John Adams Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 And that is perfectly fine and admirable! But, don't expect that the rest has to conform (ironic, we are talking about Quakers) to that also. What does "ironic, we are talking about Quakers" mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Lieutenant Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 You're being ignorant if you really believe that having homosexual parents doesn't VASTLY increase the chances of a child having to endure unnecessary psychological pain. Particularly between the ages of 10-20 when their peers can oftentiems be especially brutal towards others that are in situations like that. While we're at it then can we ban marriage between people with cystic acne, receding chins, big ears, Gynecomastia, or Cushing's syndrome? I'm sure a crater faced kid with B word breasts and spindly limbs would take a hell of a lot more sh-- than the son/daughter of some homosexual couple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Did not say that marriage is not unimportant. Why are gays trying to be the norm, they are anything but the norm. The vast majority of people support a hetero lifestyle. That is where the social mores lie... And the law should promote what the social mores are, not the other way around. One can still live a gay lifestyle and do whatever. Marriage should be recognized between a man and woman. You can't marry your sister or brother, where is the outcry on that? Those types of marriages are denied. EDIT: What about plural marriages too? They are denied by law. Your bigotry is quoted and noted. I'm glad you have outed yourself as one of the throngs of sheeple, unable to think for themselves. Because having a bunch of like-minded cowards and morons with the mob mentality is the best way to live. I do look forward to is the not too distant future when people just shake their heads at your simple minded and antiquated view of the topic. The bottom line is one is not born gay... I just don't believe it. And like I said, FWIW... Not born straight too. Straight (and non-plural) is the social mores when tolerating who gets married. One standard. Ok, so at what age did you decide to be straight? Or when did your parents tell you to be straight? And you've still yet to show any type of logical argument about why gays marrying is detrimental to society. I believe this link fits your thought process perfectly. http://www.despair.com/tradition.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 While we're at it then can we ban marriage between people with cystic acne, receding chins, big ears, Gynecomastia, or Cushing's syndrome? I'm sure a crater faced kid with B word breasts and spindly limbs would take a hell of a lot more sh-- than the son/daughter of some homosexual couple. Thanks a lot for that relevant and intelligent response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Thanks a lot for that relevant and intelligent response. intelligent? i don't know... relevant to your own post? absolutly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 intelligent? i don't know... relevant to your own post? absolutly! No it isn't. Unless the rationale is that just because a child can be hurt mentally and sometimes even physically due to bullying over physical features that cannot be avoided it makes it more acceptable or ideal for another child to be raised by homosexual parents and face similar issues? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 No it isn't. Unless the rationale is that just because a child can be hurt mentally and sometimes even physically due to bullying over physical features that cannot be avoided it makes it more acceptable or ideal for another child to be raised by homosexual parents and face similar issues? well that rationale is not worse than saying the opposite like you did ! (that homosexuals raising kids is wrong because those children became targets for the other kids especially during their early teens years) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 They are called Centaurs and the Grenoble Centaures are kicking butt in the French football league this year!! Man imagine if the Bills had a couple of them, strong and fast like horses with the brain and hands of men! Centaures Grenobloise? Half man half horse sauteed with browned butter, lemon and capers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Your bigotry is quoted and noted. I'm glad you have outed yourself as one of the throngs of sheeple, unable to think for themselves. Because having a bunch of like-minded cowards and morons with the mob mentality is the best way to live. Some day he and his ilk will be dead. The anti-gay marriage crowd is an almost exclusively 40+ year old group--people under 40 see this as a non-issue for the most part. Furthermore, as much as I loved my grandfathers, it's mixed with a profound sense of shame because one was an unabashed racist. EII has that in his future as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Centaures Grenobloise? Half man half horse sauteed with browned butter, lemon and capers? You should know that anything "grenobloise" must have Grenoble walnuts (like the salad, the sauce or any pastry "à la grenobloise" ). So a "centaure grenobloise" 'd probably be some horse meat with a sauce based on crushed walnuts, walnut oil, cream... with maybe some gratin dauphinois on the side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 You should know that anything "grenobloise" must have Grenoble walnuts (like the salad, the sauce or any pastry "à la grenobloise" ). So a "centaure grenobloise" 'd probably be some horse meat with a sauce based on crushed walnuts, walnut oil, cream... with maybe some gratin dauphinois on the side. I make the best gratin dauphinois. And I make it very simple too. Just potatoes sliced very thin, garlic, heavy cream, salt and pepper. No need for cheese and it mmm-mmm good. I like it best with roast leg of lamb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 I make the best gratin dauphinois. And I make it very simple too. Just potatoes sliced very thin, garlic, heavy cream, salt and pepper. No need for cheese and it mmm-mmm good. I like it best with roast leg of lamb. I'm glad an american like you knows the REAL recipe (i will not give you my personal family secret to make it even better!). You can mix heavy cream with whole milk to make it a little "lighter" but NEVER NEVER use cheese (as even some french chefs do!!) This is blasphemy for any real dauphinois like me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Wow did this get gay in a hurry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Wow did this get gay in a hurry. I figured I'd bring some real gayness into a thread about gayness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Well, here is an example of a scenario that is puzzling to me in that regard. There are many cases of people that have lived many years as heterosexuals only to switch sides of the fence well into their adult life. Does that mean that all of these people simply chose to completely ignore gay feelings and intuitions for years upon years that they were "born with"? It seems to me that the enviroment that they have lived in and experiences they have had throughout their lives has to be the factor in at least some of those types of cases. Sorry I'm just getting back to you. Since you seem to have a reasonable attitude, your comments should be addressed reasonably. The first point that needs to be made is "sexual orientation" is usually related to, but not the same as "sexual practices". But you really answered much of your question yourself. For a long time, it was very hard to be openly gay, in this society. For many, it still is. So, yes, many of these homosexual forced themselves to present to the world as heterosexual. This often included getting married and having children. It is much easier to be gay now, than it was even 10-15 years ago...but for some it is still very difficult. Some people CHOOSE to practice heterosexuality, even though they are gay. I hope you understand many choose to do this do to social/family pressures. But it can be more complicated than that, apparently. Now, I'm not saying that some people don't live in an area that is a little murkier than that. Some people's sexual orientation may not be as rigidly formed, as others. I would say it is somewhat analogous to gender. Most people are born male or female. Some have confused gender, and have some organs of both sexes. Most of those born with confused gender have a strong leaning toward one sex or another at a VERY early age. Some however, struggle with their identity for some time. Most people are very firmly homosexual, or heterosexual, but some have no rigid sexual orientation. In any case, who someone has sex with is a choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Doesn't mean it's right or wrong, particularly when it's such a charged issue. Environment versus Genetics are over-simplifications. About the only certainty is that there is no 'gay gene.' That's not to say there isn't a large genetic component, only that that phrasing is a dangerous simplification. Genes nudge. They rarely dictate. If I have a genetic predisposition towards accounting, say, it is the result of hundreds or thousands of genes working in incremental ways, adding up to ability and desire. In some this summation may be strong, and in others it may be weak or non-existant. But it's not coming from some super gene that is either present or absent. My predisposition in the presence of such genetic influence can also be encouraged or discouraged based on the environment. Perhaps I have a bunch of genes that say 'you are happy when you are admired.' If society frowns upon accountants, those genes may yield greater happiness than my accounting genes. Of if society showers admiration and respect on accountants, then by becoming an accountant I can get all of my genes firing - woo hoo! But ultimately, on the question of the attractiveness of accounting all of my genes are weighing in, many at odds with each other. And more than a few genes weigh in to demand that my life lessons - what I've been taught, what I've figured out about accounting and society, etc - be the primary guide to my behavior. Put me in a different society, or educate me differently, and I might be just as happy as an accountant as not. But then again I might not - it depends on my genes as a whole. First of all, who's to say there is no "Gay gene"? We don't know of it, but that means very little. We are in the very early stages of this sort of thing. But, genes certainly dictate many things, including gender, hair color, eye color, race, etc. You can choose to dye your hair, but you can't choose to have your hair be red naturally, no matter how much you wish it to be, or what your parents teach you. You can choose to engage in only heterosexual relationships, but that doesn't change your sexual orientation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 I take some people have experimented (red). With the reducing of social limits, responsibility and the changing of social mores... I take more will begin to "experiment to see what works for them". If there is no choice in the matter, how to you explain bi-sexual people? Obviously they experiment what works best for them, they just haven't made up their mind yet and like both. Are bi-sexual people eternally doomed to be physically confused? Again, please explain the people who like it "both ways." Again... I am not telling people what they can't do physically with their own body. This is not about equal protection... It is about social rules. It's easy to explain bi-sexual people. They have no rigidly formed sexual preference. They are analogous to hermaphrodites, in a sense. But once again, don't get "sexual orientation" confused with "sexual practice". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 It's easy to explain bi-sexual people. They'll buy it from anyone ba-da-bump Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all weak. Please, try the veal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 So you don't believe society should have any mores with regards to this issue? Society had (and still has) mores with regard to interracial marriage. Their mores shouldn't dictates individual rights, especially when those rights have NO[/b ] measurable negative impact on the rights of others. As I said before, every argument against same-sex marriage will end up sounding as stupid, and bigoted, as those used to help suppress the rights of other groups in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Not so rundimentary not to make my explanation the most consistent. But I'm sure it appears as utter nonsense - random scribblings even - to your eye. And people think I'm arrogant? Your "explanation" isn't at all consistent. It's convenient because it completely ignores reality. Go ahead and believe in the magic gene or the corruption of God's will as you prefer, and keep hiding smugly behind "our understanding of the science too incomplete." I have yet to see you articulate a nontrivial argument on this board. It's actually funny to watch someone hide behind God and then say the other side is hoping for magic. At least you're consistently hypocritical - this time within a single sentence. As far as articulation goes, you people get as much effort from me as you deserve. Watching you flounder around hiding behind the same tired arguments that have been used to disguise bigotry throughout recorded history tells anyone with an ounce of sense what you're bringing to the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts