- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 36,913
- Reaction score
- 11,285
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Pedophilia was also accepted. Game, set and match.
Homosexuality is not considered a paraphilia by scientists anymore. Fail.
The word comes from the Greek: παιδοφιλία (paidophilia): παῖς (pais), "child" and φιλία (philia), "friendship". Paidophilia was coined by Greek poets either as a substitute for "paiderastia" (pederasty),[22] or vice versa.
No they don'tYeah they do
The founders instituted democratic elections with state's rights. California voted on gay marriage and it was shot down. If there is anything illegal in the bill they should have dealt with it before the election. It was nothing but a shot at legalizing it through the voters, and when that didn't work they had to take plan B and legislate from the bench.We're a democratic republic, not a democracy - the way our Founders wanted it.
It affects everyone living in the state of California. This does affect the voters because it essentially means that their votes and opinions mean absolutely nothing. The voted to prevent gay marriage, reversing this absolutely affects the voters and strips them of their right to vote on this issue.That's a right they shouldn't have had, since this does not affect the people as a whole. Therefore I'm all for the Supreme court overturning it. I don't believe in referendum unless the law directly affects the voters.
And how dare the secular/socially liberal world impose their morals upon us and say "deal with it." Who is imposing morals upon others in this case? Through a democratic process California voted on gay marriage, the majority voted to prevent it. Reversing this decision is imposing secular morals upon an entire state of people who democratically voted to prevent gay marriage. This is a prime example of imposing morals upon others and ignoring the democratic process.How dare the religious morons vote against something just because they don't like it.
If this is overturned it's a disgrace to this country and a defeat of individual liberty. It's a disgrace to the country because it means democracy was defeating and an imposing group has legislated their morals from the bench. It's a defeat of individual liberty because it means individuals have no voting rights when it comes to social issues. It means that even though individuals voted and the majority voted in favor of preventing gay marriage, that their votes don't matter. It strips an individual of their voting rights and essentially says "your opinion doesn't matter because it's not what we want."If it's not overturned, it's a discrace to this country and a defeat of individual liberty. Go ahead and overturn it, and show these Christo-fascist who impose fascim descretely by legal means that the American people have had enough of there elitist, unpatriotic bullcrap.
Actually, pedophilia was not accepted by the greeks. Pederasty was accepted by the Greeks and even then it was only during a short period of their history.
And no one here has even entertained thoughts of pedophilia except, well, you at this point. What does that say?
Two things. One, what the law calls it is irrelevant. You can't equate legality with morality. They are not the same. Two, don't attempt to define my world. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. On my side, several hundred million years of evolution. I can be tolerant, but I don't need sexual perversity shoved down my throat.
I dunno. Give me a hint. That pedophilia is okay because homosexuality is okay? Yeah, those Greeks really knew a thing or two.
That's not what anyone said in this thread. True to form with your type, you are starting to break down into grunts and growls rather than maintaining any sense of rationality in your discussion.
To your credit, you crossed that line much quicker than most, though.
This case is about what the law calls it, so it is very relevant to the discussion.
I am not attempting to define your anything. I am simply pointing out that what you call it is irrelevant to the big picture, which is the law. You show a lack of understanding of evolution, as homosexuality can be accounted for by evolution.
When you stop having the same biological sexual reaction that straight people have we can discuss your claims of "I was born this way"
When you can prove to me that all of your sexual attractions, sexual desires and sexual preferences are conscious choices, then we can discuss how sexuality is a choice too.
Sorry, I'm not the one who wants to change the law. The burden is on you.
Burden is on me for what? I'm not the one claiming that heterosexuality is a choice.
neither am I
I'm assuming you meant homosexuality. See if you want to change the law you need a basis beyond personal preference. Where is that when it comes to homosexuality?
I'm talking about social impact. You're talking about the law. Are you a lawyer? What is your legal argument then? Why are you trying to narrow this discussion to something utterly trivial?
You may be able to "account for homosexuality by evolution" (go ahead and try) but again, without straight sex the human race would come to an abrupt end, whereas homosexuality contributes nothing and obviously wants all the benefits of marriage.
No, I meant heterosexuality. If you are claiming we consciously choose who we are attracted to, that means everyone. If sexuality is a choice, then that means heterosexuality too.
And no, I need no basis beyond personal preference. I need only a basis of equality for all legal, adult citizens.
Does that mean adult sisters and brothers can marry as well?
Two things. One, what the law calls it is irrelevant. You can't equate legality with morality.
They are not the same. Two, don't attempt to define my world. Your opinion is just that, an opinion.
On my side, several hundred million years of evolution.
I can be tolerant, but I don't need sexual perversity shoved down my throat.
Did you know that only 7% of the people in the world are left handed? Does that mean they choose to be?No it doesn't. How about actually addressing the argument I made on the boilogical sexual reaction in people?
Do you also think its just a coincidence that over 90% of the world is heterosexual? Seriously?
We don't allow people who aren't adults to enter into legal contracts.And who told you that adults are the only ones allowed for this preference?
I have no issue with that personally, but it's beside the point. It actually *can* be demonstrated that children of siblings have a higher risk of genetic abnormalities. Can you demonstrate anything negative at all related to me signing a legal contract with another woman?Does that mean adult sisters and brothers can marry as well?
Just kills you that homosexuality has no proven facutal basis in being anything more than a choice doesn't it?
Gay men have no different biological sexual reaction than straight men yet you want us to accept on belief that there is a genetic link to homosexuality despite any evidence in science in even a majority of homosexuals?
Heterosexuality is the only method for natural procreation.
The biological sexual reaction is designed specifically for procreation.
Our bodies react specifically to sexual stimuli to prepare for procreation.
So you've figured out you can get your jollies by going to another hole and that justifies a genetic link? Could you be a little more ridiculous?
No one is running around claiming blow jobs are genetic. :rofl
When you stop having the same biological sexual reaction that straight people have we can discuss your claims of "I was born this way"
Until then we can let the people to continue to vote down homosexual marriage.
neither am I
I'm assuming you meant homosexuality. See if you want to change the law you need a basis beyond personal preference. Where is that when it comes to homosexuality?
Just kills you that homosexuality has no proven facutal basis in being anything more than a choice doesn't it?
Gay men have no different biological sexual reaction than straight men yet you want us to accept on belief that there is a genetic link to homosexuality despite any evidence in science in even a majority of homosexuals?
Heterosexuality is the only method for natural procreation.
The biological sexual reaction is designed specifically for procreation.
Our bodies react specifically to sexual stimuli to prepare for procreation.
So you've figured out you can get your jollies by going to another hole and that justifies a genetic link? Could you be a little more ridiculous?
No one is running around claiming blow jobs are genetic. :rofl
When you stop having the same biological sexual reaction that straight people have we can discuss your claims of "I was born this way"
Until then we can let the people to continue to vote down homosexual marriage.
Sorry, I'm not the one who wants to change the law. The burden is on you.
No it doesn't. How about actually addressing the argument I made on the boilogical sexual reaction in people?
Do you also think its just a coincidence that over 90% of the world is heterosexual? Seriously?
And who told you that adults are the only ones allowed for this preference?
Does that mean adult sisters and brothers can marry as well?
Do you think it's a coincidence that the vast majority of folks are right handed? You keep digging yourself deeper everytime you post on this issue, tex.
To answer why homosexuality exists we must first identify it. "Homosexuality" has two principle meanings which are distinct but related. Homosexuality is sexual activity between two individuals of the same gender. This includes same-sex coitus or genital contact, whether ventro-ventral, dorso-ventral, or otherwise and whether male-male or female-female.
Homosexuality is also the innate sexual preference for one's own gender or the biological urge for same-sex coitus. While much is said about the distinction between homosexual desires (or innate sex drive) and homosexual behavior in humans, this distinction is of limited or negligible significance in non-human populations in which we infer "desire" (be it instinctive or learned) primarily from behavior. The distinctive gulf between human desire/biological impulse and behavior (Marmor, 1980) is attributed to human social mores and cultural constraints (Dickemann, 1993), which epigenetic forces can also be accounted for with biological/evolutionary explanations (Alcock, 1984, pp. 522 & 524).
In summary, homosexuality is both the biological drive for same-sex coitus as well as the performance of same-sex coitus. Homosexuality (as defined by both definitions) has been observed in both males and females in both human and non-human populations. While it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate innate urge from action in non-human animals, the distinction between these two definitions will be important later as we discuss possible evolutionary explanations for homosexuality.
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?