Constitutionality of New Anti-Homosexuality Law (in US)

[Wyman]

Right, and I live in the tiny state of Maryland, where the Eastern Shore is as different from the Western Shore as Berlin is from the Black Forest. We are making the same point I think.

[Arising_uk]

...
You are getting emotional over nothing (ie. someone simply disagreeing over homosexuality). Here are reasons why homosexuality is immoral.

1) Sex is primarily about procreation, ie. giving birth to a new generation. Animals, of all kinds, have sex to procreate, and they do so as a heterosexual couple (not homosexual). You see, animals are not homosexuals by any means. These myths are misinterpreted by homosexuals, when in reality animals are of their limited primal instincts. Here is a paper that debunks this myth: http://www.narth.org/docs/animalmyth.html

Read this and you appear to have a few problems with your argument above as at the end it claims, "The laws ruling human behavior are of a different nature and they should be sought where God inscribed them, namely, in human nature.", so one, your above argument cannot apply to humans and two, it appears to be in the human nature for some to like sex with the same sex and three, sex does not appear to be primarily about procreation but pleasure with respect to human nature.

Without procreation, life wouldn't exist here on earth, which is why there are two polar opposite sexes (with different sex organs), which enable procreation. This is where homosexuals and proponents of it fail at this aspect of biology.

Untrue, there would be life it just wouldn't be of the types we see at present.

2) Homosexuals cannot have an adequate family unit as compared to a heterosexual family unit. Sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas found that when reporting data for lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers, as compared to a regular family unit, Mark found that, "the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm) on 77 out of 80 outcome measures". Here are some facts from the Family Research Council (citing this) that Mark has found.

Children in homosexual family units are:

...

Read more at the Family Research Council: http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study ... s-research

A crock of shit study funded for obviously political propaganda purposes by the rabidly right-wing christian Heritage Foundation.
http://americablog.com/2012/07/internal ... lsh-t.html
For someone who claims to be exposing the elites symbolisms and hidden meanings you appear to be very selective.

[WanderingLands]

A crock of shit study funded for obviously political propaganda purposes by the rabidly right-wing christian Heritage Foundation.
http://americablog.com/2012/07/internal ... lsh-t.html
For someone who claims to be exposing the elites symbolisms and hidden meanings you appear to be very selective.

I looked at the article you have shown, and I decided to go deeper into this. Thus, I have concluded that the information that you've brought is very flawed, as Mark Regnerus, the guy who made this study, had actually did wider scale studies on the Lesbian and Gay families, unlike the prior studies that focused on very small groups. Also, there has been other research besides Regnerus that actually agrees with his work, such as: "The Demographics of Same-Sex Marriage in Norway and Sweden" published and done by Gunnar Andersson back in 2006. The paper done by Gunnar explores the flaws in the studies on homosexual families that support same-sex marriage. Along with that, there's also a study done by Loren Marks in 2012 entitled, "Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American psychological association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting", which also confirms Rengerus' study.

You can either search those studies on Google, or you can access them by looking at the sources of the article, "A Social Scientific Response to the Regnerus Controversy" below.

http://www.baylorisr.org/2012/06/a-soci ... ntroversy/

[WanderingLands]

Read this and you appear to have a few problems with your argument above as at the end it claims, "The laws ruling human behavior are of a different nature and they should be sought where God inscribed them, namely, in human nature.", so one, your above argument cannot apply to humans and two, it appears to be in the human nature for some to like sex with the same sex and three, sex does not appear to be primarily about procreation but pleasure with respect to human nature.

1. If it was human nature for people to be gay, then all of us would have both male and female sex organs, but it doesn't work out that way. Also, it is being promoted and forced upon us, both blatantly and subconsciously (with the advent of rock stars and their erotic image).
2. Men have penises and Women have vaginas for a reason - to procreate. "Pleasure", especially the "Pleasure" that you're talking about, is materialistic, and came out of artificial societies that otherwise do not bring other meaning. It is temporary, and thus it is nothing profoundly changing for the good of the individual.

Untrue, there would be life it just wouldn't be of the types we see at present.

Make a list of what types of life in existence that don't need procreation.

[Arising_uk]

I'll take a gander and pretty much expect to find a right-wing christian 'think-tank' at the base of most of this 'research'.

Personally I think you ought to take note that the bulk of paedophilia, incest, rape and violence towards women and children is done within the 'loving' embrace of the hetrosexual patriarchal often god-fearing family. So maybe addressing this issue would be a better start.

I also note that you think homosexuality is a choice so I take it that you think hetrosexuality is one as well?

[WanderingLands]

I'll take a gander and pretty much expect to find a right-wing christian 'think-tank' at the base of most of this 'research'.

Personally I think you ought to take note that the bulk of paedophilia, incest, rape and violence towards women and children is done within the 'loving' embrace of the hetrosexual patriarchal often god-fearing family. So maybe addressing this issue would be a better start.

I also note that you think homosexuality is a choice so I take it that you think hetrosexuality is one as well?

So anything that doesn't agree with the homosexual agenda is denounced as "right wing". If only we were never so divided on this "left-right" paradigm, we'd actually look for truth. Also, how can all of that stuff be limited to the fundamentalists?

[uwot]

1. If it was human nature for people to be gay, then all of us would have both male and female sex organs, but it doesn't work out that way. Also, it is being promoted and forced upon us, both blatantly and subconsciously (with the advent of rock stars and their erotic image).

D'ya know? I started off trying to answer this seriously. Then I realised: it is absolutely batshit bonkers. WanderingLands; I salute you, this is fruitloopery of the highest order.

Make a list of what types of life in existence that don't need procreation.

1. WanderingLands.
2. End of list.

[Arising_uk]

So anything that doesn't agree with the homosexual agenda is denounced as "right wing". ...

Are you saying the Heritage Foundation isn't?

The only agenda the homosexual has is to be treated equally under the law as they pay their taxes and to not be assaulted by those who can't mind their own business.

If only we were never so divided on this "left-right" paradigm, we'd actually look for truth. ...

I think there are homophobes on the left as well as the right but on the whole the left has a policy of liberalism. I'm surprise the libertarian right don't have the same approach to matters such as homosexuality.

Also, how can all of that stuff be limited to the fundamentalists?

What stuff? Your 'reports'?

You didn't answer, do you think hetrosexuality a choice?

[Arising_uk]

1. If it was human nature for people to be gay, then all of us would have both male and female sex organs, but it doesn't work out that way. Also, it is being promoted and forced upon us, both blatantly and subconsciously (with the advent of rock stars and their erotic image).

Please, you never seen Pompeii, heard of the Greeks, So will you be turning gay any time soon?

2. Men have penises and Women have vaginas for a reason - to procreate. "Pleasure", especially the "Pleasure" that you're talking about, is materialistic, and came out of artificial societies that otherwise do not bring other meaning. It is temporary, and thus it is nothing profoundly changing for the good of the individual.

Please! You want us to just go into heat and rut like the other animals? It appears to be human nature to take pleasure from the sex act.

Make a list of what types of life in existence that don't need procreation.

The type of procreation we're talking about here? Pretty much all the bacteria, viruses, protozoa, most plants and some insects don't need this type.

[henry quirk]

"only in America"

Nope.

*Germany: 1933 to 1945

We Americans have a way to go before any one can say we're the worst of the worst.

#

Gays

*shrug*

Go do your thing and leave me be to do mine.

#

Business owners

Quite apart from the cock-eyed laws that exist on federal, state, regional, and municipal levels, consider the following:


-A gay, atheist print shop owner refuses to print up 1000 pamphlets ordered by a local Baptist church...the proposed text of the pamphlets starkly proclaims homosex a sin and declares homosexuals will burn in hell.

Is the print shop owner right or wrong?

Why?


-A straight, Catholic print shop owner refuses to print up 1000 pamphlets ordered by a local LGBT advocacy group...the proposed text of the pamphlets starkly proclaims the group's support of gay marriage.

Is the print shop owner right or wrong?

Why?









*not to mention crap like female castration, child slavery, etc. goin' on NOW in the third world...next time you wanna take the US to task for bein' 'bad' consider how much 'worse' some other nations are

[Bernard]

I'll take a gander and pretty much expect to find a right-wing christian 'think-tank' at the base of most of this 'research'.

Personally I think you ought to take note that the bulk of paedophilia, incest, rape and violence towards women and children is done within the 'loving' embrace of the hetrosexual patriarchal often god-fearing family. So maybe addressing this issue would be a better start.

I also note that you think homosexuality is a choice so I take it that you think hetrosexuality is one as well?

So anything that doesn't agree with the homosexual agenda is denounced as "right wing". If only we were never so divided on this "left-right" paradigm, we'd actually look for truth. Also, how can all of that stuff be limited to the fundamentalists?

Well I'm anything but right wing (in terms of upbringing and social circles). I personally find homosexuality offensive to reason. Other animals kill or eat their own young, and walk around naked excreting wherever. We don't prefer to do those sort of things and social institutions serve to create some control upon those sort of activities occurring among us, as well as support for activities which we do and other animals don't; activities which are functional toward social ends. There is no refuting that the most reasonable conclusion we can have as to the function of human sexual organs is for procreation. To marry (take wife, etymologically) is a supportive institution toward that functional end of procreation. To include homosexuality under that same banner is simply to throw a spanner in the works and disrupt the function of the basic purposes of that institution. That said, it may be that the institution of marriage as we know it has become dysfunctional over time and has this destruction coming to it... que serah serah, but one should be as supportive as possible whilst there is any sort of hope left.

I do see homosexuality as choice rather than hard physical wiring, but I don't see it as conscious choice for the most part. If you have a society that puts energetic young men in prison with ne exposure to women, what's going to happen? Same with monasteries. There are donkeys at my neighbours place. It started with a mum and dad donkey and they had daughters, and the Dad would jump the fence and go for his daughters. He simply had too many wild oats and not enough options. The mum and dad died and the daughters now jump on each other for lack of male suitors, not because they were born that way. Is it a sin? What is a sin? To be a off-centre? to misfire? I'm not tossing any stones.

[The Voice of Time]

"only in America"

Nope.

*Germany: 1933 to 1945

We Americans have a way to go before any one can say we're the worst of the worst.

#

When you have to compare it to Nazi Germany there is something very wrong about it...

[Arising_uk]

... To marry (take wife, etymologically) is a supportive institution toward that functional end of procreation. ...

So which marriage institution should be use, monogamy, polyandry, polygamy, polyamory, et al?

To include homosexuality under that same banner is simply to throw a spanner in the works and disrupt the function of the basic purposes of that institution. That said, it may be that the institution of marriage as we know it has become dysfunctional over time and has this destruction coming to it... que serah serah, but one should be as supportive as possible whilst there is any sort of hope left. ...

Who's talking about gay marriage?

I do see homosexuality as choice rather than hard physical wiring, but I don't see it as conscious choice for the most part. If you have a society that puts energetic young men in prison with ne exposure to women, what's going to happen? Same with monasteries. There are donkeys at my neighbours place. It started with a mum and dad donkey and they had daughters, and the Dad would jump the fence and go for his daughters. He simply had too many wild oats and not enough options. The mum and dad died and the daughters now jump on each other for lack of male suitors, not because they were born that way. Is it a sin? What is a sin? To be a off-centre? to misfire? I'm not tossing any stones.

Then hetrosexuality is a choice as well. How do you account for homosexuality in young males who have access and acquaintance with women? Is it just that we all can be bi-sexual and its social and cultural mores that make the choice?

[Bernard]

Then hetrosexuality is a choice as well. How do you account for homosexuality in young males who have access and acquaintance with women? Is it just that we all can be bi-sexual and its social and cultural mores that make the choice?

Reproducuction is a biological imperitave. Heterosexuality is just the flip side of homosexuality. Bisexual is the same boat ride. Real sexuality isn't able to be categorized. Its a sacred, beautiful thing, and always leads to the same outcome:procreation. Yes, I think social and cultural mores play a huge part - right from birth.

[henry quirk]

"When you have to compare it to Nazi Germany there is something very wrong about it..."

I make such a comparison to illustrate the hyperbolic hysteria I'm seein'.

You got some folks (as consumers of a certain flavor of 'news') screamin' 'the sodomites are gonna make me do stuff I don't wanna do!'

You got other folks (as consumers of a certain flavor of 'news') screamin' 'religious folk are gonna deprive me of products and services 'cause I'm gay!'

I'm no great consumer of any 'news' (since what passes for 'news' nowadays is mostly propaganda), but I'm not aware of an epidemic of business owners refusing service to folks of opposing view point.

In a nation of 350 million, seems to me a mole hill is bein' inflated into a mountain.