(August 12, 2015 at 5:36 pm)Anima Wrote:  It was permitted by means of the overinclusivity of the procreative criterion, which once again is sufficient to include 100% of the targeted group and with only a few who are not part of the target group.  With that said it is recognized the relationships and activity the state derives a benefit from are heterosexual and it is for these relationships the state is willing to incur addition burden/cost.  Thus, the state is not opposed to any orientation having heterosexual relationship and intercourse, and is even willing to give State recognition of those relationships.[/b]

Question, Why not count those homosexuals that do have children by biological means? Would their offspring not be counted as adding to the benefit of the state like and heterosexual? (True medical insemination is very costly and has a lower success rate then natural child making, but just for now,) can we say that they benefit the state just like the hetero?

Adoption is another issue unto is self, so I am not counting it in this example. It can be argued with infertility in that it dose not add to population numbers.

(August 12, 2015 at 1:53 pm)Iroscato Wrote: So, you are an advocate for eugenics as well as a raging closeted homophobe. You can dress up your deeply-ingrained desire to murder teh gayz with as many 'considers' and 'hypotheticals' as you like, the fact remains you hold the belief that exterminating gay people simply for being gay is an option on the table.

First, I believe your initial comment was, "who are you to say they are defective?" I have presented the argument for why they may be considered defective from a genetic biological standpoint. Did you have an argument for how they are not defective from a genetic biological standpoint? If so I am happy to hear it.

Secondly, what person wants to have defective children? What society wants to have a defective populace? I am undoubtedly an advocate of not having defective children and people if possible. Hence, the primary goal is prevention. I am not an advocate of exterminating the gay; (particularly as such would mean I would be an advocate for killing my own sister; which I most certainly am not) however, this is not to say society will not do so. It has tried to cure, it is trying to integrate, if it cannot do either of those it will ostracize and if need be terminate. History bears this out for numerous groups, we may only hope it does not repeat itself with this group.

Third, what do you mean by exterminating gay people simply for being gay? That is like saying exterminating murderers for simply being murderers. By this I take it to mean you mean gay (or murderous) inclination or intentions. No one would ever be killed for something like as their inclination or intentions are not known beyond their particular person. Now when that inclination or intention manifests as an act then the society or state may determine if that act is beneficial, acceptable, or detrimental and proceed to endorse, endure, or eliminate that act accordingly.

(August 12, 2015 at 1:53 pm)Iroscato Wrote: Bullshit. It's to satisfy the intolerance of despondent wastes of carbon like yourself who are so at war with themselves they seek a way to reflect their own inadequacies on other people or groups. Always has been, and it always will be, despite your sugar-coating thanks to your total lack of spine to even articulate what you really want.

At war with themselves? I am not sure what you are referring to here. Are you talking about the higher rate of suicide among homosexuals than heterosexuals as an indicator of them being at war with themselves in regards to their homosexuality?

Or are you trying to say recognition of the reality is a manifestation of inadequacy? In which case this is another form of trying to say I am a bigot.

(August 12, 2015 at 1:58 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: It's not as simple as "gay people make gay children" and "straight people make straight children". If it is genetic, it's more than likely a gene people can carry without actually exhibiting the trait e.g you can be a straight person who, although straight, carries "the gay gene". This is assuming such a gene exists.

This is what the recessive trait discussion was about in my post. If it is genetic and it is carried without exhibiting than it is known as a recessive trait associate with recessive genes. If it were a recessive gene we would observe two phenomena.

1. The exhibition of the recessive genes as a trait to a greater extent than 10% (approaching a limit of .
2. The recessive genes (and thus trait) would not be ubiquitous across numerous species or sub-groups, but will have statistical prevalence within a given species or sub-group and be non-existent in others.

Even in such a case determination of the whether the trait is beneficial or detrimental will still follow the genetic mutation model in terms of subsistence and propagation.

I can't read this stuff anymore, my eyes refuse to work when I open this thread. I don't blame them. Someone else will have to keep track of the flat-pack points.

(August 12, 2015 at 8:30 pm)Ace Wrote: But as luck will have it. . . So .. . You reaction and name calling is not at all surprising, of course I do wish to say some times at you guys, "again can't the gay please get off their holy cross and stop crying." Pleas just a little.  Hell you guys name call us in about 99% of your post. And we are laughing, will I am, not to sure about Anima.

But it is nothing new. I think if people really know that you truly would not flip out  in conversation many more people would ask you question and talk about homosexuality with you. But you getting huffy all the time, yea, most people just don't want to be bothered with that.

Ha ha!! This is very true. The name calling and accusations of closeted homosexuality are pretty much standard.

But I suppose we should not have expected much from one endeavoring to justify their passions regardless of the consequence. Their arguments are pathos and ethos based and when they are exhibited as lacking in logos they endeavor to defend via pathos and ethos again.

"He who uses his passion does so for his lack of reason" - Seneca

(August 13, 2015 at 11:47 am)Anima Wrote:

(August 12, 2015 at 8:30 pm)Ace Wrote: But as luck will have it. . . So .. . You reaction and name calling is not at all surprising, of course I do wish to say some times at you guys, "again can't the gay please get off their holy cross and stop crying." Pleas just a little.  Hell you guys name call us in about 99% of your post. And we are laughing, will I am, not to sure about Anima.

But it is nothing new. I think if people really know that you truly would not flip out  in conversation many more people would ask you question and talk about homosexuality with you. But you getting huffy all the time, yea, most people just don't want to be bothered with that.

Ha ha!!  This is very true.  The name calling and accusations of closeted homosexuality are pretty much standard.  

But I suppose we should not have expected much from one endeavoring to justify their passions regardless of the consequence.  Their arguments are pathos and ethos based and when they are exhibited as lacking in logos they endeavor to defend via pathos and ethos again.

"He who uses his passion does so for his lack of reason" - Seneca

And your arguments are demonstrated fallacies at best and homophobic hate speech at worst, and it's gone on so long that nobody cares if you think you've won the argument. We're all just kind of tired about reading what a backward bigot you are.

(August 13, 2015 at 9:27 am)Ace Wrote:

(August 12, 2015 at 5:36 pm)Anima Wrote:  It was permitted by means of the overinclusivity of the procreative criterion, which once again is sufficient to include 100% of the targeted group and with only a few who are not part of the target group.  With that said it is recognized the relationships and activity the state derives a benefit from are heterosexual and it is for these relationships the state is willing to incur addition burden/cost.  Thus, the state is not opposed to any orientation having heterosexual relationship and intercourse, and is even willing to give State recognition of those relationships.

Question, Why not count those homosexuals that do have children by biological means? Would their offspring not be counted as adding to the benefit of the state like and heterosexual? (True medical insemination is very costly and  has a lower success rate then natural child making, but just for now,) can we say that they benefit the state just like the hetero?

Adoption is another issue unto is self, so I am not counting it in this example. It can be argued with infertility in that it dose not add to population numbers.

Ace;

In what manner do you mean count?  As bolded above the is not opposed to homosexuals entering heterosexual relationships and engaging in heterosexual activity from which it derives a benefit. From this benefit the state is willing to incur an additional cost and give State recognition and benefits.

It is funny you bring up adoption. As it would appear the slippery slope continues (in less than 2 months no less) and homosexuals wanted more than just marriage (who would have ever thought this was the case).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/miss...cbf1e70b54

It will be interesting to see how this case goes. Once again they are suing under the 14th amendment due process and equal protection clauses. Once again the state may discriminate under rational basis scrutiny where the state has a legitimate interest (in regards to children it may readily say it has a compelling interest) and the discrimination is reasonably related to that interest. Thus, there is no violation of either the Due Process or Equal Protection clauses of the 14th. Just as with Obergefell this should be an open and shut case in the favor of the states.

The question becomes if we continue to extend this Due Process protects Dignity (which it does not) and has some mystical relation to Equal Protection BS utilized in Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefell. To do so the court will have to say there is a fundamental right to adopt children (which there most certainly is not).

(August 13, 2015 at 12:04 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: And your arguments are demonstrated fallacies at best and homophobic hate speech at worst, and it's gone on so long that nobody cares if you think you've won the argument. We're all just kind of tired about reading what a backward bigot you are.

Logical flaw in the arguments have yet to be presented. No homophobic hate speech has been utilized. Of course I
recognize you may not know the legal of definition of hate speech so let me help you out a bit.

Hate speech does not consist of speech which is undesirable or offensive. Hate speech consists of speech which is either obscene (devoid of any value to public discourse) or incites others to violence against a particular group or person.

Under the 1st amendment speech which may even be considered offensive is protected if it is regard to a matter of public discourse (in this case homosexuality in society and law) and is in keeping with the forum of expression (in this case a public forum for the expression of opinions and ideas).

So at worst it will not even constitute hate speech.

By all means I am more than happy to hear arguments in their favor. I trust these arguments shall not be predicated on fallacies (as you claim mine are). I have repeatedly asked for them.

So what are you arguments in favor of their condition not being classified as a defect and in their favor not predicated on a fallacy of false equivalency?

(August 13, 2015 at 12:06 pm)Anima Wrote: It is funny you bring up adoption.  As it would appear the slippery slope continues (in less than 2 months no less) and homosexuals wanted more than just marriage (who would have ever thought this was the case).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/miss...cbf1e70b54

It will be interesting to see how this case goes.  Once again they are suing under the 14th amendment due process and equal protection clauses.  Once again the state may discriminate under rational basis scrutiny where the state has a legitimate interest (in regards to children it may readily say it has a compelling interest) and the discrimination is reasonably related to that interest.  Thus, there is no violation of either the Due Process or Equal Protection clauses of the 14th.  Just as with Obergefell this should be an open and shut case in the favor of the states.

The question becomes if we continue to extend this Due Process protects Dignity (which it does not) and has some mystical relation to Equal Protection BS utilized in Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefell.  To do so the court will have to say there is a fundamental right to adopt children (which there most certainly is not).

Hey in reading this aritical, I just became a little lost on the gay argument of marrage. It has been argued that Marrige has nothing to do with kids! So how now can it be argued that because of marrage "we same sex" have the the right to adopt as a marred cuple. But if marrage was not about childern any more then to use marrage as grounds to argue, ( which is already to damn funny, given that it is exactly what the state used to argue against same sex marrge in the first damn place!!) Now am I to understand that they wish to put marrage and kids back in play in order to adopt !!!!???  

Wow, now that is some bull shit, that is.

You don't get to reference the first amendment in an attempt to refute the way others perceive you.

Again, no argument needs to be brought forth in their favor. You need to provide a compelling case to the contrary. You have yet to do so.