Support NeoGAF

[Gek54]

And now you should be banned for equating homosexuality with incest.

You really are a sick fuck.

Hmm, which one is more of a perversion of nature?

 

[Ollie Pooch]

"God did not make you homosexual and did not design humans to have relations in that manner"

try telling that to gay friends of mine who have struggled with coming out, because i'm sure they'll tell you that they had no choice in the matter. you think people choose to be gay? it scares me how people like you attempt to hide your bigotry by quoting some obscure passage from an old, fictional book.

fuck you.

 

[maharg]

[Never mind, this could probably be taken all sorts of wrong ways]

 

[ohamsie]

Christ, I don't want to read through four pages of the human interest angle in the article, can someone state what this bill is about without making me read about how sad this bill makes two lesbians?

(also note that I am from Ohio, and I am supportive of gay rights, I just get pissed off at having to read articles using the human interest angle, I think it is lazy and stupid journalism.)

 

[Catalyst]

So how about them Red Sox?

 

[Anthropic]

Christ, I don't want to read through four pages of the human interest angle in the article, can someone state what this bill is about without making me read about how sad this bill makes two lesbians?

Here's the text of the proposed ammendment:

Issue 1. Proposed Consititutional Amendment -- State of Ohio (Proposed by Initiative Petition - A majority yes vote is necessary for passage)
Be it Resolved by the People of the State of Ohio:

That the Constitution of the State of Ohio be amended by adopting a section to be designated as Section 11 of Article XV thereof, to read as follows:

Article XV

Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

 

[demon]

shit I"m drunk, but iw as going to post this if the thead came back up....Since the religious intention of the founding fathers has been a subject of this thread, i thought I'd add this:

Article XI of the Treaty of Peace with Tripoli,, ratified by the senate and signed by John Adams (second pres of the US):

"As the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on teh Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen . . .it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from the religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

 

[mosaic]

Here in Michigan, a similar proposal is on the upcoming ballot. I was disheartened to see a recent poll mentioned on the local news today that said 57% of respondents were for the initiative, 34% against, and 9% undecided.

This state is funny like that though. Eastern and mid-Michigan are quite open-minded, and tend on the demo spectrum, while western and northern MI and the UP are rather closed-minded and tend toward republican or even hyper-conservative. You can guess which group tends to show up at the polls.

 

[SEGA SAMMY]

Its not only the religious extremesists that are for these amendments. There are several issues that come up when this debate is dealing with the subject of human rights. From a scientific point of view people can be born "African-American". That would give the indvidual "the naturally born inalienable rights" of an Africain-American" From the "generally accepted scientific point of view" people are not "born from a genetic standpoint" as homosexual. The problem many have issue with is wheather "a lifestyle choice" should be protected and classified as a human right. From the generally accepted and proven scintific opinion "people are born of a certain race, but they are not born genetically predesposed to be homosexual". It's one thing to protect things which you are born with and have no control over. It's another thing to give the same protections to things that are choices.

 

[gofreak]

From the generally accepted and proven scintific opinion "people are born of a certain race, but they are not born genetically predesposed to be homosexual".

Despite the anger your post generates within me, I will answer you in a very clear and moderate manner.

Nothing whatsoever has been proven or is generally accepted about the origin and evolution of homosexuality. If you wish to risk discriminating against homosexuals based on the opinion that it is a choice and not "in-built", very literally, on your own head be it. That's a *highly* dangerous risk, however.

 

[pestul]

Its not only the religious extremesists that are for these amendments. There are several issues that come up when this debate is dealing with the subject of human rights. From a scientific point of view people can be born "African-American". That would give the indvidual "the naturally born inalienable rights" of an Africain-American" From the "generally accepted scientific point of view" people are not "born from a genetic standpoint" as homosexual. The problem many have issue with is wheather "a lifestyle choice" should be protected and classified as a human right. From the generally accepted and proven scintific opinion "people are born of a certain race, but they are not born genetically predesposed to be homosexual". It's one thing to protect things which you are born with and have no control over. It's another thing to give the same protections to things that are choices.

Choice eh? Then why is my fiancee's brother highly disgusted at the sight of a vagina? I'm pretty sure that decision was made for him. Also, throwing in the 'African-American' angle was very distasteful and shows a lot about your character.

 

[DarthWoo]

Don't most polls show that support for gay rights increases more and more as you move into younger demographics? It's a shame that it's mainly the old people who tend to exercise their political power more frequently, and then screw all the younger people for years to come.

 

[ohamsie]

Here's the text of the proposed ammendment:

Issue 1. Proposed Consititutional Amendment -- State of Ohio (Proposed by Initiative Petition - A majority yes vote is necessary for passage)
Be it Resolved by the People of the State of Ohio:

That the Constitution of the State of Ohio be amended by adopting a section to be designated as Section 11 of Article XV thereof, to read as follows:

Article XV

Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

Thanks for that. I'm almost certain that this bill is going to pass, especially because of the way it is worded, but we shall see.

 

[Goreomedy]

Here's how this shit is worded on the Oklahoma Ballot this year. And, of course, it will pass.

This measure adds a new section of law to the Constitution. It adds Section 35 to Article 2. It defines marriage to be between one man and one woman. It prohibits giving the benefits of marriage to people who are not married. It provides that same sex marriages in other states are not valid in this state. It makes issuing a marriage license in violation of this section a misdemeanor.

We can write "Fuck no" on the ballot, right?

 

[maharg]

Its not only the religious extremesists that are for these amendments. There are several issues that come up when this debate is dealing with the subject of human rights. From a scientific point of view people can be born "African-American". That would give the indvidual "the naturally born inalienable rights" of an Africain-American" From the "generally accepted scientific point of view" people are not "born from a genetic standpoint" as homosexual. The problem many have issue with is wheather "a lifestyle choice" should be protected and classified as a human right. From the generally accepted and proven scintific opinion "people are born of a certain race, but they are not born genetically predesposed to be homosexual". It's one thing to protect things which you are born with and have no control over. It's another thing to give the same protections to things that are choices.

This
is
bull
shit.

Whether something is a choice or not has nothing to do with whether it should be protected. Free speech, for example, is a choice. As is religion. This does not mean they is undeserving of protection. That it's a choice is a terrible red herring, and it makes me rather sad every time I see not only people using it, but also people FALLING for it. In the immortal words of Ackbar, "It's a trap!"

Furthermore, the right in question here is the one that says that the government will treat you equally. No one is saying "you have the right to be gay" should be added to the constitution, but from a constitutional point of view, providing services to straight people and denying them from gay people violates the notion that all men are created equal. The government should either provide the benefits that come with marriage equally or not at all.

 

[Banjo Tango]

It's one thing to protect things which you are born with and have no control over. It's another thing to give the same protections to things that are choices.

What, like religion?

Also, where did you get the idea that the scientific community believes homosexuality is a choice? Every psych class and every study I've read since then has leaned (in most cases, heavily) towards orientation being genetic. Not to mention the word of every gay person I know.

 

[teiresias]

Luckily, since I chose to become gay, once all of these amendments are passed I can just choose to become straight and my problems will be solved.

Where's the damn rolleyes when you need it.

 

[SEGA SAMMY]

I did not mean to use or degrade "minorities" in the post above, as I am a minority. The 3 races you chose on most "job aps", give you "white", "Asian", or "Black". These are things that you genetically inherit from parents, and are proven in a lab. In gererally accepted Genetics community studies they have no link to any "homosexual gene charicteristic". In psyc they have many obeservation level studies, but nothing to back it up at the cellular level. Saying that "people have no choice in in sexual preference, and that genetics mandates your destiny in life is saying that humans don't really have free will, and the ability create their own destiny. any person in here has the ability to have a homosexual or heterosexual relationship and choose it's outcome. You are not a slave to "Genetics", You are not Doomed to be alcoholic, "heterosexual", or "homosexual" ...the choice is yours, choose your destiny.

Being that this thread is pretty one sided, and as a "NFL/UIL Debate member" i like to play devils advocate. In an intelligent debate you should Reply with well thought counterarguments. There are many to what i just said. "Saying You Suck, or shut up" is not a good way to refute the argument. I will completely refute this post myself if it is not done in the next few posts.

 

[gofreak]

I did not mean to use or degrade "minorities" in the post above, as I am a minority. The 3 races you chose on most "job aps", give you "white", "Asian", or "Black". These are things that you genetically inherit from parents, and are proven in a lab. In gererally accepted Genetics community studies they have no link to any "homosexual gene charicteristic". In psyc they have many obeservation level studies, but nothing to back it up at the cellular level. Saying that "people have no choice in in sexual preference, and that genetics mandates your destiny in life is saying that humans don't really have free will, and the ability create their own destiny. any person in here has the ability to have a homosexual or heterosexual relationship and choose it's outcome. You are not a slave to "Genetics", You are not Doomed to be alcoholic, "heterosexual", or "homosexual" ...the choice is yours, choose your destiny.

There is nothing proven about homosexuality and genetics. Genetics may have a full or partial role, or none at all, in homosexuality - but we do not know, so stop talking like this is an accepted and known fact. What "genetics community studies" are you talking about?!?

Genetics aside, there are many other factors that could determine one's sexuality beyond personal choice. Even IF genetics were proven to have no role in the development of homosexuality, that does not automatically mean it is a choice. One other favoured theory re. homosexuality relates to hormonal influences in the womb - nothing to do with genetics, but also completely outside the sphere of control of the person.

Third, you mention alcoholism - I'm pretty sure some research at least has linked alcoholism to a gene or genes.

Fourth, I find it highly offensive that you say anyone can engage in a homosexual or heterosexual relationship, no problem. Yeah, if I could do that, I wouldn't have to deal with half as much as I do. Oh, and to prove your flexible, choice-driven sexuality theory, you try wacking off to the thought of a man fucking you..see how appealing that thought is to you (assuming you're as straight as you appear to say you are). You think you could be honest to yourself, and hold yourself together emotionally in a sexual/long-term/emotionally deep relationship with a man in the same way that you could with a woman? If you answered yes, then I think you're bisexual.

 

[Banjo Tango]

I did not mean to use or degrade "minorities" in the post above, as I am a minority. The 3 races you chose on most "job aps", give you "white", "Asian", or "Black". These are things that you genetically inherit from parents, and are proven in a lab. In gererally accepted Genetics community studies they have no link to any "homosexual gene charicteristic". In psyc they have many obeservation level studies, but nothing to back it up at the cellular level. Saying that "people have no choice in in sexual preference, and that genetics mandates your destiny in life is saying that humans don't really have free will, and the ability create their own destiny. any person in here has the ability to have a homosexual or heterosexual relationship and choose it's outcome. You are not a slave to "Genetics", You are not Doomed to be alcoholic, "heterosexual", or "homosexual" ...the choice is yours, choose your destiny.

Not sure I follow - you're saying that because scientists have yet to find a "gay gene", it can't be genetic? Again, as I said, studies lean towards this idea, in most cases, strongly. Is there any strong dissent against this within the scientific community? (That's not rhetorical - I'm saying I haven't seen any)

And even if we disregard the "choice" argument - if you're so uncomfortable with protecting something that's a choice, what about religion?

 

[xsarien]

In an intelligent debate you should Reply with well thought counterarguments.

Take your own advice there, Buster Brown. Scientists have observed homosexual behavior in animals for some time. Don't want to believe me? Then ask Google, one of the first articles you'll find is from that little-known institution, National Geographic.

 

[Hitokage]

I did not mean to use or degrade "minorities" in the post above, as I am a minority. The 3 races you chose on most "job aps", give you "white", "Asian", or "Black". These are things that you genetically inherit from parents, and are proven in a lab. In gererally accepted Genetics community studies they have no link to any "homosexual gene charicteristic". In psyc they have many obeservation level studies, but nothing to back it up at the cellular level. Saying that "people have no choice in in sexual preference, and that genetics mandates your destiny in life is saying that humans don't really have free will, and the ability create their own destiny. any person in here has the ability to have a homosexual or heterosexual relationship and choose it's outcome. You are not a slave to "Genetics", You are not Doomed to be alcoholic, "heterosexual", or "homosexual" ...the choice is yours, choose your destiny.

Being that this thread is pretty one sided, and as a "NFL/UIL Debate member" i like to play devils advocate. In an intelligent debate you should Reply with well thought counterarguments. There are many to what i just said. "Saying You Suck, or shut up" is not a good way to refute the argument. I will completely refute this post myself if it is not done in the next few posts.

In an intelligent debate you shouldn't resort to the "Argument from adverse consequences" logical fallacy. Considering this post and the two you made in MAF's mormons thread, for one who touts himself as a debate member, you suck at it.

Oh, and outright LYING in a debate is reprehensible as well. Funny how your "generally accepted and proven scintific opinion" omits organizations like the APA.

 

[maharg]

Your argument has been refuted as irrelevant by the very fact that it assumes that human rights are driven only by genetic aspects. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech protect *choices*. And I dare say that it has generally been proven easier to change your religion than it is to change your sexual orientation.

If you want to talk like you're some master debater, try actually responding to what people say. Please demonstrate that rights founded on choices are less valid than rights founded on genetics.

 

[fse]

Jesus would approve Gay Marriages. "Love one another"
We all know he was fucking Gay.

 

[fse]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3735668.stm

Highly fertile

Andrea Camperio-Ciani and colleagues argue genetic factors favouring homosexual male offspring could make women more fertile.

"Our data resolve this paradox by showing that there might be, hitherto unsuspected, reproductive advantages associated with male homosexuality," they said.

They looked at 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives, which included more than 4,600 people overall. The female relatives on the mother's side of the homosexual men tended to have more offspring than the female relatives on the father's side.

This suggests that these women who, in theory, pass on the gay trait to their male offspring are also more fertile.

In comparison, the female relatives on both the mother's and the father's side of the heterosexual men did not appear to be as fertile, having fewer offspring.

The researchers believe the homosexuality-increased fertility trait must be passed down on the female X chromosome.

They pointed out that this would not explain the majority (80%) of cases, and that cultural factors might be important.

 

[Dice]

I have a couple honest questions about this, but I don't want to ask them here because people know I'm religious and tend to assume every single question is loaded with bigotry and hatred. Anyone want to respectfully answer them in a PM for the good of understanding? One of them is religious in nature so I guess it'd be best if whoever answers it could answer under the biblical concept of God.

 

[Ollie Pooch]

...the choice is yours, choose your destiny.

this is a joke right? right?
ALL of my gay friends have said if they had a choice, they wouldn't be gay - they could have had relationships earlier in life (rather than struggling with accepting their homosexuality throughout their teens), could have 'fitted in' more, etc etc. whether it's genetic or cultural, it makes no difference. look at how religious rights are protected.

 

[Catalyst]

Heh, the world is choosing sides. This thread, muchless this board, proves it.

+1

 

[Father_Brain]

Speaking of Republicans in Ohio...

I don't mean to imply that most Republicans are like this. But this is definitely how a significant percentage of his supporters think.

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

Speaking of Republicans in Ohio...

I don't mean to imply that most Republicans are like this. But this is definitely how a significant percentage of his supporters think.

oy. compassionate conservatives, eh?

 

[gofreak]

"We don't want faggots in the White House!"

Then don't vote Bush, you dickwad. Your choice of VP's daughter is a fag.

 

[reggieandTFE]

Everyone (including moderate pro-business republicans) has come out against this amendment. Besides the fact that gay marriage was already made illegal a couple of years ago by a state law, the law will strip partner benefits from all non-married couples. This means that a man who has lived with a woman for 20 years will not even be able to visit her in the hospital or share his healthcare coverage.

Not surprisingly the highest ranking government official that is for the amendment is Blackwell, the asshole who's attempted to disenfranchise minority voters.