This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Gay Marriage

Jump to new


Now you're just being awkward:

1. You do know what I'm talking about and what it has to do with marriage
2. The orignal weddings were homo was posted by someone
3. Christian fundamentalism has nothing to do with court outcomes, it may be used as fodder for both sides, but the ruling is the ruling e.g.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=5S6ALW1TOJ8C&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=forum+for+procreation+and+the+rearing+of+children&source=bl&ots=nw8sQMsoWD&sig=IgFJbnVA_CQDi6We39PtMOm5Y-4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAmoVChMI0MXS_oPxyAIVSGweCh0IAQtQ#v=onepage&q=forum%20for%20procreation%20and%20the%20rearing%20of%20children&f=false

I don't understand why you are so quick to dismiss what others have to say, when that is obviously my role.
 
Tisme said:
Now you're just being awkward:

1. You do know what I'm talking about and what it has to do with marriage
:
Click to expand...

I really don't, I don't personally know anyone who has been a virgin up until they were married, in fact most of my friends had kids before they were married, so I can't see what virginity has to do with marriage.

2. The orignal weddings were homo was posted by someone
Click to expand...

Link Please

3. Christian fundamentalism has nothing to do with court outcomes, it may be used as fodder for both sides, but the ruling is the ruling e.g.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know, But you and tink keep linking documents by Christian groups as if they were authoritive, as I said that document you said was from "The Courts" was actually written by students at a catholic school.

And in reality the USA High court has already ruled in favor
 

1. That worries me
2.a No I don't and whats more I'm irreligious ... by the sounds of it I'm far more contemporary and objective, than you too, which befuddles me as to your motive in the promotion of gay abandon.
2.b Ii assumed everyone knew that italicised or small font sections that reference court rulings and findings is pretty obviously not authoured fiction?
 
Tisme said:
2.b Ii assumed everyone knew that italicised or small font sections that reference court rulings and findings is pretty obviously not authoured fiction?
Click to expand...

Either way, "The Courts" as you put it has spoken on the matter, and SSM is now legal in every state in the USA, So any opinion of a catholic school student, or any 1970 era ruling they like to quote is irrelevant.


That worries me
Click to expand...

Why?
 

It does seem to me that "Safe Schools" goes too far.

Just teach kids not to bully each other for any reason, that's all that needs to be done.
 
SirRumpole said:
It does seem to me that "Safe Schools" goes too far.

Just teach kids not to bully each other for any reason, that's all that needs to be done.
Click to expand...

Yep, exactly. Everyone's different. Some of those differences may represent pathologies, but we don't really know which ones (if any). And even of we did, it's none of our business to teach the topic to kids.
 
Gringotts Bank said:
Yep, exactly. Everyone's different. Some of those differences may represent pathologies, but we don't really know which ones (if any). And even of we did, it's none of our business to teach the topic to kids.
Click to expand...

The ludicrous line has been crossed after hearing the news today that 6,000,000+ people are under the total isolated control of ISIS and the children are being groomed form birth as the purist replacement for themselves (the current barbarians). They are being raised to play soccer with severed heads, be comfortable with headless torsos, etc.....


...........meanwhile we are brain washing OUR (non Muslim) kids to think effeminate love talk and polite words will conquer any enemy.....GOD help us if we haven't seeded our cultural destruction outside the walls and within.

Having said that, if it results in the end of Dandy Boy Metroman and their opposite sex Quaintrelles, there might be a spark of hope yet.
 

Love will probably win in the end , but we humans tend to take the longest and most painful route there.

Researchers are still not sure whether homosexuality is a psychopathology or not. If it turns out to be so, then research should continue in order to identify how to unlearn it. Then if that happened, it would be a choice for the individual whether he even wants to unlearn it. He/she may not, and that's not our business, nor is it necessarily a big problem. Lot's of ifs.

Teachers need to stick to the 3 R's.
 

I think with advances in medical research they will eventually find a 'cure' for it ie genetic therapy. Interesting to see how many would opt to be cured?
 
Uncle Festivus said:
I think with advances in medical research they will eventually find a 'cure' for it ie genetic therapy. Interesting to see how many would opt to be cured?
Click to expand...

Does DNA manipulation affect the lifestyle choice part of the brain? Maybe modifying the sphincter valve is the answer?
 
Uncle Festivus said:
I think with advances in medical research they will eventually find a 'cure' for it ie genetic therapy. Interesting to see how many would opt to be cured?
Click to expand...

Yes, the question is 'when does a state or condition qualify as being a problem (pathology)?'. It's usually when it's causing the person themselves or others harm. And there appears to be no harm in being gay, at least on the surface level. If it is something you're born with (as a genetic condition), then that should be the end of the story. And this may turn out to be the case. If it turns out it can be learned, then the condition may represent [for example], an inability to bond successfully with the same sex parent. In the past, this notion was taken up by various churches and pushed pretty hard. Because it was pushed onto people, it failed, but I think there's something to the idea. What I mean is, is makes a lot of sense that it could be a learned phenomenon.

One thing is for sure, it's not a conscious choice.
 
Weve discovered at least one area of public policy where the Greens are prepared to be fiscally responsible.

It's the plebiscite on Gay Marriage. So expensive said Greens Leader Richard Di Natale yesterday.

It's much too expensive to allow everyday Australians an democratic opinion on Gay Marriage.
 

It wouldn't be expensive if it was held in conjunction with an election.
 
Tisme said:
You have proofs, coz I can't find any? Or are you suggesting it's a mental health issue?
Click to expand...

When I say it's not a conscious choice, I mean no one would consciously choose something that would have such potential for broad social rejection. It doesn't make sense to seek out such painful experiences.

I'm suggesting homosexuality might be a subconscious reaction to certain suboptimal relations with parents.

Regarding the same sex parent, poor/absent bonding might lead a person to seek that connection through a same sex partner.

Regarding the opposite sex parent, deep distrust might lead a person to give up hope of a heterosexual relationship and homosexuality presents the only possible alternative.

If this sort of process is a possibility, then it would necessarily be subconscious. Most unbearable pain gets shoved in there before it emerges in some other form as coping mechanism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

How valuable are two parent families?
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Value Collector
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
2K
sptrawler
Heresy: What is it in the 21st century?
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
Smurf1976
The role of Private Equity
Replies
7
Views
2K
Dona Ferentes
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
625
Smurf1976
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...