|
|
Post by moondog on Feb 9, 2009 18:33:50 GMT -5
The definition of "normal" life is what is the issue. In nature, it is normal for males and females to mate, not males and males and not females and females. There are of course some rare exceptions, but those are not "normal."
So, if a couple wants to be "normal", then they would first have to follow the norm, not a new trend. The reality is, a purely homosexual couple can not birth children without an outside influence, as in a sperm donor or birth mother. The rest of the choices do not fit within the norm.
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Feb 10, 2009 20:25:50 GMT -5
moondog, my first thought was (and it's crude) have you ever witnessed a dog that will straddle almost anything, human or otherwise?! Nature doesn't really restrict animals on their choices of mates, humans took on that job. We have established rules that society should live by and I am grateful for most of them, but I think we got a but carried a way. Look at how weird society was during the Victorian era (shudder), way too restrictive. Society should have some form of order I totally agree, but I just can't shun, or discriminate against smart, caring, and stable people for wanting to fit in and live life "normally." The only "gotcha" is the reproductive drawbacks for homosexuals, and I still say... So? To add: I've said before if we knew what "normal" people did behind closed doors we may think twice before putting down the gay community.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Feb 10, 2009 20:38:49 GMT -5
The only "gotcha" is the reproductive drawbacks for homosexuals, and I still say... So?Yes what does it matter when in vitro, or a turkey baster for that matter, is easily obtainable. Sheeeesh......... |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Feb 10, 2009 23:07:02 GMT -5
TBD, I am not sure of your intent...
Keeping an open mind... what about "normal" women that have to use those methods to get pregnant because they can't do it naturally? Is there some stigma there?
|
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Feb 11, 2009 12:37:18 GMT -5
moondog, my first thought was (and it's crude) have you ever witnessed a dog that will straddle almost anything, human or otherwise?! Nature doesn't really restrict animals on their choices of mates, humans took on that job. Big deal. Not every male dog does it. Also, because it happens in some cases does not make it the norm. In many cases it is about dominance, but not in all cases. There are varying rates of same sex bonding in the animal kingdom, depending on the species, but that does not make the behavior "normal". "Normal" is defined by greatest number of occurrences or the norm, so opposite sex bonding is "normal" in most cases. Humans are intelligent. They are wise enough to warn about and make laws against unhealthy, unsafe practices. Homosexuality has often had a stigma attached to it for that very reason. Why in the world do you think AIDS is so prevalent now? Homosexuality, plain and simple. It spread through the gay community like a wild fire because of their unsafe, unhealthy life style, which is always associated with promiscuity, especially among males. So, making such laws and societal restrictions was in the best interest of entire communities when such behavior could spread infectious disease that would not spare anyone. Pretty simple to understand really. I mean, just how do you think our blood supply became infected back in the 1980's anyway? Promiscuity. We have established rules that society should live by and I am grateful for most of them, but I think we got a but carried a way. Look at how weird society was during the Victorian era (shudder), way too restrictive. Society should have some form of order I totally agree, but I just can't shun, or discriminate against smart, caring, and stable people for wanting to fit in and live life "normally." So, you say society should have some sort of order, but then you go on to say that the hedonistically based practice of homosexuality should not be shunned because these are smart, caring and stable people. That is an interesting statement. Divorce is after all quite common in this country, though not practiced by me. Yet, it seems to me that two very high profile homosexual marriages have so far ended in divorce in this short period of time. One male male bonding and one female female bonding. Not to stable if you ask me. Not to smart either. Certainly seems to be lacking in the caring department as well. Marriage is not a hedonistic practice, though it seems that many people do treat in such a manner. I guess that is what happens when the state becomes so heavily intertwined in marriage, which is really a purview of the first amendment and a religious practice anyway. Personally, I believe if a church will marry a same sex couple, then so be it. Marriage is not a right anyway. And, if it is, the right can be defined as the right for a male and female to bond if you get the state involved. This would be a way to prevent homosexual marriage lawfully because it does provide equal protection under the law. Funny how stupid state interjections to prevent interracial marriage can have such far reaching implications, isn't it. But, we conservatives warn you folks about such things all the time, yet you rarely listen. The only "gotcha" is the reproductive drawbacks for homosexuals, and I still say... So? Homosexuals can not reproduce naturally with their chosen partners. That is a simple fact of life. If they do so with help form a sperm donor or birth mother then they are exhibiting heterosexual behavior. That is a contradiction of their stated life style. To add: I've said before if we knew what "normal" people did behind closed doors we may think twice before putting down the gay community. You know what, it is only the homosexual community that is blatanly exhibiting their deviant sexual behavior and preference. Does anyone even consider how allowing such hedonistic displays will effect the bulk of mainstream society? I don't want to know what is going on behind closed doors. And, I consider your bringing it up to be a false argument for a reason to accept something I do not want to even know about. I personally do not want to know what one man does with another mans penis or what one woman does to another woman's vagina. I am also sure none of you want to know what goes on in my bedroom as well. Keeping an open mind... what about "normal" women that have to use those methods to get pregnant because they can't do it naturally? Is there some stigma there? Why would there be? We are not talking about the stigma of reproduction here, we are talking about the stigma of homosexuality. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Feb 11, 2009 12:42:49 GMT -5
TBD, I am not sure of your intent... Sarcastic... pure and plain. Look up the word "trenchant" and you'll get the idea. Well in the case of the goofball single mom in SoCal that just pumped out octuplets that the taxpayers are going to have to pay for I'd say there might be some stigma. Wouldn't you? |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Feb 11, 2009 13:48:38 GMT -5
TBD, the mother of octuplets pointed out that IVF had less than a 50% chance of working, and to have all six embryos implant was near impossible, and we know the rest of the story. Not to mention she didn't want to destroy the six remaining embryos as she thought of them as her babies, now doesn't this take us back to the debate whether using remaining embryos for science is murder? She chose to keep her babies...Deal. Anyway, I don't think she's a good role model for IVF, but MANY women resort to infertility because they want a family and can't conceive plain and simple. And, the turkey baster has been successful! Added: Thanks for the clarification of your intent. I didn't want to assume the worst and act on it unless I was clear... |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Feb 11, 2009 13:56:15 GMT -5
moondog, you don't think heterosexuals have, or display deviant behavior?  And, what about STD's? You don't think "normal" people have them? I don't like hypocrisy. There are many deviant people in the world that harm women, children, and good grief even animals. I am not the least bit concerned about two people loving each other and committing to each other in a respectful way. Divorce is divorce no matter what your preference. I haven't been divorced either, so? Doesn't mean it isn't possible. People change, lifestyles change, demands of family etc. No one is immune from it, not even you. |
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Feb 11, 2009 14:18:18 GMT -5
moondog, you don't think heterosexuals have, or display deviant behavior? And, what about STD's? You don't think "normal" people have them? I don't like hypocrisy. There are many deviant people in the world that harm women, children, and good grief even animals. I am not the least bit concerned about two people loving each other and committing to each other in a respectful way. Divorce is divorce no matter what your preference. I haven't been divorced either, so? Doesn't mean it isn't possible. People change, lifestyles change, demands of family etc. No one is immune from it, not even you. Yes, there are many deviant people in the world. The difference is they are not asking me to accept their deviation as "normal" and they are not rubbing it in my face. And, there in lies the hypocrisy. STD's are a problem, of that there is not a single doubt. Yet, the rate is much higher among homosexual males. Men are naturally more promiscuous. Yes, divorce is common. However, these particular marriages where to end in a very, very short period of time. A year is pretty short. One would think that they would have considered that before divorcing. After all, they had only a brief window of marriage opportunity and they pissed it away. I call that nothing short of selfish. Lastly, I believe marriage is function of religion. In other words, I support any marriage, same sex or otherwise, that is consummated with the blessing of a church. All such marriages must be recognized, or that is how I perceive the First Amendment of the Constitution. However, just because I believe in homosexuals right to exercise their religion and get married does not mean I support homosexuality at all. As I have stated, it is an unsafe, unclean, unhealthy relationship. Nothing can be done to change that. The proof is in the life spans of homosexuals of either sex. In 1994, an obituary study revealed that the median age of death for homosexual males was 42 and for lesbians was 49. Source: Cameron, Playfair, Wellum, " The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the AIDS Epidemic, " Omega Journal of Death and Dying," 1994.Yep, like it or not, homosexuality takes more years off a person life then smoking does. Yet we promote homosexuality as okay with the idea of "I am not the least bit concerned about two people loving each other and committing to each other in a respectful way." Personally, we should do our best to discourage the life style, which may in the long run save a life. |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Feb 13, 2009 23:21:35 GMT -5
Ack! Statistics... I have encountered gay couples and have yet to meet any with AIDS. Every male couple I've met seem to be highly educated, hugely successful, and very interesting to share a conversation with, and healthy too.
As far as the couple that divorced just after a year, well, maybe they weren't really ready to marry, but I'm sure many felt the pressure to marry since the window of opportunity was limited.
Just a different perspective...
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Feb 16, 2009 16:29:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by The Avenger on Feb 16, 2009 18:08:16 GMT -5
Ack! Statistics... I have encountered gay couples and have yet to meet any with AIDS. Every male couple I've met seem to be highly educated, hugely successful, and very interesting to share a conversation with, and healthy too. Are any of your queer male friends over the age of 42? Statistically speaking, and as pointed out by Moondog, gay males live about 42 years. Not because they smoke or eat too much fat. It's because they engage in an unhealthy lifestyle. What I find fascinating and insane at the same time is the fact that progressive "do-gooders" will stop at nothing to stomp out cigarette smoking - citing the fact that it is proven to shorten your life. They won't however, advocate the same for homosexuality which is also shown to shorten your life. |
|
