Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[Quantum Windbag]

You made the following statement:

if I ignore the scientific evidence that people are not born gay

Which is you indicating that there is scientific evidence that people are not born gay. So provide it already and stop dancing.

Yes I did, it is good that you remember that. Now all you have to remember is that I did, and that I am actually defending my premise with other people that disagree with me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The therapy doesn't work because people don't choose their orientation.

Answer the question. Could you choose to WANT to suck a guys cock and like it while you are doing it?

There are homosexual men that don't like sucking cock, does that mean they like women? Or were you trying to offend me?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So get all legal marriages changed to civil unions. Go ahead. Doesn't bother me in the least. I'll sit here with my legal marriage license until you do.

as long as you stay in caliprunia where the court overturned the will of the people, fine, I could not care less. Your state is broke and moving toward becoming the state of Detroit---enjoy.

How do you feel about the court overturning the will of the people in Washington D.C. where they struck down the very strict gun control laws?

Did DC put that law to a vote, or was it passed by a bunch of politicians that thought they knew what was best for everyone else?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

and thats just fine. but thats not the real agenda of the gay left. they want the govt to force the rest of us to agree that gay marriage is a normal and totally acceptable alternative lifestyle that can be chosen by kids as they reach puberty.

homosexuality is NOT a normal human condition. whether it is genetic of environmental is subject to debate, but its not normal and equal to heterosexuality. Therefore, a gay union should never be called a marriage. To do so, opens the legal door to all forms of couplings and groupings.

The gay agenda is not to teach that being gay is normal. They want to teach that being gay is not wrong.

Huge difference.

And you clearly don't like it. You want homosexuality to be considered wrong. When you boil away all the nonsense and logical fallacies behind the objections to same sex marriages, that's all you have left. "God hates fags".

Why do they keep arguing that it is normal then?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What makes homosexuality abnormal? Percentages? Like people with blue eyes, or people who are lefthanded? Or people who choose to be celibate? Or people who get surgeries to prevent them from fathering children or conceiving?

What is the abnormality of choosing a non-reproductive sexual orientation, if in fact it's a choice?

How many children does a human have to have before he or she becomes 'normal'?

biology 101 wytchey. every species has males and females. they get together to reproduce so their species will continue. Thats the way God or nature designed it.

having 9 fingers or being homosexual are aberations of the human condition, flaws, deformities, abnormalities.

I accept that you had no choice, but neither did the guy born with 9 fingers. Neither of you are normal. But we accept you as fellow human beings.

Every species has males and females, and no species needs every one of its individual members to reproduce in order to survive.

Therefore, non-reproductive members of any species are not abnormal.

So you think blue eyes are an aberration that makes someone abnormal. lol, you're an idiot.

So many errors in a single post, where do I begin?

There is at least one species where there are no males.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycocepurus_smithii

Normal means average, not natural. There are entire species where it is normal for individuals to have nothing to do with reproductive. Funny thing, in those species the reproductive elements are abnormal.

Since the norm is for people to have brown eyes anyone who does not have brown eyes is, by definition, abnormal. When it comes to eyes I fall into the rarest group since my eyes are hazel. That is almost like having eyes that are plaid, and it is definitely abnormal.

 

[Gadawg73]

The therapy doesn't work because people don't choose their orientation.

Answer the question. Could you choose to WANT to suck a guys cock and like it while you are doing it?

There are homosexual men that don't like sucking cock, does that mean they like women? Or were you trying to offend me?

What, you collect statistics on who sucks cocks?
Damn, I do not believe I would have said that.

 

[Gadawg73]

I highlighted in red my point, which you did not address so you could find it easily. She wants those taxes, not me. Why should she then be exempt from paying them?

Because, like you, I'm legally married. As long as you're exempt I am. Good luck getting it changed, but in the mean time, I'll get the same breaks you do.

American Christians give billions a year to their church that they aren't required to give. American liberals take billions in deductions from their taxes that they don't have to take.

You're uncommitted, insincere and flagrantly hypocritical. At least Christians are committed enough to their own cause to spend their own money. I may think you're equally nuts, but I have a lot more respect for them for that reason.

Word.

Donations to churches are 100% tax deductible and half of it comes back under the table from the preachers for the very large donations.

 

[bodecea]

I highlighted in red my point, which you did not address so you could find it easily. She wants those taxes, not me. Why should she then be exempt from paying them?

Because, like you, I'm legally married. As long as you're exempt I am. Good luck getting it changed, but in the mean time, I'll get the same breaks you do.

American Christians give billions a year to their church that they aren't required to give. American liberals take billions in deductions from their taxes that they don't have to take.

You're uncommitted, insincere and flagrantly hypocritical. At least Christians are committed enough to their own cause to spend their own money. I may think you're equally nuts, but I have a lot more respect for them for that reason.

Word.

There are no Christian liberals?

 

[bodecea]

The therapy doesn't work because people don't choose their orientation.

Answer the question. Could you choose to WANT to suck a guys cock and like it while you are doing it?

There are homosexual men that don't like sucking cock, does that mean they like women? Or were you trying to offend me?

What, you collect statistics on who sucks cocks?
Damn, I do not believe I would have said that.

I know....I went

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The therapy doesn't work because people don't choose their orientation.

Answer the question. Could you choose to WANT to suck a guys cock and like it while you are doing it?

There are homosexual men that don't like sucking cock, does that mean they like women? Or were you trying to offend me?

What, you collect statistics on who sucks cocks?
Damn, I do not believe I would have said that.

Another juvenile attempt to insult and offend me from the side of the debate that claims it doesn't have a problem with gays. It might help if you get counseling to deal with your need to prove you are a man by having sex with women.

 

[Seawytch]

You made the following statement:

if I ignore the scientific evidence that people are not born gay

Which is you indicating that there is scientific evidence that people are not born gay. So provide it already and stop dancing.

Yes I did, it is good that you remember that. Now all you have to remember is that I did, and that I am actually defending my premise with other people that disagree with me.

You have yet to produce any evidence to support the claim that people choose who they are attracted to.

Were you attracted to both men and women and flipped a coin?

I don't recall a choice. When my friends were mooning over Shawn Cassidy and Leaf Garrett, I was crushing on Kate Jackson and Julie Andrews. In kindergarten I went to Catechism because the girl I had a crush on went. I did not choose these attractions. I do choose to act on those attraction. That's the only choice (and the reason "conversion" therapy is an abject failure, harmful and renounced by all major medical associations.)

Where is your evidence that it is a choice? You've provided a search string to twin studies, which do not support any "choice" assertion.

The mounting scientific evidence points to a predisposition regarding orientation. Gays will tell you that they don't choose their attractions. Reparative therapy has a success rate of less than 2% and those that are "successful" admit their feelings and attractions don't stop, only their acting upon them. What motivation could drive the insistence that orientation is a choice?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You made the following statement:

if I ignore the scientific evidence that people are not born gay

Which is you indicating that there is scientific evidence that people are not born gay. So provide it already and stop dancing.

Yes I did, it is good that you remember that. Now all you have to remember is that I did, and that I am actually defending my premise with other people that disagree with me.

You have yet to produce any evidence to support the claim that people choose who they are attracted to.

Were you attracted to both men and women and flipped a coin?

I don't recall a choice. When my friends were mooning over Shawn Cassidy and Leaf Garrett, I was crushing on Kate Jackson and Julie Andrews. In kindergarten I went to Catechism because the girl I had a crush on went. I did not choose these attractions. I do choose to act on those attraction. That's the only choice (and the reason "conversion" therapy is an abject failure, harmful and renounced by all major medical associations.)

Where is your evidence that it is a choice? You've provided a search string to twin studies, which do not support any "choice" assertion.

The mounting scientific evidence points to a predisposition regarding orientation. Gays will tell you that they don't choose their attractions. Reparative therapy has a success rate of less than 2% and those that are "successful" admit their feelings and attractions don't stop, only their acting upon them. What motivation could drive the insistence that orientation is a choice?

How many times do I have to tell you that I don't have any evidence to back up my position? I never claimed there was any such evidence, I just pointed out that the existing evidence indicates people are not born gay.

Feel free to keep attacking a position I never articulated, and don't have. I am sure it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to keep posting information that reparitve therapy doesn't work, especially if the person receiving it doesn't want to change. If I ever go crazy and start believing in the magical powers of psychology you can use it to prove me wrong. Until then, all you are proving is that you don't pay attention.

 

[MeNonPartisan]

Gee, some of us here have been saying exactly that only to be derided.

When "marriage" means whatever anyone wants it to mean then it has no meaning at all.

BINGO..................

Bottom line on marriage..............It was intended to be the human form for supporting reproduction and stability. This is supported by benefits, which supports nation building. I couldn't care less that someone is gay, but to propose SSM in the first place? The promoters must be bored.

Besides, there was never any descrimination. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Gee, some of us here have been saying exactly that only to be derided.

When "marriage" means whatever anyone wants it to mean then it has no meaning at all.

BINGO..................

Bottom line on marriage..............It was intended to be the human form for supporting reproduction and stability. This is supported by benefits, which supports nation building. I couldn't care less that someone is gay, but to propose SSM in the first place? The promoters must be bored.

Besides, there was never any descrimination. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Bottom line is, you’re succeeded in only exhibiting your ignorance and hate.

Being able to have children isn’t a criterion for marriage, otherwise opposite-sex couples incapable of having children could be disallowed from marrying.

And there is no such thing as ‘same-sex marriage,’ there is only marriage law, as written by the states, and administered by state courts. Same-sex couples have always had the right to marry when the doctrine of coverture was abandoned well over a generation ago in all 50 states. The problem is the states failing to obey the Constitution and recognizing the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to access marriage law.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes I did, it is good that you remember that. Now all you have to remember is that I did, and that I am actually defending my premise with other people that disagree with me.

You have yet to produce any evidence to support the claim that people choose who they are attracted to.

Were you attracted to both men and women and flipped a coin?

I don't recall a choice. When my friends were mooning over Shawn Cassidy and Leaf Garrett, I was crushing on Kate Jackson and Julie Andrews. In kindergarten I went to Catechism because the girl I had a crush on went. I did not choose these attractions. I do choose to act on those attraction. That's the only choice (and the reason "conversion" therapy is an abject failure, harmful and renounced by all major medical associations.)

Where is your evidence that it is a choice? You've provided a search string to twin studies, which do not support any "choice" assertion.

The mounting scientific evidence points to a predisposition regarding orientation. Gays will tell you that they don't choose their attractions. Reparative therapy has a success rate of less than 2% and those that are "successful" admit their feelings and attractions don't stop, only their acting upon them. What motivation could drive the insistence that orientation is a choice?

How many times do I have to tell you that I don't have any evidence to back up my position? I never claimed there was any such evidence, I just pointed out that the existing evidence indicates people are not born gay.

You didn't claim there was evidence you just pointed out existing evidence? WTF?

You made the claim, you can't back it up. Got it.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't give a **** if you point out that the Pope thinks it isn't a choice, all that matters is what the evidence says. Post some type of scientific study that proves that people are "born that way."

Done.
JSTOR: The Quarterly Review of Biology
I already did this by the way but you seem determined to actually ignore real scientific papers in preference to demanding that you are right.

Try again. Here is a full scientific paper on how epi-marks are the most likely cause of homosexuality and how they cause this (as well as a few concrete and testable predictions made by the model that would disprove the theory should the predictions be incorrect).

Now, I have presented scientific data backing my ideas up on this subject. I have done so a few times. It is YOUR turn now to address that data.

Actually, if I were to believe the epigeneticists, it actually would prove that people are not born that way, they become homosexual through a long process that programs them as they are exposed to different proteins as they grow. That might prove it isn't a choice, but I don't think they know what they are talking about yet.

Sure, you are free to ignore any and all scientific evidence that goes against your opinion just do not claim that all I am handing you is a bunch of biased opinion pieces.

Quite frankly, you are disagreeing with scientific evidence based solely on the inconvenient truth that it points to something that disagrees with your worldview.

 

[FA_Q2]

You didn't tell us, how many children does a human have to have in order to qualify as normal?

None, when did anyone say that a number of children was required for normalcy?

you and wytchey can really make up some shit to try to justify your illogical stand on this.

You said it right here:

every species has males and females. they get together to reproduce so their species will continue. Thats the way God or nature designed it.

You defined 'normal' as male and female getting together and reproducing.

THEREFORE...by your own definition, the males and females who don't reproduce are 'abnormal'.

So the question to you, AGAIN, is, how many children must a human have (or how much reproduction must a human do, since that's how you measure normalcy)

in order to qualify as normal?

You need to seriously look at the dictionary definition of ‘normal’ as it seems that you do not understand the word at all.

 

[Gadawg73]

There are homosexual men that don't like sucking cock, does that mean they like women? Or were you trying to offend me?

What, you collect statistics on who sucks cocks?
Damn, I do not believe I would have said that.

Another juvenile attempt to insult and offend me from the side of the debate that claims it doesn't have a problem with gays. It might help if you get counseling to deal with your need to prove you are a man by having sex with women.

I don't have any problem with gays, just with folks like you that claim they don't.

 

[Redfish]

Seriously, you need mental help if you think that by having cats, one of which belongs to our daughter, means we have sex with them. What thought process goes there? Seek professional help, I beg you.

A slippery slope fallacy is still a fallacy be it polygamy, incest or whatever.

you brought up animal sex, I just made a joke about it.

mark my words, some muslim or radical mormon will bring a polygamy case to the SCOTUS using the california ruling as precedent, and they will win.

Watch, it will happen.

Based on what legal precedent?

overturning the prop 8 vote where twice the people of CA voted against gay marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

you brought up animal sex, I just made a joke about it.

mark my words, some muslim or radical mormon will bring a polygamy case to the SCOTUS using the california ruling as precedent, and they will win.

Watch, it will happen.

Based on what legal precedent?

overturning the prop 8 vote where twice the people of CA voted against gay marriage.

The SCOTUS did not rule in the Prop 8 case. You have no idea what precedent was set or not set do you?