Children will win the fight for same sex marriage and adoption by gays!

The implication is the same as saying a coin flip that did NOT come up heads, must have come up tails. You either have no idea what you're actually saying, or you are lying as usual. You don't seem to understand what promotion is. You don't seem to understand what equality is. You certainly don't know what a strawman is, because you produce an endless stream of them, and then deny you're doing so.

 

I know exactly what I am saying, contrary to your views that you are better qualified to determine what I am saying. My statement was that

And applying your silly fool logic, you think Im saying

 

Since homosexuality CANNOT be promoted, it's hard to tell what you mean when you say that promoting respect is promoting homosexuality.

So I guess I should ask you what you actually mean. Homosexuality can be accepted, it can be tolerated, it can be accommodated, but it can NOT be promoted. Nothing mankind can do, not even selective breeding, will either change anyone's sexual orientation, or change the distribution of orientations within the population.

Homosexuality is an orientation. It can't be altered in an individual, it can't be altered as a percentage of the population. So what do you mean by "promotion"?

You SEEM to be implying that if no dignity or respect were accorded, there would be less homosexuality. This is simply not possible, no matter what anyone does.

 

I told you exactly what I meant. "Promoting respect and dignity for gays is promoting homosexuality". Which of course you completely ignored and proceeded to tell ME what I really mean. So full of (*)(*)(*)(*). Why not take a shot at addressing what I actually SAY, instead of devoting so much time to telling me what I mean.

 

I'm willing to try again. Since homosexuality CANNOT BE PROMOTED, I don't know what you're trying to say. Could you perhaps rephrase your claim, using different words? To everyone else who has commented, saying "promoting respect and dignity promotes homosexuality" is pretty much just like saying "promoting building wheelchair ramps promotes physical disabilities." Perhaps you can see that these assertions are incorrect?

 

Of course it can.

 

Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is an inborn condition. No amount of promotion can change it. Your claim is a physical impossibility.

Now, either you don't know that, or you are using the word "promote" in some nonstandard way. So I asked if you could say the same thing in different words, to try to determine where the problem is. But you simply omitted my request and repeated your impossible assertion. NOW what?

PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE try saying the same thing in different words, so that others can know what you mean. I beg of you.

 

LIKE IVE SAID REPEATEDLY "Promoting respect and dignity for gays is promoting homosexuality". You can let go of that strawman now, and start working on the next.

 

Try actually addressing him instead of,pretending youndontnkmow what he's asking.

 

Yes, I know what you said. I do not know what you meant. I can't interpret it. I've suggested quite a few possible interpretations. You have denied them all. I've pointed out that the most obvious interpretation is physically impossible. You denied that too.

I've come to the conclusion that you simply don't know what you're talking about, and can't admit it. No other explanation remains possible.

 

Notice how he continues to omit my requests for a rewording, or for any explanation, when he quotes me. He just repeats the wording he knows makes no sense to anyone but himself. So now "what do you mean by that?" is a strawman too!

What a maroon!

 

I did repeatedly. "Promoting respect and dignity for gays is promoting homosexuality". Werent you supposed to be working on your NEXT strawman? You can let go of this one.

 

Still can't put it in different words, I see. OK, I guess you think "what do you mean by that?" is a strawman. I sincerely do not know what you mean, and you absolutely refuse to explain, just repeating a phrase you know is not communicating, over and over. I wonder why.

 

Noooo,

Is the strawman.

 

How so? How can you "promote" something that can't be altered? Can you explain?

 

By promoting "respect and dignity" for gays. And people change their sexual orientation all the time.
Welcome to the 21st century. Sexual orientation is an identity, selected by the individual.

The separation of sexuality from procreation entails its freedom from heterosexuality and its emergence as an individual attribute, something individuals can develop, enjoy, change or project as part of their changing definition of the self. Sexuality becomes plastic because the self itself has broken the bounds of traditional institutional expectations and it is now free to constitute and reconstitute itself in a series of narratives answering to nothing else but the growing freedom of individuals to develop their potential.
http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/work/GIDDENS.TXT

 

So tell me, how much "promotion" would YOU require, to become a homosexual and sincerely find men more arousing than women? Name your price, but (heh) be honest about the sincerity of your "selected identify".

Sexual orientation is what psychologists call "persistent" - it can't be changed. The failure of all of the conversion therapy programs should be a hint.

And incidentally, if you read the entire context you quote-mined, you will notice that Giddens is NOT talking about sexual orientation, he's talking about the developing freedom to express the orientation you were born with in a variety of different ways. "Sexuality" is NOT sexual orientation. Your representation is, as usual, competely dishonest. But in this case, I think you are lying to yourself. You are reading not what it says, but what you WANT it to say.

 

The psychologist have an agenda to reduce the stigma associated with homosexuality. And most gay men in their 40s and 50s that I know, used to be heterosexual. Many lesbians I know used to be heterosexual. There is a popular trend in colleges. LUGS, lesbian until graduation.

 

Gay marriage legalized in all fifty states.

Pretty much all that needs to be said.

 

Your anecdote notwithstanding, I'll stick with the experience of tens of thousands. As Richard Dawkins wrote, "there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence."

But at least now I understand what you were trying to say about "promoting homosexuality", so thank you for that.

 

Here's a quote for you.

As you have been told over and over again. This is why your procreation argument fails. And look at that...straight from the Obergefell decision.

 

Oooh, new strawmen

 

Your argument has always centered around procreation and children being the source of marriage.

The Obergefell decision directly answers your argument. And its one of the many reasons that gay marriage is now legal.

What I, among many others, have been telling your for months now. Procreation...has no bearing on the right to marry.

 

Ive never said any marriages were "less meaningful" for those who cant have children and never said marriage was "conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate". Neither is a part of my arguments. These are your strawmen. I will say that but for the fact that men and women engaging in sexual relations produces children, the institution of marriage likely wouldn't have ever evolved. Tradition, society, culture, religion and law isn't involved because men and women might experience an orgasm together and is instead concerned because they might cause the birth of their child.

Tell that to the 50 states that prohibit closely related couples from marriage because of the potential of procreation and the possible genetic defects. Or the 50 states who presume the husband is the father of any child his wife gives birth to, because they are married.

Procreation is now irrelevant to marriage in the law for one reason alone, because 5 justices have now declared it to be so.

Even though 5 justices in the 70s said

"It would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society... And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."

Or in the 40s when they said

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

Because 1000s of years of history of marriage shows that "marriage and procreation" are fundamentally linked. While these 5 justices seem to be ignoring that history, the laws and the Constitution and instead wetting their fingers and holding it up to the winds of popular opinion and determining themselves what they think is best at this time. Their declaration that procreation is now irrelevant to marriage is simply necessary to support their argument that marriage's limitation to men and women is purely motivated by an intent to exclude homosexuals.

 

Hopefully, children in need of adoption can find married couples willing to adopt, who previously faced barriers to adoption. This isn't explicit in the decision, but it follows naturally, and should be a non-issue soon.

Meanwhile, heterosexual couples can breed like bacteria, in and out of marriage, and this decision does absolutely nothing to influence that behavior.