Homosexual marriage II

[hectorberlioz]

Well I have a problem with you Gwai, and it's this: You Haven't cleaned your PM box!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

It is, in fact, shorter, at least when spoken.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

O.K., so that meant - what, exactly? Rolling on the floor laughing over here, with that mega hard-core overdose of pseudo- and real-intellecectualism just shoveled in my face. Augustine? Aquinas? Sophistry? EPICTETUS??? Please, so superior you are my dear with your superior ancient greek references, we all feel meekly humbled to be in the presence of someone so well read - and even knowledged in Latin!! Oh, bow, bow, bow low to someone much more highly and extensively educated thatn you, dear lower-person... Gwaimir, your knowledge of Greek history and the name-dropping thereof does absolutely nothing to either furthur or retard this ongoing Homosexual Marriage debate. I am JUST saying. Think about it.

Why laugh? I think you should be glad that Mooters are well-read. What a great opportunity for us all to learn from each other! If you're not familiar with something, then look it up and learn! I know that I've learned a lot from members here, and have read some things that I otherwise would not have come across, and I hope I've been able to help others learn from my areas of expertise/experience, too. This board is a great resource and a wonderful place to learn about many things!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Well I have a problem with you Gwai, and it's this: You Haven't cleaned your PM box!

All right already, ya spammer.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

It is, in fact, shorter, at least when spoken.

Hmm. Maybe. Tough to say.

[hectorberlioz]

Not to excuse anything, but even "Nigger", at least it seems to be the case, was not always used in a demeaning way. Chesterton, old cow that he is now, used it, and you certainly can't pin him up as a racist.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Hmm. Maybe. Tough to say.

Balderdash. One syllable vs. two. 'Nuff said.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm advocating banning homosexual marriage, and by giving homosexual relationships marital status, the government is essentially saying that the activity is fine, even though they have no evidence that that is true.

1. No its not. The government is simply allowing homosexuals free access to the SAME privilege we all have. Its simply being constitutionally consistent. It is NOT making any particular statement about gay marriage at all. It is saying there is no reason to arbitrarily restrict something to a minority. It isn’t ENDORSING the usefulness of said thing. That’s not its job.
2. They have ample evidence of homosexual relationships if that’s such an issue for you. The concept that a marriage license will suddenly make a homosexual relationship something vastly and dangerously different is a joke. So your evidence is there. Thousands of years of it. Go out and get it if you like but stop restricting others from having what you can have and then covering your eyes and saying theres no data.

It's illegal to publicize that cigarettes are healthy. That is comparable to saying that homosexuality is fine, and that's what you'd be doing if you gave it marriage status.

No… That’s a fault analogy. The correct analogy would be the government allows its citizens to smoke DESPITE the fact that its been shown to be bad for you. That’s not an endorsement of smoking or a statement of its good health. It simply allows its own citizens to make that choice themselves… Meanwhile you refuse to give homosexuals that choice. So you are being inconsistent in your application. You are picking on homosexuals in particular.

Same answer as above: because this involves the government saying that the activity is fine.

And same response: No it doesn’t. See above. And find me somewhere in government legalize where it states SMOKING IS FINE. Ill bet you don’t find it. What you will find is SMOKING IS NOT ILLEGAL.

If the government said that driving without your seatbelt on was fine, in spite of statistical evidence, I'd have a big problem with that too.

Ah! But it did for years and years and years until recently WHEN THE LAWS WERE CHANGED based on evidence (and insurance lobbies). So why not work it in this same way as well. Clearly not using seat belts is much more dangerous then marrying… So why not allow gay marriage UNTIL you can show that its horribly dangerous to marry…

I think that there should be a sound reason to change the law, if we are going to.

But what about those places that don’t define marriage as between a man and a women? There are still states that don’t. and what about the whole push for constitutional amendments BANNING gay marriage in particular? That’s “changing the law� Lief. Better get yourself a “sound reason� to before you do it. Or is it ok the other way?

Again, that's what studies would determine.

Hey wait a minute. Don’t try to duck the question and turn it around on me. You said “the laws we give them might not be suited to their kind of relationships�. I want to know specifically which laws you are referring to. If you don’t want to name any or cant then withdraw that as part of your argument.

I am saying that we make laws based upon genetic differences, and this is an evidence I drew on to prove that point.

But we don’t make laws against marrying “apes� based SIMPLY on the genetics of the ape… We make laws about animals based on the fact that animals cant give consent and are not intellectually like us enough to comprehend what marriage/sex means exactly. The harm that can arise from this is NOT because they are an ape but because WE are humans and humans can seek to exploit others to their benefit. Adult homosexuals ARE capable of giving consent and understanding what it means to get married and have sex and because of that we should allow it. Not ban it because they happen to be two women or two men. The point is there BOTH HUMAN.

I've been through that before just a few posts ago, if that, and I provided evidence to back my case. Post 123.

Where? Where does it say anything backing up your notion that allowing gay marriage is “tinkering with biology and genetics blindfolded�. This is nonsense. All you said above is that male and female brains are different and that we need tests because the genetics are different. You said that over and over without giving details unless I missed them somewhere. So again please tell me how gay marriage is tinkering with biology and genetics exactly.

But of course we're allowed to outlaw lifestyles from other countries because we don't deem them proper.

Really? That’s all it takes? So if it doesn’t follow your strict definition of “proper lifestyles� then we should make it illegal? We shouldn’t allow ANY variation on the one single theme within our society? No matriarchal families? No single parent families? But wait we already allow them. So if we allow them despite the fact that they aren’t standard and traditional “proper lifestyles� (or “gender roles�) why is it we CANT allow gay marriage based on the same reasoning?

When you use the word "proper," that again implies morality, which means you again are assuming I'm just talking about my personal moral views and nothing else. When have I once mentioned morality in this thread as a reason for not going for homosexual marriage?

Lief your beliefs have been made quite clear regarding homosexuality and its moral implications long long before this particular instance of the debate. Everyone here knows you believe homosexuality to be immoral so to suddenly declare you have never said any such thing is highly disingenuous and smacks of stealth which up to this point has never been one of your characteristics…

If being Christian was proven to be “harmful� (perhaps in a persecution/throw them to the lions kind of way) in our society would you then logically maintain the same argument that we shouldn’t allow anyone to be Christian because it was harmful? Or would you fight for the opposite despite the fact that it was harmful? Clearly your moral leanings would not allow you to follow your logic in that kind of scenario. So why put up this mock indignation when we speak of morality on this issue exactly?

I resent your typecasting me like this.

Typecasting you like what? Someone who holds that morality is important and can effect the fabric of society and lead to harm when its ignored? Oh gosh… sorry…

There is enough evidence about biology to show that the races are very, very similar and genetics is no big difference between the two.

Tests! Show me the tests that PROVE this! That’s my point. You cant scream about tests for one thing and ignore everything else. You need to be consistent lief. You can have wide genetic variation between any given two people on earth. Yet you say that’s fine as long as they are male and female. But show me the tests PROVING that’s fine! Because if your argument is genetic variation should allow us to bar marriage between two humans then youll need to show just where that bar exists. Not arbitrarily assume its at the male/female point.

There is also enough evidence right now to show that there is a very large genetic difference between men and women.

No. Just a difference. The term “very large� isn’t a scientific measurement. Youll have to justify why you wish to use this arbitrarily (and conveniently) as your measuring point before you can use it against people.

And as for women voting, there is already plenty of evidence that they do just as well as men in the classroom, or possibly even better. So you don't need any more studies there- you already have them.

Where? Where are these studies? Ive never seen any. And don’t tell me the “studies� are how women do in the classroom… What a ridiculous cop out. If you are going to insist that gays cant marry until they show all sorts of formal studies about how gay marriage is ok (which is a catch 22 by the way as you well know…) then youll need to also hold females to the same extreme. Im assuming you are aware of hundreds of studies done around the turn of the century showing that females are competent enough to do things like vote and have bank accounts and such and THAT’S why it was finally allowed? But its funny when I look I find none… In fact I find the very opposite. I find dozens of studies attempting to show that females are NOT capable of doing such things (they think with their uterus after all! The poor dears).

The truth of the matter is that the right to vote was given to females because, no matter how we tried to justify it, banning women from voting just didn’t fly constitutionally. So whether its harmful or not OUR government allowed it because constitutionally it was the fair and right thing to do… Just as they should with gay marriage.

In both those cases, studies have already been done and the cases are proven.

Again, show me…

In the case of homosexuality, there is a very good reason to doubt that it is the same as heterosexuality in terms of the relationship kind, and there is no strong evidence available yet as to what kind of a relationship it is, exactly. It is understudied.

Theres plenty of evidence as to what “homosexual relationships exactly are� just not a ton of evidence on homosexual MARRIGES. So its an awful convenient point of argument to use if you really don’t want gay marriages: gay marriage might be lethal! We need to ban it! Not its not. Prove it! Show me the tests showing its not lethal! Well we don’t allow gay marriage so how can we? Exactly! Because its HARMFUL! And until they can prove its not we will continue not to allow it!!

It's one example indicating differences between the genders, and that is near the crux of this issue.

It’s a single incident example and therefore almost entirely useless.

I can't follow the logical connection. There seems no connection at all, here, that I can see. Would you explain it to me?

In some countries women are not allowed to watch certain types of movies because they think they cant or shouldn’t be exposed to such things. In some countries women are not allowed to hold certain jobs or get an education or show themselves in public because they think that it is harmful to them and the society at large. So according to your argument that banning gays from marrying should be based on the genetic differences between men and women then the logical conclusion is we should also ban women from certain things because they are different from men.

Actually, there have been problems noted with women in office that seem to spread throughout the gender. Most women are nurturing and most men aggressive.

Tell it to Margaret Thatcher. Ha! And frankly I think we could use our fair share of “nuturing� in government. We might not be in the various messes we find ourselves in today…

Jeanet Rankin, the first woman elected to Congress, is one example. She voted against US involvement in both World Wars. But that's only part of the problem.

Being against war is a problem? You realize of course that a lot more men voted against partaking in wars then females right?

By designed, I meant genetically designed, genetically encoded to succeed. I didn't mean "both."

So you feel gods design of human beings isn’t relevant to this topic whatsoever then?

Marriage laws have never been between "two adults," in the US, except in recent times in Massachusetts. They have been between men and women.

That’s incorrect. There ARE states where that distinction was never mentioned. Those states have since hustled to try to put that language into their constitutions and/or CREATE an amendment outright BANNING gay marriage as a rule.

If you think the law should be changed, show that it should be changed.

I turn the question on you. In those states where they don’t specifically spell out marriage being between a man and a women would show that they SHOULDN’T allow gay marriage.

I do think someone should prove it either way! I think that they should do that before making a potential major gaff that could hurt large numbers of people, both among homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Well lets start with the whole women voting thing first. That’s about 100 years behind at this point. Then we can worry about banning those wiley gays from doing the same stuff we can do.

I know that there have been matriarchal and patriarchal societies (the latter of which is much more common). In some cases, homosexuality has been accepted in societies. That has never been the norm, though, but rather the exception. In most societies and cultures, homosexuality was not accepted.

And this is your argument that homosexual marriage shouldn’t be allowed? Because it appears in nature but not enough to your liking? What is the statistical cut off point then?

We have Negro Congressmen, IR.

Ha ha! Yes and we even have injuns in congress too! You sound like you are living in the 50’s Lief. Talking like this just undermines your other arguments so bad because it makes you seem completely out of touch.

Now its nice that you acknowledge BLACKS are now in congress (they were in the 1800’s by the way but that didn’t stop whites from creating laws BANNING them from being elected officials because they argued they werent competent enough to be…) and that that’s evidence enough that they are competent enough to hold these positions. So why aren’t CURRENT homosexual relationships evidence enough to show that THEY can work too? I don’t understand why you continue to ignore that when you allow it in every other instance.

[captain carrot]

blimey, not another 5,000 word post-

whatever happened to the art of brevity?

anyway - which part of the eternal circle is the debate currently at then? - and has anyone here actually changed their position any?

please answer in less then 50- words - i dare you!

[Lief Erikson]

Here's my 50 word answer, Butterbeer: No.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Balderdash. One syllable vs. two. 'Nuff said.

I was making a pun . Oh well- so much for that.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Ha ha! Yes and we even have injuns in congress too! You sound like you are living in the 50’s Lief. Talking like this just undermines your other arguments so bad because it makes you seem completely out of touch.

Would you guys just stop it with the "negro" thing? IRex used it FIRST, then Lief QUOTED it and used the SAME WORD to actually refute the sarcastic comment/joke IRex was making. ENOUGH already!

*goes back to unpacking*

[Insidious Rex]

When the heck did I use it first! Please show me EXACTLY where I "used that first" before you make such accusations in support of Lief.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Would you guys just stop it with the "negro" thing?

No. No, absolutely not, I will not ever stop reminding racist or bigoted people of the terrible wrongness of their narrow-minded attitude, which is so horribly destructive to human beings. It is wrong, and when wrongs are committed, even unwittingly, they need to be addressed, not politely swept under rugs and pooh-poohed away. Ignorance is where bigotry comes from, not stupidity. Ignorance can be healed, and bigotry can be stopped. It can be done. It takes people stepping up and educating the ignorant, and widening the narrow-minded a little to let some light in.

Lief's usage of "Negro" to describe black people is really wrong, and if he's unaware of the reasons why his use of Negro in this way, with the attitude he has, is so wrong, then how will he ever know to change? How will anyone in this world know to change if those of us who see a wrong being done, do not rise up and say something about it, or do something to help that wrong stop?

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

IRex used it FIRST, then Lief QUOTED it and used the SAME WORD

Originally Posted by LiefErickson

Race is a minimal genetic difference- there is no big difference between a Negro and a Caucasian. It's mainly just skin color. That's tiny. Who cares?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And who are you to declare such a thing? do you have TEST to prove this… Im afraid we’ll need tests before we can allow them negros to be amarryin any of them fine caucasions.

The difference is enormous. i. Rex was being sarcastic, Lief, however, means it. Lief shows himself to be genuine in his thinking that there is nothing wrong with referring to black people as "Negroes." I. Rex is genuine in showing how utterly ridiculously wrong it is to refer to black people as "Negroes," by using the word in a sarcastic way in a post directed to Lief in a conversation.Doesn't take a genius, Rian, doesn't take a genius...

[Lief Erikson]

Lotesse, if you really want to keep this going, would you please respond to post 135?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

When the heck did I use it first! Please show me EXACTLY where I "used that first" before you make such accusations in support of Lief.

Last line of post 128.

[Insidious Rex]

Which was in response to YOUR statement on post 123 of: "Race is a minimal genetic difference- there is no big difference between a Negro and a Caucasian. It's mainly just skin color. That's tiny. Who cares?"

So not so fast...

And by the way I didnt necessarily have a problem with this initial use given its context. I just thought it was amusing so I responded in kind. Strange how I end up getting all the blame...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

1. No its not. The government is simply allowing homosexuals free access to the SAME privilege we all have. Its simply being constitutionally consistent. It is NOT making any particular statement about gay marriage at all. It is saying there is no reason to arbitrarily restrict something to a minority. It isn’t ENDORSING the usefulness of said thing. That’s not its job.

Originally Posted by "Essentials of American Government" textbook

The Supreme Court also appears to affect public opinion. Political scientists have found that the Court's initial rulings on controversial issues such as abortion or capital punishment positively influence public opinion in the direction of the Court's opinion. However, this research further finds that subsequent decisions have little effect.

So when a law is made, often the people think that the action is therefore valid. That will be especially true when you're extending the laws of an honorable institution like marriage.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

2. They have ample evidence of homosexual relationships if that’s such an issue for you. The concept that a marriage license will suddenly make a homosexual relationship something vastly and dangerously different is a joke. So your evidence is there. Thousands of years of it. Go out and get it if you like but stop restricting others from having what you can have and then covering your eyes and saying theres no data.

No, they don't have ample evidence about homosexual relationships, according to the psychiatric branch. I have already produced a citation demonstrating that.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

No… That’s a fault analogy. The correct analogy would be the government allows its citizens to smoke DESPITE the fact that its been shown to be bad for you.

That is like our allowing homosexuality in spite of it being bad for you. Allowing homosexuality isn't really affirming it, just like allowing cigarettes isn't affirming them. But saying it's good by allowing it to be defined as marriage is another matter.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Ah! But it did for years and years and years until recently WHEN THE LAWS WERE CHANGED based on evidence (and insurance lobbies). So why not work it in this same way as well. Clearly not using seat belts is much more dangerous then marrying… So why not allow gay marriage UNTIL you can show that its horribly dangerous to marry…

That's what we are already doing by allowing homosexuality. There is a lack of evidence concerning it, so we allow it. But we don't go and say it's fine, which is what we'd be doing if we gave it marriage status.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But what about those places that don’t define marriage as between a man and a women? There are still states that don’t. and what about the whole push for constitutional amendments BANNING gay marriage in particular? That’s “changing the law� Lief. Better get yourself a “sound reason� to before you do it. Or is it ok the other way?

In those places also, the law as it currently is written and has always been interpreted, except now in Massachusets, doesn't allow homosexuals to marry. So you're still changing the law.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Hey wait a minute. Don’t try to duck the question and turn it around on me. You said “the laws we give them might not be suited to their kind of relationships�. I want to know specifically which laws you are referring to. If you don’t want to name any or cant then withdraw that as part of your argument.

There is good reason to believe, because men and women are genetically different, that the relationships between men and women will be significantly different than those between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. That means that different laws might be necessary, and we need to find out. It's all really very simple. I don't need to tell you what kinds of laws.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But we don’t make laws against marrying “apes� based SIMPLY on the genetics of the ape… We make laws about animals based on the fact that animals cant give consent and are not intellectually like us enough to comprehend what marriage/sex means exactly.

Those differences stem from the difference in genetics. And when you say not SIMPLY on the genetics of the ape, you admit that genetics is still a factor, which also makes my point.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Where? Where does it say anything backing up your notion that allowing gay marriage is “tinkering with biology and genetics blindfolded�. This is nonsense. All you said above is that male and female brains are different and that we need tests because the genetics are different. You said that over and over without giving details unless I missed them somewhere. So again please tell me how gay marriage is tinkering with biology and genetics exactly.

That's what I already did right there . I told you. But I'll repeat it again:

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There is good reason to believe, because men and women are genetically different, that the relationships between men and women will be significantly different than those between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. That means that different laws might be necessary, and we need to find out.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Really? That’s all it takes? So if it doesn’t follow your strict definition of “proper lifestyles� then we should make it illegal? We shouldn’t allow ANY variation on the one single theme within our society? No matriarchal families? No single parent families? But wait we already allow them. So if we allow them despite the fact that they aren’t standard and traditional “proper lifestyles� (or “gender roles�) why is it we CANT allow gay marriage based on the same reasoning?

Single parenthood issues are about child-care, not marriage laws. You'd be taking a child away from a parent by denying it. That's a whole different issue. I don't approve of single people being allowed to adopt children that aren't their own, though.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Lief your beliefs have been made quite clear regarding homosexuality and its moral implications long long before this particular instance of the debate. Everyone here knows you believe homosexuality to be immoral so to suddenly declare you have never said any such thing is highly disingenuous and smacks of stealth which up to this point has never been one of your characteristics…

In this most recent debate of the last few days, I haven't said any such thing. I do believe that homosexuality is immoral, but that personal view has nothing to do with the arguments I am currently presenting. People here, and particularly you, keep trying to force morality and religion into my arguments to discredit them. Hence, I am showing taking some trouble to show you that the arguments I am presenting are not religious. That's not being slippery or anything else- it's just trying to show that my three arguments against homosexuals being allowed to marry are not religious arguments.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

If being Christian was proven to be “harmful� (perhaps in a persecution/throw them to the lions kind of way) in our society would you then logically maintain the same argument that we shouldn’t allow anyone to be Christian because it was harmful? Or would you fight for the opposite despite the fact that it was harmful? Clearly your moral leanings would not allow you to follow your logic in that kind of scenario. So why put up this mock indignation when we speak of morality on this issue exactly?

If it was clear that my actions as a Christian were harmful to society, and not harmful only to myself, then yes, I would say that they should be banned.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Typecasting you like what? Someone who holds that morality is important and can effect the fabric of society and lead to harm when its ignored? Oh gosh… sorry…

I think that you've been typecasting me as someone whose arguments on this matter are all just religion.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Tests! Show me the tests that PROVE this! That’s my point. You cant scream about tests for one thing and ignore everything else. You need to be consistent lief. You can have wide genetic variation between any given two people on earth. Yet you say that’s fine as long as they are male and female. But show me the tests PROVING that’s fine! Because if your argument is genetic variation should allow us to bar marriage between two humans then youll need to show just where that bar exists. Not arbitrarily assume its at the male/female point.

There is clearly a significant genetic difference between men and women. The differences between people of different races are negligible. Again, all you have to do is sit them down in a classroom together in a racially diverse country like the US and see how they score. Simple solution. There is a wealth of evidence available.

And no, I'm not going to go digging around for tests on the subject .

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

No. Just a difference. The term “very large� isn’t a scientific measurement. Youll have to justify why you wish to use this arbitrarily (and conveniently) as your measuring point before you can use it against people.

I've already explained this to you. Biology impacts in a major way what people's behavior will be, how they will behave, and there's no way people can overcome their biological make-up. They will be who they are genetically encoded to be. Biology is going to be a major influence in any relationship, as it is a major part of what creates people's personalities and natures, and its impact as regards marriage is easy to see across cultures and civilizations, with few exceptions to certain general rules of how it works.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Where? Where are these studies? Ive never seen any. And don’t tell me the “studies� are how women do in the classroom… What a ridiculous cop out.

My point in mentioning class scores is just to point out how easy it is to prove the equality of the genders on many levels of education and different positions they might hold. So on many issues such as that, there is an abundance of information easily available proving the validity of most current laws and freedoms women hold. Same is true for men, and this goes for people of different races too. There's an abundance of information easily available proving equal ability.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

The truth of the matter is that the right to vote was given to females because, no matter how we tried to justify it, banning women from voting just didn’t fly constitutionally. So whether its harmful or not OUR government allowed it because constitutionally it was the fair and right thing to do… Just as they should with gay marriage.

Saying something is fine to society whether it's harmful or not is immoral. Note that this is the first time in my recent arguments that I am making an argument about morality, but this is it. It is immoral for the government to say something is fine without having any reason to think it is. And we don't, with homosexual relationships. We do with women's right to vote, with race and all the other things you mentioned. That is a crucial difference.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Theres plenty of evidence as to what “homosexual relationships exactly are�

Not according to the psychiatric branch, as I have already demonstrated with a citation.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

just not a ton of evidence on homosexual MARRIGES.

I don't think we'd necessarily need to have a ton of evidence about homosexual marriages, per say. Though there are countries in Europe which currently allow it, so we could get a lot of valuable information from those. But we would need to have a lot more information than we presently do about homosexual relationships and how they interact with society.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

It’s a single incident example and therefore almost entirely useless.

Oh yes, as evidence I agree. But those kinds of stereotypes are visible everywhere. So much so that genres of formula fiction have been invented for men and others for women, and a vast host of books have been written for helping men and women in their differences. I already posted a link to an article from the book of a psychotherapist about those differences.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

In some countries women are not allowed to watch certain types of movies because they think they cant or shouldn’t be exposed to such things. In some countries women are not allowed to hold certain jobs or get an education or show themselves in public because they think that it is harmful to them and the society at large. So according to your argument that banning gays from marrying should be based on the genetic differences between men and women then the logical conclusion is we should also ban women from certain things because they are different from men.

This is the Slippery Slope fallacy. If this thing is allowed, then all these other things will inevitably happen. That's just absurd. There can be genuine, good reasons for not permitting one thing because of the biology involved, but for allowing other things that are clearly less harmful or not harmful at all. As I've already pointed out, we already take biology into account in some of our laws. Has forbidding pedophelia (which we object to, largely because of the biology involved) mean that because we forbid some things because it's harmful mean we have to forbid a million other things?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So you feel gods design of human beings isn’t relevant to this topic whatsoever then?

No, it's probably relevant to the topic. Not relevant to my argument, though, in a way that relies upon God to be valid.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

That’s incorrect. There ARE states where that distinction was never mentioned. Those states have since hustled to try to put that language into their constitutions and/or CREATE an amendment outright BANNING gay marriage as a rule.

Yeah, because that distinction was always assumed until now.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And this is your argument that homosexual marriage shouldn’t be allowed? Because it appears in nature but not enough to your liking? What is the statistical cut off point then?

I'd leave that to experienced biologists.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Now its nice that you acknowledge BLACKS are now in congress (they were in the 1800’s by the way but that didn’t stop whites from creating laws BANNING them from being elected officials because they argued they werent competent enough to be…) and that that’s evidence enough that they are competent enough to hold these positions.

Legally, people can just decide what they want and make laws without anything to support them but prejudice. That has happened before, and that's what I think is happening right now when people try getting homosexual marriage established without any data that shows it's the least bit safe or workable.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So why aren’t CURRENT homosexual relationships evidence enough to show that THEY can work too? I don’t understand why you continue to ignore that when you allow it in every other instance.

They could be evidence enough, if we did some real studies on them and gathered more information, and analyzed it, and came to that conclusion. There isn't yet enough knowledge on the subject. We should get it, and then yes, comparisons between CURRENT homosexual relationships and heterosexual ones would be enough evidence to support our government taking a supportive position on homosexual rights.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Despite the emollience of attitudes towards homosexuality and acceptance of it in some societies, in psychology it is considered an 'understudied relationship'. In his book Understudied Relationships, social psychologist S.W. Duck found that most mainstream research is predisposed towards studying only heterosexuality, in terms of relationships in contemporary Western cultures, implying that same-sex relationships are neglected and ignored by the majority of psychologists. More research since the 1990s has focused on homosexual relationships. [citation needed]

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Which was in response to YOUR statement on post 123 of: "Race is a minimal genetic difference- there is no big difference between a Negro and a Caucasian. It's mainly just skin color. That's tiny. Who cares?"

So not so fast...

And by the way I didnt necessarily have a problem with this initial use given its context. I just thought it was amusing so I responded in kind. Strange how I end up getting all the blame...

Fair point. I didn't notice that.

I don't think "Negro" has ever been a racist word. As I pointed out before, Lyndon B. Johnson used it all the time while arguing for the Civil Rights Act. It used to be used all the time in America, even by blacks, and there was never any racist connotation.

For the last time, I only used it because "African American" is too longwinded, and in my opinion, it actually suggests difference between blacks and whites more than just saying "black," "white," or "Negro."

I'll just use "black" now though, since I only used "Negro" because it was a shorter word, and "black" is just as short, and saying "Negro" plainly causes a ruccus.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

When the heck did I use it first! Please show me EXACTLY where I "used that first" before you make such accusations in support of Lief.

Oh, I'm sorry Rexy - I didn't see Lief's other usage. I just saw your post with the sarcastic/joke use of it, and then Lief's use of it quoting your post and using the same word. My bad

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Fair point. I didn't notice that.

I don't think "Negro" has ever been a racist word. As I pointed out before, Lyndon B. Johnson used it all the time while arguing for the Civil Rights Act. It used to be used all the time in America, even by blacks, and there was never any racist connotation.

For the last time, I only used it because "African American" is too longwinded, and in my opinion, it actually suggests difference between blacks and whites more than just saying "black," "white," or "Negro."

I'll just use "black" now though, since I only used "Negro" because it was a shorter word, and "black" is just as short, and saying "Negro" plainly causes a ruccus.

I have a great idea, Lief - you doubtless come into contact with black people there on campus where you go to school, right? Why not bring the subject up with a few of them? Why not ask one or two black co-students what they feel about non-black people referring to the african-american populace as Negroes? Just ask a few people, I'm dead serious. See what they tell you about how they feel about being called a Negro by non-black folk, like Lyndon B friggin' Johnson used to do. It could be a little social survey for you. You might get a little healthy enlightenment.