Changing Sexual Orientation Is Possible, New Research Says

[BlaznFattyz]

what are the exact arguments to deny and/or grant a civil union among homosexuals?

[wil]

Originally Posted by BlaznFattyz

what are the exact arguments to deny and/or grant a civil union among homosexuals?

one side says...why can't we have rights like everyone else...

the other side says...because we can't understand you...it's just ewey and isn't right....

sounds sarcastic....but I think that is actually what it boils down to....of course the areas that have it are already experiencing issues with the bane of marriage/civil unions today...divorce.

[BlaznFattyz]

do you think that marriages and everything that goes with it: taxes, education, children, etc., is an institution that is fairly voted on and won by the majority or those voted in office who have to deal with these issues of morality and law? if you are in disagreement with the way things are, what kind of government would you like to impose?

[wil]

Originally Posted by BlaznFattyz

do you think that marriages and everything that goes with it: taxes, education, children, etc., is an institution that is fairly voted on and won by the majority or those voted in office who have to deal with these issues of morality and law? if you are in disagreement with the way things are, what kind of government would you like to impose?

Either I'm very tired or your statements need rewording.

I didn't know marriage was voted on. Taxes for married people increase, I know of no specific education bennies that married folks get. Children happen in and out of marriage.

I live in a country, the US which evolves not by changing government, but by the government eventually bowing to the will of the people or the needs of society. I am not expecting this gov't to change anytime soon...that is as long as laws and enforcement of same continue to change as we grow in consciousness.

Of course if they don't change....they will be changed and the gov't we get will be anarchy or marshall law...until we come to our senses.

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by wil

Either I'm very tired or your statements need rewording.

I didn't know marriage was voted on. Taxes for married people increase, I know of no specific education bennies that married folks get. Children happen in and out of marriage.

I live in a country, the US which evolves not by changing government, but by the government eventually bowing to the will of the people or the needs of society. I am not expecting this gov't to change anytime soon...that is as long as laws and enforcement of same continue to change as we grow in consciousness.

Of course if they don't change....they will be changed and the gov't we get will be anarchy or marshall law...until we come to our senses.

Marriage (heterosexual, homosexual), Abortion (pro-choice, pro-life) is voted on. Education is an institution that requires students to generate income thru tuition, housing, books,and eventually jobs. Homosexual unions cannot procreate so they cannot contribute to the economic stability of our social institutions. so maybe it isnt always religion and discrimination, but socio-economics and politics.

[bob x]

People who are unable to procreate, or just don't want to, marry all the time.
The US does not allow everything to be decided by majority vote: the issue of whether a minority should be allowed to have the same rights as the majority is not one that is appropriately left up to the majority.

[wil]

Originally Posted by BlaznFattyz

Marriage (heterosexual, homosexual), Abortion (pro-choice, pro-life) is voted on. Education is an institution that requires students to generate income thru tuition, housing, books,and eventually jobs. Homosexual unions cannot procreate so they cannot contribute to the economic stability of our social institutions. so maybe it isnt always religion and discrimination, but socio-economics and politics.

So you are indicating which ever way the law or votes go you will comply and no longer have an issue on either of these??

Let's see homosexuals do not contribute because they don't have offspring?? I'd like to see that stat. And who exactly is it that fights homosexuals from adopting, whereby they would be reducing the burden of unwanted children on society? Are you not aware that many homosexuals, due to stigma of the past, have children and grandchildren?? Yes in the past in order to 'fit in' they married, had kids, and lived lives they were forced into....they eventually live their own lives...and in retirement those darn non-contributing homosexuals...have already procreated....phooey...and they created heterosexuals of all things.

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by bob x

People who are unable to procreate, or just don't want to, marry all the time.

right, but generally speaking they have the ability, and like china, can be very good at it.

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by wil

So you are indicating which ever way the law or votes go you will comply and no longer have an issue on either of these??...Let's see homosexuals do not contribute because they don't have offspring??

not at all, that is the right of the people to disagree or make better the issues of society. in the context of what i was saying, they do not contribute--they cannot have children. therefore, all the institutions that require the procreation of the species to survive would all have to vote heterosexual marriage in self-interest.

[bob x]

People who are unable to procreate, or just don't want to, marry all the time.
right, but generally speaking they have the ability

Not always. In particular, women who are too old to have children are nonetheless allowed to get married.

all the institutions that require the procreation of the species to survive would all have to vote heterosexual marriage in self-interest

Nobody is asking for heterosexual marriage to be abolished, or interfered with in any way.

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by bob x

Not always. In particular, women who are too old to have children are nonetheless allowed to get married

but in relation to society as a whole, "not always" is a very weak argument, because married heterosexual couples do procreate... look around, you are not alone. so if the majority are people that believe in marriage and family, and institutions need people in order to survive, then laws will most likely favor those that have the most say and can invest human capital in the future of mankind.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Pathless

Holy ****, Q!! Now you are making me take greymare's advice. Deep breaths, deep breaths.

DO NOT DESERVE ANYTHING?? You really are a bigot.

That said, I'm sure you are not the only parent who dislikes what their children are being taught in public school. You have a short temper, and are more willing to physically (and from what I've seen on this forum for several years, verbally or type-writtenly) throw your weight around than some, and for whatever reasons, you feel entitled to do so. Apparently you are also unwilling to share the same privileges that you feel entitled to. When someone challenges you, you respond with a temper tantrum. Hey, I can sympathize with that. I get upset too and throw temper tantrums.



All you are saying here is that you are upset that challenges are being made to the status quo. Beyond that, if you expand your point-of-view outside of white Judeo-Christian Western values, you will be confronted with the fact that it has not been the way it's been forever.



Social suicide?? Hardly. Equal rights is social suicide, is that what you are telling us? Furthermore, are you telling us all that equal rights is social suicide because it will bankrupt insurance companies? Who gives a DAMN about insurance companies, Q, when we are talking about basic human rights? It comes down to a question of values. Do we value people more, or business? Human rights or profits? Equality or economy?

Didn't someone somewhere in American history have the audacity to claim that all "men" (which we have by now expanded to also include women, at least in theory ) are created equal? How then is it wrong to give people equal rights in marriage, regardless of sexual orientation?

Just as well that I stick to my particular job, and my little house in the woods, far far from the bustling "society" of diversity to the extreme. I would fit anyway.

v/r

Q

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by wil

First casualty in Iraq, a homosexual soldier...served his country, died for his country....thought you'd be proud...too bad his partner doesn't deserve the same pittance any other surviving spouse would get...

You do need to take a breath...you are on the side of racism and segregation pre '60's, the tide is turning...all people deserve respect, and soon all partners will get the same benefits...insurance and otherwise.

The conspiracy that says it will kill the insurance companies, horse pucky...that is homophobia pure and simple....lets see, most businesses pay for the employee...and then the employee pays extra for spouse or more for spouse and family...and the insurance company still has the rights to reject people and pre-existing conditions...insurance companies always make out...like the casinos with their odds makers..they have actuaries...

And you need to get your facts straight (no pun intended). His "partner" did get his pittance, because that is who he delegated his life insurance benefits to...all $400,000.00

And I am proud of the soldier (could care less about his orientation).

v/r

Q

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Quahom ... in the words of the Fonz -- SIT ON IT!!!

Now I would just say -- S*** My M* F* D* ...

- but I know you'd just love to.

So I'll keep it in Happy Days language.

Nevertheless, you ARE a C-S ...

And response to this ... F U, Q.
I care about the rest of the world, but if you drop of the face of it, I won't lose sleep over it.

No thanks...

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by bob x

People who are unable to procreate, or just don't want to, marry all the time.
The US does not allow everything to be decided by majority vote: the issue of whether a minority should be allowed to have the same rights as the majority is not one that is appropriately left up to the majority.

Ah yes, . . . you mean . . . the Judiciary, Supreme Court?

I guess then it wouldn't depend on the majority of the population, but the judges appointed to make the decision . . . and their beliefs.

I suppose that if you can't trust the majority, you can't trust the judges . . . you can't trust the Armed Forces, I suppose you can't trust anyone in power. What have I left out out of those who run the country? There's the Legislature, the Executive branch, the Judiciary, the Security Forces -- military (armed forces) and civilian (law-enforcement and crime fighting).

. . . except perhaps for powerful millionaires, billionaires and trillionaires, capitalists and people holding large sums of money. They don't make the rules or enforce them . . . but . . . they've got the power.