bingo

No it doesn't. It sounds like an argument against discrimination toward a group of people who are not provided the equality they are entitled to under the Constitution. And yes, our laws evolve as we as a society evolves. That is how it should be. So why don't you hop on board and evolve along with it? Inclusion of same sex couples in the legal institution of marriage is following the Constitution. Churches are free and would remain free to decide their feelings about it and make it's own choices.

What about zoophiles? You're slipping up.

Right. They don't. Homosexuality, zoophilia, and pedo would be illogical from a natural point of view regardless of whether a society accepts them. And depending on the time period, they all have had some level of acceptance. Which evolutionary constructs includes homosexuality as normal but not the other two. I'd like to see that.

Differences between blacks as whites yup. But wouldn't that be the same between whites and any other race as well? See when you do that, you are making white people look like freaks. Since they are proclaiming to be different than any other race. Obviously that's not necessarily the case. There no specific quality that makes white people the "master race" of the planet. Especially when "race" can be bred out like a breed of dog. Most of the world is mongrel. Unfortunately for the homosexual, there are obvious other human defects yet only two genders and an obvious sexual orientation that the only two genders should orient. Race and homosexuality are in no way alike and any comparison is specious.

There is no proven genetic support for homosexuality yet. There are studies across a couple species that indicate it might be prenatal hormone related. Which would explain the differences in gay twins.

Such as???

Very true. That's why I don't use "society" as my standard for deeming homosexuality aberrant.

Nice paragraph. But it goes nowhere to explain why a human or any other species would be gay. It just rationalizes it compared to other f'd up behavior. The problem with that is that we are looking a "behavior". Who know "why" a bonobo has sex with their young, who knows why tigers eat cubs, who knows why dolphins screw each other in the blowhole. But with humans we can look at ourselves and see that having sex children, other species, and same gendered is a bit off as it relates to our evolved bodies. Some humans "choose" to have alternative sexual activities. But homosexuals claim to have the innate partnering urge pointed toward their same gender. That's f'd up. One thing about human intelligent is the ability to look at things and see that they are illogical. And to MANY people, looking at same gendered sexual activity is f'd up along the same lines as the other mentioned sexual deviant urges.

It has a LONG and storied human history.

That's not what I'm saying. You'll do better just addressing the point as you understand it instead of telling me what I'm thinking.

Nothing has been illuminated yet since there is nothing to illuminate. Scientists don't have a clue. And since negative research on homosexuality gets scientists in trouble the same way negative racial research does, if the answer paints homosexuality in a negative light, I don't see the anything useful coming out any time soon.

But telling me that you have somehow "illuminated" something is the same bullshit as the "circular argument" and "I've shown proof" is. And those have been shown to be lies as well. WTF ever.

LOL. I figured we'd just keep it between those two for now for simplicity. At least they involve humans.

The constitution say nothing about homosexuals.

I don't just "jump on board" bullshit just because it's convenient. That brought us slavery and Jim Crow and white people only being able to marry other white people. Obviously that "society" bullshit needs something else to put it's back to than just the whims of society.

fxashun;

the ones you have been shown and consistenty ignore.

false

there is much more than that, which you would know if you bothered to get informed.

i refer you to the original post in this thread. again.

you don't use any of the available evidence either, you use prejudice.

society is too variable across time and place for the details of any one society to be used as a standard (other than the prehistorical societies that shaped our evolution, but this is impossible to study directly). but the very fact that we are a social species with evolved social structures is not variable, and something you are ignoring. again.

true

true

false.

by this argument, you are either not human or not intelligent.

to MANY people, women are inferior, evolution is a grand atheist cospiracy, noahs ark has been found and the holocaust never happened.

see what happens when you listen to people who do not look at evidence? lots of people believing it often means lots of people are ignorant.

you're not thinking. you're ranting.

false

false

you really have fallen for the religious right propaganda, havent you? some grand conspiracy of the "gay agenda" to take over the world, right?

lots of useful stuff has come out. it shows you are wrong.

when?

i suggest a new signature for you. how about "i'm arrogant, ignorant, stupid and narrow minded"

i can't comment on the handsome. send a photo.

You haven't shown anything that says a human is supposed to be gay though. This is just more of the same bullshit. I study of gay relationships doesn't do anything but study am f' up situation and report on it. You can do the same thing with retardation. If the "studies" were THAT ground breaking, there would be more than just an entry in a medical journal.


Why?

If it were that much more, you'd be delighted to report it. Instead all we have is a bunch of one line answers and Nuh uh's. Bullshit.

And I refer you to my first post.

No prejudice. Just stating the obvious. Homosexuality is aberrant. Humans aren't supposed to be homosexual and the unions shouldn't be called a marriage. That's not prejudice. That's just stating facts as I see them. There is no evidence that has been presented to change my mind.

Social structures aren't what I am talking about. Physiological structures is what I am talking about. Humans have evolved all kinds of changes to do what they NEED to do, other species as well. NOTHING has evolved ANYTHING indicating homosexuality. It's just something that happens. I'm not ignoring anything, it's just not there.

Why?

Why? How does the ability to look at a situation and deem it f'd up not make me human? Sounds like more bullshit. Personal bullshit now. The next stage of your sides bullshit when they run out of crap to say.

I'm no talking "many people", I'm talking about the whole human species. Even of homosexuality is accepted socially, it would still be aberrant. Just because Iran kills homosexuals doesn't mean that THEIR homosexuals are different than others, it's just that THAT society REALLY hates homosexuals. I'm only saying the union shouldn't be called a "marriage" because same sex unions are a human aberration. "Society" doesn't figure in my argument.

No evidence though. Just rationalizing.

If I had a dollar.

Why?

Why?

Not really. Have you seen the reaction to anything remotely negative about the homosexual community. The staph infection reports from not so long ago for example. Again, maybe you ought to stick with my points and not tell me what I'm thinking.

Such as? You said nothing there.

I have yet to see anyone show where my argument was circular. Even though it's been alleged more than a couple time. Your "illuminating" information that most members of the forum have no access to is worthless. Stuff like that.

Typical. The referenced quote hasn't been my signature for almost a week.
My photo is on this site in the member photo area. And curiously Tristan downloaded another one that I posted for a while to post on other web site. Spooky. Maybe you guys can trade.

here we go again,

fxashun

there are more than just entries in journals. they are described in textbooks in numerous disciplines, available on numerous websites and other publically accessable sources and they have changed the position of almost every medical professional and every medical organisation in the world over the last 35 years.

but somehow, none of this matters as much as your uninformed opinion.

um, did you miss the 40 references posted earlier?

your arguments are not circular, they are completely motionless.

you feel able to describe something you have never read as worthless? and you feel confident to say that those who have read it, studied it in detail and understood it, are all wrong?

way beyond your memory span, is it?