The Madness Continues--Canada Loses Its Bearings

[jlw]

Mac6yver:

So, if they discovered a “Gay Gene” tomorrow you would allow gay marriage?

Having innate wants and desires are so much different from ACTING on wants and desires, no??

Having innate wants and desires to couple your reprodctive organ with another man’s eliminatory organ is just a desire until one ACTS on it.

A black man is black. He is not “wanting” or “desiring” blackness. He doesn’t ACT black. He doesn’t verify his blackness with an ACTION of blackness. He just IS black.

Homosexuality may be*** predicated*** by innate proclivities, balance of testosterone or estrogen, innate personality traits like sensitivity, etc. but, you still have to ACT on these. That’s the clincher, so to speak.

 

[Brad]

Zoot:

So, we have thousands of men in plush surroundings and pretty clothes because of me? What power!

Does anyone else know why priests like plush surroundings and pretty clothes. LisaN seems to think it is important, and Brad thinks they do it to avoid me.

I agree with LisaN that it is extraordinarily important and meaningful. Because your question is insulting I didn’t want to dignify it with wasted words. There is meaning behind every statue, altar cloth, robe, window etc.

If you want a good reference, read this here:

catholic-pages.com/church/splendour.asp

 

[jlw]

Mac6yver:

So, if they discovered a “Gay Gene” tomorrow you would allow gay marriage?

Read my post above.

And NO, I wouldn’t, because gay sex does nothing to further humanity. Government must protect and promote the general welfare of the human persons it governs. Marriage, quite frankly, is NOT ABOUT BNEFITS. It’s about sex!!

 

[Brad]

Mac6yver:

As far as I know there is no law regarding boy scouts or girl scouts. However, lets go with the horse. Can the horse consent to marry his owner? Can a horse make a sentient decision? No, the horse can not. Comparing animals to humans will not go very far. Even if you used a man who wishes to marry a child, the child can not legally consent.

Why can’t the child legally consent? Isn’t this discrimination against a child that might really like an adult? Will you stand up for their rights?

As for the horse, it’s not the horse’s fault he cannot speak - would you prevent health benefits to the horse if a kind owner could provide better pet health insurance if he could put the horse on his work health plan? Would the horse have to suffer under a cash only plan? And the owner would suffer watching the horse suffer? Would you stand up for the owner’s rights if not the horse?

 

[Brad]

Mac6yver:

So, if they discovered a “Gay Gene” tomorrow you would allow gay marriage?

Red herring. With all the scientists scrambling to find such a gene - they have no evidence whatsoever that points in this direction. Meanwhile, there is great heaps of evidence that it may be developmental but the media doesn’t want to hear that.

 

[Mac6yver]

Lisa N:

Of COURSE some discrimination is acceptable. Good grief do you want six year olds driving SUVs? Do you want an untrained uneducated individual doing bypass surgery on your mother? Do you want violent felons to be able to buy guns? Do you want a man who’s never flown a plane to be in charge of a 747?

Sometimes discrimination promotes a good and sometimes it promotes an evil. That is the decision that needs to be made. The civil rights movement fought an evil in our society because denying people basic human rights by virtue of skin pigmentation (race being an artificially manufactured label) is evil.

Lisa N

There is a differemce between limitations and descrimination. We are not talking about someone who is not yet the driving age, but will have the same right to the oppurtunity when they become the legal driving age to obtain a liscense. We are not talkign about someone who has the oppurtunity to go through med school if the wish to be a doctor. We are not talking about someone who surrendered their right to own a fire arm when they choose to break the law. Do you see the difference that I am trying to point out?

 

[Mac6yver]

jlw:

Having innate wants and desires are so much different from ACTING on wants and desires, no??

Having innate wants and desires to couple your reprodctive organ with another man’s eliminatory organ is just a desire until one ACTS on it.

A black man is black. He is not “wanting” or “desiring” blackness. He doesn’t ACT black. He doesn’t verify his blackness with an ACTION of blackness. He just IS black.

Homosexuality may be*** predicated*** by innate proclivities, balance of testosterone or estrogen, innate personality traits like sensitivity, etc. but, you still have to ACT on these. That’s the clincher, so to speak.

So, even if you are born gay that does not give you the right to be gay? How have gay people hurt you?

 

[Mac6yver]

jlw:

Read my post above.

And NO, I wouldn’t, because gay sex does nothing to further humanity. Government must protect and promote the general welfare of the human persons it governs. Marriage, quite frankly, is NOT ABOUT BNEFITS. It’s about sex!!

So a couple who are not fertile should not be allowed to marry? A man who has had a vasectomy should not be allowed to marry? A woman who has had her tubes tied should not be allowed to marry?

 

[Mac6yver]

Brad:

Why can’t the child legally consent? Isn’t this discrimination against a child that might really like an adult? Will you stand up for their rights?

As for the horse, it’s not the horse’s fault he cannot speak - would you prevent health benefits to the horse if a kind owner could provide better pet health insurance if he could put the horse on his work health plan? Would the horse have to suffer under a cash only plan? And the owner would suffer watching the horse suffer? Would you stand up for the owner’s rights if not the horse?

Honestly, I am not even going to address your post. A horse can not consent, end of discussion.

 

[Mac6yver]

Brad:

Red herring. With all the scientists scrambling to find such a gene - they have no evidence whatsoever that points in this direction. Meanwhile, there is great heaps of evidence that it may be developmental but the media doesn’t want to hear that.

The human genome will take decades to actually identify each gene. We have only identified how many genes there are, not what each does. In that task we have only scraped the surface. I do disagree with you though that there is no evidence to point to a homosexual gene.

 

[jlw]

Mac6yver:

So, even if you are born gay that does not give you the right to be gay? How have gay people hurt you?

Be gay?? No one is saying you can’t have gay thoughts. No one is saying you can’t have gay sex.

(I think sodomy laws are silly. Dangerous? Yeah. A public health hazzard. Yes. But in a free society, the last thing we need is a nazi sex police. "Freeze!!! Hands in the air!! Now!! Back away from the bum!! Slowly!!)

No, you have a right to “be” gay. You have a right to “act” gay. You have a right to, a’hem, consumate your “gayness”.

But marriage is marriage. One man, one woman, gets one child.

Every man has the equal right to marry…a woman.

Every woman has the equal right to marry…a man.

Government must protect and promote the general welfare of the people. Sex has consequences, not just for the parents, but for ALL HUMANITY!. Heterosexual sex has the BIGGEST consequences of all: **LIFE. **Homosexuals can’t say that.

 

[jlw]

Mac6yver:

So a couple who are not fertile should not be allowed to marry? A man who has had a vasectomy should not be allowed to marry? A woman who has had her tubes tied should not be allowed to marry?

Ah, another argument. Let’s not change the subject yet, ok?

Good question, though! And worth discussing. We will. I won’t forget or ignore.

 

[Brad]

Mac6yver:

Honestly, I am not even going to address your post. A horse can not consent, end of discussion.

But you ignored the child. Are you saying a child cannot make a decision?

 

[Mac6yver]

jlw:

Ah, another argument. Let’s not change the subject yet, ok?

Good question, though! And worth discussing. We will. I won’t forget or ignore.

No, I do not see the difference between a gay couple marrying and a heterosexual couple who can not reproduce… You stated that the purpose of marriage is procreation, so what is the difference?

 

[Mac6yver]

Brad:

But you ignored the child. Are you saying a child cannot make a decision?

The child can not make an informed decision. That is why two children who are the same age can not even marry, not without written consent from both parents. Those laws are there to protect children. We are talking about a legally binding contract, no child may enter a legal contract until they are 18.

 

[jlw]

Mac6yver:

No, I do not see the difference between a gay couple marrying and a heterosexual couple who can not reproduce… You stated that the purpose of marriage is procreation, so what is the difference?

So you are responding here to post 131 as well? Or have you yet??

I just don’t want to skip anything along the way here.

 

[Brad]

Mac6yver:

The human genome will take decades to actually identify each gene. We have only identified how many genes there are, not what each does. In that task we have only scraped the surface. I do disagree with you though that there is no evidence to point to a homosexual gene.

There isn’t - if there was, you’d provide some for us.

No gene can be deterministic of behavior - humans (in contrast to horses) have a will and can decide whether to do something or not.

A gene can indicate how much testosterone one may have or what types of body parts they have or what skin color they have. But no gene mandates behavior on its owner.

Someone born with a violent temper is not required to get in fights. Behavior can be controlled, especially with proper developmental guidance.

This type of reasoning - that genes may mandate behavior is an attempt by liberalists to make nobody responsible for their behavior - i.e. criminals that rob a bank had a gene for thrill seeking so it’s not really their fault.

God didn’t make us that way - sorry.

 

[jlw]

Brad:

There isn’t - if there was, you’d provide some for us.

No gene can be deterministic of behavior - humans (in contrast to horses) have a will and can decide whether to do something or not.

A gene can indicate how much testosterone one may have or what types of body parts they have or what skin color they have. But no gene mandates behavior on its owner.

Someone born with a violent temper is not required to get in fights. Behavior can be controlled, especially with proper developmental guidance.

This type of reasoning - that genes may mandate behavior is an attempt by liberalists to make nobody responsible for their behavior - i.e. criminals that rob a bank had a gene for thrill seeking so it’s not really their fault.

God didn’t make us that way - sorry.

Very, very very well said.

 

[Mac6yver]

jlw:

So you are responding here to post 131 as well? Or have you yet??

I just don’t want to skip anything along the way here.

131 and a couple others I suppose.

 

[Mac6yver]

Brad:

There isn’t - if there was, you’d provide some for us.

No gene can be deterministic of behavior - humans (in contrast to horses) have a will and can decide whether to do something or not.

A gene can indicate how much testosterone one may have or what types of body parts they have or what skin color they have. But no gene mandates behavior on its owner.

Someone born with a violent temper is not required to get in fights. Behavior can be controlled, especially with proper developmental guidance.

This type of reasoning - that genes may mandate behavior is an attempt by liberalists to make nobody responsible for their behavior - i.e. criminals that rob a bank had a gene for thrill seeking so it’s not really their fault.

God didn’t make us that way - sorry.

Honestly, there is a lot of evidence, just type it into google.

Aside from that, you seem to be telling me that sexuality is something you decide. So when did you decide to like girls/women?