Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

[wayneL]

VC, in biological terms, same sex couplings would be termed an abberation. it happens, but it's not normal.

Same in humans, its an abberation, it happens, but it is not normal. We can decide to be all magnanimous and just accept it, give legal rights etc, but it s.till isn't normal and should not be presented as such.

Just like my eyesight, i have astigmatism. It is not normal, it is an abberation... a common one, yet still abberent.

 

[Wysiwyg]

While many things that are "normal", are not indeed natural, eg flying in planes, using birth control, operating to remove cancer etc.

Who cares.

So I don't really get your appeal to "natural" in this case, because we all ready know that many un-natural things have improved life, while we also know that the topic at hand does play out in nature, so I am confused on both fronts.

Relative facts can do that.

"About 10% of rams (males) refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams." Dr. Google.

 

[pixel]

VC, in biological terms, same sex couplings would be termed an abberation. it happens, but it's not normal.

Same in humans, its an abberation, it happens, but it is not normal. We can decide to be all magnanimous and just accept it, give legal rights etc, but it s.till isn't normal and should not be presented as such.

Just like my eyesight, i have astigmatism. It is not normal, it is an abberation... a common one, yet still abberent.

Spelling aside, there is nothing wrong with an aberration.
Same sex coupling happens throughout the animal kingdom, albeit usually only in a small number of cases. That's why biologists call it aberrant, deviating from a general practice that is more common for a particular species.
Where Bible Bashers and Quran Quoters go wrong is when they redefine aberration as an abomination, attach moral values to what they see as normal, and denounce behaviour that deviates from the norm as devious.
Thousands of years ago, among Middle-Eastern desert tribes, such aberration may well have been counter-productive as it deprived the tribe of child-bearing potential, necessary for the tribe's survival. "Every sperm is sacred" - especially if it's from a "successful" male. "Line up the wombs in a production line." And then let Nature do the culling, making sure that only the most useful products survive.

Do we want to go back to those sacred principles? By all means, but you can't have one without the other. If an ethnic or religious group wants to enforce the ancient concept of mandatory conception, it has to accept natural culling to balance the scale. No human intervention with medicine, food aid, ante- and post-natal support. It was God's will that this child be born, now let him alone decide how long the creature has to wait before being "called to Heaven."
Could it be that the proponents of those "sacred ways" accept the need for increased culls, if only subconsciously? ISIL and their various sympathisers seem to be doing quite an efficient job wherever they go. And is it mere coincidence that the very same forces that oppose basic freedoms like family planning and euthanasia, are the staunchest supporters of dirty power, military might, and global environment pollution?

I would prefer a world that moves forward, a world where every child brought into it can survive in a healthy environment, where everyone enjoys the same dignity and respect.

I know, I'm dreaming. But I'll sleep easier.

 

[Value Collector]

VC, in biological terms, same sex couplings would be termed an abberation. it happens, but it's not normal.

Same in humans, its an abberation, it happens, but it is not normal. We can decide to be all magnanimous and just accept it, give legal rights etc, but it s.till isn't normal and should not be presented as such.

Just like my eyesight, i have astigmatism. It is not normal, it is an abberation... a common one, yet still abberent.

Normal means - common, typical or expected.

Now it s common, typical and expected that a certain percentage of the population is going to be gay, so that's normal, it's normal for a certain percentage of people to be gay.

In fact being gay is more common than having red hair, but I wouldn't describe a person with red hair as being "not normal".

 

[Value Collector]

You're pretty quick to lump us into a mob of low intellect animals to prove your stubborn predispositions. And the long bows your draw about trying to redefine natural human behaviour are really quite illogically fantastic.

By all means go live with wild animals and see how long you last without human tools, rulz and empathy.

I am not "redefining natural human behaviour", you are trying to limit what is considered "normal" to just a narrow band of thing that you agree with.

Are human tools and rules "natural", it was sprawler that was making the claim that we should stick to only "natural things", I simply pointed out that most things we do these days aren't natural, while the thing he protests actually is.

I am happy to be unnatural and ride around in planes and have pizza delivered to me, you and sprawler can live in the wild if you wish.

 

[Value Collector]

Who cares.
Relative facts can do that.

"About 10% of rams (males) refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams." Dr. Google.

That's my point, no one cares whether things are natural when it comes to other stuff, hence why you said "who cares"

However, they try to appeal to nature to justify banning same sex marriage, when as you pointed out, same sex couples happen in nature.

 

[tech/a]

So you say homosexuality is something your born with.
As not everyone is born with it it must be a defect.

So through DNA they must be able to correct the defect
If not now---going forward.

Then the world can get back to normal.

 

[Macquack]

I crossed the NO box several times (though refrained from adding that four letter word and off) because some people just can't take NO for an answer.

View attachment 72633

Who were you directing the "**** off" to? The politicians or roughly half the population?

Looks to me that some people can't accept YES as a possible answer.

 

[tech/a]

Yes is a convenient answer
No is my answer

 

[SirRumpole]

That's why biologists call it aberrant, deviating from a general practice that is more common for a particular species.

I think I made that point a while back, although I called it 'abnormal' and got told off for using that term.

 

[wayneL]

Spelling aside, there is nothing wrong with an aberration.
Same sex coupling happens throughout the animal kingdom, albeit usually only in a small number of cases. That's why biologists call it aberrant, deviating from a general practice that is more common for a particular species.
Where Bible Bashers and Quran Quoters go wrong is when they redefine aberration as an abomination, attach moral values to what they see as normal, and denounce behaviour that deviates from the norm as devious.
Thousands of years ago, among Middle-Eastern desert tribes, such aberration may well have been counter-productive as it deprived the tribe of child-bearing potential, necessary for the tribe's survival. "Every sperm is sacred" - especially if it's from a "successful" male. "Line up the wombs in a production line." And then let Nature do the culling, making sure that only the most useful products survive.

Do we want to go back to those sacred principles? By all means, but you can't have one without the other. If an ethnic or religious group wants to enforce the ancient concept of mandatory conception, it has to accept natural culling to balance the scale. No human intervention with medicine, food aid, ante- and post-natal support. It was God's will that this child be born, now let him alone decide how long the creature has to wait before being "called to Heaven."
Could it be that the proponents of those "sacred ways" accept the need for increased culls, if only subconsciously? ISIL and their various sympathisers seem to be doing quite an efficient job wherever they go. And is it mere coincidence that the very same forces that oppose basic freedoms like family planning and euthanasia, are the staunchest supporters of dirty power, military might, and global environment pollution?

I would prefer a world that moves forward, a world where every child brought into it can survive in a healthy environment, where everyone enjoys the same dignity and respect.

I know, I'm dreaming. But I'll sleep easier.

That was a rather long and convoluted non sequitur to draw from my post as I never mentioned religions or abominations and will never do so.

My point is that it is ridiculous to categorize LBGT as normal. Its not meant to insult or dininish, just stating reality.

Our dealings with children in this matter should reflect such.

 

[SirRumpole]

I would prefer a world that moves forward, a world where every child brought into it can survive in a healthy environment, where everyone enjoys the same dignity and respect.

I'm sure everyone wants that, no one should be knocking kids bought up in circumstances that are not their fault, but if we are to care about kids then we should have a right to point out where we think that some conditions are not ideal for them, and one of those conditions imo is not having male and female role models in their home.

A gay man whatever his other attributes cannot be a mother and a lesbian women whatever her other attributes cannot be a father, and if we think they can be then imo that is an insult to all the great mothers and fathers in society. And furthermore , motherhood and fatherhood will continue to be degraded if the militant LGBTI's get their way, because they believe that traditional families are a threat to their own belief that they are 'just like anyone else' in that respect.

 

[tech/a]

I think I made that point a while back, although I called it 'abnormal' and got told off for using that term.

I'm a very slow duck.

 

[Wysiwyg]

A gay man whatever his other attributes cannot be a mother and a lesbian women whatever her other attributes cannot be a father, and if we think they can be then imo that is an insult to all the great mothers and fathers in society. And furthermore , motherhood and fatherhood will continue to be degraded if the militant LGBTI's get their way, because they believe that traditional families are a threat to their own belief that they are 'just like anyone else' in that respect.

That is the best speech I have seen you put on Rumpole. The best paragraph on this whole thread.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Who were you directing the "**** off" to? The politicians or roughly half the population?

Looks to me that some people can't accept YES as a possible answer.

That is to the government that didn't have the balls to say it because of political correctness and popularity votes. Should never have been an issue to be publicly thrashed out.

 

[Value Collector]

So you say homosexuality is something your born with.
As not everyone is born with it it must be a defect.

So through DNA they must be able to correct the defect
If not now---going forward.

Then the world can get back to normal.

Not everyone is born with red hair, does that make it a defect? Should we change DNA to make us all blonde hair and blue eyes and be "normal"?

You guys are starting to sound like you have been reading mein kampf, anything that doesn't conform must be suppressed

 

[pixel]

That was a rather long and convoluted non sequitur to draw from my post

It wasn't meant to be a sequitur off your post; I only used the term aberration that you had introduced as an entry point. Or launch pad, if you prefer. I tried to clarify that the technical term may have its place in Biology as a science, but falling outside the usual doesn't make a trait objectionable per se. In biblical times and earlier, our astigmatism may well have meant a shorter life expectancy, as would have been food poisoning from shellfish or pork that may have been "off" past its use by date. Therefore a taboo on certain foods - or sexual practices - did make sense for cavemen and desert tribes, even if it deprived some members of their right to happiness.
Today though, religious mumbo-jumbo no longer has any rationale behind it and efforts to turn the clock and public mores back to ancient rules and superstition are only causing more discord and unhappiness. That's why I ticked Yes.

 

[crackajack]

I'm sure everyone wants that, no one should be knocking kids bought up in circumstances that are not their fault, but if we are to care about kids then we should have a right to point out where we think that some conditions are not ideal for them, and one of those conditions imo is not having male and female role models in their home.

A gay man whatever his other attributes cannot be a mother and a lesbian women whatever her other attributes cannot be a father, and if we think they can be then imo that is an insult to all the great mothers and fathers in society. And furthermore , motherhood and fatherhood will continue to be degraded if the militant LGBTI's get their way, because they believe that traditional families are a threat to their own belief that they are 'just like anyone else' in that respect.

Just more attention seekers like that jerk in North Korea. WTF is wrong with this world? Too much social media and global warming ... Wish I could get a ride off this planet because the way it is going is not looking that flash.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Video of the clash between homosexuals and heterosexuals is at the Telegraph website 14/09/2017 http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/re...s/news-story/6ad4b71806c4c610329a1cb7dcaa43b2

The story briefly ...

On Thursday, about 15 students, including members of the uni’s Catholic Society, set up an information table on the main campus thoroughfare with placards saying: “It’s OK to Say No”.
They offered free kebabs and two large bowls of delicious Lebanese hummus made by one of their mothers.
It was the first time the No campaign has had a presence on campus where “Marriage Equality” stalls have featured almost every day this semester.
“The idea was pretty much to give the No campaign perspective on campus,” said 21-year-old IT student, Francis Tamer, one of the organisers.
“The message was that it’s OK to vote No. We weren’t looking to convince people how to vote. We’re just saying its OK to have your own opinion.”
After an hour 40 to 60 activists arrived with a megaphone, led by “Queer officers” of the Students’ Representative Council, which has an annual budget of $1.7 million.
For the next five hours they screamed abuse at the Catholic students, calling them: “homophobes” “bigots” “neo-Nazis” “gay-bashers” and chanting: “Bigot scum have got to go” and “We will fight, we will win, put the bigots in the bin”.
They up-ended the table of kebabs and threw bowls of hummus on the ground. They stole pamphlets and placards, threw condoms and glitter at the students, chalked “F..k off bigots” on the path, swore and yelled anti-Christian abuse:

“Go f..k yourself. Go wank yourself off at home with your f..ing Jesus picture”.

“You don’t belong on campus. You are bigots and haters:”

“Didn’t you know Jesus was bisexual?”

“Suck my d..k, bro”.

 

[Tink]

The Stalinists target the children.

http://youreteachingourchildrenwhat.org/