Canada leaders accept gay marriage ruling

[Sabastian]

The real question is: do you want your child to be different than everyone else, a freak, or conform to society's model, so he can partipcate in all the normal anachronistic rituals in society, even if you think his particular abnormality is not bad at all.

Interesting question, I see reproductive benefits purely a derivative of nature not a social creation/conformative process. However this is only one attribute of the multitude of possible other characteristics that make people singular from one another. If it were up to me I would unshackle the child from homosexuality.

 

[Natoma]

Homosexuality is a flaw eh? The only way I can see this line of reasoning occurring is if you believe the flaw because of the inability to reproduce within a same-sex environment, because biologically, there are no other differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. We are *physically* capable of reproduction with opposite sex members of the species. But psychologically and emotionally we are not attracted to those members.

I thought you believe that the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is genetic, something that you are born with, that attracts you to members of your own sex. "Hard wired" into you. Is that not the biological difference?

there are no other differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals wrt reproduction.

I thought that was implied given the next sentence, but I suppose not.

 

[Natoma]

Family, courtesy of our handy dandy dictionary.com:

"A group of like things"

We can see why the definition of the natural family Father-Mother-Children is under assault. But Natoma really would like this definition changed/removed/destroyed.

Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

The group comprising a husband and wife and their dependent children, constituting a fundamental unit in the organization of society.

amusingly enough it wasn’t that long ago that there really was no disputing the natural families definition and the suggestion of redefining it was preposterous and still is in my opinion.

Uhm I'm not changing/removing/destroying the definition of family at all. The definitions of family are below.

You can see that family encompasses a great many things. You're just being too narrow minded that you're trying to omit people who don't fit *your* interpretation of what a family is.

Homosexuals form families just like anyone else. We are part of families just like everyone else. We form life long bonds with one another just like anyone else. We are human beings just like everyone else. We're not trying to destroy anything.

If you would open up your mind, just a little, you would see the truth.

p.s.: You know that there are people who have fought extremely hard to vilify the single parent home right? They say that single parent homes are not true families.

100 years ago that same "it's not a true family!" mentality was directed toward interracial families. The bigotry just never stops unfortunately. 100 years from now, it won't be homosexual families, it'll be families that have one or more AI members, or something like that.

-------------------------------
1) A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children.

2) Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place.

3) All the members of a household under one roof.

4) A group of persons sharing common ancestry. See Usage Note at collective noun.

5) Lineage, especially distinguished lineage.

6) A locally independent organized crime unit, as of the Cosa Nostra.

7) A group of like things; a class.

8) A group of individuals derived from a common stock: the family of human beings.

9) Biology. A taxonomic category of related organisms ranking below an order and above a genus. A family usually consists of several genera. See table at taxonomy.

10) Linguistics. A group of languages descended from the same parent language, such as the Indo-European language family.

11) Mathematics. A set of functions or surfaces that can be generated by varying the parameters of a general equation.

12) Chemistry. A group of elements with similar chemical properties.

13) Chemistry. A vertical column in the periodic table of elements.
-------------------------------

 

[Natoma]

In the US the stats are quite differant. Clearly it is the gay plauge.

You know what's sad about you Sabastian? The twisting of statistics to fit your campaign of bias and hatred towards homosexuals.

If you break it down along racial lines, AIDS is a White Man's plague.

WHITE, NOT HISPANIC: 268,856 cases (46.2% of the total case count)

By far the largest group, followed by African-Americans at 35% and Latinos at 17%.

The statistics wrt AIDS can be twisted to fit any agenda. The fact of the matter is, this is *everyone's* problem. Not just gays. Not just Whites. Not just Africans. Not just Indians. Not just Chinese.

It's the whole world's problems. For god sake you went to college and you're this ignorant?? Christ.

p.s.: Wrt funding for AIDS, there will in the next decade or two be more deaths from AIDS than any other disease or ailment, worldwide, combined. It takes anywhere from 5-20 years for HIV to become full blown AIDS and kill the man, woman, or child. The infection rates today have skyrocketed in Africa and they are on the verge of pandemic in China and India.

HIV infection rates are skyrocketing among heterosexual teens and especially among heterosexual women. Heterosexual women are by far the fastest growing group of AIDS sufferers today.

It's people like you who tried to keep their eyes closed to the problem and let the disease spread in the 80's because it wasn't "my problem." To someone like you, we shouldn't do anything about SARS either. It's a chinese plague. Let them die. Right Sabastian? It's their fault for being chinese. It doesn't affect us pure and holy americans, or in your case, pure and holy Canadians right?* Communist pigs. Let the chinese die of SARS and let god's holy wrath visit upon them.



* As long as you don't live in that sin city of Toronto that is.

 

[Himself]

As I stated before, anything that happens in nature is natural. So, your point?

Natural is a nice marketing word, means no preservatives, not man made, good for you, etc. Occuring in nature just means other species have the same problems, it's not a validation or all that great an association, most things in nature are downright nasty. Anyway my point is why bring up nature, there are better arguments to use, half this thread didn't need to exist.

Oh, I'm not religious so I don't have morals, so I couldn't say whether it's moral or not.

Homosexuality is a flaw eh?

From a species viewpoint, it's anti-survival , so it's a flaw. It's not the rule, it's the exception or there would be no computers and people typing nonsense at each other on them. Humans can compensate using science or rational thinking to force themselves to mate with the opposite sex, but if every cat or dog was gay, soon there would be no more cats or dogs. In humans it would just cause population decline because the flaw is offset by the positive trait of rational thinking, which some people have, few reviewers. (BTW, I don't believe it's a natural comsensation system for overpopulation either, I think all that kind of thing is just reaching for straws and playing what-if games instead of just accepting it as a genetic defect.) Of course if it's not genetic, then gays are just pervs and too wrapped up in sexuality.

I'm sure you would rather think that being gay was something positive, feel free to use whatever words you like if it makes you feel better. I think of gays as being handicapped, it's not their fault and if they can find happiness somehow, good for them, but I wouldn't want to be like them either.

Whew, out of wind..

 

[Natoma]

Himself:

Driving your family in a car or flying in a plane is anti-survival. Eating foodstuffs filled with preservatives is anti-survival. Sitting in front of a computer and being irradiated is anti-survival. Women foregoing motherhood and working for a living is anti-survival. Men not fucking everything in sight and having kids at every moment they can is anti-survival.

That argument can be stretched so far it's ridiculous. Human beings are far and away beyond the Survival/subsistence level that it does not matter. There are more than 6 Billion human beings on the planet. If 10% of the worldwide population is homosexual, that would mean that there are 600 Million homosexuals living on this earth. And worldwide population is expected to explode this century.

Yea, we're going extinct sometime soon.

p.s.: Here's a scenario for you. Every heterosexual on the planet is killed, leaving only homosexual men and women. Well gee, the human race would continue. Why? Because we are physically able to reproduce! Homosexuality has nothing to do with physical ability to reproduce. We simply do not have sexual interactions and romantic interactions with members of the opposite sex, just as heterosexuals do not have sexual interactions and romantic interactions with members of the same sex.

Could heterosexuals engage in homosexual activity? Most certainly. Would most heterosexuals enjoy it? Most certainly not. Could homosexuals engage in heterosexual activity? Most certainly. Would most homosexuals enjoy it? Most certainly not.

You stating that homosexuality is an affliction like being crippled if it's genetic, or that it's just us being perverted if it's not, clearly shows your negative bias towards homosexuals. I see no reason why otherwise intelligent people try and put a "logical" slant towards their biases and then when they get called on it say "Oh those people are fine. Really they are!" God at least be honest with your prejudices, biases, and hatreds.

 

[notAFanB]

I do know we are hardwired for reproduction, all we are doing is fooling our biology into thinking it is reproducing when we engage in anything other then heterosexual sex. I think it is the software that gets corrupted. If homosexuality is a biological affliction then we can treat it or avoid it, maybe with gene therapy or screening of the genes that cause the behavior.

Hold on, I don't want to take the above out of context but are you suggesting we 'purge' homersexuality (amongs others) from civilisation?

Nature tries to on an ongoing basis.

You could (from an evolutionary standpoint) theorize that (assuming homosexuality is genetic) the evolutionary purpose of such a thing is to cull some genetic defect from the gene pool.

I do not believe that nature does 'anything' of the sort. the system inherent in the world promotes 'mutation' as a safeguard against catastrophy ( an yes I terrible at english). it does not actively purge anything although circumstances will ensure a systemic review of what genetic traits can be viewed as advantageous.

at least thats what I think

 

[notAFanB]

Answer this, if you knew that your child would be homosexual based on genetic informaiton and the affliction could be corrected would you choose for your child to be homosexual? Not me.

like I knew he would be blind, deaf, dumb, etc....

what about IQ, and other physical traits? while I don't avocate 'customising your offspring', I a little concerned about removing genetic diversification and mutation form the existing system (nature).

at least until someone comes up with some interesting safeguards against disaster.

EDIt I meant to include possible mental traits in the above post., and yes I realise that some of the above cases are 'physical' deficiences and not sociatal deficiencies (is that a word?).

 

[nggalai]

Hi Sabastian,

thanks for the numbers! It's always nice to have something to compare with. Unfortunately, you produced the less interesting set of numbers--AIDS cases. Far more interesting, as there's where the epidemic is, are HIV infections, especially on a per annum basis. I mean, I guess everybody here agrees that, in western societies, queer folk have somewhat of a head start regarding full blown AIDS cases, no? It's quite simple, really--one reason less, in the past, to use condoms (no need to contracept, and condoms are still the No.1 contraceptive world-wide and even in western society) -> higher infection risk. And the numbers of new HIV infections tell you how the epidemic will develop over the next couple of years.

Even so, if you want to compare cummulative AIDS cases, here's what UNAIDS has to say about it:

The proportion of women living with HIV/AIDS has risen steadily in recent years. In 1997, 41% of HIV-positive adults were women. Three years later, that figure had risen to 47%. In sub-Saharan Africa alone, an estimated 12.2 million women carry the virus, compared to 10.1 million men.

In the 2002 reports, women will quite probably mark the majority of AIDS cases, world-wide. Clearly you don't assume that's due to gay sex, do you? Hence I think it's pretty clear that, yes, in the 80s HIV/AIDS might have been dubbed the "gay plague" from western society's standpoint, but this is clearly an obsolete concept now and has been for the past 6-10 years already.

But yes, you are right as long as the US are concerned:

Despite increasing infection rates in women, male-male sex remains the biggest single cause of new HIV infections in several countries, including Canada, the United States and Mexico.

(UNAIDS report from 2000, 2002 update is in the works.) Far more worrying, and this seems to be a pattern of society, not sexual identity:

HIV prevention activities are well established in the gay communities of North America. However, there now worrying evidence that the advent of therapy may have led to complacency about HIV, and that this complacency is leading to rises in risky behavior. A study among gay men in the U.S. city of San Francisco, for example, showed that while just over one third of gay men reported they had had unprotected anal intercourse in 1993 and 1994, the percentage had risen to one half three years later, after effective therapy became available. A high proportion of these men did not know their partners’ HIV status.

(same report.)

This applies much the same for heterosexual "communities" one may add. As mentioned before, people are becoming less careful. Perhaps the US should invest more time and energy into preventive information?

As for statistics as a whole, Natoma made an important point. It's quite easy to use the data and bend it to suit an agenda. I wouldn't have much troubles, for example, to skew the argument in such a way as to imply that, should the rate for heterosexual HIV infection accellerate as it has over the past 10 years, we'll be in the best position to find out whether homosexuals will procreate or not in the not too distant future.

93,
-Sascha.rb

 

[Sabastian]

I do know we are hardwired for reproduction, all we are doing is fooling our biology into thinking it is reproducing when we engage in anything other then heterosexual sex. I think it is the software that gets corrupted. If homosexuality is a biological affliction then we can treat it or avoid it, maybe with gene therapy or screening of the genes that cause the behavior.

Hold on, I don't want to take the above out of context but are you suggesting we 'purge' homersexuality (amongs others) from civilisation?

Nature tries to on an ongoing basis.

You could (from an evolutionary standpoint) theorize that (assuming homosexuality is genetic) the evolutionary purpose of such a thing is to cull some genetic defect from the gene pool.

I do not believe that nature does 'anything' of the sort. the system inherent in the world promotes 'mutation' as a safeguard against catastrophy ( an yes I terrible at english). it does not actively purge anything although circumstances will ensure a systemic review of what genetic traits can be viewed as advantageous.

at least thats what I think

Sure it does it is called natural selection. The 'system inherent in the world' does not promote mutation 'actively'. Biological errors or mutations occur but in no way are they something that are nessesarily good. In fact most mutations are not positive developments at all. Natural selection is natures way of culling negative traits. By no means is it 100% effective but it certainly does help.

 

[Legion]

This maybe a little of topic but i would like to discuss something for a minute.

I have noticed a number of you seem to be operating with the notion that people are born with forms of sexuality. How do you know this? What information are you considering to come to such determinations?

After long periods of research of the numerous biological proponent claims of biological reductionist I have come to the conclusion political motives have souly driven psychological research up to this point with little if any evidence being determined to support such opinions. Taking into account such "evidence" requires one to often make numerous falacious assumptions about the nature of humanity. For example's sake I call apon the dubious claims of Simon Levay et al and their mistaken proposals. Simon et al proposed that the INAH3 correspondant within humans some how reflected sexuality within humans as it does in rats. The INAH3 set within rats is linked to "sexual postering" during sexual encounters. No such system exists within humans in any form that has ever been demonstrated. Inorder to accept his claims you'd first have to accept his proposal. One would fall apon the other for the conclusion to be true. Since neither are proven his research is rendered as falacious circuitous logic.

What do we really know about the determination of sexuality?

As children boys and girls do not fully understand the sexual difference in their make up and how they differ one to the other. Being that this is true much can be said about the obvious lack of sexual awareness. Logically it is hard to argue at this point that one's sexuality is predetermined by genetics when an individual isn't born with the preconceived notion of male and female.

What then could be said about the sexual proponent of genetics?

Science has determined there are sexual proponents within genetics (ie sex drive and sexual orientation of male and female). However it hasn't been proven that any of these factors factor into one's sexuality. Many have argued for a chemical proponent of pheromones in sexuality without any solid conclusions. If pheromones help direct ones sexuality then why is it some people are aroused by animals? Do these people have a "susceptibility" to bovine (etc) male/female pheromones? And what of necrophiliacs (yes they exist), paedophiles and fecalphiliacs? What genetic proponent causes their arousal?

Should gays be allowed the marry?

Why not? Why should male/female partners be allowed to marry? What is marriage and what does it stand for?

In my opinion marriage is nothing more than a reflection of partners interest in expressing their wantingness to live for some period with their current significant other. How does this really differ from simply living with your partner? All you have done is tagged a few name to your current status. Clearly within our society marriage carries many romantic notions (many of which of which are groundless).

Is it natural?

I find this to be a very ambiguous and irrelevant question. What is natural? Is what is natural for a rat natural for a man? Is anything that happens in nature natural? If natural is a guidline for acceptable then murder, cannabalism, rape, and youthanasia should be considered acceptable. Clearly society as we know it would crumble if we allowed for such behaviors to become the norm.

 

[antlers]

Since many of you are missing the point of the "natural"-debate portion of this thread, the point was not that whatever is natural is OK, so homotsexuality is OK because it is natural. Some people had said that homosexuality wasn't OK because it wasn't natural. The point made was that homosexuality is as "natural" as many other sexual behaviors.

 

[Legion]

Since many of you are missing the point of the "natural"-debate portion of this thread, the point was not that whatever is natural is OK, so homotsexuality is OK because it is natural. Some people had said that homosexuality wasn't OK because it wasn't natural. The point made was that homosexuality is as "natural" as many other sexual behaviors.

I don't understand your point. What are you gaining by stating it is "natural"? What does this comment mean? That it is simply a common occurance? So it as natural as many other sexual behaviors? Does that make it acceptable? Again what does calling it more natural award it? Its such a meaningless statement. Is rape a "natural" sexual behavior? Is incest? Are these acceptable because they are "natural" sexual behaviors?

 

[Natoma]

Since many of you are missing the point of the "natural"-debate portion of this thread, the point was not that whatever is natural is OK, so homotsexuality is OK because it is natural. Some people had said that homosexuality wasn't OK because it wasn't natural. The point made was that homosexuality is as "natural" as many other sexual behaviors.

I don't understand your point. What are you gaining by stating it is "natural"? What does this comment mean? That it is simply a common occurance? So it as natural as many other sexual behaviors? Does that make it acceptable? Again what does calling it more natural award it? Its such a meaningless statement.

As antlers stated, some on this thread have said that because homosexuality is not "natural," it is not good, and thus we homosexuals should be denied rights given to heterosexuals.

The entire argument over the "natural"-ness of homosexuality started because of that assumption. Once I and others debunked the theory that homosexuality is not natural, I stated that the "moral" objections to homosexuality are the true impetus behind the disagreement over equal status for homosexuals that heterosexuals enjoy.

The exercise of the past 5-6 pages was one in which the last remaining bastion of "logical" prejudice was shot down. Now that it can no longer be argued that homosexuality is not "natural," the people against legalized homosexual marriage have nothing to fall back on save for their own prejudices, biases, and hatreds. The point of the discussion was to expose that and wash away the veneer of "tolerance" that those people have espoused, as being completely and utterly fallacious in nature.

 

[notAFanB]

Since many of you are missing the point of the "natural"-debate portion of this thread, the point was not that whatever is natural is OK, so homotsexuality is OK because it is natural. Some people had said that homosexuality wasn't OK because it wasn't natural. The point made was that homosexuality is as "natural" as many other sexual behaviors.

I don't understand your point. What are you gaining by stating it is "natural"? What does this comment mean? That it is simply a common occurance? So it as natural as many other sexual behaviors? Does that make it acceptable? Again what does calling it more natural award it? Its such a meaningless statement. Is rape a "natural" sexual behavior? Is incest? Are these acceptable because they are "natural" sexual behaviors?

I think it would be justification of a type of normality when discussing natures systems and their (sidee?) effects. but no we prolly have to throw the 'nature' element out the window when discussing the ethics of such an issue.

 

[Legion]

As antlers stated, some on this thread have said that because homosexuality is not "natural," it is not good, and thus we homosexuals should be denied rights given to heterosexuals.

That is not all of what antler said. After making that statement he went on to say homosexuality is a "natural" sexual behavior. I am asking him to define what that means.

The entire argument over the "natural"-ness of homosexuality started because of that assumption. Once I and others debunked the theory that homosexuality is not natural, I stated that the "moral" objections to homosexuality are the true impetus behind the disagreement over equal status for homosexuals that heterosexuals enjoy.

I disagree with you on your rebuttle of their comments. As i stated above i haven't seen information linking the sexuality of man to the often predetermined sexuality of other animals. Demonstratably human nature is different than that of other animals. Ergo the debate of animal nature is rather irrelevant.

The exercise of the past 5-6 pages was one in which the last remaining bastion of "logical" prejudice was shot down. Now that it can no longer be argued that homosexuality is not "natural," the people against legalized homosexual marriage have nothing to fall back on save for their own prejudices, biases, and hatreds.

Again what is natural and what isn't? Is it "natural" to have sex out side of your species? We can find examples of this in nature. If it is natural then why not allow a pig a woman to marry? Incest is also a natural occurance. I can't help but feel this entire premise is irrelevant.

The point of the discussion was to expose that and wash away the veneer of "tolerance" that those people have espoused, as being completely and utterly fallacious in nature.

What you achieved was equating homosexuality with that of any other sexual behavior. I personally don't see this as proving much if anything as you could argue incest should be considered acceptable by similiar means. Honestly i don't think we should be arguing from this position.

 

[Legion]

I think it would be justification of a type of normality when discussing natures systems and their (sidee?) effects. but no we prolly have to throw the 'nature' element out the window when discussing the ethics of such an issue.

First you have to uncover the basis of those natural systems. To my knowledge no one has been able to demonstrate this.

I don't understand why anyone still argues a natural aspect to homosexuality - its a double edged sword.

 

[notAFanB]

I think it would be justification of a type of normality when discussing natures systems and their (sidee?) effects. but no we prolly have to throw the 'nature' element out the window when discussing the ethics of such an issue.

First you have to uncover the basis of those natural systems. To my knowledge no one has been able to demonstrate this.

I don't understand why anyone still argues a natural aspect to homosexuality - its a double edged sword.

I prefer to think of it as toothless.

 

[Legion]

I think it would be justification of a type of normality when discussing natures systems and their (sidee?) effects. but no we prolly have to throw the 'nature' element out the window when discussing the ethics of such an issue.

First you have to uncover the basis of those natural systems. To my knowledge no one has been able to demonstrate this.

I don't understand why anyone still argues a natural aspect to homosexuality - its a double edged sword.

I prefer to think of it as toothless.

my point is the type of argumentation conducted could be used as a basis to justify any other commonly reject sexual behavior. If you start here using such argument where do you stop?

 

[Natoma]

Legion:

1) Natural was defined, according to Webster's Dictionary, as that which is found in nature. That is the accepted definition of natural, and under that definition, homosexuality is indeed natural.

However, that is a completely different argument wrt the moral objections to homosexuality. The arguments should be kept completely separate because they are completely separate.

2) Human nature is demonstrably not different than that of other animals. We are mammals after all. Despite our intelligence, despite our "civilization," we are still floating on top of millions of years of evolution and animal instinct.

We are driven by three undeniably animalistic forces. Hunger, Sex, and the need for shelter. We are most certainly animals, despite our intellect.

3) Indeed, it is natural to have sex outside your species. As you have stated, it does indeed occur in nature. And I admit wholeheartedly that in earlier disputes wrt this, I got caught up with equating natural with good, which is not necessarily the case. Natural is completely separate from our moral objections of what is good.

It was once considered unnatural for interracial marriages to occur. It was once considered unnatural for women to do anything but bear children and live at home.

Now, my particular beliefs on sexuality and the species is that human sex should occur only with beings who possess the same, or greater, level of intellect that we possess. Why do I put it like that? Because if/when we ever make contact with alien races (yes I am being serious), there is no doubt in my mind that there will be intermingling, which would be "illegal" under the definition of "natural" sex that humans should only co-mingle with humans.

I also believe that sexual relations should only occur between those who are fully capable of making the decision, understanding the ramifications of their actions, and thus acting on that.

So under my open ended belief structure wrt to beastiality, underage sex, yadda yadda yadda, it would not be good for a woman to marry a pig. But if she wants to marry an intelligent pig from the planet Zoufrous , then that's perfectly fine by me.

Incest should not occur because of the fact that it can produce horribly physically deformed and/or mentally disabled children. However, this is already expressed in the laws in this country as it is legal to marry your second cousin, or a more distant relation. Obviously this is because the genetic drift between the second cousin and greater is wide enough to bring the genetic problems brought up through incest to a more acceptable level.

I hope that's clarified the situation.