PDA

View Full Version : Life Brittish neuroscientist says that being gay is genetic


Pages : [1] 2 3

pr_capone
06-24-2011, 03:36 PM
possibly for DC but hopefully we can have a nice conversation without it turning to flame fest.

http://www.canada.com/life/Baby+were+born+this/4987565/story.html


When it comes to sexual orientation — and homosexuality in particular — it turns out that Freud and others who theorized that it stems from early parental relationships, childhood abuse or choice were traipsing up the wrong path.

According to pioneering British-American neuroscientist, Simon LeVay (and Lady Gaga), the answer is simple: Baby, you were born this way.

"Sexual orientation is an aspect of gender that emerges from the prenatal sexual differentiation of the brain," says LeVay, who was one of the first researchers in 1991 to connect brain development to sexual orientation. "Whether a person is gay or straight depends in large part on how this process of biological differentiation goes forward, with the lead actors being genes, sex hormones and the brain systems that are influenced by them."

...

DMAC
06-24-2011, 03:38 PM
thuper

Donger
06-24-2011, 03:38 PM
Good. Maybe they can find a way to cure them of the defect.

MOhillbilly
06-24-2011, 03:39 PM
<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xSLlZh9yelk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Sofa King
06-24-2011, 03:39 PM
I chose not to have those genes.

DMAC
06-24-2011, 03:40 PM
I chose not to have those genes.

God was pushin em on ya pretty hard huh...

Pants
06-24-2011, 03:41 PM
Anyone with a brain could have concluded this on their own.

Donger
06-24-2011, 03:43 PM
God was pushin em on ya pretty hard huh...

Speaking of pushing hard, it's a little known fact that you should impregnate the female only via doggy-style intercourse if you want straight kids.

Sofa King
06-24-2011, 03:44 PM
God was pushin em on ya pretty hard huh...

My momma says that was the devil....

DMAC
06-24-2011, 03:44 PM
Speaking of pushing hard, it's a little known fact that you should impregnate the female only via doggy-style intercourse if you want straight kids.

Doesnt matter...I have straight sperm.

MOhillbilly
06-24-2011, 03:45 PM
My momma says that was the devil....

what did the priest say?

ClevelandBronco
06-24-2011, 03:47 PM
And why would this information matter to anyone?

Just Passin' By
06-24-2011, 03:48 PM
Anyone with a brain could have concluded this on their own.

http://blastmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/facepalm.jpg

Donger
06-24-2011, 03:48 PM
And why would this information matter to anyone?

There are some who claim that homosexuality is a choice.

MOhillbilly
06-24-2011, 03:49 PM
Anyone watch that thing on PBS about Two Spirits? POV maybe?

Radar Chief
06-24-2011, 03:49 PM
So a couple of years ago Diesel Mechanic buddy, a.k.a. “Toughest Sumbitch I know”, found out his daughter, who was 10 years old at the time, was hanging out with the neighbor’s boy who was about 3 years older. Well Diesel Mechanic buddy starts getting a bit pissed even though everyone was telling him there’s nothing to worry about. He even exclaimed rather loudly while discussing it, “I’m not going to be good with my daughter hanging around with a 13 y.o. boy!” About that time the neighbors boy came skipping across their yard with a dolly in his hand and Diesel Mechanic buddy looked at him, thought for a minute and said, “Ooohhh. Never mind.”

Pants
06-24-2011, 03:49 PM
There are some who claim that homosexuality is a choice.

It makes sense, seeing as you get all the privileges that the gays get.

ClevelandBronco
06-24-2011, 03:50 PM
There are some who claim that homosexuality is a choice.

Okay. And why would this information matter to anyone?

Donger
06-24-2011, 03:50 PM
Anyone watch that thing on PBS about Two Spirits? POV maybe?

Is that some kind of homo show?

Simplex3
06-24-2011, 03:50 PM
I still don't understand why I care either way, but "good"?

Sofa King
06-24-2011, 03:50 PM
what did the priest say?

"Don't tell anyone and you can have this candy"

Donger
06-24-2011, 03:50 PM
Okay. And why would this information matter to anyone?

Because this study claims that it is not a choice.

Pants
06-24-2011, 03:50 PM
So a couple of years ago Diesel Mechanic buddy, a.k.a. “Toughest Sumbitch I know”, found out his daughter, who was 10 years old at the time, was hanging out with the neighbor’s boy who was about 3 years older. Well Diesel Mechanic buddy starts getting a bit pissed even though everyone was telling him there’s nothing to worry about. He even exclaimed rather loudly while discussing it, “I’m not going to be good with my daughter hanging around with a 13 y.o. boy!” About that time the neighbors boy came skipping across their yard with a dolly in his hand and Diesel Mechanic buddy looked at him, thought for a minute and said, “Ooohhh. Never mind.”

Obviously the 10 year old made a choice.

MOhillbilly
06-24-2011, 03:51 PM
Is that some kind of homo show?

yes about the Navajo multi gender culture and some kid that got his head bashed in.

Donger
06-24-2011, 03:51 PM
Obviously the 10 year old made a choice.

Well, technically he did. He didn't have to skip or carry a dolly.

Pants
06-24-2011, 03:55 PM
Well, technically he did. He didn't have to skip or carry a dolly.

Yes, it was his choice to carry the dolly and skip at the time.

Radar Chief
06-24-2011, 03:55 PM
Obviously the 10 year old made a choice.

13 but yea, by that point pretty much everyone knew. NTTIAWWT.

ClevelandBronco
06-24-2011, 03:57 PM
Because this study claims that it is not a choice.

I'll stop asking the question if you'll stop answering a question I haven't asked.

Pants
06-24-2011, 03:59 PM
13 but yea, by that point pretty much everyone knew. NTTIAWWT.

NTTIAWWT indeed.

Donger
06-24-2011, 04:00 PM
I'll stop asking the question if you'll stop answering a question I haven't asked.

I can't. I was born this way.

Donger
06-24-2011, 04:01 PM
NTTIAWWT indeed.

So, "bad wiring" isn't the same as "something wrong"?

Baconeater
06-24-2011, 04:02 PM
American message board poster says that being British is gay.

4th and Long
06-24-2011, 04:05 PM
American message board poster says that being British is gay.
Donger will be along in a moment to lat some neg rep on you.

Baconeater
06-24-2011, 04:08 PM
Donger will be along in a moment to lat some neg rep on you.
He's an American now.

Donger
06-24-2011, 04:09 PM
Donger will be along in a moment to lat some neg rep on you.

That's "lay," you insufferable cretin.

gblowfish
06-24-2011, 04:13 PM
Who the Hell are the Brittish?

Donger
06-24-2011, 04:15 PM
Who the Hell are the Brittish?

British people who have a lisp.

SNR
06-24-2011, 04:20 PM
Who the Hell are the Brittish?That's Bwi-eh-dish

Pants
06-24-2011, 04:23 PM
So, "bad wiring" isn't the same as "something wrong"?

It's a harmless mutation, I guess.

Brock
06-24-2011, 04:23 PM
Duh.

Brock
06-24-2011, 04:24 PM
So, "bad wiring" isn't the same as "something wrong"?

Is being left handed "something wrong"?

Crush
06-24-2011, 04:34 PM
British people who have a lisp.

HIPAA violation.

vailpass
06-24-2011, 04:40 PM
Is being left handed "something wrong"?

It is if that left hand likes to grab cock.

Brock
06-24-2011, 04:41 PM
It is if that left hand likes to grab cock.

You've never grabbed cock? Doubt that.

Donger
06-24-2011, 04:48 PM
Is being left handed "something wrong"?

No. But I wouldn't equate that to being homosexual.

Donger
06-24-2011, 04:49 PM
It's a harmless mutation, I guess.

I don't disagree.

vailpass
06-24-2011, 04:49 PM
You've never grabbed cock? Doubt that.

Is that how you people feel each other out? Doesn't seem very subtle but then neither is balls across the face.

Brock
06-24-2011, 04:51 PM
Is that how you people feel each other out? Doesn't seem very subtle but then neither is balls across the face.

I don't know who "you people" are, but I don't believe that you have never grabbed a cock.

JD10367
06-24-2011, 04:51 PM
Good. Maybe they can find a way to cure them of the defect.

Thanks for your input, Adolph.

Once I got past my inherited childhood bigotry, I never understood why anyone gives a shit about what anyone else does in the privacy of their own home. Whether you like to suck innies or outies, who gives a rat's ass. I don't care if you fuck guys, girls, or goats, as long as the goats are of age and consenting.

As for the gays, they're screwed either way (pardon the pun). If doctors say it's genetic, people will want to "cure" them. If doctors say it's a choice, people will persecute them and say, "Well, it's their fault, they don't HAVE to be like that".

Claiming it's genetics is a slippery slope. What's next, then? Do we blackball people with bad eyesight because it can be cured genetically? Do we start breeding certain traits out because society deems them undesirable? Short people? Fat people? Blondes? Brown eyed people? Dark skinned people?

Just leave the gays alone, fer crissakes. They're not bothering you. Besides, if we breed it out of existence, culture will take a big hit. Half the actors, a quarter of the musicians, and ALL the interior decorators... It'd be boring without the queers. :D

Pants
06-24-2011, 04:52 PM
LOL

Donger
06-24-2011, 04:53 PM
Thanks for your input, Adolph.

Once I got past my inherited childhood bigotry, I never understood why anyone gives a shit about what anyone else does in the privacy of their own home. Whether you like to suck innies or outies, who gives a rat's ass. I don't care if you **** guys, girls, or goats, as long as the goats are of age and consenting.

As for the gays, they're screwed either way (pardon the pun). If doctors say it's genetic, people will want to "cure" them. If doctors say it's a choice, people will persecute them and say, "Well, it's their fault, they don't HAVE to be like that".

Claiming it's genetics is a slippery slope. What's next, then? Do we blackball people with bad eyesight because it can be cured genetically? Do we start breeding certain traits out because society deems them undesirable? Short people? Fat people? Blondes? Brown eyed people? Dark skinned people?

Just leave the gays alone, fer crissakes. They're not bothering you. Besides, if we breed it out of existence, culture will take a big hit. Half the actors, a quarter of the musicians, and ALL the interior decorators... It'd be boring without the queers. :D

That was a joke.

And, it's Adolf, not Adolph.

JD10367
06-24-2011, 04:57 PM
That was a joke.

And, it's Adolf, not Adolph.

Adolph is the Brittish spelling.

vailpass
06-24-2011, 05:01 PM
I don't know who "you people" are, but I don't believe that you have never grabbed a cock.

What I'm grabbing right now is a mason jar full of really good margarita. Herradura, Grand Marnier, lime juice and rocks.

I see what you are getting at in terms of I've probably grabbed my own but I did so out of choice, not heredity.

Brock
06-24-2011, 05:02 PM
I see what you are getting at in terms of I've probably grabbed my own but I did so out of choice, not heredity.

Why did you do that? Got to where you could work that thing pretty good, I bet.

JD10367
06-24-2011, 05:06 PM
If :whackit: makes you gay, move over, Richard Simmons, I'm the new poster child! ::: running to put rainbow stickers on his car... :::

Detoxing
06-24-2011, 05:08 PM
Herradura, Grand Marnier, lime juice and rocks.



Thanks. Now I know what I'm doing tonight. But fuck, Grand Marnier is expensive.

Brock
06-24-2011, 05:08 PM
If :whackit: makes you gay, move over, Richard Simmons, I'm the new poster child! ::: running to put rainbow stickers on his car... :::

I don't think it makes you gay, just poking fun at vailpass' remark about grabbing cock.

JD10367
06-24-2011, 05:10 PM
I don't think it makes you gay, just poking fun at vailpass' remark about grabbing cock.

Oh, good. Wait, does "The Stranger" count? I guess it depends on who you're picturing doing it, LOL...

SNR
06-24-2011, 05:20 PM
Thanks for your input, Adolph.

Once I got past my inherited childhood bigotry, I never understood why anyone gives a shit about what anyone else does in the privacy of their own home. Whether you like to suck innies or outies, who gives a rat's ass. I don't care if you fuck guys, girls, or goats, as long as the goats are of age and consenting.

As for the gays, they're screwed either way (pardon the pun). If doctors say it's genetic, people will want to "cure" them. If doctors say it's a choice, people will persecute them and say, "Well, it's their fault, they don't HAVE to be like that".

Claiming it's genetics is a slippery slope. What's next, then? Do we blackball people with bad eyesight because it can be cured genetically? Do we start breeding certain traits out because society deems them undesirable? Short people? Fat people? Blondes? Brown eyed people? Dark skinned people?

Just leave the gays alone, fer crissakes. They're not bothering you. Besides, if we breed it out of existence, culture will take a big hit. Half the actors, a quarter of the musicians, and ALL the interior decorators... It'd be boring without the queers. :DI agree. A gay dude cut my hair last month, and this is the best I've ever looked in my life. It's like he breathed fabulous particles all over my head and turned me into a hot hunk

Mr. Laz
06-24-2011, 05:21 PM
Anyone being remotely honest could have concluded this on their own.FYP

vailpass
06-24-2011, 05:21 PM
Thanks. Now I know what I'm doing tonight. But ****, Grand Marnier is expensive.

No doubt but you only need a little bit. A bottle stays around for a while.
Cointreau works good too. Anything but triple sec.

Brock
06-24-2011, 05:21 PM
Oh, good. Wait, does "The Stranger" count? I guess it depends on who you're picturing doing it, LOL...

"It's just a chick with really big hands"

JD10367
06-24-2011, 05:24 PM
"It's just a chick with really big hands"

"A nice girl from Thailand." :D

Psyko Tek
06-24-2011, 05:26 PM
Anyone with a brain could have concluded this on their own.

having a brain is also a genetic thing

BigMeatballDave
06-24-2011, 05:28 PM
Anyone with a brain could have concluded this on their own.
No kidding.

Seriously, would any straight guy actually choose to suck dick or take one in the ass?

Pants
06-24-2011, 05:30 PM
No kidding.

Seriously, would any straight guy actually choose to suck dick or take one in the ass?

Not mention the ridicule, persecution and bias they would have to deal with. EFF THAT NOISE.

It also makes complete sense that a person would chose to be gay and then proceed to stay in the closet their whole life, marry and have children and never truly experience life how they want (like our own Kotter).

Groves
06-24-2011, 06:02 PM
Claiming it's genetics is a slippery slope. What's next, then? Do we blackball people with bad eyesight because it can be cured genetically? Do we start breeding certain traits out because society deems them undesirable? Short people? Fat people? Blondes? Brown eyed people? Dark skinned people?


I say we start with:

a. Bad drivers
b. People who can't operate an ATM or self serve checkout kiosk
c. Folks who way overprice cool old stuff that I want to buy.

It's a start, anyway.

JD10367
06-24-2011, 06:06 PM
I say we start with:

a. Bad drivers

Jeez, man. Right off the bat, you want to kill all teenagers, women, elderly, and Asian? :shake: You're cold.

Groves
06-24-2011, 06:08 PM
Jeez, man. Right off the bat, you want to kill all teenagers, women, elderly, and Asian? :shake: You're cold.

And probably Rhode Islanders. Shape up, bub.

JD10367
06-24-2011, 06:16 PM
And probably Rhode Islanders. Shape up, bub.

Well, then you'll also want to include all Bostonians, New Yorkers, Los Angelinos (or whatever the fuck they call themselves), and Floridians. And all Europeans. Shit, this list is already long with just the one condition of "bad drivers"...

Groves
06-24-2011, 06:23 PM
Well, then you'll also want to include all Bostonians, New Yorkers, Los Angelinos (or whatever the **** they call themselves), and Floridians. And all Europeans. Shit, this list is already long with just the one condition of "bad drivers"...

I wasn't still on the "bad driver" list. It was more or less a way...oh, nevermind.

DA_T_84
06-24-2011, 06:35 PM
I heard Brittish people don't like coloureds, either. They sure will smoke a f.aggot, though. A whole pack of f.ags, sometimes.

BigMeatballDave
06-24-2011, 06:40 PM
Not mention the ridicule, persecution and bias they would have to deal with. EFF THAT NOISE.

It also makes complete sense that a person would chose to be gay and then proceed to stay in the closet their whole life, marry and have children and never truly experience life how they want (like our own Kotter).Not sure if serious.

If so, my post went completely over your head.

4th and Long
06-24-2011, 06:45 PM
Well, then you'll also want to include all Bostonians, New Yorkers, Los Angelinos (or whatever the fuck they call themselves), and Floridians. And all Europeans. Shit, this list is already long with just the one condition of "bad drivers"...
Actually, in the most recent study, Kansans were listed as the worst drivers.
Posted via Mobile Device

Brock
06-24-2011, 06:56 PM
Actually, in the most recent study, Kansans were listed as the worst drivers.
Posted via Mobile Device

I don't see how that's even remotely possible.

DA_T_84
06-24-2011, 06:59 PM
Actually, in the most recent study, Kansans were listed as the worst drivers.
Posted via Mobile Device

Link or tits or get the fuck out

loochy
06-24-2011, 08:06 PM
So then being gay is like a form of mental retardation?

Donger
06-24-2011, 08:17 PM
So then being gay is like a form of mental retardation?

No, more of an abnormality. And, clearly, something has gone wrong in the process. There's only one reason we have male and female.

loochy
06-24-2011, 08:17 PM
No, more of an abnormality.

Like being incredibly incredibly ugly?

Donger
06-24-2011, 08:20 PM
Like being incredibly incredibly ugly?

No.

loochy
06-24-2011, 08:21 PM
No.

http://www.callofbeauty.com/gallery/d/96778-1/Bush+confused+a+little.jpg

Donger
06-24-2011, 08:23 PM
http://www.callofbeauty.com/gallery/d/96778-1/Bush+confused+a+little.jpg

Being attractive or not isn't an abnormality. Being equipped as a guy (or gal) and wanting the same sex is.

alnorth
06-24-2011, 08:28 PM
There are some who claim that homosexuality is a choice.

This belief is wrong, but hypothetically speaking, lets say it is right.

Hypothetically speaking, lets also pretend you could change your skin color/race any time you want. Since its a choice, would that be sufficient justification to bring back the miscegenation laws?

The reason interracial marriage bans are so repugnant is because you clearly had no choice, you are what you are when born, but homosexuality is a bit dodgy because no straight person really knows if it was a choice, and never will for sure (barring scientific proof) unless they could trade the sexual part of their brains for a day.

Even if it is true that being gay were a choice, why should it matter? Banning interracial marriage, even if you could choose to be white, would be stupid because it is clearly arbitrary. A definition of "one man and one woman, with the same color skin", where that definition has a real legal impact on someone, should not be tolerated in a society where we believe in equal protection, even if it were tradition.

Why should we care if its a choice or not?

It isn't, but even if it were, believing in a ban on gay marriage is just so fundamentally unfair and so silly, that people 20 years from now will look back on gay marriage ban proponents with the same judgment that is reserved for those who believed in segregation back in the day.

Donger
06-24-2011, 08:30 PM
You are wrong, but hypothetically speaking, lets say you are right.

Hypothetically speaking, lets also pretend you could change your skin color/race any time you want. Since its a choice, would that be sufficient justification to bring back the miscegenation laws?

The reason interracial marriage bans are so repugnant is because you clearly had no choice, you are what you are when born, but homosexuality is a bit dodgy because no straight person really knows if it was a choice, and never will for sure (barring scientific proof) unless they could trade the sexual part of their brains for a day.

Even if it is true that being gay were a choice, why should it matter? Banning interracial marriage, even if you could choose to be white, would be stupid because it is clearly arbitrary. A definition of "one man and one woman, with the same color skin", where that definition has a real legal impact on someone, should not be tolerated in a society where we believe in equal protection, even if it were tradition.

Why should we care if its a choice or not?

It isn't, but even if it were, believing in a ban on gay marriage is just so fundamentally unfair and so silly, that people 20 years from now will look back on gay marriage ban proponents with the same judgment that is reserved for those who believed in segregation back in the day.

I'm wrong that some people claim that homosexuality is a choice?

alnorth
06-24-2011, 08:30 PM
oh hey, New York just now (as in a couple minutes ago) legalized same-sex marriage. Well not yet, the governor still has to sign it, but he will.

alnorth
06-24-2011, 08:31 PM
I'm wrong that some people claim that homosexuality is a choice?

no, but that belief is both silly and should be irrelevant.

You obviously believe in gay marriage bans though, care to address that?

JD10367
06-24-2011, 08:31 PM
Why should we care if its a choice or not?

It isn't, but even if it were, believing in a ban on gay marriage is just so fundamentally unfair and so silly, that people 20 years from now will look back on gay marriage ban proponents with the same judgment that is reserved for those who believed in segregation back in the day.

It's all gone to hell since we gave women the right to vote!

Donger
06-24-2011, 08:34 PM
no, but that belief is both silly and should be irrelevant.

You obviously believe in gay marriage bans though, care to address that?

I don't really care if homosexuals want to be couples, but I don't think that their unions need to be called marriages. It's an attempt at normality.

alnorth
06-24-2011, 08:35 PM
I'm wrong that some people claim that homosexuality is a choice?

I went ahead and edited the post for clarity.

alnorth
06-24-2011, 08:38 PM
I don't really care if homosexuals want to be couples, but I don't think that their unions need to be called marriages. It's an attempt at normality.

Federal law gives huge tax benefits to married couples, so there's a serious problem from the start.

That aside, trying to create a second label that is equal in every other way is not good enough. You and your church can call them anything you want, from "civil unions", to "sinful heathens who will burn", or anything in between, but our government should not arbitrarily ascribe one socially superior label onto one group but not another, when the impact of being labelled, officially, as somehow inferior can be demonstrated to have widespread harm.

JD10367
06-24-2011, 08:38 PM
I don't really care if homosexuals want to be couples, but I don't think that their unions need to be called marriages. It's an attempt at normality.

Well, yeah. Who the hell wants to be called abnormal? But I think it's more about equal rights and simplifying things. "Civil unions" and all that jazz leave a lot of wiggle room. You have partners who can't share health care, can't administer their partners' wills, can't even visit them in the hospital if they're not "immediate family". Most laws are set up with exceptions for spouses. Civil unions mean they have to figure out each law in each state. Granting them marriage rights means they just get lumped under existing laws (much simpler).

Donger
06-24-2011, 08:39 PM
Federal law gives huge tax benefits to married couples, so there's a serious problem from the start.

That aside, trying to create a second label that is equal in every other way is not good enough. You and your church can call them anything you want, from "civil unions", to "sinful pillowbitergots who will burn", or anything in between, but our government should not arbitrarily ascribe one socially superior label onto one group but not another, when the impact of being labelled, officially, as somehow inferior can be demonstrated to have widespread harm.

I'm don't have a church and I'm not religious.

I know that married couples get tax breaks, but I'm sure that homosexual couple aren't interested in that.

And, a male and female union is superior. Nature decides that.

Donger
06-24-2011, 08:40 PM
Well, yeah. Who the hell wants to be called abnormal? But I think it's more about equal rights and simplifying things. "Civil unions" and all that jazz leave a lot of wiggle room. You have partners who can't share health care, can't administer their partners' wills, can't even visit them in the hospital if they're not "immediate family". Most laws are set up with exceptions for spouses. Civil unions mean they have to figure out each law in each state. Granting them marriage rights means they just get lumped under existing laws (much simpler).

I don't care what they want. What matters is what they are. They are who nature decided they are.

JD10367
06-24-2011, 08:44 PM
And, a male and female union is superior. Nature decides that.

Semantics. Religion and society decide what's "superior". There are homosexual animals. There are polygamous animals. There have been periods in human history when homosexuality/bisexuality not only wasn't a problem, it was almost the norm (Greece, Rome, etc.,.). The whole issue in the past few hundred years is because Christianity says it's a sin, bottom line.

I find the argument about man+woman being "natural" to be a slippery slope. What's the baseline for a marriage? That Tab A goes into Slot B? That reproduction can occur? Well, what if the woman is sterile? What if the man is paralyzed and his thingy doesn't work? What if they're not very sexual and abstain? What if they're so old they no longer get down and nasty, and get married at the age of 80? Marriage is a social construct. There's no legal, non-relgious reason for making it man+woman only. (And what if a partner gets a sex change?)

Donger
06-24-2011, 08:46 PM
Semantics. Religion and society decide what's "superior". There are homosexual animals. There are polygamous animals. There have been periods in human history when homosexuality/bisexuality not only wasn't a problem, it was almost the norm (Greece, Rome, etc.,.). The whole issue in the past few hundred years is because Christianity says it's a sin, bottom line.

I find the argument about man+woman being "natural" to be a slippery slope. What's the baseline for a marriage? That Tab A goes into Slot B? That reproduction can occur? Well, what if the woman is sterile? What if the man is paralyzed and his thingy doesn't work? What if they're not very sexual and abstain? What if they're so old they no longer get down and nasty, and get married at the age of 80? Marriage is a social construct. There's no legal, non-relgious reason for making it man+woman only. (And what if a partner gets a sex change?)

Propagation of the species makes heterosexuals superior. A male and female who cannot procreate either choose not to or have some medical defect that prevents them from doing so. That isn't the case with homosexuals. Nature dictates that they cannot breed.

loochy
06-24-2011, 08:47 PM
Propagation of the species makes heterosexuals superior.

ding ding ding

alnorth
06-24-2011, 08:50 PM
And, a male and female union is superior. Nature decides that.

Irrelevant (if, hypothetically, it were true), unless this has something to do with a legit governmental interest. (It does not).

Gay marriage bans are unconstitutional and should not be tolerated in a just society which has any respect at all for equal rights.

Pitt Gorilla
06-24-2011, 08:53 PM
I know that married couples get tax breaks, but I'm sure that homosexual couple aren't interested in that.Why not?

Donger
06-24-2011, 08:53 PM
Irrelevant (if, hypothetically, it were true), unless this has something to do with a legit governmental interest. (It does not).

Gay marriage bans are unconstitutional and should not be tolerated in a just society which has any respect at all for equal rights.

That's fine. You can ignore nature all you want. It's silly and petulant to do so, but fine.

Donger
06-24-2011, 08:54 PM
Why not?

I was kidding. I've no doubt that the fiscal side of things is a substantial part of them wanting equal status.

JD10367
06-24-2011, 08:56 PM
Propagation of the species makes heterosexuals superior.

Yeah, right. You haven't been in a Wal-Mart lately.

alnorth
06-24-2011, 09:03 PM
That's fine. You can ignore nature all you want. It's silly and petulant to do so, but fine.

People are born with different skin color, too. If we were an equatorial country, then black people would be superior. So, clearly by your logic, whites shouldn't marry in an equatorial country. That country should encourage those frail whiney sunburned blonde-haired nordic people to go back to the polar caps where they belong.

Again, I repeat, I am hypothetically granting that hetero people are "superior". I dont agree with it, and I dont know what the flying f**k "superior" means, but what the hell, lets roll with it. People who walk are also superior to quadraplegics, so those gimps clearly shouldn't marry either.

The point is, this alleged superiority is irrelevant to our government. So, they should treat those poor, broken, mentally damaged, pitiable gays equally to straight people in regards to marriage. Same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional without a damned good reason for it.

DA_T_84
06-24-2011, 09:04 PM
Propagation of the species makes heterosexuals superior. A male and female who cannot procreate either choose not to or have some medical defect that prevents them from doing so. That isn't the case with homosexuals. Nature dictates that they cannot breed.

Should those people not be allowed to marry, then?

Or anyone with a "defect?"

Does the fact that you (and nature?) view homosexuals and people who cannot procreate as less "superior," mean that those people aren't privy to the same rights and benefits of those who are "superior?"

bowener
06-24-2011, 09:08 PM
Good. Maybe they can find a way to cure them of the defect.

What defect? God made them that way.

Of course you're just being a troll.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b321/Star-Dragon/Humor/BritishTroll.jpg

KurtCobain
06-24-2011, 09:09 PM
Gross.

Donger
06-24-2011, 09:11 PM
People are born with different skin color, too. If we were an equatorial country, then black people would be superior. So, clearly by your logic, whites shouldn't marry in an equatorial country. That country should encourage those frail whiney sunburned blonde-haired nordic people to go back to the polar caps where they belong.

Again, I repeat, I am hypothetically granting that hetero people are "superior". I dont agree with it, and I dont know what the flying f**k "superior" means, but what the hell, lets roll with it. People who walk are also superior to quadraplegics, so those gimps clearly shouldn't marry either.

The point is, this alleged superiority is irrelevant to our government. So, they should treat those poor, broken, mentally damaged, pitiable gays equally to straight people in regards to marriage. Same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional without a damned good reason for it.

It doesn't really matter whether you agree that that heterosexuals are superior or not. Nature says they are.

Donger
06-24-2011, 09:14 PM
Should those people not be allowed to marry, then?

Sure.

Does the fact that you (and nature?) view homosexuals and people who cannot procreate as less "superior," mean that those people aren't privy to the same rights and benefits of those who are "superior?"

The "right" and "benefit" of marriage? No, I don't think that homosexuality should be normalized, because it isn't normal. Again, two heterosexuals who can't breed either choose not to or have some medical defect which prevents them from breeding. That isn't the case with homosexuals. They can't breed, by design.

alnorth
06-24-2011, 09:16 PM
It doesn't really matter whether you agree that that heterosexuals are superior or not. Nature says they are.

You are trolling me. You obviously are wrong on this issue and cant think of a good counter, so lets harp on an silly sideshow point that I granted as an irrelevant issue. Yeah, thats the ticket, sidetrack the argument away from where you cant throw up a good defense.

I'm done, you are not discussing the issue in good faith.

bowener
06-24-2011, 09:19 PM
Propagation of the species makes heterosexuals superior. A male and female who cannot procreate either choose not to or have some medical defect that prevents them from doing so. That isn't the case with homosexuals. Nature dictates that they cannot breed.

This is incorrect.

They can breed. They are just attracted to the same sex. To be homosexual does not mean your reproductive organs do not function.

Male giraffes mount other male giraffes over 90% of the time, yet still manage to have offspring with female giraffes. Nothing stops a gay man from having sex with a woman for the purpose of bearing a child. It has been done in the past and will continue to be done in the future.

Brock
06-24-2011, 09:20 PM
You are trolling me. You obviously are wrong on this issue and cant think of a good counter, so lets harp on an silly sideshow point that I granted as an irrelevant issue. Yeah, thats the ticket, sidetrack the argument away from where you cant throw up a good defense.

I'm done, you are not discussing the issue in good faith.

alnorth, meet Donger.

Simplex3
06-24-2011, 09:21 PM
And, a male and female union is superior. Nature decides that.

I have to assume your wife is mute.

Donger
06-24-2011, 09:22 PM
You are trolling me. You obviously are wrong on this issue and cant think of a good counter, so lets harp on an silly sideshow point that I granted as an irrelevant issue. Yeah, thats the ticket, sidetrack the argument away from where you cant throw up a good defense.

I'm done, you are not discussing the issue in good faith.

No, I'm really not. The propagation of the species is, well, a rather important thing. I challenge you to prove me wrong on any point I've made. You can't, because it's the truth. You may find it unpleasant but that doesn't change the facts.

Donger
06-24-2011, 09:23 PM
This is incorrect.

They can breed. They are just attracted to the same sex. To be homosexual does not mean your reproductive organs do not function.

Male giraffes mount other male giraffes over 90% of the time, yet still manage to have offspring with female giraffes. Nothing stops a gay man from having sex with a woman for the purpose of bearing a child. It has been done in the past and will continue to be done in the future.

Well, yeah. They can breed is they act like heterosexuals. Their plumbing works just fine. They just use it oddly.

Baconeater
06-24-2011, 09:23 PM
What tax breaks do married couples get? I'm fairly certain that two single personal exemptions are more than a couple filing jointly.

Donger
06-24-2011, 09:23 PM
alnorth, meet Donger.

See 112. I offer that challenge to you as well.

Donger
06-24-2011, 09:24 PM
I have to assume your wife is mute.

No, she is not.

bowener
06-24-2011, 09:24 PM
No, I'm really not. The propagation of the species is, well, a rather important thing. I challenge you to prove me wrong on any point I've made. You can't, because it's the truth. You may find it unpleasant but that doesn't change the facts.

I proved you wrong. Homosexuals can procreate. They just fall in "love" with same sex partners. A gay man's dick won't fall off if he puts it in a vagina.

You are wrong.

Simplex3
06-24-2011, 09:24 PM
No, I'm really not. The propagation of the species is, well, a rather important thing. I challenge you to prove me wrong on any point I've made. You can't, because it's the truth. You may find it unpleasant but that doesn't change the facts.

Important to whom?

bowener
06-24-2011, 09:26 PM
Well, yeah. They can breed is they act like heterosexuals. Their plumbing works just fine. They just use it oddly.

It isn't "acting" like being heterosexual, they are having heterosexual sex for the purpose of creating a new life. Again, they can procreate, they just "love" people of their own sex. They are functionally the same as any other heterosexual human.

Donger
06-24-2011, 09:26 PM
I proved you wrong. Homosexuals can procreate. They just fall in "love" with same sex partners. A gay man's dick won't fall off if he puts it in a vagina.

You are wrong.

If a homosexual man copulates with a female, he isn't being a homosexual. Sorry, I thought that was obvious.

Donger
06-24-2011, 09:27 PM
Important to whom?

The species.

alnorth
06-24-2011, 09:27 PM
No, I'm really not. The propagation of the species is, well, a rather important thing. I challenge you to prove me wrong on any point I've made. You can't, because it's the truth. You may find it unpleasant but that doesn't change the facts.

Maybe you aren't trolling? I'll say this a third time in case you are having difficulty reading. (Or maybe you are drunk, it is Friday night, after all)

Again, for the third time, hypothetically, I am granting that heterosexuals are superior. Whatever you think "superior" means. I dont agree with it, but for the sake of argument, I am granting it because it is not relevant. I am making a legal, not a religious or philosophical, argument. I am making a purely legal argument under our nation's long tradition of respecting equal protection under the law.

If two elderly quadraplegic gimps can marry who clearly are both inferior to most people and cant reproduce, then so should gay people. Gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.

Donger
06-24-2011, 09:27 PM
It isn't "acting" like being heterosexual, they are having heterosexual sex for the purpose of creating a new life. Again, they can procreate, they just "love" people of their own sex. They are functionally the same as any other heterosexual human.

Can two homosexuals breed with each other?

Simplex3
06-24-2011, 09:27 PM
The species.

I didn't know "the species" was sentient.

Donger
06-24-2011, 09:28 PM
Maybe you aren't trolling? I'll say this a third time in case you are having difficulty reading. (Or maybe you are drunk, it is Friday night, after all)

Again, for the third time, hypothetically, I am granting that heterosexuals are superior. Whatever you think "superior" means. I dont agree with it, but for the sake of argument, I am granting it because it is not relevant. I am making a legal, not a religious or philosophical, argument. I am making a purely legal argument under our nation's long tradition of respecting equal protection under the law.

If two elderly quadraplegic gimps can marry who clearly are both inferior to most people and cant reproduce, then so should gay people. Gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.

Nature thinks heterosexuals are superior. I just happen to agree.

Donger
06-24-2011, 09:29 PM
I didn't know "the species" was sentient.

Our species is made up of many sentient beings, yes.

Baconeater
06-24-2011, 09:30 PM
The Marriage Tax Penalty

Marriage and the IRS

By Sheri & Bob Stritof (http://marriage.about.com/bio/Sheri-Bob-Stritof-275.htm), About.com Guides

See More about:



marriage tax penalty (http://marriage.about.com/lr/marriage_tax_penalty/275892/1/)
financial issues (http://marriage.about.com/lr/financial_issues/275892/2/)
married taxpayers (http://marriage.about.com/lr/married_taxpayers/275892/3/)
taxes (http://www.about.com/lr/taxes)


Although millions of U.S. couples have been impacted by the marriage penalty in the federal tax code, do you understand what the marriage tax penalty is, how the marriage penalty came to be, and how changes in the federal tax law reduced the marriage penalty?

What is the Marriage Tax Penalty?

The difference between what you pay in taxes as a married couple and what you would pay as two single persons is often referred to as the marriage tax penalty.

Marriage Penalty Background

The marriage penalty aspect of the federal tax code was built into the federal tax tables. Higher taxes were required for a married couple who earned the same as two single individuals. It didn't make any difference if the married couple filed jointly or separately. From 1913 to 1969, married couples had an advantage when it came to income taxes. However, because of the 1948 income-splitting tax-code which many thought was unfair to singles, the law was changed in 1969. The tax raise of 1993 made matters even worse for married couples. Married folks also took a hit by some targeted tax cuts enacted in 1997.
Prior to 2003, if both spouses earned about the same amount of money, then they ended up in a higher tax bracket and were penalized for being married. Actually, the smaller the difference between what they each earned, the higher the marriage penalty. However, if one spouse earned a good salary, and the other didn't, then they weren't penalized. The marriage penalty could affect couples in all income brackets, though. A couple who married could lose earned income tax credits that they had received as singles.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that in 1996 the average marriage tax penalty was about $1,400 which adversely affected 42% of all married couples. Many believe that some couples chose not to marry because of the tax penalty.

2003 Tax Law Changes

In 2003 the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js408.htm) reduced the impact of the marriage penalty on married couples who choose to file jointly on their income taxes. This was done by equalizing the standard deduction for singles and married couples and increasing the end point of the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples filing jointly. The marriage penalty still exists for some couples depending on their tax bracket.

Future of the Marriage Penalty

Depending on how Congress handles tax relief, the marriage penalty could be reinstated in 2010.

Simplex3
06-24-2011, 09:31 PM
Our species is made up of many sentient beings, yes.

Reproduction is important for the survival and continuation of our species. But love isn't a requirement for reproduction. Hell, attraction isn't even a requirement. At this point sex isn't even required. If every man and woman on the planet woke up tomorrow as a homosexual the human race would carry on.

alnorth
06-24-2011, 09:31 PM
Nature thinks heterosexuals are superior. I just happen to agree.

Cool, I'll take this non-response, as an agreement that essentially says "OK, you got me. I admit it, you are right, gay marriage bans are unconstitutional, and gay people should marry. But, just so you know, gays are inferior."

Whatever, good enough for me. Debate over, welcome aboard on the side who believes in equality. Glad to see that you are a gay marriage supporter. If you care about the issue, please write to your local politicians.

Donger
06-24-2011, 09:35 PM
Reproduction is important for the survival and continuation of our species. But love isn't a requirement for reproduction. Hell, attraction isn't even a requirement. At this point sex isn't even required. If every man and woman on the planet woke up tomorrow as a homosexual the human race would carry on.

I didn't say that either of those three was required. But, the basic fact remains: there is only one reason we have male and female. Nature dictates that same sex humans cannot breed. Sure, a gay guy can bang a chick and knock her up, but that would be going against his genetically-ordained nature (according to this study). He can bang his guy friend all he wants, and he'll never produce a child.

So, it's perfectly accurate to state what I have stated.

Donger
06-24-2011, 09:36 PM
Cool, I'll take this non-response, as an agreement that essentially says "OK, you got me. I admit it, you are right, gay marriage bans are unconstitutional, and gay people should marry. But, just so you know, gays are inferior."

Whatever, good enough for me. Debate over, welcome aboard on the side who believes in equality. Glad to see that you are a gay marriage supporter. If you care about the issue, please write to your local politicians.

I already answered this. Post 88:

"I don't really care if homosexuals want to be couples, but I don't think that their unions need to be called marriages. It's an attempt at normality."

Baconeater
06-24-2011, 09:37 PM
Will one of you goddamn homos answer my fucking question?

Donger
06-24-2011, 09:38 PM
Will one of you goddamn homos answer my ****ing question?

LMAO

alnorth
06-24-2011, 09:38 PM
The Marriage Tax Penalty

The vast, vast, vast majority of the time, marriage is a tax benefit, not neutral or a penalty. However, there are some cases where the marriage penalty exists.

Tax law should change so that, whether you are single or married, it should make no difference. If we had a flat tax (maybe some benefits for the poor so married poor people would have a benefit, but whatever, good enough), then this whole issue would disappear.

This is politically a bad move, so it wont happen. Given that marriage is almost always a tax benefit, it should be open to gay people.

alnorth
06-24-2011, 09:41 PM
I already answered this. Post 88:

"I don't really care if homosexuals want to be couples, but I don't think that their unions need to be called marriages. It's an attempt at normality."

The government can not constitutionally ascribe a socially preferred title upon one group over another without a compelling governmental reason. So, gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.

Since your one and only objection is weak and insufficient to sustain a gay marriage ban, I again welcome you as a gay marriage supporter. Seriously, no need to quibble about irrelevant details anymore, you are on the correct side now. If you care about the issue, ask your local politician to oppose gay marriage bans.

Baconeater
06-24-2011, 09:44 PM
The vast, vast, vast majority of the time, marriage is a tax benefit, not neutral or a penalty. However, there are some cases where the marriage penalty exists.

Tax law should change so that, whether you are single or married, it should make no difference. If we had a flat tax (maybe some benefits for the poor so married poor people would have a benefit, but whatever, good enough), then this whole issue would disappear.

This is politically a bad move, so it wont happen. Given that marriage is almost always a tax benefit, it should be open to gay people.
Can you cite an example? I've been married for nearly 18 years, and I have yet to see where I have any kind of tax benefit over a single person.

Donger
06-24-2011, 09:44 PM
The government can not constitutionally ascribe a socially preferred title upon one group over another without a compelling governmental reason. So, gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.

Since your one and only objection is weak and insufficient to sustain a gay marriage ban, I again welcome you as a gay marriage supporter. Seriously, no need to quibble about irrelevant details anymore, you are on the correct side now. If you care about the issue, ask your local politician to oppose gay marriage bans.

They have a very compelling and accurate reason: all homosexual unions are inferior compared to most heterosexual unions. It is merely an attempt to normalize and equate homosexuality with the norm.

bowener
06-24-2011, 09:46 PM
If a homosexual man copulates with a female, he isn't being a homosexual. Sorry, I thought that was obvious.

LMAO

So a person can be gay and straight?

A gay person can't have sex with a person of the opposite sex because they are gay? Like they are magnetically alike and thus are physically repulsed and unable to have heterosexual sex?

WTF? You didn't answer a damn thing.

bowener
06-24-2011, 09:48 PM
Can two homosexuals breed with each other?

That wasn't your original argument. Homosexuals can in fact breed, the opposite of what you said prior. They are just attracted to the same sex.

Donger
06-24-2011, 09:59 PM
LMAO

So a person can be gay and straight?

A gay person can't have sex with a person of the opposite sex because they are gay? Like they are magnetically alike and thus are physically repulsed and unable to have heterosexual sex?

WTF? You didn't answer a damn thing.

Sure, bisexual. Anyway, for example, I presume you are heterosexual. If you decide to blow a guy, are you acting like a heterosexual or a homosexual?

This is pretty simple stuff.

Sure, like I said, a gay guy can hump a woman and breed with her. But that very act is, by definition, contrary to what homosexuality is.

Donger
06-24-2011, 10:00 PM
That wasn't your original argument. Homosexuals can in fact breed, the opposite of what you said prior. They are just attracted to the same sex.

I thought my point was so abundantly clear that it didn't need any clarification. Yes, I meant homosexuals cannot breed with each other. You agree with that, right?

bowener
06-24-2011, 10:09 PM
Sure, bisexual. Anyway, for example, I presume you are heterosexual. If you decide to blow a guy, are you acting like a heterosexual or a homosexual?

This is pretty simple stuff.

Sure, like I said, a gay guy can hump a woman and breed with her. But that very act is, by definition, contrary to what homosexuality is.

If a man is gay, and has sex with only men his entire life he is certainly gay, right? This man decides he would like a child of his own, and to save money, finds a woman that will have sex with him and give birth to his child. She gets pregnant on their first attempt. Is this man not gay now? He has fucked 20 men and 1 woman... this makes him bisexual? Even if he only had sex with a woman for the sake of having a child?

I guess you are hung up on hetero/homosexual acts. Just because the gay man fucks a woman once doesn't make him straight or even bi. He is still gay.

I thought my point was so abundantly clear that it didn't need any clarification. Yes, I meant homosexuals cannot breed with each other. You agree with that, right?

Yep, man and man cannot breed. You didn't say that though, and it was not clear. Physically they can and do. They are still gay while having "straight" sex, unless you believe a person to only be gay or straight while in the act of fucking (oral fucking too). Is that what you believe? When you aren't putting it to your wife, are you sexually neutral?

beach tribe
06-24-2011, 10:21 PM
I say we start with:

a. Bad drivers
b. People who can't operate an ATM or self serve checkout kiosk
c. Folks who way overprice cool old stuff that I want to buy.

It's a start, anyway.

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh90/bbeal29/5363.jpg

Edit: Posted for the obvious reasons. If you thought skin tone, shoot yourself.

JD10367
06-24-2011, 10:25 PM
Can you cite an example? I've been married for nearly 18 years, and I have yet to see where I have any kind of tax benefit over a single person.

Not sure about single, but if you run your taxes with you and your wife filing seperately, and then filing jointly, you'll always get more back filing jointly.

JD10367
06-24-2011, 10:28 PM
Sometimes this site makes me wonder if being an asshole is also genetic.

alnorth
06-24-2011, 10:43 PM
Can you cite an example? I've been married for nearly 18 years, and I have yet to see where I have any kind of tax benefit over a single person.

sure, and this isn't particularly difficult to do. You work, making $80,000 per year, your wife is a stay at home mom. Boom, done, you benefit greatly on your income tax by being married.

Or maybe the kids are out of the nest, you make more money now, and the better half wants to be productive? OK fine, through raises over the years into your 40's and 50's, maybe you now make about 100k and the wife makes about 40k. Marriage is still a sweet deal for you both.

If your wife makes about as much as you, and if you both make very substantial incomes, then suddenly marriage doesn't work out so well any longer. Thats when the marriage penalty kicks in: when you both are doing VERY well, then you'd be better off by living in sin.

alnorth
06-24-2011, 10:50 PM
They have a very compelling and accurate reason: all homosexual unions are inferior compared to most heterosexual unions. It is merely an attempt to normalize and equate homosexuality with the norm.

You have failed to explain why the government should care about inferiority.

Gimpy quadraplegics are also inferior to people with intact spines, so they should also be denied the right to marry. Since that is stupid to contemplate, you are out of justifications.

Welcome to the pro-gay marriage crowd. Don't worry, you are now on the right side of history. 20 years from now, as a gay marriage supporter, people wont then have tolerate you and apologize to their friends saying "I'm sorry, but Donger is just set in his ways, being an ignorant intolerant bigot is all he knows".

Mr. Kotter
06-24-2011, 10:52 PM
One man's opinion. Nothing more. Plenty of equally, or more well qualified researchers, would disagree with his conclusion. Ain't gonna be "solved" anytime soon. Though the gay rights lobby keeps tryin'. It's a transparent politically motivated effort and, at this point, ruse.

alnorth
06-24-2011, 10:58 PM
One man's opinion. Nothing more. Plenty of equally, or more well qualified researchers, would disagree with his conclusion. Ain't gonna be "solved" anytime soon. Though the gay rights lobby keeps tryin'. It's a transparent politically motivated effort and, at this point, ruse.

Again, lets pretend it is a choice.

So what? Some people choose to live in blue houses. A blue-house marriage ban would be unconstitutional, and the fact that you can paint your house white or move out is freaking irrelevant.

Even if being gay is a choice (it isn't, but lets pretend it is), gay marriage bans are still unconstitutional.

listopencil
06-24-2011, 11:00 PM
Claiming it's genetics is a slippery slope. What's next, then? Do we blackball people with bad eyesight because it can be cured genetically? Do we start breeding certain traits out because society deems them undesirable? Short people? Fat people? Blondes? Brown eyed people? Dark skinned people?



No, you are looking at this all wrong. If it's possible to do so we should engineer more gay people to ease population control. We could use less breeders on this planet. Then it would also help with the bashing, beatings, dragging behind pick-ups and murder in general. See, next time some pathological freak sees a gay guy he'd buy the gay guy a drink. "Thanks for taking one for the team, Bud.", he'd say. And just buy the guy a beer or something. It would be great.

Bump
06-24-2011, 11:02 PM
Anyone with a brain could have concluded this on their own.

this

the only argument that anybody has whether or not it's genetic is "THE BIBLE DONT SAY SO" which isn't good enough for anybody who can think for themselves.

listopencil
06-24-2011, 11:09 PM
Being attractive or not isn't an abnormality. Being equipped as a guy (or gal) and wanting the same sex is.

That's debatable. "Homosexual" behavior is seen in creatures other than man, and self-destructive/socially destructive behavior has been observed in mankind. What do you consider abnormality?

alnorth
06-24-2011, 11:16 PM
That's debatable. "Homosexual" behavior is seen in creatures other than man, and self-destructive/socially destructive behavior has been observed in mankind. What do you consider abnormality?

This line isn't going anywhere. Someone who is religious will say God said so, and someone who isn't will pull crap stats from crap researchers and/or just ignore your point and say they know gay people are deviant just because, and you may be deviant yourself for not knowing that.

The law is cleaner, more relevant, and its somewhere between difficult and impossible to argue that gay marriage bans are constitutional.

If someone is an ignorant or hateful bigot, I don't really care as long as they aren't a threat and everyone enjoys equal protection under the law.

Baconeater
06-24-2011, 11:40 PM
sure, and this isn't particularly difficult to do. You work, making $80,000 per year, your wife is a stay at home mom. Boom, done, you benefit greatly on your income tax by being married.

Or maybe the kids are out of the nest, you make more money now, and the better half wants to be productive? OK fine, through raises over the years into your 40's and 50's, maybe you now make about 100k and the wife makes about 40k. Marriage is still a sweet deal for you both.

If your wife makes about as much as you, and if you both make very substantial incomes, then suddenly marriage doesn't work out so well any longer. Thats when the marriage penalty kicks in: when you both are doing VERY well, then you'd be better off by living in sin.
Ok, example #1 is legit. I get that.

As far as the others, well if you're using the standard deductions you're getting screwed plain and simple, because two single standard deductions are more than a married filing jointly deduction. But to be fair, the article I posted said something about that changing in 2003, so I don't know if it's as bad as it used to be and I stopped paying attention to the difference quite some time ago because it pissed me off so bad.

The Mrs and I do make roughly the same amount, but we're not doing VERY WELL (at least by my definition) by any means and I cannot see how we benefit taxwise in any way.

teedubya
06-25-2011, 12:04 AM
this thread is gay due to the genetics of the previous posters.

DA_T_84
06-25-2011, 12:59 AM
Edit: Posted for the obvious reasons. If you thought skin tone, shoot yourself.

You have just sentenced everyone on CP to death.

DA_T_84
06-25-2011, 01:00 AM
this thread is gay due to the genetics of the previous posters.

TELL ME BOUT THEM WEATHER BURSTS, GILBERRT!!!

PornChief
06-25-2011, 01:22 AM
my eldest son used to call his 8 y.o brother a fag constantly, not that he was or anything, it's just what teen boys do, call each other fags. Not even sure he actually knew what a fag was when he started. Wife gets sick of it and says to him "Stop saying that! If he grows up to be gay, I will never forgive you!' I was like, wtf.

alnorth
06-25-2011, 01:32 AM
As far as the others, well if you're using the standard deductions you're getting screwed plain and simple, because two single standard deductions are more than a married filing jointly deduction.

Incorrect. The married standard deduction is EXACTLY 2x the single standard deduction.

Gonzo
06-25-2011, 01:36 AM
This study is bull shit. A few years ago, I read a story that male homosexuality was caused by an abnormally sized brain stem. I always figured that was due to the constant pounding to the back of the throat.
Posted via Mobile Device

Baconeater
06-25-2011, 01:46 AM
Incorrect. The married standard deduction is EXACTLY 2x the single standard deduction.
Well that wasn't always the case, and as I mentioned I stopped paying attention to it quite a few years ago. Nevertheless, that makes it a wash and I still don't see where the average person gets a tax break for being married.

englander
06-25-2011, 01:53 AM
Damn yahweh witnesses'

alnorth
06-25-2011, 02:22 AM
Well that wasn't always the case, and as I mentioned I stopped paying attention to it quite a few years ago. Nevertheless, that makes it a wash and I still don't see where the average person gets a tax break for being married.

its pretty simple. The high punishing tax brackets hit individuals quick, if you have a life partner willing to jump through the marriage hoops with you, you suddenly have a great big pool of allowed extra income to reach that bracket, so you are better off unless your spouse also makes bank.

Seriously, the point where the "marriage penalty" kicks in is nowhere close to middle class, it happens when husband and wife both make serious money, which probably doesnt happen often.

2011 Standard deductions:

Single: $5,800
Married Jointly: $11,600

2011 Brackets:

Single

10% from 0 to $8,500, then
15% up to $34,500, then
25% up to $83,600, then
28% up to $174,400, then
33% up to $379,150, then
35% up to infinite

Married Jointly

10% from 0 to $17,000, then
15% up to $69,000, then
25% up to $139,350, then
28% up to $212,300, then
33% up to $379,150, then
35% up to infinite

Simple examples assuming only standard exempions, and ignoring EIC. (If you wanna do an earned income credit analysis, feel free to go sick on that, I don't feel like looking up the rules on that program.)

#1 husband 80k, wife nothing

Taxes Due, Filed Seperately: $14,675 + 0 = $14,675 (18.3%)
Taxes Due, Married Filed Jointly: $9,410 (11.8%)

Marriage Saving (penalty): +$5,265

No surprise here, everyone agrees being married to a stay at home spouse helps (before even figuring in EIC, if applicable) due to the higher deduction and higher bracket lines.

#2 husband 100k, wife 40k

Taxes Due, Filed Seperately: $19,993 + $4,705 = $24,698 (17.6%)
Taxes Due, Married Filed Jointly: $24,350 (17.4%)

Marriage Saving (penalty): +$348

Hmm... caught up to par a bit quicker than expected. Still its interesting how the effective tax is still not 18% when going from 80k to 140k when married. This is also pretty close to a max reality for most people, how many people have over a combined 140k income, really?

Anyway, now the marriage penalty:

#3 both 125k each

Taxes Due, Filed Seperately: $26,993 each = $53,986 (21.6%)
Taxes Due, Married Filed Jointly: $56,126.5 (22.5%)

Marriage Saving (penalty): ($2,140.50)

No need to look at higher incomes. When the single and married brackets synch up at the high end of the 33% bracket (~380k single or joint) the marriage penalty becomes a really big deal. But, its a big deal for really, really high incomes, and politically people dont feel sorry for people who are that rich. If money is that big of a concern, maybe they shouldn't get married.

PornChief
06-25-2011, 02:34 AM
all these arguments over tax brackets! surely gays don't want to marry for financial reasons, sillys.

Donger
06-25-2011, 06:39 AM
That's debatable. "Homosexual" behavior is seen in creatures other than man, and self-destructive/socially destructive behavior has been observed in mankind. What do you consider abnormality?

Something that is not a societal norm. In this case, homosexuality.

Donger
06-25-2011, 06:46 AM
You have failed to explain why the government should care about inferiority.

Gimpy quadraplegics are also inferior to people with intact spines, so they should also be denied the right to marry. Since that is stupid to contemplate, you are out of justifications.

Welcome to the pro-gay marriage crowd. Don't worry, you are now on the right side of history. 20 years from now, as a gay marriage supporter, people wont then have tolerate you and apologize to their friends saying "I'm sorry, but Donger is just set in his ways, being an ignorant intolerant bigot is all he knows".

Again, I don't really care about the government and this issue. Gay marriage doesn't exactly keep me awake at night.

I presume you are talking about a make and female gimpy couple? If so, I see no argument.

Fried Meat Ball!
06-25-2011, 07:13 AM
If a homosexual man copulates with a female, he isn't being a homosexual. Sorry, I thought that was obvious.

You're confusing homosexual and heterosexual sex with homo/heterosexuality. One is an act, one is about attraction. Homosexuals are attracted to members of the same sex. A homosexual man can copulate with a woman and still be homosexual.

A homosexual can choose to have heterosexual sex, and vice versa. A homosexual man cannot choose to be attracted to a woman. It's the equivalent of saying, "I choose to be attracted to an amputee midget."

Donger
06-25-2011, 07:46 AM
You're confusing homosexual and heterosexual sex with homo/heterosexuality. One is an act, one is about attraction. Homosexuals are attracted to members of the same sex. A homosexual man can copulate with a woman and still be homosexual.

A homosexual can choose to have heterosexual sex, and vice versa. A homosexual man cannot choose to be attracted to a woman. It's the equivalent of saying, "I choose to be attracted to an amputee midget."

The sex part is rather important. That's why it's in there. If it weren't, it would be called something else.

Dave Lane
06-25-2011, 08:02 AM
Ok how the **** has this thread gone this far without ANYONE bringing up PIIHB. I mean seriously is the Chiefsplanet? So Donger which category should this go in? Inferior or superior. Should you have to get a civil union to PIIHB?

Baconeater
06-25-2011, 08:34 AM
its pretty simple. The high punishing tax brackets hit individuals quick, if you have a life partner willing to jump through the marriage hoops with you, you suddenly have a great big pool of allowed extra income to reach that bracket, so you are better off unless your spouse also makes bank.

Seriously, the point where the "marriage penalty" kicks in is nowhere close to middle class, it happens when husband and wife both make serious money, which probably doesnt happen often.

2011 Standard deductions:

Single: $5,800
Married Jointly: $11,600

2011 Brackets:

Single

10% from 0 to $8,500, then
15% up to $34,500, then
25% up to $83,600, then
28% up to $174,400, then
33% up to $379,150, then
35% up to infinite

Married Jointly

10% from 0 to $17,000, then
15% up to $69,000, then
25% up to $139,350, then
28% up to $212,300, then
33% up to $379,150, then
35% up to infinite

Simple examples assuming only standard exempions, and ignoring EIC. (If you wanna do an earned income credit analysis, feel free to go sick on that, I don't feel like looking up the rules on that program.)

#1 husband 80k, wife nothing

Taxes Due, Filed Seperately: $14,675 + 0 = $14,675 (18.3%)
Taxes Due, Married Filed Jointly: $9,410 (11.8%)

Marriage Saving (penalty): +$5,265

No surprise here, everyone agrees being married to a stay at home spouse helps (before even figuring in EIC, if applicable) due to the higher deduction and higher bracket lines.

#2 husband 100k, wife 40k

Taxes Due, Filed Seperately: $19,993 + $4,705 = $24,698 (17.6%)
Taxes Due, Married Filed Jointly: $24,350 (17.4%)

Marriage Saving (penalty): +$348

Hmm... caught up to par a bit quicker than expected. Still its interesting how the effective tax is still not 18% when going from 80k to 140k when married. This is also pretty close to a max reality for most people, how many people have over a combined 140k income, really?

Anyway, now the marriage penalty:

#3 both 125k each

Taxes Due, Filed Seperately: $26,993 each = $53,986 (21.6%)
Taxes Due, Married Filed Jointly: $56,126.5 (22.5%)

Marriage Saving (penalty): ($2,140.50)

No need to look at higher incomes. When the single and married brackets synch up at the high end of the 33% bracket (~380k single or joint) the marriage penalty becomes a really big deal. But, its a big deal for really, really high incomes, and politically people dont feel sorry for people who are that rich. If money is that big of a concern, maybe they shouldn't get married.
Good lord Al, you stayed up past 3am calculating all that? And unless there is something I'm missing it still doesn't explain how I am getting any benefit by being married than if my wife and I were just living together. All the brackets and deductions are simply doubled for married people, so you pay the same unless you're in the higher punitive bracket which you pointed out.

BIG_DADDY
06-25-2011, 08:39 AM
its pretty simple. The high punishing tax brackets hit individuals quick, if you have a life partner willing to jump through the marriage hoops with you, you suddenly have a great big pool of allowed extra income to reach that bracket, so you are better off unless your spouse also makes bank.

Seriously, the point where the "marriage penalty" kicks in is nowhere close to middle class, it happens when husband and wife both make serious money, which probably doesnt happen often.

2011 Standard deductions:

Single: $5,800
Married Jointly: $11,600

2011 Brackets:

Single

10% from 0 to $8,500, then
15% up to $34,500, then
25% up to $83,600, then
28% up to $174,400, then
33% up to $379,150, then
35% up to infinite

Married Jointly

10% from 0 to $17,000, then
15% up to $69,000, then
25% up to $139,350, then
28% up to $212,300, then
33% up to $379,150, then
35% up to infinite

Simple examples assuming only standard exempions, and ignoring EIC. (If you wanna do an earned income credit analysis, feel free to go sick on that, I don't feel like looking up the rules on that program.)

#1 husband 80k, wife nothing

Taxes Due, Filed Seperately: $14,675 + 0 = $14,675 (18.3%)
Taxes Due, Married Filed Jointly: $9,410 (11.8%)

Marriage Saving (penalty): +$5,265

No surprise here, everyone agrees being married to a stay at home spouse helps (before even figuring in EIC, if applicable) due to the higher deduction and higher bracket lines.

#2 husband 100k, wife 40k

Taxes Due, Filed Seperately: $19,993 + $4,705 = $24,698 (17.6%)
Taxes Due, Married Filed Jointly: $24,350 (17.4%)

Marriage Saving (penalty): +$348

Hmm... caught up to par a bit quicker than expected. Still its interesting how the effective tax is still not 18% when going from 80k to 140k when married. This is also pretty close to a max reality for most people, how many people have over a combined 140k income, really?

Anyway, now the marriage penalty:

#3 both 125k each

Taxes Due, Filed Seperately: $26,993 each = $53,986 (21.6%)
Taxes Due, Married Filed Jointly: $56,126.5 (22.5%)

Marriage Saving (penalty): ($2,140.50)

No need to look at higher incomes. When the single and married brackets synch up at the high end of the 33% bracket (~380k single or joint) the marriage penalty becomes a really big deal. But, its a big deal for really, really high incomes, and politically people dont feel sorry for people who are that rich. If money is that big of a concern, maybe they shouldn't get married.

Thanks for bringing up the real problem which is our tax code. That's what needs to be fixed. It's archaic at best and and a complete failure at worst. Being married with one child I would gladly give up any income tax benefits I receive if we would just throw out any benefits or penalties for being married or having children.

Let's take a look at why this tax code was established to begin with. It was to support a nurturing family enviroment. Those willing to give up income so mom could stay at home and raise the children would receive a tax benefit. The country would benefit by having superior (more psychologically sound) children. Those who just got married and continued to work would be penalized. Of course there was an unfortunate loophole which was those who got married and didn't have kids, just a lazy ass wife would receive some benefit as well. Considering you can't reproduce by having your buddy ejeculate in your ass you want to find it unconstitutional if homosexuals can't take advantage of this same flawed loophole? Really?

Chiefless
06-25-2011, 08:39 AM
Can some one tell me how "nature" has anything to do with "marraige". Marriage is a human made set of social guidlines. Nature has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

BIG_DADDY
06-25-2011, 08:41 AM
Can some one tell me how "nature" has anything to do with "marraige". Marriage is a human made set of social guidlines. Nature has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

What's a marraige?

Chiefless
06-25-2011, 08:45 AM
It's the same thing as a marriage only spelled inferiorly.

Donger
06-25-2011, 08:48 AM
Can some one tell me how "nature" has anything to do with "marraige". Marriage is a human made set of social guidlines. Nature has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

It doesn't.

Chiefless
06-25-2011, 08:56 AM
It doesn't.

I'm confused by that response.

Donger
06-25-2011, 08:57 AM
I'm confused by that response.

Okay.

Okie_Apparition
06-25-2011, 09:20 AM
Metrosexuality is a choice & a bad one

Chiefless
06-25-2011, 09:53 AM
Okay.

In reading through this thread it seems your position is this:

I don't really care if homosexuals want to be couples, but I don't think that their unions need to be called marriages. It's an attempt at normality.


And it seems the support for your position is this:

And, a male and female union is superior. Nature decides that.

I don't care what they want. What matters is what they are. They are who nature decided they are.


Propagation of the species makes heterosexuals superior. A male and female who cannot procreate either choose not to or have some medical defect that prevents them from doing so. That isn't the case with homosexuals. Nature dictates that they cannot breed.

So, I'm confused when you say nature has no bearing on marriage in response to my question, since in support of your anti-gay marriage position you have clearly cited "nature" several times in this thread. So, is there some OTHER reason you don't support gay marriage?

loochy
06-25-2011, 10:13 AM
In reading through this thread it seems your position is this:



And it seems the support for your position is this:







So, I'm confused when you say nature has no bearing on marriage in response to my question, since in support of your anti-gay marriage position you have clearly cited "nature" several times in this thread. So, is there some OTHER reason you don't support gay marriage?

Can't someone just say "I don't support gay marriage because I don't like it."? That's it...acknowledge that you have no proof and no reason that would satisfy others with differing opinions. Just say that you don't like it, and that's it.

Donger
06-25-2011, 10:28 AM
In reading through this thread it seems your position is this:



And it seems the support for your position is this:







So, I'm confused when you say nature has no bearing on marriage in response to my question, since in support of your anti-gay marriage position you have clearly cited "nature" several times in this thread. So, is there some OTHER reason you don't support gay marriage?

And why did I bring up nature? It was in response to alnorth.

Rausch
06-25-2011, 10:44 AM
possibly for DC but hopefully we can have a nice conversation without it turning to flame fest.

http://www.canada.com/life/Baby+were+born+this/4987565/story.html

When it comes to sexual orientation — and homosexuality in particular — it turns out that Freud and others who theorized that it stems from early parental relationships, childhood abuse or choice were traipsing up the wrong path.

Not really.

Abusive households do have a much higher rate of producing a gay/lesbian child.

That's a fact.

And the odd thing to me is that it doesn't have to be sexual. Physical (getting the $3it kicked out of you) as well as sexual abuse plays into that.

That doesn't mean that everyone who's gay/lesbain grew up all fucked up, but if you did, there's a bigger chance at an alternative lifestyle.

DA_T_84
06-25-2011, 10:59 AM
Can't someone just say "I don't support gay marriage because I don't like it."? That's it...acknowledge that you have no proof and no reason that would satisfy others with differing opinions. Just say that you don't like it, and that's it.

"I'm bigoted and homophobic. Just because. Because I am. WHY WON'T YOU ACCEPT ME?"

- is what that would look like.

BIG_DADDY
06-25-2011, 11:06 AM
"I'm bigoted and homophobic. Just because. Because I am. WHY WON'T YOU ACCEPT ME?"

- is what that would look like.

That's usually the direction it goes in when people can't answer basic questions.

Brock
06-25-2011, 11:06 AM
That's usually the direction it goes in when people can't answer basic questions.

I hope your kid is gay.

alnorth
06-25-2011, 11:08 AM
All the brackets and deductions are simply doubled for married people, so you pay the same unless you're in the higher punitive bracket which you pointed out.

They aren't all doubled, the marriage penalty starts to creep in at 25%, but it doesn't start hurting you unless both make a lot of money well into that or higher brackets.

Its right there in the examples, marriage helps you because you probably pay less in taxes by being married, unless you both make a whole lot of money.

Even then, we'll have to start thinking about mortgage interest deductions and charitable deductions. You are often better off being married than you are being single and splitting the deduction.

The marriage penalty only nails couples who each make a lot of money. IF you aren't in that situation, chances are, marriage reduces your taxes.

loochy
06-25-2011, 11:11 AM
They aren't all doubled, the marriage penalty starts to creep in at 25%, but it doesn't start hurting you unless both make a lot of money well into that or higher brackets.

Its right there in the examples, marriage helps you because you probably pay less in taxes by being married, unless you both make a whole lot of money.

Even then, we'll have to start thinking about mortgage interest deductions and charitable deductions. You are often better off being married than you are being single and splitting the deduction.

The marriage penalty only nails couples who each make a lot of money. IF you aren't in that situation, chances are, marriage reduces your taxes.


Let me say that I will be getting married in november and right away we are going to hit the 25% bracket (combined $139K joint vs $83 single) and I really don't consider us making "a whole lot of money"...

Donger
06-25-2011, 11:11 AM
Can't someone just say "I don't support gay marriage because I don't like it."? That's it...acknowledge that you have no proof and no reason that would satisfy others with differing opinions. Just say that you don't like it, and that's it.

I don't like the attempt at normalization of homosexuality and the attempt to make it equate with heterosexuality. Gay marriage is a part of that, so I guess sure, I don't like gay marriage.

loochy
06-25-2011, 11:12 AM
I don't like the attempt at normalization of homosexuality and the attempt to make it equate with heterosexuality. Gay marriage is a part of that, so I guess sure, I don't like gay marriage.

That's why I don't like it too. I'm not afraid to say that its just something that I don't like. I'm resigned to the fact that I'm not going to change their minds just like they aren't going to change mine.

BIG_DADDY
06-25-2011, 11:21 AM
I hope your kid is gay.

As usual you bring so much to the table. Brockisms, it's all you got.

alnorth
06-25-2011, 11:22 AM
Thanks for bringing up the real problem which is our tax code. That's what needs to be fixed. It's archaic at best and and a complete failure at worst. Being married with one child I would gladly give up any income tax benefits I receive if we would just throw out any benefits or penalties for being married or having children.

Let's take a look at why this tax code was established to begin with. It was to support a nurturing family enviroment. Those willing to give up income so mom could stay at home and raise the children would receive a tax benefit. The country would benefit by having superior (more psychologically sound) children. Those who just got married and continued to work would be penalized. Of course there was an unfortunate loophole which was those who got married and didn't have kids, just a lazy ass wife would receive some benefit as well. Considering you can't reproduce by having your buddy ejeculate in your ass you want to find it unconstitutional if homosexuals can't take advantage of this same flawed loophole? Really?

Being gay does not mean no kids, nor is it rare. In fact, believe it or not, in the 2010 census, self-identified gay couples are apparently more likely to have kids under 18 living with them than married hetero couples.

About one-quarter of gay couples are currently raising children, compared to only 21% of households headed by a married couple with children under 18. (thats a rather sharp decline from 24% in the 2010 census)

To the extent that its a good thing to encourage one parent to stay home, thats valid whether we're talking about natural birth (hetero and lesbian), adoption (everyone), or a surrogate (hetero with plumbing problems and gay men).

alnorth
06-25-2011, 11:26 AM
Let me say that I will be getting married in november and right away we are going to hit the 25% bracket (combined $139K joint vs $83 single) and I really don't consider us making "a whole lot of money"...

Hopefully you have a lot of deductions.

edit: oh wait, if its 83k + 56k, marriage likely is neutral or helps you.

Rausch
06-25-2011, 11:29 AM
As usual you bring so much to the table. Brockisms, it's all you got.

They aren't bad...

BIG_DADDY
06-25-2011, 11:30 AM
Being gay does not mean no kids, nor is it rare. In fact, believe it or not, in the 2010 census, gay couples are apparently more likely to have kids under 18 living with them than married hetero couples.

About one-quarter of gay couples are currently raising children, compared to only 21% of households headed by a married couple with children under 18. (thats a rather sharp decline from 24% in the 2010 census)

To the extent that its a good thing to encourage one parent to stay home, thats valid whether we're talking about natural birth (hetero and lesbian), adoption (everyone), or a surrogate (hetero with plumbing problems and gay men).

Which leads to the real meat of the subject which is gay adoption which I am totally against. The psychological benefits of having a mother and father are beyond obvious as are the overwhelming psychological issues homosexuals have. I won't even get into things like the transexual suicide rate. None the less you have people like Brock out thete that want to turn tannies into mommies and daddies in the name of liberty. If he had it his way pacifiers would be cocks instead of nipples.

BIG_DADDY
06-25-2011, 11:31 AM
They aren't bad...

He is what he is. I am sure the name calling will come next. Entertainment value is a 5.

loochy
06-25-2011, 11:32 AM
If he had it his way pacifiers would be cocks instead of nipples.

:LOL:LMAO

alnorth
06-25-2011, 11:35 AM
Which leads to the real meat of the subject which is gay adoption which I am totally against. The psychological benefits of having a mother and father are beyond obvious as are the overwhelming psychological issues homosexuals have. I won't even get into things like the transexual suicide rate. None the less you have people like Brock out thete that want to turn tannies into mommies and daddies in the name of liberty. If he had it his way pacifiers would be cocks instead of nipples.

1) homosexuals do not "have psychological issues", unless they had issues imposed upon them, such as being incredibly teased and tormented when young.

2) If the ideal family unit is a mom and a dad (and frankly, I don't disagree with that) the existence of straight marriage does not encourage gay people to deny who they are and not be gay, nor, obviously, does it discourage them from having kids anyway, so there is no legitimate governmental interest here.

3) It is far, far, far preferable to have 2 people who love each other, any such 2 people, to raise kids than to let them be wards of the state in foster homes where they are more likely to have problems with bonding or developing empathy. Gay adoption probably reduces the number of psychopaths in the world.

Rausch
06-25-2011, 11:37 AM
Which leads to the real meat of the subject which is gay adoption which I am totally against.

You have no right.

None.

None the less you have people like Brock out thete that want to turn tannies into mommies and daddies in the name of liberty.

I thought that's what liberty was.

The Red, White, and Blue give you freedom and you do what you will with it.

Better or worse.

JD10367
06-25-2011, 11:38 AM
Whenever talk turns serious, it astounds me as to how many people I casually consider to be interesting and intelligent turn out to be total fucking racist, sexist, or bigoted assholes. Some of you, really: just shut the fuck up. The more you talk, the worse you look.

BIG_DADDY
06-25-2011, 11:46 AM
1) homosexuals do not "have psychological issues", unless they had issues imposed upon them, such as being incredibly teased and tormented when young.

2) If the ideal family unit is a mom and a dad (and frankly, I don't disagree with that) the existence of straight marriage does not encourage gay people to deny who they are and not be gay, nor, obviously, does it discourage them from having kids anyway, so there is no legitimate governmental interest here.

3) It is far, far, far preferable to have 2 people who love each other, any such 2 people, to raise kids than to let them be wards of the state in foster homes where they are more likely to have problems with bonding or developing empathy. Gay adoption probably reduces the number of psychopaths in the world.

1. That's just your opinion. Facts are homosexuals have a much higher rate of psychological issues and suicides. Transexuals are off the friggen chart.

2. Glad we agree that children with a mother and father are the ideal situation. Why wouldn't we do our very best to try and place children in that situation then?

3. We could go down this road all day. They have made adoption very difficult because of the bureaucratic nature of the agecies themself. It took my sister 5 years to finally get it done. She has been married for the longest with no problems, makes tons of money and has some of the goverments highest clearances. It's a joke. Everyone I know who has adopted talks about how ridiculously hard it was.

Donger
06-25-2011, 11:48 AM
Whenever talk turns serious, it astounds me as to how many people I casually consider to be interesting and intelligent turn out to be total ****ing racist, sexist, or bigoted assholes. Some of you, really: just shut the **** up. The more you talk, the worse you look.

LMAO

BIG_DADDY
06-25-2011, 11:48 AM
You have no right.

None.



I thought that's what liberty was.

The Red, White, and Blue give you freedom and you do what you will with it.

Better or worse.

Funny, I always thought placing kids in the best possible circumstance was what this should all be about.

Rausch
06-25-2011, 11:52 AM
Funny, I always thought placing kids in the best possible circumstance was what this should all be about.

I.........fine super-dad, you win.

Donger
06-25-2011, 11:54 AM
Being gay does not mean no kids, nor is it rare. In fact, believe it or not, in the 2010 census, self-identified gay couples are apparently more likely to have kids under 18 living with them than married hetero couples.

About one-quarter of gay couples are currently raising children, compared to only 21% of households headed by a married couple with children under 18. (thats a rather sharp decline from 24% in the 2010 census)

Do you have a link to those data?

Pitt Gorilla
06-25-2011, 12:05 PM
2. Glad we agree that children with a mother and father are the ideal situation. Why wouldn't we do our very best to try and place children in that situation then? "The" ideal situation is children with loving, caring parents. I grew up with several kids who had mothers and fathers that were horrible, horrible people.

Pants
06-25-2011, 12:07 PM
"The" ideal situation is children with loving, caring parents. I grew up with several kids who had mothers and fathers that were horrible, horrible people.

Yeah, but that's still not as bad as having two loving and caring moms or dads.

/bigdaddy

Donger
06-25-2011, 12:08 PM
"The" ideal situation is children with loving, caring heterosexual parents. I grew up with several kids who had mothers and fathers that were horrible, horrible people.

FYP

Pitt Gorilla
06-25-2011, 12:11 PM
FYPI'd prefer you to quote my text accurately. Otherwise, don't ascribe the words to me.

Donger
06-25-2011, 12:13 PM
I'd prefer you to quote my text accurately. Otherwise, don't ascribe the words to me.

I did quote you accurately. I just added a rather pertinent word that makes even more accurate.

Brock
06-25-2011, 12:14 PM
I did quote you accurately. I just added a rather pertinent word that makes it more narrow-minded and bigoted.

FYP

stevieray
06-25-2011, 12:15 PM
I'd prefer you to quote my text accurately. Otherwise, don't ascribe the words to me.

:LOL:

BIG_DADDY
06-25-2011, 12:18 PM
"The" ideal situation is children with loving, caring parents. I grew up with several kids who had mothers and fathers that were horrible, horrible people.

Comparing the best of one situation to the worst of another in an effort to discredit what we already know to be an ideal and natural family infrastructure is just misleading and unfair. I see you are also choosing to completely ignore a much higher rate of psychological disorders and suicide rates associated with the homosexuals and transexuals.

I realize this BB is inundated with the PCers but it always comes down to the same sticking points that none of them can address. I guess we can just get back to the Brockisms.

Pants
06-25-2011, 12:22 PM
I see you are also choosing to completely ignore a much higher rate of psychological disorders and suicide rates associated with the homosexuals and transexuals.



And why do you think that happens, genius?

:facepalm:

Donger
06-25-2011, 12:24 PM
FYP

Are you suggesting that "the ideal situation" isn't to have children with loving, caring heterosexual parents? If not, I would suggest that you revise your FYP. I don't believe what I wrote was either bigoted or narrow-minded.

BIG_DADDY
06-25-2011, 12:25 PM
And why do you think that happens, genius?

:facepalm:

I'm not going to speculate and in the end it really doesn't matter, you are still choosing to put a child in a situation which is far from ideal.

Pants
06-25-2011, 12:29 PM
I'm not going to speculate and in the end it really doesn't matter, you are still choosing to put a child in a situation which is far from ideal.

You're not going to speculate? You don't think it has anything to do with the stigma placed on them by fucktarded bigots like you?

Donger
06-25-2011, 12:31 PM
And why do you think that happens, genius?

:facepalm:

I would imagine it's some combination of knowing they are abnormal and how some people treat them.

Brock
06-25-2011, 12:33 PM
Are you suggesting that "the ideal situation" isn't to have children with loving, caring heterosexual parents? If not, I would suggest that you revise your FYP. I don't believe what I wrote was either bigoted or narrow-minded.

Of course you don't believe that. Most bigots don't think they're bigots.

stevieray
06-25-2011, 12:35 PM
You're not going to speculate? You don't think it has anything to do with the stigma placed on them by ****tarded bigots like you?

do you live your life by what others think about you?

we all are responsible for our choices and actions.

blaming others for our struggles in life is a sure fire way to misery and pain.

Pants
06-25-2011, 12:35 PM
I would imagine it's some combination of knowing they are abnormal and how some people treat them.

Sure. If we, as a society, accept them as normal human beings and stop stigmatizing their wiring, though, we would probably see a massive decline in suicide and mental health disorders in gay and transsexual people (they're still people, right?).

Donger
06-25-2011, 12:36 PM
Of course you don't believe that. Most bigots don't think they're bigots.

Just for the record, you don't think "the ideal situation" is to have children with loving, caring heterosexual parents? You think that the having loving, caring homosexual parents is just as ideal?

Donger
06-25-2011, 12:37 PM
Sure. If we, as a society, accept them as normal human beings and stop stigmatizing their wiring, though, we would probably see a massive decline in suicide and mental health disorders in gay and transsexual people (they're still people, right?).

Acknowledging facts isn't immediately stigmatic. They aren't normal.

Pants
06-25-2011, 12:39 PM
do you live your life by what others think about you?

we all are resonsible for our choices and actions.

blaming others for our struggles in life is a sure fire way to misery and pain.

You don't choose who you're attracted to, champ.

BIG_DADDY
06-25-2011, 12:40 PM
You're not going to speculate? You don't think it has anything to do with the stigma placed on them by ****tarded bigots like you?

Brockisms in full force. When logic breaks down it's all you got left. You guys have a good day.

stevieray
06-25-2011, 12:41 PM
You don't chose who you're attracted to, champ.

do you live your life by what others think about you?

are you responsible for your choices and actions?

do you blame others for your struggles?

Pants
06-25-2011, 12:44 PM
Acknowledging facts isn't immediately stigmatic. They aren't normal.

OK, they are not normal. You honestly think that if a homosexual individual was born into a society where homosexuality was just as accepted as heterosexuality, that individual would experience self-deprecation because they're "not normal"?

Pants
06-25-2011, 12:46 PM
do you live your life by what others think about you?

are you responsible for your choices and actions?

do you blame others for your struggles?

No, but I do consider myself lucky in that I was born a white, straight male because the world would probably be a much shittier place for me if I wasn't.

Otter
06-25-2011, 12:50 PM
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2uZ7peY3o4U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

stevieray
06-25-2011, 12:52 PM
No

..then implying that the high sucide rate is somehow the fault of society is incorrect?

you were lucky to be born?

you were born a male. everything else is an adjective.

Brock
06-25-2011, 12:54 PM
..then implying that the high sucide rate is somehow the fault of society is incorrect?

you were lucky to be born?

you were born a male. everything else is an adjective.

Yep, being bullied by classmates, ostracized by family and told you're going to hell has zero effect on somebody's psyche. You have no idea what you're talking about, per usual.

Pants
06-25-2011, 12:54 PM
..then implying that the high sucide rate is somehow the fault of society is incorrect?

you were lucky to be born?

you were born a male. everything else is an adjective.

Your imaginary world without prejudice, hate and bias must be a pretty sweet place to live in, stevieray. Unfortunately for the gays out there, the real world is a little different.

Donger
06-25-2011, 12:56 PM
OK, they are not normal. You honestly think that if a homosexual individual was born into a society where homosexuality was just as accepted as heterosexuality, that individual would experience self-deprecation because they're "not normal"?

Accepted? I don't even know that means in this sense. Do I accept that homosexuals exist? Sure.

Pants
06-25-2011, 12:57 PM
Yep, being bullied by classmates, ostracized by family and told you're going to hell has zero effect on somebody's psyche. You have no idea what you're talking about, per usual.

You know what's awesome? I have a gay friend whose family is much more accepting of his bastard-bearing, stripper sister than of him. He manages to keep his chin up, though.

Pitt Gorilla
06-25-2011, 12:57 PM
Comparing the best of one situation to the worst of another in an effort to discredit what we already know to be an ideal and natural family infrastructure is just misleading and unfair. I see you are also choosing to completely ignore a much higher rate of psychological disorders and suicide rates associated with the homosexuals and transexuals.

I realize this BB is inundated with the PCers but it always comes down to the same sticking points that none of them can address. I guess we can just get back to the Brockisms.I honestly don't mean to ignore the higher rate stats; I simply haven't seen them. Did you post the citation earlier in the thread? I honestly haven't read all of it.

Pants
06-25-2011, 12:58 PM
Accepted? I don't even know that means in this sense. Do I accept that homosexuals exist? Sure.

You're being intellectually dishonest.

Donger
06-25-2011, 12:59 PM
You're being intellectually dishonest.

You used the word. Define it in this context.

Dave Lane
06-25-2011, 01:02 PM
Of course you don't believe that. All bigots don't think they're bigots.

FYP. Don't hate me for it.

Dave Lane
06-25-2011, 01:03 PM
As Donald Trump said, "I have a good relationship with the blacks"

Pants
06-25-2011, 01:03 PM
You used the word. Define it in this context.

Accepted as in nobody cares whether you're gay or not, accepted as in the fact that you're gay matters about as much as the fact that you prefer Coke over Pepsi. Does that make sense?

Donger
06-25-2011, 01:07 PM
Accepted as in nobody cares whether you're gay or not, accepted as in the fact that you're gay matters about as much as the fact that you prefer Coke over Pepsi. Does that make sense?

Sure. But I think you are trivializing their plight by comparing them to soft drinks.

My only issue with homosexuals is when they attempt to normalize it and equate it with heterosexuals.

Pants
06-25-2011, 01:08 PM
Sure. But I think you are trivializing their plight by comparing them to soft drinks.

My only issue with homosexuals is when they attempt to normalize it and equate it with heterosexuals.

I'm pretty sure you're just trolling me at this point.

Donger
06-25-2011, 01:08 PM
FYP. Don't hate me for it.

When did acknowledging facts become bigotry?

Rausch
06-25-2011, 01:08 PM
Yep, being bullied by classmates, ostracized by family and told you're going to hell has zero effect on somebody's psyche. You have no idea what you're talking about, per usual.

Seems like you did just fine.

Donger
06-25-2011, 01:09 PM
I'm pretty sure you're just trolling me at this point.

I was making a joke about the soft drinks, yes. The second part was not a joke.

Rausch
06-25-2011, 01:10 PM
When did acknowledging facts become bigotry?


My only issue with homosexuals is when they attempt to normalize it and equate it with heterosexuals.

....

Pants
06-25-2011, 01:11 PM
Seems like you did just fine.

Being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes is a sign of intellect. Treating others as you would want to be treated if you were in their shoes is a sign of morality.

Donger
06-25-2011, 01:11 PM
....

Homosexuals aren't normal. That's just a fact.

stevieray
06-25-2011, 01:14 PM
Yep, being bullied by classmates, ostracized by family and told you're going to hell has zero effect on somebody's psyche. You have no idea what you're talking about, per usual.

awwww...brock decides for everybody, based on his opinion...bigoted and narrowminded? ironic.

you don't have to be gay to be bullied, ostracized, or told you're going to hell.

stevieray
06-25-2011, 01:17 PM
Your imaginary world without prejudice, hate and bias must be a pretty sweet place to live in, stevieray.

deflection.

is your implication that the high suicide rate is societies fault incorrect?

go bowe
06-25-2011, 01:19 PM
FYP. Don't hate me for it.

warmonger...