A Audio and hi-fi forum. AudioBanter.com

Go Back   Home » AudioBanter.com forum » rec.audio » Vacuum Tubes
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Gay Marriage: Who Cares?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 26th 10, 09:47 PM posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Eeyore[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 29
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:
>
> Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with defective genes
> (the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by artificial means,
> or otherwise.


I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.

Graham
Ads
  #2  
Old August 26th 10, 09:58 PM posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Don Pearce[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
m> wrote:

>Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:
>>
>> Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with defective genes
>> (the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by artificial means,
>> or otherwise.

>
>I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
>bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.
>
>Graham


A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

d
  #4  
Old August 27th 10, 12:10 AM posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 265
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

On Aug 26, 5:41*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
> > m> wrote:

>
> > >Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:

>
> > >> Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with defective genes
> > >> (the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by artificial
> > >> means,
> > >> or otherwise.

>
> > >I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
> > >bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.

>
> > >Graham

>
> > A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
> > one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

>
> > d

>
> That might be true if gay people never parented children.


A friend of mine's father came out of the closet after fathering four
children.
  #6  
Old August 27th 10, 12:59 AM posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Jenn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

In article >,
flipper > wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:26:35 -0700, Jenn
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > flipper > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article >,
> >> > (Don Pearce) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
> >> >> m> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with defective
> >> >> >> genes
> >> >> >> (the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by
> >> >> >> artificial
> >> >> >> means,
> >> >> >> or otherwise.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How about
> >> >> >bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Graham
> >> >>
> >> >> A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty quickly,
> >> >> one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.
> >> >>
> >> >> d
> >> >
> >> >That might be true if gay people never parented children.
> >>
> >> Not really because it could be recessive.

> >
> >True.

>
> There's also experimental evidence to suggest it's environmental or,
> if genetic, environmentally triggered as you can alter the incidence
> in rats by manipulating population density.
>
> Humans are, of course, more complex but that would indicate it,
> assuming genetic, could propagate 'the common way', absent
> environmental triggers, even if dominate.
>
> That also suggests if population density is a consistent trigger it
> could be a 'natural' population control mechanism. Or not. No one
> really knows.


>
> The oxymoron "gay marriage" is an altogether different issue, though.


As opposed to the moronic (without the oxy) legal argument against it.
;-)
  #8  
Old August 27th 10, 03:11 AM posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Jenn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,752
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

In article >,
flipper > wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:59:07 -0700, Jenn
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > flipper > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:26:35 -0700, Jenn
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article >,
> >> > flipper > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article >,
> >> >> > (Don Pearce) wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
> >> >> >> m> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with
> >> >> >> >> defective
> >> >> >> >> genes
> >> >> >> >> (the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by
> >> >> >> >> artificial
> >> >> >> >> means,
> >> >> >> >> or otherwise.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How
> >> >> >> >about
> >> >> >> >bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Graham
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty
> >> >> >> quickly,
> >> >> >> one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> d
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That might be true if gay people never parented children.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not really because it could be recessive.
> >> >
> >> >True.
> >>
> >> There's also experimental evidence to suggest it's environmental or,
> >> if genetic, environmentally triggered as you can alter the incidence
> >> in rats by manipulating population density.
> >>
> >> Humans are, of course, more complex but that would indicate it,
> >> assuming genetic, could propagate 'the common way', absent
> >> environmental triggers, even if dominate.
> >>
> >> That also suggests if population density is a consistent trigger it
> >> could be a 'natural' population control mechanism. Or not. No one
> >> really knows.

> >
> >>
> >> The oxymoron "gay marriage" is an altogether different issue, though.

> >
> >As opposed to the moronic (without the oxy) legal argument against it.
> >;-)

>
> So far, the only thing 'moronic' is your suggestion that any differing
> opinion is, without even having heard it, 'moronic'.


Oh, I've heard the legal arguments. Why would you jump to the
conclusion that I consider any opinion different than mine to be moronic?

>
> I said "oxymoron." a figure of speech that combines
> normally-contradictory terms,


I know the word. I was doing a "play" on the word.

> because it is.
>
> Marriage is, and has been for thousands of years, defined as a
> heterosexual relationship with "gay," by definition, 'monosexual', so
> the term, substituting definitions, claims a "monosexual heterosexual
> relationship."


Have you looked up the definition of monosexual? I happen to be
monosexual, and I presume that you are as well, since most people are.
  #10  
Old August 27th 10, 04:38 AM posted to rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes,alt.religion.scientology
Jenn[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,034
Default Gay Marriage: Who Cares?

On Aug 26, 8:21*pm, flipper > wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:11:00 -0700, Jenn
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >In article >,
> > flipper > wrote:

>
> >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:59:07 -0700, Jenn
> >> > wrote:

>
> >> >In article >,
> >> > flipper > wrote:

>
> >> >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:26:35 -0700, Jenn
> >> >> > wrote:

>
> >> >> >In article >,
> >> >> > flipper > wrote:

>
> >> >> >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:41:47 -0700, Jenn
> >> >> >> > wrote:

>
> >> >> >> >In article >,
> >> >> >> > (Don Pearce) wrote:

>
> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:47:42 +0100, Eeyore
> >> >> >> >> m> wrote:

>
> >> >> >> >> >Soundhaspriority ( the real one ? )wrote:

>
> >> >> >> >> >> Even worse, we shouldn't have a system where people with
> >> >> >> >> >> defective
> >> >> >> >> >> genes
> >> >> >> >> >> (the homos) are reproducing using these defective genes by
> >> >> >> >> >> artificial
> >> >> >> >> >> means,
> >> >> >> >> >> or otherwise.

>
> >> >> >> >> >I know there's a 'redhead gene' but one for homosexuality ? How
> >> >> >> >> >about
> >> >> >> >> >bisexuals too ? False argument methinks.

>
> >> >> >> >> >Graham

>
> >> >> >> >> A gene for homosexuality would disappear from the pool pretty
> >> >> >> >> quickly,
> >> >> >> >> one would imagine. A bit like a gene for infertility.

>
> >> >> >> >> d

>
> >> >> >> >That might be true if gay people never parented children.

>
> >> >> >> Not really because it could be recessive.

>
> >> >> >True.

>
> >> >> There's also experimental evidence to suggest it's environmental or,
> >> >> if genetic, environmentally triggered as you can alter the incidence
> >> >> in rats by manipulating population density.

>
> >> >> Humans are, of course, more complex but that would indicate it,
> >> >> assuming genetic, could propagate 'the common way', absent
> >> >> environmental triggers, even if dominate.

>
> >> >> That also suggests if population density is a consistent trigger it
> >> >> could be a 'natural' population control mechanism. Or not. No one
> >> >> really knows.

>
> >> >> The oxymoron "gay marriage" is an altogether different issue, though.

>
> >> >As opposed to the moronic (without the oxy) legal argument against it..
> >> >;-)

>
> >> So far, the only thing 'moronic' is your suggestion that any differing
> >> opinion is, without even having heard it, 'moronic'.

>
> >Oh, I've heard the legal arguments. *Why would you jump to the
> >conclusion that I consider any opinion different than mine to be moronic?

>
> Because you said as much.
>
> >> I said "oxymoron." a figure of speech that combines
> >> normally-contradictory terms,

>
> >I know the word. *I was doing a "play" on the word.

>
> >> because it is.

>
> >> Marriage is, and has been for thousands of years, defined as a
> >> heterosexual relationship with "gay," by definition, 'monosexual', so
> >> the term, substituting definitions, claims a "monosexual heterosexual
> >> relationship."

>
> >Have you looked up the definition of monosexual? *I happen to be
> >monosexual, and I presume that you are as well, since most people are.

>
> I used it as an adjective to relationship and you know darn good and
> well what was meant by it.


Kind of like you knew darn good and well that the onymoron/moron thing
was a play on words, right?

Bottom line: definitions change. There is no logical reason to not
legalize same-sex marriage. The Prop. 8 decision states it perfectly.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If he actually cares about doing a good job as President [email protected] Audio Opinions 0 May 26th 09 04:27 AM
Who Cares If MSM Dies? [email protected] Audio Opinions 0 April 24th 09 08:31 PM
NYT Says Gay Marriage Less Yucky. BretLudwig Audio Opinions 1 June 11th 08 03:22 AM
If anyone cares about using budget hi-fi for near fields... Tonehenge[_3_] Pro Audio 22 September 12th 07 05:41 PM
Who cares about Stereophile J.C. Vacuum Tubes 3 June 20th 05 07:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2021 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.