Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

Eating off the other male's offspring also exists in nature, therefore it's okay, right?

Treating nature as a religion or behavioural guide is unnatural and misguided.

You can also argue that since marriage is a man made concept the benefits included are for human purposes. So the only thing to ask is, do gays need it for those purposes?

First you claim directly and indirectly homosexuality is unnatural and this is your retort to the response it isn't.

Treating nature as a religion or behavioural guide is unnatural and misguided.

it's biologically unproductive

he first and most obvious is that gay workers or fighters can give the community at large a survival advantage, ....

Besides which, how is forcing gay people to reproduce biologically productive?

You mean like worker ants or worker bees? Say it to a gay 

It's just that if it's not in your plans to found a family, then you have no reason to get married either.

Isn't that the crux? If you can't found a gay family but you do want a family, you might try to act like a regular person to make it happen. Biting the bullet, so to speak.

You can also argue that since marriage is a man made concept the benefits included are for human purposes. So the only thing to ask is, do gays need it for those purposes?

It's not all that difficult. In the United States, all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law regardless of race/ethnicity, religion and all other factors. Every time someone tries to prevent another group from having that equal protection religious and philosophical arguments were invoked and every time those arguments are gibberish with no legal merit.

How about your first impressions on the Orlando incident? You know, impressions, feelings...

Philosophies are like assholes - everybody has one. Hence anti-gay philosophical arguments are irrelevant.

Moral merit. Whose morality do we impose on everyone else? Who are you to say that it's immoral for two consenting adults of the same sex to settle into a marriage?

All the data suggests sexual orientation is determined before birth and the very brain structures of hetero and homosexuals are different.

It's 100% factual according to the Supreme Court of the United States that denying same sex couples the right to marriage violates the Equal Protection clause of the US constitution. Nothing I said is remotely counter-factual.

Quote from: ersi on 2016-06-15, 15:47:22

How about your first impressions on the Orlando incident? You know, impressions, feelings...

Shock and outrage, of course. Then there's the question about why he did it. His father reported he was that angry at seeing two men kissing. Then it turned out he was a regular at the bar and might have been gay himself (recall in the gun control thread I noted most mass killings are not random and there's a reason people like this choose their specific areas to target.  Perhaps he was driven mad by a poisonous combination of religious teaching and his self-hatred for having homosexual leanings. Of course, there's even the issue of how was he able to get the gun having been on the FBI's terror watch list for sometime. (NRA nutters, so much for "Obummer" taking away your guns, huh? BTW, thanks fucktards for helping make this happen by making it so easy for him to get the gun. What's wrong with you people? )

For example, wouldn't a married man visiting gay bars be more like bisexual, not a gay?

Would you say the same about whatever you call "data"? Like, "Data is like assholes - everybody has one. Hence anti-gay data is irrelevant."

Those who cannot restrain themselves, those who whine that they were born with those urges and that they have the right to display it, those are, in a normal society, determined clinically subhuman and put away in order to keep the society more or less normal.

Quote from: ersi on 2016-06-15, 19:39:56

For example, wouldn't a married man visiting gay bars be more like bisexual, not a gay?

"homosexual leanings" includes that possibility, genius.

Human sexuality is on a continuum first identified by Alfred Kinsey.

Quote from: midnight raccoon on 2016-06-16, 01:05:30

Would you say the same about whatever you call "data"? Like, "Data is like assholes - everybody has one. Hence anti-gay data is irrelevant."

Except there is no anti-gay 'data' that can can withstand repeated testing, having not been arrived at empirically. Hence there's bullshit philosophies about "nature" that nature itself seems to disagree with.

Gay people are clinically subhuman, as if there's any such clinical definition? I'll let you hang yourself with your own rope on this on.

Looks like a philosophical presupposition, something you would maybe call a hypothesis - it's not data

Yes, there used to be such a clinical definition.

Even within medicine and psychiatry, however, homosexuality was not universally viewed as a pathology. Richard von Krafft-Ebing described it as a degenerative sickness in his Psychopathia Sexualis, but Sigmund Freud and Havelock Ellis both adopted more accepting stances. Early in the twentieth century, Ellis (1901) argued that homosexuality was inborn and therefore not immoral, that it was not a disease, and that many homosexuals made outstanding contributions to society (Robinson, 1976).

Biases in psychoanalysis       

Although psychoanalytic theories of homosexuality once had considerable influence in psychiatry and in the larger culture, they were not subjected to rigorous empirical testing. Instead, they were based on analysts' clinical observations of patients already known by them to be homosexual.

This procedure compromises the validity of the psychoanalytic conclusions in at least two important ways. First, the analyst's theoretical orientations, expectations, and personal attitudes are likely to bias her or his observations. To avoid such bias, scientists take great pains in their studies to ensure that the researchers who actually collect the data do not have expectations about how a particular research participant will respond. An example is the "double blind" procedure used in many experiments. Such procedures have not been used in clinical psychoanalytic studies of homosexuality.

A second problem with psychoanalytic studies is that they have only examined homosexuals who were already under psychiatric care – in other words, homosexuals who were seeking treatment or therapy. Patients, however, cannot be assumed to be representative of the general population. Just as it would be inappropriate to draw conclusions about all heterosexuals based only on data from heterosexual psychiatric patients, we cannot generalize from observations of homosexual patients to the entire population of gay men and lesbians.

Removal from the DSM   
   In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association's membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board's decision was ratified.

Brain scans have provided the most compelling evidence yet that being gay or straight is a biologically fixed trait.

The scans reveal that in gay people, key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight people of the opposite sex.

First they used MRI scans to find out the overall volume and shapes of brains in a group of 90 volunteers consisting of 25 heterosexuals and 20 homosexuals of each gender.

The results showed that straight men had asymmetric brains, with the right hemisphere slightly larger – and the gay women also had this asymmetry. Gay men, meanwhile, had symmetrical brains like those of straight women.

The team next used PET scans to measure blood flow to the amygdala, part of the brain that governs fear and aggression. The images revealed how the amygdala connected to other parts of the brain, giving clues to how this might influence behaviour.

Biases in psychoanalysis […]

Quote from: midnight raccoon on 2016-06-16, 17:10:28

Biases in psychoanalysis […]

Is there anyone here that ever thought psychoanalysis was some kind of science?
The DSM is primarily used to feed insurance companies…

BTW: I still say bake your own cake!

Quote from: midnight raccoon on 2016-06-16, 17:10:28

Biases in psychoanalysis […]

Is there anyone here that ever thought psychoanalysis was some kind of science?
The DSM is primarily used to feed insurance companies…

BTW: I still say bake your own cake!

Sorry if there are even more typoes in this post from my phone, which doesn't even seem to be autocorrecting for me.

Human sexuality is on a continuum

I wonder from where comes the money that keeps on running all the current pro homosexual propaganda and the attack against Family that we are assisting at the western world.

Only very naive people thinks that this has anything to do with rights or that it appeared from spontaneous way.

there's politicians and there's endless resources to keep everything in practice.

Only very naive people thinks that this has anything to do with rights or that it appeared from spontaneous way. There's an agenda, there's a strategy, there's media control, there's public opinion makers, there's politicians and there's endless resources to keep everything in practice.

If anything the LGBT is affirming the family and marriage by seeking to form them.