and currently discourage that exposure.

canpakes wrote:2. Regardless, this paragraph concerns children raised within G/L-partner households. This would have no bearing on s/s marriages themselves, should that be the question.

Awfully dismissive of you here...but see my previous response as well. Obviously you feel that marriage yields a magic wand, welcome.


canpakes wrote:As the behavior is found within so many higher-order critters, it is a natural occurrence. Perhaps not the predominant mode of coupling, but not unnatural. Natural is defined as, "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind". Use of the word, 'natural', as some kind of argument against s/s relationships therefore fails at the outset. Methinks that the term is being conflated for 'preferred', or 'typical', or somesuch.

I have often stated that if we concede homosexual behavior as being "natural" or even genetic, then it must surely be a defect.....like alcoholism or Down's syndrome. Again, it being natural or unnatural has never been my cause for objection to SSM.
But me thinks that quibbling about the literal meaning and common use of the word "natural" is not a source of victory for either of us.


canpakes wrote:It would still be a natural occurrence... not necessarily preferred by our own standards of beauty, practicality or normality, but one that occurred naturally nonetheless. See previous paragraph.

which is the point i am making....natural or not is irrelevant to my position...you are mistaking my arguments for another's. In the truest sense of the word, everything could be deemed "natural".
(I am reminded of a Dead Milkmen song wherein the lyric about the periodic chart containing elements has a few "man-made" elements...and the singer asks..."if they are man-made, then how the hell can they be elements?")


canpakes wrote:1. Can you point to any legal or Biblical source that requires that marriage must be bound to sexual activity of any type to be allowed; i.e., one cannot be married unless one engages in sexual activity?

I believe you will find that many states allow for marriage contracts to be dissolved and even grounds for divorce being granted on the grounds of non consummation and or not providing sexual activity to one's spouse. This distinction is made within the no-fault or fault divorce.
Legal separation agreements can also be considered violated if a couple continues to have sexual relations while it is in effect.
http://books.google.com/books?id=5cLIO2 ... &q&f=false
"Consummation of the marriage by the act of sexual relations (only a few states require this)."
http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/marria ... ants.shtml
canpakes wrote:2. Can you point to any legal or Biblical source that requires that all sexual activity between two individuals in a marriage is limited to the purpose of procreation?

No, but that is not my proposition. However, though not required today, blood tests use to be required because of concern for passing along birth defects...and incestuous marriages are not permitted - even between consenting adults.
canpakes wrote:3. Can you point to any legal or Biblical source that denies marriage between two people based solely on the fact that they cannot or may not choose to have sexual relations for the sole purpose of creating children?

this one for starters

canpakes wrote:I don't think that I've seen this argument of 'poo flinging = allow s/s marriage' from anyone, ever. Can you elaborate?

sure...something being observed in nature does not justify it being regarded as virtuous in society, regardless of its frequency.
For example
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent

User avatar
subgenius
God
Posts: 12772
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by subgenius »

just me wrote:The argument that homosexuality is some kind of mental illness or disease also does not have any bearing on the right for homosexuals to marry.

mental wellness has influence on everyone's right to marry
http://hamptonroads.com/2014/09/marriag ... gal-issues
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent

User avatar
subgenius
God
Posts: 12772
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by subgenius »

just me wrote:Allowing trans individuals to transition is not going to make someone who is not trans want to become so. That is ridiculous.

Assisting a trans individual in transitioning through whatever means they feel comfortable, from dressing to full surgery, is the most compassionate answer. Not only that, they are adults who can choose for themselves what they want to do to their body. Trust me, a lot goes into choosing a candidate for reassignment surgery. It's not like they hand them out to anyone walking in the door. They go through evaluations to make sure this is the best choice for them.

Regardless of what is involved in being transexual, society doesn't disallow people with body dysmorphia from having cosmetic surgery.

because scientific study found that trans are delusional/mentally ill...
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent

User avatar
just me
God
Posts: 9070
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:46 pm

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by just me »

subgenius wrote:
just me wrote:Allowing trans individuals to transition is not going to make someone who is not trans want to become so. That is ridiculous.

Assisting a trans individual in transitioning through whatever means they feel comfortable, from dressing to full surgery, is the most compassionate answer. Not only that, they are adults who can choose for themselves what they want to do to their body. Trust me, a lot goes into choosing a candidate for reassignment surgery. It's not like they hand them out to anyone walking in the door. They go through evaluations to make sure this is the best choice for them.

Regardless of what is involved in being transexual, society doesn't disallow people with body dysmorphia from having cosmetic surgery.

because scientific study found that trans are delusional/mentally ill...


Nice incomplete sentence. It doesn't matter.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~

User avatar
just me
God
Posts: 9070
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:46 pm

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by just me »

subgenius wrote:
just me wrote:The argument that homosexuality is some kind of mental illness or disease also does not have any bearing on the right for homosexuals to marry.

mental wellness has influence on everyone's right to marry
http://hamptonroads.com/2014/09/marriag ... gal-issues


This example has no bearing on equal marriage rights.

PS That was such a sweet love story.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~

Amore
God
Posts: 1090
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:27 am

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by Amore »

subgenius wrote:
just me wrote:The argument that homosexuality is some kind of mental illness or disease also does not have any bearing on the right for homosexuals to marry.

mental wellness has influence on everyone's right to marry
http://hamptonroads.com/2014/09/marriag ... gal-issues

Excellent point.
And as pointed out earlier, when someone truly believes they are someone they are not really (ie Jack Sparrow, male or female)... it hints at mental illness.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests