California Overturns Gay Marriage

[Rob Henderson]

Yep,... and I can see quite clearly what it implies, homosexuals lack the self control and social skills to be straight, their brains and thought processes are more closely assimilated with the lower orders of animals.

It implies that the brains construction is fundamentally different than that of heterosexuals. It says nothing of the thought processes of lower orders of animals, you're stating your own (quite standoffish) opinion there. All the article said was that the particular part of the brain that controls sexual preference in sheep was larger in that of gay rams, and the same correlations occur in the human world. If you read the rest of the article it states that he has also performed work on gay men and the results have been the same. It's not the thoughts of the brain, it's the brain itself. They simply cannot control their sexual preference because of a malfunction at birth. The hypothalamus is enlarged, and that creates a different production of hormones.

Your "Context" is a subjective quality, if you are looking for different results the "facts" can be interpreted to suit your needs, thus my interpretation, and it has just as much validity as your interpretation, and a damn sight more credibility from the visible evidence.

But the facts are stated for you. If you can't read them, then that's your own fault. But the article clearly states "Several other parts of the hypothalamus showed consistent sex differences in size, but only this specific region showed differences that correlated with sexual preference." If that doesn't tell you what the article is saying, then I cannot help you, cannot argue, and won't continue to drill this into your head.

It falls right into line with my view that homos merely lack social skills and higher thought processes in regard to their behaviour in a civilised and socialised world. They want to drag human socialisation back to the level of the "animals".

That is ENTIRELY your opinion, and quite honestly, bashing gays. I don't frankly give a damn what your opinion is on them, but you don't have to say things like that. They are not animals, they are humans just like you. Yes, that's right, you're a directly correlated to a HOMOSEXUAL!!! And guess what, Spike? You're also related to ANIMALS!!! That's right! The monkeys and you share more DNA than any other species. So quite frankly, I could call you a monkey and be almost right. You're "thought" processes are closer to a monkey than any other creature. So what? I still think somewhat highly of you... Somewhat.

 

[The Other Guy]

It's good you feel a need to stand up for Rob. But it would be nice if you responded with something pertinent.

Wasnt' even directed as a response from that side. I responded to what I quoted, nothing more.

 

[senojekips]

It implies that the brains construction is fundamentally different than that of heterosexuals. It says nothing of the thought processes of lower orders of animals, you're stating your own (quite standoffish) opinion there.

That's no more than your opinion, and does absolutely nothing to lessen the validity of my assumption. In fact it reinforces what I have been saying all along.

I'm not "stand offish", if I were, I would leave you to revel in your own ignorance and say nothing.

IF,..... just IF, what you are alluding to were even possibly true, our medical profession would be going all out to correct this hideous abnormality, just as they do with babies born with holes in the heart, spina bifida, and other deformities. Either way it does nothing to justify homosexuals anti social tendencies.

In the past there have been similar reports published saying similar things about other sociopathic groups such as career criminals. I haven't seen any progress made there either. In short, these fanciful theories are unproven, it is at best only a noted similarity. My complete brain is very similar to yours, not merely one small part of it yet we think and act nothing alike. Our actions are based on "choice", such is homosexuality.

Your argument is completely self defeating.

 

[Chukpike]

Look man, you're new to these forums, so I'm gonna let you in on a little secret... Age means nothing in here. I can argue just like an old man can. I can debate just like the rest of the old farts. But one thing I don't stand for is being talked down to because of my age... So don't treat me like I'm some 6 year old whining about one thing or another. Treat me like you would a peer of yours. Because I can fight just as well as they can.[/rant]

So, treat others with the respect you think you deserve. Rants and name calling will not earn you respect.

Did I ever say I made a lot of posts? Did I ever use that once in my argument? No. I have been here for over 3 years. Granted, I did take a leave of absence for a bit, but I've been posting here (serious posts, not just the Never Ending Stories)for a long time. And I have one of the most serious members of this forum, someone you wouldn't know, PJ24, on record as saying I am an extremely smart kid and that my debating skills are better that most of the crap on this forum. I'm not boasting per say, I'm trying to tell you that I'm not to be taken lightly.

Again, I never said anything about you having as many posts as I do, the regular. but as far as this forum goes, I'm I'm the one that's held my own with some of the most ferocious debaters in here... But I can promise you that I'm not just some 18 year old punk. I'm here to be taken seriously, to have a decent argument with someone who happens to be informed on the issue I'm arguing. Not to be treated like I'm a child who shouldn't be taken seriously. Ask any of the usuals on here, I'm very much a quality poster.

No, you never said any thing about having more posts than I did. Just implied because I am new I don't have as much knowledge as you. In short, you want to be treated seriously, then take other's views seriously.

As far as this topic I choose to vote with what turned out to be the majority in the ban on Gay marriage. I made my decision as an individual on my moral standards and what I believe marriage should be. I put my beliefs first over what those of the gay community believe. If someday another vote is taken and gay's can marry, so be it, It just ain't today.

 

[The Other Guy]

So, treat others with the respect you think you deserve. Rants and name calling will not earn you respect.



No, you never said any thing about having more posts than I did. Just implied because I am new I don't have as much knowledge as you. In short, you want to be treated seriously, then take other's views seriously.

As far as this topic I choose to vote with what turned out to be the majority in the ban on Gay marriage. I made my decision as an individual on my moral standards and what I believe marriage should be. I put my beliefs first over what those of the gay community believe. If someday another vote is taken and gay's can marry, so be it, It just ain't today.

First off, if you felt that he was resorting to name calling, the thing to do is to report the post.

Secondly, you're not really that new here. You've been here 11 1/2 months now. Had you been here for three days, I could understand that argument, but you haven't. And we are taking your views seriously, that's why we're trying to persuade you to change them. Trust me, if I didn't take you seriously I wouldn't waste my time.

Third sort of re-states the topic.

 

[Chukpike]

First off, if you felt that he was resorting to name calling, the thing to do is to report the post..

You are probably right.

Secondly, you're not really that new here. You've been here 11 1/2 months now. Had you been here for three days, I could understand that argument, but you haven't. And we are taking your views seriously, that's why we're trying to persuade you to change them. Trust me, if I didn't take you seriously I wouldn't waste my time..

As you read in Rob's post, he thinks so.

Third sort of re-states the topic.

and my position on it.

 

[The Other Guy]

and my position on it.

Well... I guess I'm done here for now.

I've opened up a couple new polls for fresh arguments to start. This one is getting a little stale. :wink:

 

[Rob Henderson]

That's no more than your opinion, and does absolutely nothing to lessen the validity of my assumption. In fact it reinforces what I have been saying all along.

I'm not "stand offish", if I were, I would leave you to revel in your own ignorance and say nothing.

Yes, yes, my ignorance. Of course... Again... Calling me stupid... I tell you what, I'm not going to respond if neither of you are going to take an opposing view seriously. I'm done fighting a battle I've got no chance of winning.

IF,..... just IF, what you are alluding to were even possibly true, our medical profession would be going all out to correct this hideous abnormality, just as they do with babies born with holes in the heart, spina bifida, and other deformities. Either way it does nothing to justify homosexuals anti social tendencies.

But see, there are more pressing matters than who likes who in the medical world. There are more pressing matters like AIDS, cancer, Alzheimer's... No one cares about homosexuality, because it's not KILLING PEOPLE. There are more important things to deal with. They would NOT be going all out to cure it.

 

[senojekips]

Yes, yes, my ignorance. Of course... Again... Calling me stupid... I tell you what, I'm not going to respond if neither of you are going to take an opposing view seriously. I'm done fighting a battle I've got no chance of winning.

If you want to win a debate, the first thing you must do is to choose to argue for what is right. You never even gave yourself a fair chance.

But see, there are more pressing matters than who likes who in the medical world. There are more pressing matters like AIDS, cancer, Alzheimer's... No one cares about homosexuality, because it's not KILLING PEOPLE. There are more important things to deal with. They would NOT be going all out to cure it.

They work on anything that's potentially curable, and try to find ways of curing those that as yet are not. They certainly don't waste valuable research money on things that are not even proven to be medically curable.

You can't cure a persons choice.

 

[Rob Henderson]

If you want to win a debate, the first thing you must do is to choose to argue for what is right. You never even gave yourself a fair chance.
They work on anything that's potentially curable, and try to find ways of curing those that as yet are not. They certainly don't waste valuable research money on things that are not even proven to be medically curable.

You can't cure a persons choice.

That's exactly what the article said! The fact that it's not a choice! It's a brain malfunction!


Number 1, arguing for the rights of humans IS right. Regardless of whether you think so or not. Equal treatment of humans is a good thing, in case you haven't noticed from the past.

Number 2, they don't work on EVERYTHING that potentially curable. You're right, they don't use research money on things that are not proven to be curable, because they would rather have gay people living happily than have someone with cancer in constant pain every day. And quite frankly, I don't think the gays would mind it if they found a cure for AIDS before they found a way to reverse homosexuality. When the world is perfectly happy, there are no more diseases, no more sickness AT ALL, then they probably MIGHT research a way to fix all the problems of the brain... Pathological liars don't CHOOSE to be pathological liars, it's a malfunction of the brain. Mentally retarded people don't choose to be mentally retarded, it's a malfunction of the brain.

 

[senojekips]

That's exactly what the article said! The fact that it's not a choice! It's a brain malfunction!

So it's potentially curable?

Number 1, arguing for the rights of humans IS right. Regardless of whether you think so or not. Equal treatment of humans is a good thing, in case you haven't noticed from the past.

As we have already seen, it is not a "Right" to live an antisocial lifestyle. It is at best an unreasonable assumption.

Number 2, they don't work on EVERYTHING that potentially curable. You're right, they don't use research money on things that are not proven to be curable, because they would rather have gay people living happily than have someone with cancer in constant pain every day. And quite frankly, I don't think the gays would mind it if they found a cure for AIDS before they found a way to reverse homosexuality. When the world is perfectly happy, there are no more diseases, no more sickness AT ALL, then they probably MIGHT research a way to fix all the problems of the brain... Pathological liars don't CHOOSE to be pathological liars, it's a malfunction of the brain. Mentally retarded people don't choose to be mentally retarded, it's a malfunction of the brain.

So we should legislate for the acceptance of pathological liars? I don't think that you or I will ever see it,... like the acceptance of homos. If you care to check, pathological lying is regarded as a "Personality disorder", it is not a disease, and is often as not a choice. For those where the disorder is medically caused, drugs are available.

Did you ever stop to think, why would researchers go to the expense of determining if homos have a brain malfunction, if they were were not then willing to research a cure. It makes the original research a waste of time and money does it not?

 

[Rob Henderson]

Seno, I'm through with this...

 

[The Other Guy]

So it's potentially curable?

As we have already seen, it is not a "Right" to live an antisocial lifestyle. It is at best an unreasonable assumption.

So we should legislate for the acceptance of pathological liars? I don't think that you or I will ever see it,... like the acceptance of homos. If you care to check, pathological lying is regarded as a "Personality disorder", it is not a disease, and is often as not a choice. For those where the disorder is medically caused, drugs are available.

Did you ever stop to think, why would researchers go to the expense of determining if homos have a brain malfunction, if they were were not then willing to research a cure. It makes the original research a waste of time and money does it not?

So hermits should be forced to live in high density areas? That would be an antisocial lifestyle that is not a right?, is it not?

Can't we just accept it already, f*gs are f*gs, it's not changing, give them human rights, and move on with our pointlesss little lives?

 

[Rob Henderson]

NO, we must B*tch about the inevitable!!!!!!!

 

[senojekips]

NO, we must B*tch about the inevitable!!!!!!!

Well,... you can't blame anyone else for that, that was your choice, you could just have easily accepted the majority ruling like most others have done and argued on the side of reason and common sense.

So hermits should be forced to live in high density areas? That would be an antisocial lifestyle that is not a right?, is it not?

Who ever said that hermits were antisocial?

I think you will find that they are actually "unsocialised" and there is a big difference, they do not actively promote their lack of social skill as a viable alternative nor do they seek legal recognition for their chosen affliction. Tell me next time you see a parade of hermits demanding their "rights".

Your "point" is not even vaguely relevant.

Can't we just accept it already, f*gs are f*gs, it's not changing, give them human rights, and move on with our pointless little lives?

That would be a perfect answer fo those who desire to live "pointless lives", however some of us try to improve our lives and that of society in general, we are not willing to let society as we know it slide backwards towards our animal origins, where we are content to merely "scratch the itch" instead of curing the cause.

Homos do have "human rights"*, it's just that their lifestyle doesn't have majority acceptance in a modern world. We all have these problems but most of us eventually learn to accept the social guidelines of a civil society, we don't try to overturn them. As a kid, I hated school and conforming to society's rules but I had to conform in the end, for the betterment of both myself and society. It's the price we all have to pay to keep society moving forward.

*What they don't have, is the "Right" to just do as they wish, against the rules of the majority.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Well,... you can't blame anyone else for that, that was your choice, you could just have easily accepted the majority ruling like most others have done and argued on the side of reason and common sense.

So it's reasonable and common sense to deny people the rights to a private matter because of a sexual preference? Really? What kinda reefer do they have down under?

That would be a perfect answer fo those who desire to live "pointless lives", however some of us try to improve our lives and that of society in general, we are not willing to let society as we know it slide backwards towards our animal origins, where we are content to merely "scratch the itch" instead of curing the cause.

/QUOTE]

 

[senojekips]

So it's reasonable and common sense to deny people the rights to a private matter because of a sexual preference? Really? What kinda reefer do they have down under?

/QUOTE]

It's not only reasonable, it is, as are most of these community expectations, for the advancement of our society, as a whole, not a selfish minority.

The reefers here are mainly Carrier "K" series or "Fridgemoblile" ARC9s with a spattering of older models, why do you ask? Having been in the shipping game for over 25 years I can tell you anything you wish to know about them.

 

[Rob Henderson]

It's not only reasonable, it is, as are most of these community expectations, for the advancement of our society, as a whole, not a selfish minority.

Well good, I'll keep that in mind the next time you want something.

 

[senojekips]

You won't find me wanting too much outside of what is normally recognised as being acceptable to society.

Now what was it you were wanting to know about reefers?

 

[Rob Henderson]

Nothing...