Which it is, no valid reason has been given that it will regress society. I have already linked a study that indicates attempted suicide rates drop amongst youth in states that have SSM legalised.
Which it is, no valid reason has been given that it will regress society. I have already linked a study that indicates attempted suicide rates drop amongst youth in states that have SSM legalised.Well all consideration should be focused on whether a law change will progress or regress society.
Legalising the use of marijuana would reduce violent behaviour thus progress society too but the cons outweigh the pros. I suppose at a deeper level it is all about cohesion in society.Which it is, no valid reason has been given that it will regress society. I have already linked a study that indicates attempted suicide rates drop amongst youth in states that have SSM legalised.
All agreed, (and I think that's a bit of a shame really) but that was the purpose of marriage when it was devised, it's very definition.I'll argue that society has already largely rejected any link between marriage and raising a family.
Sure, some get married and then have children. Others do it in the reverse order. Other parents don't get married at all.
There was a link in the past most definitely but it's substantially gone these days. In 2017 whether or not the parents are married is a matter of fact question rather than something which, if the answer is no, will be looked down upon.
Whether or not a couple is married has no practical effect on their ability to raise a family in Australia in 2017 and that applies regardless of the sexual preferences of the adults involved.
I see where you're coming from but as you said it's different because it has quite obvious negative side effects to society, for example alcohol and THC combined are a deadly cocktail on our roads, far worse than alcohol or THC alone.Legalising the use of marijuana would reduce violent behaviour thus progress society too but the cons outweigh the pros. I suppose at a deeper level it is all about cohesion in society.
For me it's about resisting the extreme left PC grievance industry at every opportunity. I want to say yes in essense, that's only fair, no on the nomenclature. But I won't be given that choice.
So it's still a no from me.
Legalising the use of marijuana would reduce violent behaviour thus progress society too but the cons outweigh the pros. I suppose at a deeper level it is all about cohesion in society.
Why not pick each fight on their merits? The extreme left aren't right about everything but they're not wrong about everything either. Same as the extreme right, one can be opposed to the extreme right while still supporting offshore detention and tight borders.
That would be meritorious for sure. But you are suggesting something that even your good self won't tolerate when it comes to logical discussions about e.g. SSM.
e.g. let me state a fact and see if you will agree without trying to satisfy your need to defend your entrenched position:
Q. there is no proof that homosexuality is genetic or congenital yes/no ?
https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/7199.full.pdfThe midsagittal plane of the anterior commissure in homosexual men was 18% larger than in heterosexual women and 34% larger than in heterosexual men.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014...s-may-confirm-x-chromosome-link-homosexualityDean Hamer finally feels vindicated. More than 20 years ago, in a study that triggered both scientific and cultural controversy, the molecular biologist offered the first direct evidence of a “gay gene,” by identifying a stretch on the X chromosome likely associated with homosexuality. But several subsequent studies called his finding into question. Now the largest independent replication effort so far, looking at 409 pairs of gay brothers, fingers the same region on the X.
I have already provided links to you in another thread that indicates that we do in fact have enough proof to say that homosexuality has biological deviations outside of the norm for heterosexuals.
https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/7199.full.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014...s-may-confirm-x-chromosome-link-homosexuality
So to ask you the question you never answered with a simple yes or no
Do you believe that being gay is a conscious decision?
My point is proven. People, all people are analogues using binaries to argue in favour of an opinion and analogues to disagree.
I already answered your question, but if you want a succinct answer to a "do you still beat your wife" cliche then yes of course being gay is a cognitive decision, and off course it's a choice to act out those desires, but as I explained previously there are alternatively those who have an unconscious drive to be gay. In the absence of proofs that it's genetic or congenital, it must be the brain at work consciously or sub consciously, chemically or imprinted. No one makes anyone actually perform their sexual cravings, we actually insist that youth abstain through laws, girls and women voluntarily remain chaste regardless of their desires and some religious orders insist their pastors do the abstinence dance too.
Black people drink water the same as white people, gay people don't choose their partners the same as straight people.
I did
It's written above your quote in my post
You just don't call anything opposed to same sex marriage as " valid "
It's valid to me just as anything I say is invalid to you.
With marriage, we have the small matter of biology as it interfaces with the actual purpose of marriage, ie raising families etc
Your point isn't proven at all, you reject scientific evidence that counters your preconceived notion that being gay is a choice. Of course acting on sexual urges is a choice but the point is that they don't choose to have those urges, I've never had sexual urges for another man, maybe you're suppressing yours.
I can't believe in the 21st century there are still those that believe being gay is a choice.
GB
A question I have asked in the presence of a few Scientists.
The answer was this.
In laymen's terms
The same way all life came to being a very long process of things coming together
at a point in time to then come together with other things to form the events that
we recognise as life.
The odds of actually being born if you consider the number of eggs and Sperm that
just live and then die without fertilization is billions to 1.
The odds of being YOU are Quadrillions to one.
Place time no choice---it just happens.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/infographic-the-odds-of-being-alive-2012-6?r=US&IR=T
The last thing one of them said I found profound.
"When you realise how impossible it is to experience life
you should seriously consider how you live it!"
Here's a good question to ponder. It sort of relates to the adoption issue which I still can't figure out.
Did you choose your own parents? (hint: the answer is 'no'). So what process made that decision?
Yes I like that sentiment, in the sense that it generates feelings of gratitude for just being here. But I'm not sure how easy that would be for the child born in a rubbish tip, abandoned to die within its first year. Because stuff like that happens, as you know.
Yes I like that sentiment, in the sense that it generates feelings of gratitude for just being here.
Life certainly does "just happen", and the more I learn about it, the more ignorant I feel. The big questions remain unanswered. Life is a total mystery.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?