A Solution to Problems in Homosexual Society?

K

Khaddar7

Guest
#1
A typical argument I hear from anti-gay-marriage advocates is that marriage should not be allowed to a section of society rife with promiscuity and, occasionally, sexual deviants with offenses such as pedophilism.

This has always seemed logical to me, although a bad reason to deny the right to marry. Right now, homosexualism is stretched to define anyone who may have homosexual tendencies. It includes loving families who want government protection as well as extremely promiscuous single individuals. There is no defining factor between the two that is recognized as the government, and so homosexual society is not associated with the strong moral principles that many homosexual families deeply believe in.

I think that the availability of marriage to the homosexual population would go a long way to supporting the lives of couples who really want the protection that the marriage ceremony gives. Couples want not only shared benefits from their workplaces and the ability to share bank accounts, but also the ability to call for child support and the right to claim custody if the marriage ends in divorce. This is perfectly available to many heterosexual families, but homosexual families are deprived of these reasonable rights that are known to help provide a stable family life. How can the absence of such rights possibly help the moral stability of the homosexual population?

Many homosexual families are stable and want to raise children. Many already have them. So why should these families only be married in name, and not by the protection that government support brings?
 
T

Technocrat

Guest
#2
A typical argument I hear from anti-gay-marriage advocates is that marriage should not be allowed to a section of society rife with promiscuity and, occasionally, sexual deviants with offenses such as pedophilism.
I hear that often too, but if you really look at what they are saying, they are targeting only one particular group that's not absolutely perfect. They want "ideal" parents and "ideal" families, so they point out that homosexuals are not "ideal" while skipping over the vast majority of non-ideal homes that aren't homosexual.

Much of society is promiscuous, and it's a common misconception for people to tie homosexuality to paedophillia, since far, far more straight people are paedophiles, and homosexuality itself has nothing in common with paedophillia.

If they really want to target non-ideal groups, we shouldn't let inner city people, smokers, or alcoholics have families and marriages either, but we do.
 

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#3
Because our government runs on Christian undertones and homosexuality scares those people. I think the funniest part of the whole thing is that they still call marriage sacred when we use it as a media tool and publicize inane celebrity marriages. I say, "How is it sacred anymore?" Not to mention, they have no reason to believe that homosexuality is wrong other than the bible.
 
#4
Only homosexuals think homosexual marriages are a big deal .. bottom line is love & care .. we have a shortage of it .. & an excess of spite & malice ..

Anyone who is uptight about homosexuality has issues of their own about sexuality IMO ..
 
G

Godfearingsecular

Guest
#5
Homosexuality is a minority thing... It is a compound minority considering it occurs in minorities and majoritites but the result is to be homosexual you are in a minority. Being in a minority is a statement in itself that I'm different than the majority... Being a compound minority means that in a compound statement...

In nature homosexuals are killed along with any other aspect that doesn't represent the strongest of the species... so, one could say in the human race humans use compassion for those not considered to be contributing to the best of the species... We don't kill them for being different nor do we kill other humans born with weaknesses... but human majorities reserve the right to consider that homosexuals are "allowed to live" by the compassionate majority... In nature the weak or different is killed.

It is abnormal to be gay... gay is not abnormal but it is abnormal to be gay.

It is not abnormal to be strait. It is not abnormal to be strait and desire to reproduce... it is abnormal to be gay and desire to reproduce.

The federal evaluation of gays is depicted in the federal standard "don't ask - don't tell" the federal standard clearly states gays should remain in the closet... If the federal standard is to stay in the closet then how could a gay person logically consider adoption of children, marriage or artificial insemeniation to create a child in an abnormal environment as determined by the federal evaluation?

Gays should remain in the closet until the federal evaluation is changed... Gays, as all minorities should consider that you cannot litigate or legislate love and understanding... In the pecking order in the hen house or in the woods they would be dead... so, gay folks should not rely on justice to rectify their rights but present themselves to the majority as a desireable "individual" deserving of equal treatment. This is the rule every member of the majority must meet to be accepted ... failure to follow this rule regardless of race or status will result in an inability to litigate or legislate love and understanding. If you are gay make me like you equal to a strait person and then I will stand with you.
 
T

Technocrat

Guest
#6
In nature homosexuals are killed along with any other aspect that doesn't represent the strongest of the species
What sources/evidence do you have for this? There are many animal species with homosexual behavior wherein those animals aren't killed off, but actually have a social niche.


The federal evaluation of gays is depicted in the federal standard "don't ask - don't tell" the federal standard clearly states gays should remain in the closet... If the federal standard is to stay in the closet then how could a gay person logically consider adoption of children, marriage or artificial insemeniation to create a child in an abnormal environment as determined by the federal evaluation?
And why should anyone care about what the Federal evaluation is? It's clearly wrong and based on nothing.

Gays should remain in the closet until the federal evaluation is changed...
Well, if you don't fight to get things changed, they won't change, which is something certainly learned from the 1960's Civil Rights movement. I don't see why they should sit back, hide, and do nothing until someone finally, on his own, decides to change, which is very unlikely.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#7
Godfearingsecular,

but human majorities reserve the right to consider that homosexuals are "allowed to live"
I don't think it's clear at all that homosexuals would face a survival disadvantage in "nature". If by "nature" we mean a human society devoid of empathy, we should say that nobody would survive. That is clear due to the fact that human children require care to survive, and it is our empathy that leads us to care for children. I imagine that when we speak of the way things work in nature, we imagine a primitive society, but we don't live in such a society, so any invocation of such a thing seems besides the point.
 
G

Godfearingsecular

Guest
#8
What sources/evidence do you have for this? There are many animal species with homosexual behavior wherein those animals aren't killed off, but actually have a social niche.
In nature gay types are killed. What sources/evidence do you have that there are many animal species with homosexual behavior wherein those animals aren't killed off, but actually have a social niche? Specimins in a zoo is not nature.

And why should anyone care about what the Federal evaluation is? It's clearly wrong and based on nothing.
What do you base this statement? What is wrong? And what is nothing? The fact is that the federal evaluation is that don't ask - don't tell is the standard... it can't be wrong because there were gay legislators that remained slient... There was something that caused the policy to form as a policy... that something was the general will of the majority.



Well, if you don't fight to get things changed, they won't change, which is something certainly learned from the 1960's Civil Rights movement. I don't see why they should sit back, hide, and do nothing until someone finally, on his own, decides to change, which is very unlikely.
You cannot litigate or legislate love and understanding... you can make me allow Kunta into my restaurant but you can't make my cook not spit in his food. Nothing is changed by forced change... only acknowledgement of value and equality of worth by one on one can keep people from spitting in your food.
Godfearingsecular,

I don't think it's clear at all that homosexuals would face a survival disadvantage in "nature". If by "nature" we mean a human society devoid of empathy, we should say that nobody would survive. That is clear due to the fact that human children require care to survive, and it is our empathy that leads us to care for children. I imagine that when we speak of the way things work in nature, we imagine a primitive society, but we don't live in such a society, so any invocation of such a thing seems besides the point.
Babies are born cute so we don't kill them... it doesn't matter if they are kittens, puppies or humans they are all a pain in the butt but cute... but normal selection and the nature of the pecking order sorts out all but the best of the best including gays in nature... In a hen house, the place where the "pecking order" was orgined the sorting out starts at early age and only about 25% of newborn survive... by nature only one strongest male will survive within a henhouse and that male will not be gay... trust me.
 
T

Technocrat

Guest
#9
In nature gay types are killed. What sources/evidence do you have that there are many animal species with homosexual behavior wherein those animals aren't killed off, but actually have a social niche? Specimins in a zoo is not nature.
You made the statement originally. You are repeating your claim as if it's a fact but not providing studies or evidence to substantiate it. Let me repeat: where is your source that shows that homosexual animals will be killed in nature. Repeition of your original claim doesn't fit the bill of "evidence." What nature journals? Peer reviewed studies?

I will provide you with evidence of the homosexual behavior and social niche in societies of social creatures once you show me evidence of your assertion.

What do you base this statement? What is wrong? And what is nothing? The fact is that the federal evaluation is that don't ask - don't tell is the standard... it can't be wrong because there were gay legislators that remained slient... There was something that caused the policy to form as a policy... that something was the general will of the majority.
The federal opinion is wrong in the first place to do what it is doing. I base this statement off of Utilitarian ethics. That dsomething is the "will of the majority" doesn't mean it's the right decision.



This is one particular journal article that's useful. It describes homosexual behavior in a variety of primate species that are non-human and in the WILD as part of typical sexual-social behavior in the community. It has a naturally useful social function.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/86010877/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0


The following also goes into two plausible theories of the social function of homosexuality in primates.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cg....1086/300145&erFrom=-4018542527493900267Guest
 
G

Godfearingsecular

Guest
#10
You made the statement originally. You are repeating your claim as if it's a fact but not providing studies or evidence to substantiate it. Let me repeat: where is your source that shows that homosexual animals will be killed in nature. Repeition of your original claim doesn't fit the bill of "evidence." What nature journals? Peer reviewed studies?
I grew up on a farm and witnessed the fact that there were no gay or lesbian animals unless caused by animals being placed in stressful situations.

For example... when I was 11 a neighbors bull and our dairy farm bull were separaed by a barbed wire fence... telephone pole posts with a strand of barbed wire every six inches apart... each bull weighed over 3,000 pounds and every day they snorted and paced back and forth desiring to be the dominate male of both farms... One day the neighbors bull had enough and came through the fence from the higher ground... I was returning from school when the staples wizzed past my head like bullets from a gun as the neighbors bulls chest was ripped open by the barbs... they fought for two hours until too weak to continue... My father and the neighbor decided to use artifical insememination and sold the two bulls the next week... As luck would have it the bulls ended up in the same small pen at the stock market but guess what? They were no longer trying to be the dominate male even though the stock market was full of females these two bulls had turned into gays and were punking each other. Back on the farm the cows had turned into lesbians and would act out the bulls job to "mark" the female in "heat" so the vet could fertilize it.

I will provide you with evidence of the homosexual behavior and social niche in societies of social creatures once you show me evidence of your assertion.
Go for it!

The federal opinion is wrong in the first place to do what it is doing. I base this statement off of Utilitarian ethics. That dsomething is the "will of the majority" doesn't mean it's the right decision.
The federal opinion cannot be wrong... it is impossible... the government was established by the mob, or the overwhelmingly majority of the masses... Law was adapted to reflect the masses or the majority and not a neutral secular method... Explain blue laws... explain why it is illegal for a woman not to wear as shirt if it is hot outside where men take off their shirts... the majority of the mob make the rules and create government so to say otherwise is a cop out.