StarGateWars Forums

having gay parents wouldnt mean the child would turn out gay. although i would imagine that the chances would increase. id be quite sure statistics will back in this if i could find them easily.


marriage is between a man and a woman. throughout human history this has been so. it should not change. why break the traditions of many for a minority? they have their civil rights to do as the please. their rights should not be more important than those who believe marriage is a special thing between opposite sexes.

_willie_ wrote:Im going to have to disagree this could be a good thing as what doesn kill you makes you stronger. when i has in High school i was ridiculed for having very bad acne. when that happens it teaches a person how to take a blow to your ego and move on. currently I am out spoken and excel in almost everything i do. so like i said what ever doesn't kill you will make you stronger.

whole different thing mate. a physical issue can not be avoided as such. having two gay parents can be avoided. inflicting an avoidable thing on a child is morally wrong.

and to be honest, if i have a child and i can choose whether they have acne or not i would choose not. id not inflict something avoidable on a child just to give them character. theres a huge difference between overcoming a personal problem someone was born with, and having to live with a problem created.

THAT GUY wrote:If they can't adopt or marry can you explain how or when they would somehow not draw as much "attention"? They have to go through a painful insulting period, to grow as people and for everyone to grow as a society.

the 'when' isnt a period during their lives, it is a time in the future. being gay was illegal to relatively recently. progress was made for personal freedom. allowing adoption and marriage is pushing too far and too fast. pushing something for the sake of it is stupid. im from the UK and we are a christian country. it is remarkable that being gay is accepted here at all. im not religious but i believe homosexuals should chill out and be happy with what they have for a while.



@kma: dude if you sent them to the desert, where would all the pink umbrellas come from? the flaw in your plan



personally i dont like gays. i have 1 friend who was gay and thats about it. i met another gay person who was a friend of a friend. after learning he had sex with a priest my dislike grew. i once went to a gay bar for some chicks birthday party. i saw a dude licking another dudes neck. that was nasty and increased my dislike further, although this was swiftly countered by the abundance of lesbians.

my point? i tolerate something i find highly distasteful. if i can do this the gays can tolerate me. they can deal with my distaste and reluctance to discard traditions, my beliefs and the logic of my views.

to some who would say people such as myself who dislike gays are narrow minded i say this:
its my right to dislike them as much as it is their right to be as they are. simple as.

LiQuiD wrote:having gay parents wouldnt mean the child would turn out gay. although i would imagine that the chances would increase. id be quite sure statistics will back in this if i could find them easily.


marriage is between a man and a woman. throughout human history this has been so. it should not change. why break the traditions of many for a minority? they have their civil rights to do as the please. their rights should not be more important than those who believe marriage is a special thing between opposite sexes.

_willie_ wrote:Im going to have to disagree this could be a good thing as what doesn kill you makes you stronger. when i has in High school i was ridiculed for having very bad acne. when that happens it teaches a person how to take a blow to your ego and move on. currently I am out spoken and excel in almost everything i do. so like i said what ever doesn't kill you will make you stronger.

whole different thing mate. a physical issue can not be avoided as such. having two gay parents can be avoided. inflicting an avoidable thing on a child is morally wrong.

and to be honest, if i have a child and i can choose whether they have acne or not i would choose not. id not inflict something avoidable on a child just to give them character. theres a huge difference between overcoming a personal problem someone was born with, and having to live with a problem created.

THAT GUY wrote:If they can't adopt or marry can you explain how or when they would somehow not draw as much "attention"? They have to go through a painful insulting period, to grow as people and for everyone to grow as a society.

the 'when' isnt a period during their lives, it is a time in the future. being gay was illegal to relatively recently. progress was made for personal freedom. allowing adoption and marriage is pushing too far and too fast. pushing something for the sake of it is stupid. im from the UK and we are a christian country. it is remarkable that being gay is accepted here at all. im not religious but i believe homosexuals should chill out and be happy with what they have for a while.



@kma: dude if you sent them to the desert, where would all the pink umbrellas come from? the flaw in your plan



personally i dont like gays. i have 1 friend who was gay and thats about it. i met another gay person who was a friend of a friend. after learning he had sex with a priest my dislike grew. i once went to a gay bar for some chicks birthday party. i saw a dude licking another dudes neck. that was nasty and increased my dislike further, although this was swiftly countered by the abundance of lesbians.

my point? i tolerate something i find highly distasteful. if i can do this the gays can tolerate me. they can deal with my distaste and reluctance to discard traditions, my beliefs and the logic of my views.

to some who would say people such as myself who dislike gays are narrow minded i say this:
its my right to dislike them as much as it is their right to be as they are. simple as.

excellent post, i agree 101% with it, especially the last bit...


*runs away before he's seen in this topic again*

I dont have much time to ague. However, its said that, marriage is the union of two flesh. And Two men cannot unite in a one-flesh union.

[url=http://users.binary.net/polycarp/OneFlesh.html]Seen Here
[/url]
@Brdavs - I'll get to you on the innocence of the world or lack there of soon.
All in all, there needs to be screening of everything.

True you have the right to dislike and to hate and to carry resentment and to harbor anger and all that negativity against anyone you want but in the end you own that and can never really give it away. You can make the decision to be filled with all that ugliness its all about choice.

The predominant message I got from the bible and most any other religious writings was to love one another and Judge not ... So what I hear in your biblical argument is contradiction.

In regards to the adoption comments ... There are so many children in this world. They are starving , homeless , war torn , battered and abused. If there is any one , two, male , female or any combination of these on this planet willing and ready and prepared to show love , tenderness , provide shelter and food and a nurturing environment by choice and with commitment and determination who the heck are we to deny those children.

MajorLeeHurts wrote:True you have the right to dislike and to hate and to carry resentment and to harbor anger and all that negativity against anyone you want but in the end you own that and can never really give it away. You can make the decision to be filled with all that ugliness its all about choice.

The predominant message I got from the bible and most any other religious writings was to love one another and Judge not ... So what I hear in your biblical argument is contradiction.
.

IF thats is in reference to me.... then your mistaken.... for reasons I cant be stuffed explaining right now...

Its to everybody who is expressing hate and bashing in this thread about homosexuals and not discussing homosexual marriage, and hopefully to express some hope for anyone who may be homosexual reading this thread that not all of us feel the same way .

Thriller wrote:

Semper wrote:

Thriller wrote:The communities dumb arguments against gay marriage astound me. Your talking out of fear and not with your heads. "OH noes if the gayzz get mariued our soceiceitty wull fall apparts." Please... you have no evidence to support and your reasoning is severely flawed. THis is a legal issue, has nothing to do with warping and regressing societal values. You child turns out to be gay, It will have nothing to do with gay marriage. YOu really think not getting married is a deterrent to being gay. It isn't even in the ballpark. Their are legal advantages to being married, but I'm talking about the church idea marriage. Gays should be allowed to be common law spouses and their relationships should be recognized for what they are are not demonized by what they obviously are not. They should be entitled to the same rights under law as any heterosexual couple.

what? Who said any of that?

A child turns out gay? Has nothing to do with that. You go ahead and prove that, come on. Im going to LOVE this one.

Who said not allowing their marriage is meant to be a deterrent to actually being gay? They need a slap if they did put it so simply, but on top of that it could be, by a great length of extension just that because it is negative feedback. Humans are animals. Classical Conditioning.

It is not, within the real ideas of the church, allowed. This is one of the reasons the entire arc of faith has its haters, because it changes its colours when it should not.

Please, dont say we are posting out of fear and not with our heads. I think you have no idea, not a clue, what you were talking about in at least a third of what you just spewed into the topic.

You are a good guy but i don't expect someone of a lower intellect like yourself to understand.

That actually made me laugh, a very great deal. Oh how blind you are if you truly think that. I am much...MUCH...smarter than you. I would never say that unless I was very certain of it, which I am.

The arguments i have read against gay marriage consist of it being a determent to society, screw up our kids, or perversion of nature. They either fit in one or some combination of these categories. It all reeks of fear and homophobia.
right well... screw up your kids? Not fear, its what is right for another human being. I dont really believe in human rights at all, but I certainly dont think we should so readily throw a child into what can easily become a horribly influencing environment, that could cause further problems for the child. In a lot of cases a heterosexual couple could be even worse, I do not debate this. However, its difficult to determine what heterosexual couples will actually be a bad influence as readily and as obviously as seeing two men happily groping one another then walking off with a kid in a pram. Just because you cannot actively go after and find ways to predetermine one, does not mean you should not stop the other.

Perversion of nature? It IS NOT a perversion of nature. Animals do it all the time. This aspect of your argument I dont fully disagree with, however. You need to understand the standard ideas and facts in society are man+woman = baby = continuation of species = one of the most basic, natural instincts. Same sex couples, completely oriented towards one another goes against that. Ergo, it can very easily be seen as unnatural when things like material rights and the idea of love become involved, because then it does become unnatural as far as human understanding of knowledge goes. I would not say people are fearful of it, just protective as no one present in this thread has, as far as I know, actively sought out to not tolerate and abuse, or flee in the sign of a homosexual.

I dont think anyone has said homosexual marriage is a deterrent to society (if thats what you were saying). I think everyone here knows homosexual's are a massive part of society whether they like it or not. Fashion, music, clubs, general presence. They are all huge parts of the modern world, and all of the above are heavily influenced by the homosexual/camp aspects of society as much as they are the rest. They are society, a part of it. They could not deter it. So that really does not make sense to me, it seems like a very narrow minded thing to say. So if someone has said that then siwly biwlys they are!

What you are missing in arguments. The affect on faith and the church. Marriage is very much a religious idea, no matter where its origins and true definitions lie. Many people here have in fact said that homosexual couples should be allowed to have a civil partnership which gets them the same material rights as a married couple. In fact I think all but avenger have agreed to that, though I have not read the entire topic or all the post's on the pages I have read. You missed the fact that children learn a lot through observation.

All it really boils down to in the end is justice and it is just that a homozygous couple should be entitled to all the privileges under the law that a married on is.
A homozygous couple aye? So you're saying in this thread we are debating whether any couple with the same allele on a genetic level should be allowed to have the same rights as a married couple? Bad choice in word use....homozygous is a direct genetics term. However I am going to ignore it, well no I didn't...but I am going to ask/state then, I presume this means you believe being a homosexual is a genetic trait? Run and hide behind one of the most debated topics in the last fifty years...but probably one of the most intelligent things I have seen you post, as if you can get away with it, all of sudden the entire homo issues becomes one of a trait beyond peoples control and something they cannot and should not be hindered for in the oh so apparently just and moral society we are living in/developing for the future. However, at the same time, one could come back and say, well does this mean it is a genetic disease?

to finish this point though, like I said above. Im pretty certain most people if not all but one have agreed they should be allowed the rights, just not the real ceremony. I think you have thrown out a massive broad spectrum attack into this thread Thriller, but you fail to read that most people have actually been largely agreeing with you to separate degree's.

PS. I could conversely ask you for proof that allowing homosexuals to get married would turn a heterosexual into a homosexual. Their isn't a definable true answer to both, just opinion, it's just that mine is more informed.

@ Last comment. Firstly, conversely? Im pretty sure, nigh I am certain thats what we have all been doing through the entire thread, well we have not been speaking as much as typing, but then again the difference for the sake of simplicity is easy to ignore. Lol..you keep trying to use these uncommon words (at least on these forums...) yet either pointlessly, or just wrong.

Secondly, how intelligent of you. I offer the basis of a theory, which for the mainstay is common sense to informed people and that I need to work on in terms of using real sources (as I said in the post) and you just get my question and throw it back? Why did you just not write...

Thriller wrote:I cannot answer you because you actually have a good argument and I have only a basic understanding of whats going on, so I will just ask you what you asked me to look good, because I know your so much better.

would have saved you a little effort.

You are more informed? Pft? What? Are you actually being serious? Or just trying to wind me up and failing miserably?
No, you are not at all. Any of the more informed people on this forum than yourself (me being one of them, hands down easily as pie..) could tell you environment plays a massive, if not the pivotal role in developing a person. You may think genetics is the answer, but thats massively debated. It could easily be both, if not nurture. Like I said though, if it is Genetic, the entire condition could very well be a genetic disease or genetic disability when looked at against the majority of the rest of the world, which would be an exceedingly likely outcome. So if I were gay I would be praying it was environmental.

AND! On the very final note of my reply to Thriller. I never said a homosexual couple getting married could turn a heterosexual. I said, a homosexual couple that adopted (married or unmarried) could influence the child causing them to turn out gay (of course age would also be a factor). I also added as separate and equally as valid points... the further psychological implications of a child growing up with two dads and two mums could have unforseen effects, and I added that bullying at school is assured, which is totally unfair on the child. You could call that fear, I would just call it common sense to avoid a problem that could cause difficulties in more than one way. Wisdom for want of a better word.

Im interested to know. You keep either misreading and understanding my arguments, or you just dont read them at all and see exactly what you want, then come up with some dribble of a reply. *opens arms and shrugs*...

@ Liquid, though admittedly I did not read your entire post. Your last point at least was very good.

@ MLH. Like I said earlier...the bible says a lot of things, the faith and beyond do not practise today. That however has not changed the idea of marriage for most, yet.

As for the children. Well, I would like to agree with you, but I just see it as equally problematic. Either way the mind CAN be corrupted negatively in obvious ways we can prevent and foresee. If not cause equal amounts of physical abuse. Who the heck are all we? At this moment in time, 'powerless' bystanders.

ZOMG.. you didn't just say Semper is of a lower intellect as you, Thriller..
What are you, the rank 0 smartest guy in the world? 'cause otherwise, you don't stand a chance against us 99.9999th percentiles.. the funniest part; there's only under 6,000 of us.

Or that's what they told us when we were tested..

Lol semper, it's like enticing a cat with some string,

You are a good guy, but your ego is massive.

right well... screw up your kids? Not fear, its what is right for another human being. I dont really believe in human rights at all, but I certainly dont think we should so readily throw a child into what can easily become a horribly influencing environment, that could cause further problems for the child. In a lot of cases a heterosexual couple could be even worse, I do not debate this. However, its difficult to determine what heterosexual couples will actually be a bad influence as readily and as obviously as seeing two men happily groping one another then walking off with a kid in a pram. Just because you cannot actively go after and find ways to predetermine one, does not mean you should not stop the other.

Well your right that children learn through observation you just don't seem to know anything about isolating variables or social dynamics.

Perversion of nature? It IS NOT a perversion of nature. Animals do it all the time. This aspect of your argument I dont fully disagree with, however. You need to understand the standard ideas and facts in society are man+woman = baby = continuation of species = one of the most basic, natural instincts. Same sex couples, completely oriented towards one another goes against that. Ergo, it can very easily be seen as unnatural when things like material rights and the idea of love become involved, because then it does become unnatural as far as human understanding of knowledge goes. I would not say people are fearful of it, just protective as no one present in this thread has, as far as I know, actively sought out to not tolerate and abuse, or flee in the sign of a homosexual.

SO you agree with me on the nature topic. I already understood everything you wrote beforehand.

I dont think anyone has said homosexual marriage is a deterrent to society (if thats what you were saying). I think everyone here knows homosexual's are a massive part of society whether they like it or not. Fashion, music, clubs, general presence. They are all huge parts of the modern world, and all of the above are heavily influenced by the homosexual/camp aspects of society as much as they are the rest. They are society, a part of it. They could not deter it. So that really does not make sense to me, it seems like a very narrow minded thing to say. So if someone has said that then siwly biwlys they are!

I meant to write "detriment" to society. My mistake i should have proof read. I agree with what you wrote.

What you are missing in arguments. The affect on faith and the church. Marriage is very much a religious idea, no matter where its origins and true definitions lie. Many people here have in fact said that homosexual couples should be allowed to have a civil partnership which gets them the same material rights as a married couple. In fact I think all but avenger have agreed to that, though I have not read the entire topic or all the post's on the pages I have read. You missed the fact that children learn a lot through observation.

Sure, marriage has its roots in religion but that definition doesn't matter anymore since it also has been defined under law(secular). But, I'm glad if you agree that the couple should have the same rights under the law. This is my final stance on the subject and all that really matters.

That actually made me laugh, a very great deal. Oh how blind you are if you truly think that. I am much...MUCH...smarter than you. I would never say that unless I was very certain of it, which I

"much much smarter" ... this doesn't help your case. You hold a degree in what again? maybe a phd?
Are you wealthy?

A homozygous couple aye? So you're saying in this thread we are debating whether any couple with the same allele on a genetic level should be allowed to have the same rights as a married couple? Bad choice in word use....homozygous is a direct genetics term. However I am going to ignore it, well no I didn't...but I am going to ask/state then, I presume this means you believe being a homosexual is a genetic trait? Run and hide behind one of the most debated topics in the last fifty years...but probably one of the most intelligent things I have seen you post, as if you can get away with it, all of sudden the entire homo issues becomes one of a trait beyond peoples control and something they cannot and should not be hindered for in the oh so apparently just and moral society we are living in/developing for the future. However, at the same time, one could come back and say, well does this mean it is a genetic disease?

Homozygous is a perfect choice of words, If you know what it means. I actually don't think homosexuality is entirely genetic trait, but you don't understand what "genetic disease" is. Because the proper term is genetic disorder. Actually if homosexuality is a genetic trait or has a partial genetic cause, It would classify as a neutral mutation. It was nice of you to pick up on it and you inferred what i thought you were going to. And you even made my point for me; We don't understand what causes people to be attracted to the same sex.

@ Last comment. Firstly, conversely? Im pretty sure, nigh I am certain thats what we have all been doing through the entire thread, well we have not been speaking as much as typing, but then again the difference for the sake of simplicity is easy to ignore. Lol..you keep trying to use these uncommon words (at least on these forums...) yet either pointlessly, or just wrong.

Secondly, how intelligent of you. I offer the basis of a theory, which for the mainstay is common sense to informed people and that I need to work on in terms of using real sources (as I said in the post) and you just get my question and throw it back? Why did you just not write...

Thriller wrote:I cannot answer you because you actually have a good argument and I have only a basic understanding of whats going on, so I will just ask you what you asked me to look good, because I know your so much better.

would have saved you a little effort.

You are more informed? Pft? What? Are you actually being serious? Or just trying to wind me up and failing miserably?
No, you are not at all. Any of the more informed people on this forum than yourself (me being one of them, hands down easily as pie..) could tell you environment plays a massive, if not the pivotal role in developing a person. You may think genetics is the answer, but thats massively debated. It could easily be both, if not nurture. Like I said though, if it is Genetic, the entire condition could very well be a genetic disease or genetic disability when looked at against the majority of the rest of the world, which would be an exceedingly likely outcome. So if I were gay I would be praying it was environmental.

AND! On the very final note of my reply to Thriller. I never said a homosexual couple getting married could turn a heterosexual. I said, a homosexual couple that adopted (married or unmarried) could influence the child causing them to turn out gay (of course age would also be a factor). I also added as separate and equally as valid points... the further psychological implications of a child growing up with two dads and two mums could have unforseen effects, and I added that bullying at school is assured, which is totally unfair on the child. You could call that fear, I would just call it common sense to avoid a problem that could cause difficulties in more than one way. Wisdom for want of a better word.

Im interested to know. You keep either misreading and understanding my arguments, or you just dont read them at all and see exactly what you want, then come up with some dribble of a reply. *opens arms and shrugs*...

Then you go off an infer to much(grasping at straws) trying to show me how your more informed by telling me things i already understand believing i think all human behavior is genetically determined. (ego at work, I'm still waiting for you to bring to new info to my table)

Then make some very good connections about the importance of understanding the role parent's play in child development especially towards sexual preferences. But, you need to learn more about child psychology and the research going on. If you did, you would could see how the evidence leans strongly towards my point of view. But were not talking about adoption, just marriage. I was making a subtle point of the ridiculousness of how legalized gay marriage could have an impact upon the sexual orientation of heterosexual couples children.

Don't worry Semper, I always try keep an open frame of mind. Your condescending attitude is very amusing though, I wish you would formally debate me.

PS. don't put words in my mouth (you are still aren't picking up on all my subtleties)
Oh and,
conversely; reversed in order, relation, or action.

Universe wrote::lol: ZOMG.. you didn't just say Semper is of a lower intellect as you, Thriller..
What are you, the rank 0 smartest guy in the world? 'cause otherwise, you don't stand a chance against us 99.9999th percentiles.. the funniest part; there's only under 6,000 of us.

Or that's what they told us when we were tested..

I assume you are talking about some kind of IQ test or something, Did you take it online?

Thriller wrote:Lol semper, it's like enticing a cat with some string,

You are a good guy, but your ego is massive.

lol...yeah sure, whatever you say!

right well... screw up your kids? Not fear, its what is right for another human being. I dont really believe in human rights at all, but I certainly dont think we should so readily throw a child into what can easily become a horribly influencing environment, that could cause further problems for the child. In a lot of cases a heterosexual couple could be even worse, I do not debate this. However, its difficult to determine what heterosexual couples will actually be a bad influence as readily and as obviously as seeing two men happily groping one another then walking off with a kid in a pram. Just because you cannot actively go after and find ways to predetermine one, does not mean you should not stop the other.

Well your right that children learn through observation you just don't seem to know anything about isolating variables or social dynamics.

Isolating variables? Wowzer, thats an interesting one right there. Your telling me, I am going to make a massive presumption here, that you can, isolate a variable (duh...) to prevent the observations having an effect, or to stop homosexuality. Probably getting the wrong end of the stick there, now you have thrown it out there, give it to us.... I mean because if you are saying what I am randomly guessing, then I would looooooooove to see you do that on a large scale. But admittedly I could be wrong here....

Social Dynamics? Observational Learning IS a social dynamic. Just not in any numerical way. If memory serves, Social Dynamics is a large part of sociology, which relies heavily, as a subject, on social psychology and like everything else, I would not be surprised to see biology and philosophy in there.

Perversion of nature? It IS NOT a perversion of nature. Animals do it all the time. This aspect of your argument I dont fully disagree with, however. You need to understand the standard ideas and facts in society are man+woman = baby = continuation of species = one of the most basic, natural instincts. Same sex couples, completely oriented towards one another goes against that. Ergo, it can very easily be seen as unnatural when things like material rights and the idea of love become involved, because then it does become unnatural as far as human understanding of knowledge goes. I would not say people are fearful of it, just protective as no one present in this thread has, as far as I know, actively sought out to not tolerate and abuse, or flee in the sign of a homosexual.

SO you agree with me on the nature topic. I already understood everything you wrote beforehand.
[color=#2277DD] Only to a degree...

I dont think anyone has said homosexual marriage is a deterrent to society (if thats what you were saying). I think everyone here knows homosexual's are a massive part of society whether they like it or not. Fashion, music, clubs, general presence. They are all huge parts of the modern world, and all of the above are heavily influenced by the homosexual/camp aspects of society as much as they are the rest. They are society, a part of it. They could not deter it. So that really does not make sense to me, it seems like a very narrow minded thing to say. So if someone has said that then siwly biwlys they are!

I meant to write "detriment" to society. My mistake i should have proof read. I agree with what you wrote.
Fair enough...

What you are missing in arguments. The affect on faith and the church. Marriage is very much a religious idea, no matter where its origins and true definitions lie. Many people here have in fact said that homosexual couples should be allowed to have a civil partnership which gets them the same material rights as a married couple. In fact I think all but avenger have agreed to that, though I have not read the entire topic or all the post's on the pages I have read. You missed the fact that children learn a lot through observation.

Sure, marriage has its roots in religion but that definition doesn't matter anymore since it also has been defined under law(secular). But, I'm glad if you agree that the couple should have the same rights under the law. This is my final stance on the subject and all that really matters.

Indeed I do agree. The argument I have here is the means, not the ends.

That actually made me laugh, a very great deal. Oh how blind you are if you truly think that. I am much...MUCH...smarter than you. I would never say that unless I was very certain of it, which I

"much much smarter" ... this doesn't help your case. You hold a degree in what again? maybe a phd?
Are you wealthy?

This is a fatal error on your part. None of the above indicate whether I am smarter than you or not. You could have five degree's, maybe several more PHd's and be worth a couple hundred billion £ more than me, but I could very easily still be a smarter person. Who knows, you could have acquire all of the above off someone else's grace?

But, for the record. I am studying a degree in Psychology with Business Management, and I am 19 and at the moment in time, probs worth a lot of money I dont care to disclose to publically.

A homozygous couple aye? So you're saying in this thread we are debating whether any couple with the same allele on a genetic level should be allowed to have the same rights as a married couple? Bad choice in word use....homozygous is a direct genetics term. However I am going to ignore it, well no I didn't...but I am going to ask/state then, I presume this means you believe being a homosexual is a genetic trait? Run and hide behind one of the most debated topics in the last fifty years...but probably one of the most intelligent things I have seen you post, as if you can get away with it, all of sudden the entire homo issues becomes one of a trait beyond peoples control and something they cannot and should not be hindered for in the oh so apparently just and moral society we are living in/developing for the future. However, at the same time, one could come back and say, well does this mean it is a genetic disease?

Homozygous is a perfect choice of words, If you know what it means. I actually don't think homosexuality is entirely genetic trait, but you don't understand what "genetic disease" is. Because the proper term is genetic disorder. Actually if homosexuality is a genetic trait or has a partial genetic cause, It would classify as a neutral mutation. It was nice of you to pick up on it and you inferred what i thought you were going to. And you even made my point for me; We don't understand what causes people to be attracted to the same sex.

Its not the perfect choice of words though. It means two people with the same alelle (I cant spell that word too well lol, too many a's and l's) that could very well refer to thousands of married couples heterosexual or not.

Im not going to debate with you the meanings of a word, as in this instance you are wrong.

Then your arguing with me over political correctness? Genetic disorders were genetic diseases a few years back, or are you actually arguing over the meanings of words, in which case if it spreads is it not a disease? Like you pointed out in the same topic, we dont know what causes homosexuality... either way, disorder and disease are, actually nigh on the same word, one just sounds less 'evil' because of taboo's...

@ Last comment. Firstly, conversely? Im pretty sure, nigh I am certain thats what we have all been doing through the entire thread, well we have not been speaking as much as typing, but then again the difference for the sake of simplicity is easy to ignore. Lol..you keep trying to use these uncommon words (at least on these forums...) yet either pointlessly, or just wrong.

Secondly, how intelligent of you. I offer the basis of a theory, which for the mainstay is common sense to informed people and that I need to work on in terms of using real sources (as I said in the post) and you just get my question and throw it back? Why did you just not write...

Thriller wrote:I cannot answer you because you actually have a good argument and I have only a basic understanding of whats going on, so I will just ask you what you asked me to look good, because I know your so much better.

would have saved you a little effort.

You are more informed? Pft? What? Are you actually being serious? Or just trying to wind me up and failing miserably?
No, you are not at all. Any of the more informed people on this forum than yourself (me being one of them, hands down easily as pie..) could tell you environment plays a massive, if not the pivotal role in developing a person. You may think genetics is the answer, but thats massively debated. It could easily be both, if not nurture. Like I said though, if it is Genetic, the entire condition could very well be a genetic disease or genetic disability when looked at against the majority of the rest of the world, which would be an exceedingly likely outcome. So if I were gay I would be praying it was environmental.

AND! On the very final note of my reply to Thriller. I never said a homosexual couple getting married could turn a heterosexual. I said, a homosexual couple that adopted (married or unmarried) could influence the child causing them to turn out gay (of course age would also be a factor). I also added as separate and equally as valid points... the further psychological implications of a child growing up with two dads and two mums could have unforseen effects, and I added that bullying at school is assured, which is totally unfair on the child. You could call that fear, I would just call it common sense to avoid a problem that could cause difficulties in more than one way. Wisdom for want of a better word.

Im interested to know. You keep either misreading and understanding my arguments, or you just dont read them at all and see exactly what you want, then come up with some dribble of a reply. *opens arms and shrugs*...

Thriller wrote:Then you go off an infer to much(grasping at straws) trying to show me how your more informed by telling me things i already understand believing i think all human behavior is genetically determined. (ego at work, I'm still waiting for you to bring to new info to my table)

[color=#2277DD]I never grasp at straws, I just always reply to everything in an opponents post. You already understand it? Then why do you ignore it in your previous post? Because you dont believe it relevant? Why? Thats like making a mistake and saying you knew you were going wrong the whole time? NO? yes....

Thriller wrote:Then make some very good connections about the importance of understanding the role parent's play in child development especially towards sexual preferences. But, you need to learn more about child psychology and the research going on. If you did, you would could see how the evidence leans strongly towards my point of view. But were not talking about adoption, just marriage. I was making a subtle point of the ridiculousness of how legalized gay marriage could have an impact upon the sexual orientation of heterosexual couples children.

[color=#2277DD]Like I said, I did not say the latter part, I dont think anyone did. No one linked a homosexual couple getting married to the information about children, so pointing it out to begin with was....well..pointless, and considering you mention debates below, would actually lose you marks.

back to the child part. If you have access to all this apparent research and proof, please link me to it. If not to prove your point, then for my own personal interest. . Otherwise, I am still waiting for you to prove it, all the way from my initial reply to your first thread.

Thriller wrote:Don't worry Semper, I always try keep an open frame of mind. Your condescending attitude is very amusing though, I wish you would formally debate me.

I do love being condescending. Glad to know you have an open mind (im pretty certain I did not say you didnt, but your probably just passing comment or saying I did because you misread me again).

As for the formal debate, then enter the league. The final round is a debate against Universe and myself. If your good enough to get to the last round then you can have your chance. If you keep making all these mistakes though, unless you get lucky with opponents, you wont make it that far...

I add however, that final will depend on time available to myself and Universe, as we will need to do research for the debates, which in my life, and from what I know hers, could be troublesome.

Thriller wrote:PS. don't put words in my mouth (you are still aren't picking up on all my subtleties)

I have not put any words in your mouth, its the other way round actually, you keep putting them in mine every time we have these little heated discussions.

Thriller wrote:Oh and,
conversely; reversed in order, relation, or action.

Fair enough then, I was going off it being an extension of 'to converse'.



All in all Thriller, you have not really come back at anything I said with any strength. A lot of claims and weak come backs, but thats about it. If this were a formal debate, you would have just lost.

However, your arguments do seem to improve per comeback, so your next should hopefully be something worth reading by the end.

@your final comment to Lois. I have take five IQ test's I can remember. Two were online (about five years back...) One was through the British government very recently, one was a hand written mensa test, a long time ago again, and the final one was a recognised test I took at a dyslexia meeting thing (long story). I dont really buy into the whole IQ thing, but most do.

Again you miss the point Semper, shame. Focusing on the wrong things when i write and circling around the points I'm making.

You didn't even bother to look up isolating variables(important step when conducting research and drawing conclusions) or Social dynamics (studying the reason's and outcomes for social behavior).

I used "homo"zygous as a synonym, and to make a subtle point. And why are you arguing about the use of genetic disorder(wrong thing to focus on). It's the sentence after that should have drawn your attention.

I will take part in your debate and i will probably win, But remember if your a judge you have to try to be unbiased.

[color=#2277DD]I never grasp at straws, I just always reply to everything in an opponents post. You already understand it? Then why do you ignore it in your previous post? Because you dont believe it relevant? Why? Thats like making a mistake and saying you knew you were going wrong the whole time? NO? yes....

Yah i understand everything your saying, Nothing you say surprises me. Your reasoning is just flawed mostly because you don't know the material very well.

Only to a degree...

You don't have one

Like I said, I did not say the latter part, I dont think anyone did. No one linked a homosexual couple getting married to the information about children, so pointing it out to begin with was....well..pointless, and considering you mention debates below, would actually lose you marks.

Then why are people bringing up "it's wrong for the kids sake" arguments. I'm pointing out how they don't apply.

I am not a teacher and this isn't a formal debate just. I purposely don't provide sources and leave comments open ended to keep discussion going. My reasoning is solid though.

Art Faculty; OOOh, How do you have time to study and do anything else with your 18 hours of class a week?
-Lol a little inter faculty joking.

PS. I only went to three classes during psych 101 and passed with a 96 or 12 points(13 point grading system)

Thriller wrote:Again you miss the point Semper, shame. Focusing on the wrong things when i write and circling around the points I'm making.

You did it first? and generally very often... But you seem to be ok with that? A bit hippocritical...

Thriller wrote:You didn't even bother to look up isolating variables(important step when conducting research and drawing conclusions) or Social dynamics (studying the reason's and outcomes for social behavior).

I did look up isolating variables but I fail to see their relevance on such a scale here. We are not conduction research in this thread, and we are arguing with opinions and a loose use of factual knowledge (hence the still incomplete theory I have...) but as you wish to step it up a bit. Isolating a variable as far as I know, and as far as the very light research I just did indicates is a mathematical principle. There is no maths involved in this discussion, not on a direct level. If, as I think you are doing so, you are referring to it within an experimental terms then you identify the variables when planning the experiment. To use such variables in a discussion like this would mean going into each mentioned theory and breaking them down, something that has been done many many times, I am sure, over the long history of psychology, yet the theories are still largely used, as to are the conclusions their parent experiments came too. So to be honest you can use your fancy terms all you want, but im very happily going to say here your throwing a big pile of crap our way with that one.

As for social dynamics, yes I know what that is. I study social psychology and I came to a different conclusion to you using it, and I can comfortably say you can work as a lecturer, or have any and all degree's from any university under the sun, but you have shown me nothing to prove you know more about it than me. Just a lot of macho posturing.

Thriller wrote:I used "homo"zygous as a synonym, and to make a subtle point. And why are you arguing about the use of genetic disorder(wrong thing to focus on). It's the sentence after that should have drawn your attention.

You started making points about genetic disorders and diseases, I merely mentioned them as a problem to claiming homosexuality was purely genetic.

Homozygous and homosexual are different though. Synonym's are usually meant to be very similar. Homosexual refers to a someone sexually attracted to a member of the same sex. Homozygous means having the same attribute on a genetic level, its purely genetic. The context in which you used it was not really suitable, although if we really have to boil it down we can find the greater meaning...I suppose.

Thriller wrote:I will take part in your debate and i will probably win, But remember if your a judge you have to try to be unbiased.

I wont be the judge of it. Tom Twin will be, and you will most probably lose.

Thriller wrote:

[color=#2277DD]I never grasp at straws, I just always reply to everything in an opponents post. You already understand it? Then why do you ignore it in your previous post? Because you dont believe it relevant? Why? Thats like making a mistake and saying you knew you were going wrong the whole time? NO? yes....

Yah i understand everything your saying, Nothing you say surprises me. Your reasoning is just flawed mostly because you don't know the material very well.

My reasoning is flawed because I dont know the material very well...At the moment we have not argued much over material, we agree on most things. Argued over a few terms you have yet to actually apply properly to the topic at hand with significant meaning and research you claim to have that supports you, yet we are still to see it. As far as I see it, and as far as my university marks (as we seem to be getting at that a lot..lol) and comments from other people go I am a pretty straight shooter when it comes to reasoning and logic. I know I still have much to learn in this world about a great many things, but this is something I am not wrong on. Your own apparent reasoning is flawed. Prove me wrong please...I do yearn for the day when someone does it, because I get so tired of being right all the time.

Call me arrogant, but your demonstrating nothing short of that yourself in your replies to me, so I have, somewhat brought you down to my level, one objective I always hoped to achieve.

Thriller wrote:

Only to a degree...

You don't have one

So? lol... Im getting one. I presume you have one and beyond, otherwise that would be a pretty stupid thing to say. Like I said before, just because you have a degree, or lots of money and further than that, does by no means conclusively prove you are more intelligent, or a better person than I. Thats a very materialistic claim to be implying, something that I never wish to see in this section, ever. If you are something akin to a teacher and you are preaching values and morals a long those lines (and I am making a big presumption with that, I admit) then you are one of the bad 'teachers'/lecturers/adults/whatever, without a doubt. So I would not be so pleased with myself.

Thriller][quote]Like I said, I did not say the latter part, I dont think anyone did. No one linked a homosexual couple getting married to the information about children, so pointing it out to begin with was....well..pointless, and considering you mention debates below, would actually lose you marks. [/quote]
Then why are people bringing up "it's wrong for the kids sake" arguments. I'm pointing out how they don't apply.[/quote]

That was mentioned on a side note, as the topic, though it may be primarily about homosexual marriage, is an extension of homosexual rights. If you actually read my original post I probably have identified it as something like a side note, or "whilst were on the topic of gay couples"....

[quote="Thriller wrote:I am not a teacher and this isn't a formal debate just. I purposely don't provide sources and leave comments open ended to keep discussion going. My reasoning is solid though.

Well in order of your typing.
Thank God. This is no where near a formal debate, lol, I certainly would not debate like this. How convenient. I somehow doubt that.

Thriller wrote:Art Faculty; OOOh, How do you have time to study and do anything else with your 18 hours of class a week?
-Lol a little inter faculty joking.

Yes...ha ha...ha...ha..... I am glad its inter faculty.

Thriller wrote:PS. I only went to three classes during psych 101 and passed with a 96 or 12 points(13 point grading system)

So your an american? Thats a shocker... You did Psych 101, thats great, nice score. Its a shame getting a mark on one test is, well...very important in the big bad world for show and tell, but when bottom lined any boob who studies (not necessarily attends class) can get a good grade, and still be of average intelligence. Im not going to presume you didn't go further, but some of us definitely are.

I think im done here lol. 'debating' with you thriller is pretty pointless lol. Everytime we have met you just generally never advance your points too far (probably out of fear..lol..thats funny..or ignorance) or you just seem to ignore everything I say and go your own way, taking the argument to your comfort zone where you can...stop me from walking all over you, but thats about it, a decisive victory seems completely out of the question for you, or finally you make some loverly claims and never give us anything to back them up.

On top of all that. Its always the little things in life that keep me smiling, more so than the bigger ones...

Semper wrote:Call me arrogant, but your demonstrating nothing short of that yourself in your replies to me, so I have, somewhat brought you down to my level, one objective I always hoped to achieve.

Semper wrote:

Thriller wrote:Again you miss the point Semper, shame. Focusing on the wrong things when i write and circling around the points I'm making.

You did it first? and generally very often... But you seem to be ok with that? A bit hippocritical...

Thriller wrote:You didn't even bother to look up isolating variables(important step when conducting research and drawing conclusions) or Social dynamics (studying the reason's and outcomes for social behavior).

I did look up isolating variables but I fail to see their relevance on such a scale here. We are not conduction research in this thread, and we are arguing with opinions and a loose use of factual knowledge (hence the still incomplete theory I have...) but as you wish to step it up a bit. Isolating a variable as far as I know, and as far as the very light research I just did indicates is a mathematical principle. There is no maths involved in this discussion, not on a direct level. If, as I think you are doing so, you are referring to it within an experimental terms then you identify the variables when planning the experiment. To use such variables in a discussion like this would mean going into each mentioned theory and breaking them down, something that has been done many many times, I am sure, over the long history of psychology, yet the theories are still largely used, as to are the conclusions their parent experiments came too. So to be honest you can use your fancy terms all you want, but im very happily going to say here your throwing a big pile of crap our way with that one.

As for social dynamics, yes I know what that is. I study social psychology and I came to a different conclusion to you using it, and I can comfortably say you can work as a lecturer, or have any and all degree's from any university under the sun, but you have shown me nothing to prove you know more about it than me. Just a lot of macho posturing.

Thriller wrote:I used "homo"zygous as a synonym, and to make a subtle point. And why are you arguing about the use of genetic disorder(wrong thing to focus on). It's the sentence after that should have drawn your attention.

You started making points about genetic disorders and diseases, I merely mentioned them as a problem to claiming homosexuality was purely genetic.

Homozygous and homosexual are different though. Synonym's are usually meant to be very similar. Homosexual refers to a someone sexually attracted to a member of the same sex. Homozygous means having the same attribute on a genetic level, its purely genetic. The context in which you used it was not really suitable, although if we really have to boil it down we can find the greater meaning...I suppose.

Thriller wrote:I will take part in your debate and i will probably win, But remember if your a judge you have to try to be unbiased.

I wont be the judge of it. Tom Twin will be, and you will most probably lose.

Thriller wrote:

[color=#2277DD]I never grasp at straws, I just always reply to everything in an opponents post. You already understand it? Then why do you ignore it in your previous post? Because you dont believe it relevant? Why? Thats like making a mistake and saying you knew you were going wrong the whole time? NO? yes....

Yah i understand everything your saying, Nothing you say surprises me. Your reasoning is just flawed mostly because you don't know the material very well.

My reasoning is flawed because I dont know the material very well...At the moment we have not argued much over material, we agree on most things. Argued over a few terms you have yet to actually apply properly to the topic at hand with significant meaning and research you claim to have that supports you, yet we are still to see it. As far as I see it, and as far as my university marks (as we seem to be getting at that a lot..lol) and comments from other people go I am a pretty straight shooter when it comes to reasoning and logic. I know I still have much to learn in this world about a great many things, but this is something I am not wrong on. Your own apparent reasoning is flawed. Prove me wrong please...I do yearn for the day when someone does it, because I get so tired of being right all the time.

Call me arrogant, but your demonstrating nothing short of that yourself in your replies to me, so I have, somewhat brought you down to my level, one objective I always hoped to achieve.

Thriller wrote:

Only to a degree...

You don't have one

So? lol... Im getting one. I presume you have one and beyond, otherwise that would be a pretty stupid thing to say. Like I said before, just because you have a degree, or lots of money and further than that, does by no means conclusively prove you are more intelligent, or a better person than I. Thats a very materialistic claim to be implying, something that I never wish to see in this section, ever. If you are something akin to a teacher and you are preaching values and morals a long those lines (and I am making a big presumption with that, I admit) then you are one of the bad 'teachers'/lecturers/adults/whatever, without a doubt. So I would not be so pleased with myself.

Thriller][quote]Like I said, I did not say the latter part, I dont think anyone did. No one linked a homosexual couple getting married to the information about children, so pointing it out to begin with was....well..pointless, and considering you mention debates below, would actually lose you marks. [/quote]
Then why are people bringing up "it's wrong for the kids sake" arguments. I'm pointing out how they don't apply.[/quote]

That was mentioned on a side note, as the topic, though it may be primarily about homosexual marriage, is an extension of homosexual rights. If you actually read my original post I probably have identified it as something like a side note, or "whilst were on the topic of gay couples"....

[quote="Thriller wrote:I am not a teacher and this isn't a formal debate just. I purposely don't provide sources and leave comments open ended to keep discussion going. My reasoning is solid though.

Well in order of your typing.
Thank God. This is no where near a formal debate, lol, I certainly would not debate like this. How convenient. I somehow doubt that.

Thriller wrote:Art Faculty; OOOh, How do you have time to study and do anything else with your 18 hours of class a week?
-Lol a little inter faculty joking.

Yes...ha ha...ha...ha..... I am glad its inter faculty.

Thriller wrote:PS. I only went to three classes during psych 101 and passed with a 96 or 12 points(13 point grading system)

So your an american? Thats a shocker... You did Psych 101, thats great, nice score. Its a shame getting a mark on one test is, well...very important in the big bad world for show and tell, but when bottom lined any boob who studies (not necessarily attends class) can get a good grade, and still be of average intelligence. Im not going to presume you didn't go further, but some of us definitely are.

I think im done here lol. 'debating' with you thriller is pretty pointless lol. Everytime we have met you just generally never advance your points too far (probably out of fear..lol..thats funny..or ignorance) or you just seem to ignore everything I say and go your own way, taking the argument to your comfort zone where you can...stop me from walking all over you, but thats about it, a decisive victory seems completely out of the question for you, or finally you make some loverly claims and never give us anything to back them up.

On top of all that. Its always the little things in life that keep me smiling, more so than the bigger ones...

Semper wrote:Call me arrogant, but your demonstrating nothing short of that yourself in your replies to me, so I have, somewhat brought you down to my level, one objective I always hoped to achieve.

Well i am a physics major, so not a lot time for psych beyond first year. I'm just trying to deflate your ego a little because I can understand being cocky about your intellectual prowess if you had won a noble prize, attained a phd, Or did something of significant merit. Your only just a freshmen you should be a little more humble because this is where life is going to start to kick you in your ass. And, the bigger they are....

Oh btw, not American, a little farther north

We do agree on most things, I don't really need to advance my points(besides to satisfy your ego) because we already agree on what really matters. Gay marriage should be recognized under the law.

I think you attacked my first post over something i found trivial and decided to argue with for arguments sake. (to lazy right now to read back) But, I guess you don't want to play the game anymore. I can't blame, i only did it to amuse myself.

I don't see a point to anything else you wrote. I look forward to a formal debate with you tho.

edit: okay i read back you started this with your add hominid remarks and Trivial responses to comments that did not pertain to you (mostly for avenger). Anyway I'm done with this thread for now because we have diverted it to a mud fight.

Thriller wrote:This topic is pretty dumb

yeh its silly but its a good topic in that its inspired some interest and passionate posts.

Thriller wrote:I don't really need to advance my points because we already agree on what really matters. Gay marriage should be recognized under the law.

thats hardly been agreed upon by everyone mate. if anything its generally agreed that a civil partnership is the best option. many still consider marriage a strictly heterosexual union.


to all
those who shout about their own 'superior' intelligence are often not as smart as they think. there is more to being clever than grammar and qualifications. you cant judge the wits of a man/woman/he-she/albanian chef by a few forum posts. if you truly are intelligent you will know that.

& some need to rein in their ego

probably sensibly to forget your lil brain power arguments and move on with life