Homosexual marriage is legal

Jun 27, 2013 | Posted by: Joe DeCaro | Full story: www.examiner.com

In a 5-4 decision, which, did not surprise anyone, the Supreme Court demonstrated once again that the federal high court is willing to impose by judicial edict what the voters of the individual States in the majority of States have refused to do: allow the marriage of homosexuals ...

Comments (Page 31)

Showing posts 601 - 620 of2,468
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#710
Jul 8, 2013
 
Seeker wrote:
Again Darling, this simply is alluding to the environment of the family hierarchy and how that contributes to the choice of victims, it does not allude to a biological source of pedophilia
Seeker

Billerica, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#711
Jul 8, 2013
 
"Sweetie, you simply don't have the right to vote in second-class citizenry."

So in short, "sweetie", the people in the APA simply don't have the right to vote in second-class citizenry. And it's so funny that a person who has been treated as a second class citizen is so quick to call another person a second class citizen. How interesting.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#712
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Seeker wrote:
"Results suggest that fraternal birth order (or the underlying variable it represents) may prove the first identified universal factor in homosexual development. Results also argue against a previous explanation of the high prevalence of homosexuality in pedophiles (25% in this study), namely, that the factors that determine sexual preference in pedophiles are different from those that determine sexual preference in men attracted to adults. An alternative explanation in terms of canalization of development is suggested."

It would definitely help you to actually read and comprehend what you provide as links honey. This one is really quite embarrassing for you.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#713
Jul 8, 2013
 
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
http://borngay.procon.org/view.answers.php...
The American Psychiatric Association, a nonprofit medical organization, wrote the following information in a May 2002 article titled "Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Fact Sheet," published on its website Psych.org :
"No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual."
The American Psychological Association, considered to be the largest association of psychologists worldwide, wrote the following information on its website APA.org (accessed Jan. 30, 2009):
"There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people."
That's pretty much what I have been saying all along. The "I was born that way" has not been proven at all.
And what I have been saying is A. that there has not been ANY environmental factors that have demonstrated a statistical likelihood, B. in the absence of dominant environmental causes it is logical to posit the real likelihood of biological imperatives as the most probable cause that are initiated environmentally, but that these imperatives represent a dominant biological trait. So exactly WHAT IS IT that I'm saying that conflicts with the APA?

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#714
Jul 8, 2013
 
Seeker wrote:
"Sweetie, you simply don't have the right to vote in second-class citizenry."
So in short, "sweetie", the people in the APA simply don't have the right to vote in second-class citizenry. And it's so funny that a person who has been treated as a second class citizen is so quick to call another person a second class citizen. How interesting.
So far this is the most baffling thing you've said to date.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#715
Jul 8, 2013
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>"Results suggest that fraternal birth order (or the underlying variable it represents) may prove the first identified universal factor in homosexual development. Results also argue against a previous explanation of the high prevalence of homosexuality in pedophiles (25% in this study), namely, that the factors that determine sexual preference in pedophiles are different from those that determine sexual preference in men attracted to adults. An alternative explanation in terms of canalization of development is suggested."
It would definitely help you to actually read and comprehend what you provide as links honey. This one is really quite embarrassing for you.
Honey Child, Mama's going to leave this one to you- I have the feeling that the only way to make this one understand is to dress up in a chicken suit and sing it in a jingle while spelling it out with big alphabet blocks.
Seeker

Billerica, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#716
Jul 8, 2013
 
RubyTheDyke wrote:
<quoted text>
And what I have been saying is A. that there has not been ANY environmental factors that have demonstrated a statistical likelihood, B. in the absence of dominant environmental causes it is logical to posit the real likelihood of biological imperatives as the most probable cause that are initiated environmentally, but that these imperatives represent a dominant biological trait. So exactly WHAT IS IT that I'm saying that conflicts with the APA?
This:
most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#717
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
This:
most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age.
..."biological imperatives that are initiated environmentally"...
Seeker

Billerica, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#718
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RubyTheDyke wrote:
<quoted text>
..."biological imperatives that are initiated environmentally"...
It doesn't say that it this part.

"complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age."

Where does it say that it is shaped strictly via genetics or even strictly in the womb? It says no such thing and is exactly what I think as well. Just like pretty much anything in nature, it is always an immensely complex interaction of many factors. Now maybe YOU need to don the chicken suit, not me. You were the one that decided upon insults, not me.
Seeker

Billerica, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#719
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

RubyTheDyke wrote:
<quoted text>
..."biological imperatives that are initiated environmentally"...
Interaction does not mean biological "imperatives" that are initiated at all. In what universe do you think it does? And it even clearly says that these things are formulated at a young age as says nothing about the womb. If it meant womb, it would have clearly stated such.
Subsequent

Kansas City, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#720
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Rallying wrote:
There's no such thing as "homosexuality". Those who claim otherwise are either parasites of society or just plain retards.
I agree.
There is only perverts or non-perverts.

And most perverts seem to waste their lousy life here on topix.
Seeker

Billerica, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#721
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
But see, the difference is that gay folks are attracted to adults, like straight folks are. The the SAME attraction - adults. The only difference is the plumbing.
You are trying to prove that straight and gay folks being attracted to adults is just as "screwed up" as someone being attracted to children - something they can NEVER act on without harming a child.
So, yeah, that would be pretty darn messed up, to have an innate attraction that, by it's very nature, must always be denied, because failure to deny it will always cause harm to innocent children.
With gay people, as with straight people, we are fortunate enough that if we act on our attractions with other consenting adults, NO ONE IS HARMED.
Can't you grasp that?
Sure I can. Look, pedophilia is weird, just like homosexuality, and molestation is bad or even criminal because it harms the psychology of a child. I am fully against molestation of any form. But this is a modern notion and a social issue more than anything. But as far as what nature says, the moment a women menstruates, nature is saying it's time to have a baby, whether a given society dictates or approves of that or not. So while it is abhorrent to modern culture, it's actually more natural than homosexuality. It's not too difficult to figure out that the penis was made to fit the vajayjay. It couldn't be any more obvious and is probably one of the most basic and elemental aspects of natural design itself. And when this kind of sex occurs, both sides are receiving sexual stimulation simultaneously, hence making for a bonding and shared experience. And the reason that nature made this lock and key relationship so stimulating for both is so that people would do it and therefore reproduce, which seems to be all that nature really cares about.

When both sides are not simultaneously being stimulated, that's the first sign that something unnatural is going on. Then, if the wrong hole needs to be used to stimulate one partner while the other partner is not being stimulated, that's the second sign. Then, for example, if women have to use double sided fake penises to simultaneously stimulate each other, that's a third and whopping sign that something unnatural is going on. If you have to use tools or special props to have simultaneous sexual stimulation, then obviously something unnatural is going on. Something not designed by nature because nature designed how two people should receive simultaneous sexual stimulation.

So from a sociological point of view, pedophilia is much much worse. But from a natural point of view, homosexuality is. And then, when you have man on boy molestation, that just goes off the charts sociologically AND naturally as well.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#722
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't say that it this part.
"complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age."
Where does it say that it is shaped strictly via genetics or even strictly in the womb? It says no such thing and is exactly what I think as well. Just like pretty much anything in nature, it is always an immensely complex interaction of many factors. Now maybe YOU need to don the chicken suit, not me. You were the one that decided upon insults, not me.

Then explain to me how two different children of the same can be exposed to the same environmental factors and end up having two different sexual orientations, especially, again, when there has never at any time been an environmental condition/set of factors in common with homosexual people that has statically demonstrated a greater potential to produce that homosexual person without there being a biological determinant in place that inherently produced a dominant potential for that person to be homosexual when that environmental conditions revealed and shaped the erotic template for in the first place? Nothing is being said precludes prenatal traits to pick up one set of sexual cues over another, simply that there is a complex interaction between innate potential and the environment that can initiate these traits or not, can mitigate the degree, can define erotic parameters-cluck,cluck bukaaaa

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#723
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Subsequent wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
There is only perverts or non-perverts.
And most perverts seem to waste their lousy life here on topix.
And here you are
Isabeau D Anjou

Anjou, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#724
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

The Fabulous Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
How did you get internet service in your cave?
By paying for it.
And it's in a cottage on the lake shore.

You are too stupid to be alive.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#725
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

RubyTheDyke wrote:
Honey Child, Mama's going to leave this one to you- I have the feeling that the only way to make this one understand is to dress up in a chicken suit and sing it in a jingle while spelling it out with big alphabet blocks.
I wouldn't even bet on that. He/she/it doesn't like to discuss things with me anymore anyways, because I have this unfortunate habit of helping them look foolish.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#726
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure I can. Look, pedophilia is weird, just like homosexuality, and molestation is bad or even criminal because it harms the psychology of a child. I am fully against molestation of any form. But this is a modern notion and a social issue more than anything. But as far as what nature says, the moment a women menstruates, nature is saying it's time to have a baby, whether a given society dictates or approves of that or not. So while it is abhorrent to modern culture, it's actually more natural than homosexuality. It's not too difficult to figure out that the penis was made to fit the vajayjay. It couldn't be any more obvious and is probably one of the most basic and elemental aspects of natural design itself. And when this kind of sex occurs, both sides are receiving sexual stimulation simultaneously, hence making for a bonding and shared experience. And the reason that nature made this lock and key relationship so stimulating for both is so that people would do it and therefore reproduce, which seems to be all that nature really cares about.
When both sides are not simultaneously being stimulated, that's the first sign that something unnatural is going on. Then, if the wrong hole needs to be used to stimulate one partner while the other partner is not being stimulated, that's the second sign. Then, for example, if women have to use double sided fake penises to simultaneously stimulate each other, that's a third and whopping sign that something unnatural is going on. If you have to use tools or special props to have simultaneous sexual stimulation, then obviously something unnatural is going on. Something not designed by nature because nature designed how two people should receive simultaneous sexual stimulation.
So from a sociological point of view, pedophilia is much much worse. But from a natural point of view, homosexuality is. And then, when you have man on boy molestation, that just goes off the charts sociologically AND naturally as well.
First, the word is V A G I N A, second, nature has produced sexuality in the human species that serves other purposes besides procreation, third you know nothing about intimate relationships between gay couples to actually qualify to comment on their legitimacy, fourth you don't know the broad spectrum of human existence and the conditions throughout its history to say unequivocally that the constant presence of a certain percentage of gay individuals do not represent a survival strategy nature keeps in trust against the condition under which it will be needed.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#727
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I wouldn't even bet on that. He/she/it doesn't like to discuss things with me anymore anyways, because I have this unfortunate habit of helping them look foolish.
Well Darling serve a pie in their face for me- I really can't continue this, schedule just doesn't allow for more than a brief visit to this intellectual slum and vector of bigot infection every once in awhile

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#728
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

RubyTheDyke wrote:
... I really can't continue this, schedule just doesn't allow for more than a brief visit to this intellectual slum and vector of bigot infection every once in awhile
But when you do go "sluming" here, you seem to just fit right in.
Seeker

Billerica, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#729
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

RubyTheDyke wrote:
<quoted text>
Then explain to me how two different children of the same can be exposed to the same environmental factors and end up having two different sexual orientations, especially, again, when there has never at any time been an environmental condition/set of factors in common with homosexual people that has statically demonstrated a greater potential to produce that homosexual person without there being a biological determinant in place that inherently produced a dominant potential for that person to be homosexual when that environmental conditions revealed and shaped the erotic template for in the first place? Nothing is being said precludes prenatal traits to pick up one set of sexual cues over another, simply that there is a complex interaction between innate potential and the environment that can initiate these traits or not, can mitigate the degree, can define erotic parameters-cluck,cluck bukaaaa
Actually, nothing has been conclusively demonstrated and all that I did is to quote what most scientists think at this point, and it doesn't match up with what you say. You provide you own conjecture and interestingly enough, it's what you would like to believe.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 601 - 620 of2,468
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

72 Users are viewing the Gay/Lesbian Forum right now

Search the Gay/Lesbian Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Southwestern Christian University Expels Studen... 7 min Christaliban 260
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 7 min Terra Firma 2,488
DOJ Set to Fight Gay-Marriage Bans in Supreme C... 10 min passing by 371
Chick-fil-A Vallejo Location Faces Opposition 10 min Christaliban 70
Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of Gay Marriage 13 min WasteWater 2,417
McDowell County, Spruce Pine support gay marria... (Apr '12) 13 min Rev Jay Vincent 123
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 14 min Poof1 51,967
CO Baker Found Guilty for Denying Gay Couple We... (Dec '13) 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 15,880
•••
•••