The U.S. Supreme Court rules all states must allow same sex-marriages

Lady please stop. Lol. Freud was known to almost never have empirical evidence for any of his hypothesis. How can you say Freud and seriously debate the legitimacy of your argument? He spoke from common beliefs and psycho therapy. Everything external. How can you possibly disprove or prove a hormonal issue with limited subjects, and limited knowledge of what's really going on? Originally Posted by Mgm84

Please don't tell me to "stop." In my opinion, much of what you've said thus far on this subject is utter foolishness. Alas, I have not and don't intend to tell you stop posting your opinions.

Shame on you man. Lol. You know as well as I know that there are several sample errors, and scientific insufficiencies in those horrible outdated studies. C'mon man. Really? Did you read that article? Rotfl. They are basically studying and researching whether or not homosexuals are well adjusted in society as opposed to the question of 'are they're behaviors indicative of suffering from brain malfunctions or abnormalities'.

The article by nature diverted the question out of the proper perspective and switched it to one that doesn't damage their movement or desired message.

You ALL know that a study showing other species having homosexual tendencies, observation of a small population of gays, and their psychological adjustment cannot be considered "empirical evidence that homosexuality is a result of a BIOLOGICAL brain malfunction. This is nothing short of giving biased qualitative research. Originally Posted by Mgm84

Sorry if I missed it, but where is the unbiased scientific research you are referencing? You went from asserting that since homosexual marriage is allowed, that means that at some point in the future, people will start marrying non-human animals and inanimate objects. If that is even a remote possibility, then it is a critique of marriage overall, and NOT specifically homosexual marriage. (Biased, out of context criticisms of homosexual marriage, homosexual people, and homosexuality is rooted in homophobia.)

You eventually got to the crux of what you are trying to get across: you personally don't care for homosexual marriage and/or homosexual people. That's great for you; live your life. But the reality is, homosexuality poses no more of a threat to humanity than heterosexuality does. The only thing homosexuality poses a threat to is heteronormative institutions that fallaciously assert that heterosexuality is "right," "normal," and "superior" and that homosexuality is "wrong," "abnormal," and "inferior."

The "biological" or "evolutionary" perspectives you keep bringing up are extensions of dated religious rhetoric from centuries ago where people felt compelled to hold onto irrational fears about "unnatural," deviant and non-procreative sexual behavior. If I were to buy into your erroneous logic, then I should cease all non-procreative sexual activity (masturbation, oral sex, swallowing cum, etc.) and we should all look forward to burning in hell a 1,000 times for being on this online hooker board...

Sorry if I missed it, but where is the unbiased scientific research you are referencing? You went from asserting that since homosexual marriage is allowed, that means that at some point in the future, people will start marrying non-human animals and inanimate objects. If that is even a remote possibility, then it is a critique of marriage overall, and NOT specifically homosexual marriage. (Biased, out of context criticisms of homosexual marriage, homosexual people, and homosexuality is rooted in homophobia.)

You eventually got to the crux of what you are trying to get across: you personally don't care for homosexual marriage and/or homosexual people. That's great for you; live your life. But the reality is, homosexuality poses no more of a threat to humanity than heterosexuality does. The only thing homosexuality poses a threat to is heteronormative institutions that fallaciously assert that heterosexuality is "right," "normal," and "superior" and that homosexuality is "wrong," "abnormal," and "inferior."

The "biological" or "evolutionary" perspectives you keep bringing up are extensions of dated religious rhetoric from centuries ago where people felt compelled to hold onto irrational fears about "unnatural," deviant and non-procreative sexual behavior. If I were to buy into your erroneous logic, then I should cease all non-procreative sexual activity (masturbation, oral sex, swallowing cum, etc.) and we should all look forward to burning in hell a 1,000 times for being on this online hooker board... Originally Posted by Lena Duvall

First off, this discussion is not black and white. Therefore you should not be surprised if the discussion veered off into many subtopics. That is the nature of a debate and should be expected. Second, just as any other rules or laws that keep certain activities at bay, allowing deviations from the rules WILL lead to just that.........Deviations of the laws that were not allowed. That does not exclude marriage to beasts and inanimate objects. You are an adult and this should be common knowledge.

Third, evolution and religion are opposing concepts so it would be wise to stop attempting to force this into a homosexual vs religious issue. So let's start from here. Rather than give you a dissertation, I will explain this assuming you have a simple understanding of evolution and biological theories.

Evolution teaches that life is not guided or directed by anything other than survival. There are beneficial mutations and non beneficial mutations. Long story short, homosexuality would be counterproductive towards evolution. Only when we study more complexed multicellular organisms do we see what I like to call "recreational mating". This is when mating becomes or is assumed a necessity outside of survival and procreation. Whether homo or hetero these activities are nothing more than behaviors.

These behaviors trace us back to............Psychological matters. Just as each emotion and or characteristic we can attribute to chemicals in the brain via the endocrine system. Yes love has a biological explanation also. Oxytocin, testosterone, estrogen and the whole list of glands, insulins etc that dictate much of the human psychology. When we look at life and the planet objectively we understand that there is a right and wrong to finite matters such as life.

It is objective to say that chromosomes are non negotiable in determining biological truth. It is objective to say that the endocrine system is finite when determining the correct functioning of a female and a male's chemical balance. It is SUBJECTIVE to view biology from a childish American democratic point of view such as 'It's because I want to do it' or "because I gave consent" as if the most beautiful thing in existence (life) is a build a bear store.

Please don't tell me to "stop." In my opinion, much of what you've said thus far on this subject is utter foolishness. Alas, I have not and don't intend to tell you stop posting your opinions. Originally Posted by Lena Duvall

Well give us substance and not emotional opinions as to why my views are foolishness. We understand your opinion, now try to give me something irrefutable and or empirical. You know, something objective that stood the test of time and cannot be debunked by my statement above.

I hate Texas, we have to stop being douchbags.

I think there would still be enough people populating the earth. In fact I think this would be a great way to curb population growth.
And this is important to you and effects your life HOW?
"When we look at life and the planet objectively we understand that there is a right and wrong to finite matters such as life."
I agree and the right and wrong is are you a nice person? That's it. Not whether you are gay or not.

When we look at life and the planet objectively we understand that there is a right and wrong to finite matters such as life. Originally Posted by Mgm84

Disagree. How do you explain cannibalism in tribal cultures when there is plenty to eat? " . . . finite matters such as life"? It's hard to understand why they wouldn't consider it wrong.

I find two guys together making out, personally disgusting .. but im adult enough to understand that I should not be able to impose my taste on everyone else. . . same goes for religious beliefs. Live and let live mothafuckas, funny how people on THIS site have no problem judging others lifestyle choices.

I find it kinda funny some ppl here are against gay marriage because they only think of 2 men together. ...but yet they will jump on the chance to have a fmf 3some or get off thiking of girl on girl action....i don't get it

I think there would still be enough people populating the earth. In fact I think this would be a great way to curb population growth.
And this is important to you and effects your life HOW?
"When we look at life and the planet objectively we understand that there is a right and wrong to finite matters such as life."
I agree and the right and wrong is are you a nice person? That's it. Not whether you are gay or not. Originally Posted by 12blue4u

Do you know who makes population growth an issue? HUMANS. Capitalism and any other political or economic system that does not prioritize the betterment the people of its society. Rather than gaining control by classification, and materialism. It might be impossible to "over populate" the earth if we abandoned these selfish ideologies.

Disagree. How do you explain cannibalism in tribal cultures when there is plenty to eat? " . . . finite matters such as life"? It's hard to understand why they wouldn't consider it wrong. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

First, many of the cannibalism stories of tribal cultures were used for propaganda to push certain agendas (especially the African lies). Second, other verified cannibal accounts were due to famine and starvation. Besides, anyway you view it, only a human with psychological issues would choose to eat another human before they eat another kind. When in starvation it has been recorded that humans hallucinate to a point that anything or anyone would be sustenance. This is not what you would call psychologically sound would you?

First off, this discussion is not black and white. Therefore you should not be surprised if the discussion veered off into many subtopics. That is the nature of a debate and should be expected... Originally Posted by Mgm84

Yes, says the person who actually told me to "stop" sharing my points of view (which clearly don't align with yours) in said debate. And no, I'm actually not surprised that there are folks who don't think the SCOTUS ruling is cause for some celebration.

Evolution teaches that life is not guided or directed by anything other than survival. There are beneficial mutations and non beneficial mutations. Long story short, homosexuality would be counterproductive towards evolution. Only when we study more complexed multicellular organisms do we see what I like to call "recreational mating". This is when mating becomes or is assumed a necessity outside of survival and procreation. Whether homo or hetero these activities are nothing more than behaviors. Originally Posted by Mgm84

The notion that homosexuality is opposed to the survival of humanity is an opinion that you hold. It is not a fact just because you say it is.

Yes, says the person who actually told me to "stop" sharing my points of view (which clearly don't align with yours) in said debate. And no, I'm actually not surprised that there are folks who don't think the SCOTUS ruling is cause for some celebration. Originally Posted by Lena Duvall

What? I asked you to stop sharing those POV because it was not fact based and came from a limited understanding of the big picture.

The notion that homosexuality is opposed to the survival of humanity is an opinion that you hold. It is not a fact just because you say it is. Originally Posted by Lena Duvall

Ok so Despite me giving a lament breakdown of biological aspects and elements that determine homosexuality and behaviors in general which by the way can be referenced and cited, yet it is still an opinion? How about you refute some of the information I listed? The inconvenient truth for you is that you can't. So instead you choose to stick your head in the sand and repeat your desired truth to yourself.

This is what you call narcissism. No matter how much UNBIASED, neutral, or impartial information I provide, your ego will not allow empirical evidence to prevail. This is part of the reason I asked you to stop because I knew you were in over your head and I REALLY did not want to go there with you. But if my above assessment is true I guess that would explain why.