Washington Votes Forum

Lainie59:

 I don't use "forbidden" words unless you consider forbidden words in defense of truth, reality and biological truths as forbidden.

::sigh::  No many message forums automatically proscribe certain words, swear words, words for body parts, etc.  And sometimes they react to larger words that look like they have those embedded in them.

As to missing messages, all the messages you have left since February 27th in this thread are here and visible.

As to your 'defenses':

truth: it is totally normal for some people to be sexually attracted to adults of their own gender.

reality: about 2% of the adult population are only attracted to their own gender and this % of the population seems remarkably stable between cultures, countries, and societal attitudes.  Its not a vice, its not pernicious.

biological truth: men have all the chromosomes of a woman and women have all but one of the chromosomes of a man.  If you accept that our ability to be sexually attracted and pair-bond (marry) are genetically derived then with the normal variance that all life has in expressing these genetic qualities it is expectable that there will be at least some members of both genders who are attracted to men or women.  Regardless of the gender of your spouse being married is statistically good for the individual, their families, their communities and their state.

legal truth: no matter what gender a citizen can reasonably marry they have a right to be treated equally by the government.  This is what the Washington state supreme court decided and that is why a second civil contract is being constructed to insure that all married citizens can license one regardless of the gender of their spouse.

 BobVB; All of the messages that I have written are NOT posted on the thread. You see only those messages that were not censored.

Truth: It is NOT totally moral or more importantly, biologically true for some people to be sexually attracted to adults of their own gender. If that were true, then more people would be homosexuals than there are. Additionally, if that were true, there would be at least as many homosexuals as there are heterosexuals and there would be little to no difference between the male and female bodies. In addition, both males and females would be able to become impregnated and have babies. Obviously, this isn't true so your "truth" isn't biologically nor obviously valid.

Reality: The extremely low percentage of the population that are attracted to those of the same sex reveals the truth that this attraction is not normal. If it were normal, a higher percentage of humans would be homosexuals. But that is ridiculous since homosexual acts cannot create new life. If a higher percentage of people were homosexuals, the human species would be in jeopardy of becoming extinct.

Biological truth: Men cannot become pregnant. Only women can do that. Only women are created with eggs. Therefore chromosomes have no relation to the creation of human life, Therefore, biological truth is based on the reality that humans are created as male and female with completely different biological functions. Homosexuality pretends there is no difference between these biological functions.

Legal truth: Government has no authority or right to grant rights and privileges to those who are merely sexual partners of those of the same sex and certainly marriage cannot be said to be a civil right or legal right to people who choose to have sex with those of the same sex because these relationships serve no good to the state, no good to the individuals practicing sodomy, and certainly are detrimental to children who need both male and female influences in their lives to become whole and healthy.

As I said before, homosexuals are treated equally by the government. They have the same rights and privileges of everyone else who, by the way, don't equate rights, privileges and benefits based upon who they sleep with.

 BobVB: ;sigh:: All the messages I have written are NOT in this thread and visible.

My message refuting your truth, reality, biological truth, and legal truth message was CENSORED. I don't care whether you believe it or not, It was.

This is an ugly reality whether you believe it or not.

I can send my message to you personally if you like to PROVE it was censored.

 

Lainie59:

When I spoke of what is natural I was referring to Nature. Biology. The human body. Male and female. Different bodies designed for difference purposes. Having sex with someone of the same sex is not natural because the bodies are the same. Going against Nature always results in disaster. One can't fool Mother Nature as an old television ad used to say.

(I'll try and cosolidate all the replies to one note)

Ha!  Our bodies are designed so that adults can sexually attracted with and pair-bond with other adults.  We have NATURAL mechanisms that allow that to happen with males or females, and either gender can have those mechanisms active for either.  That's the nature of biology.  The silly idea you can decide what any aspect of our bodies are designed for to the exclusion of anything else is what's erroneous and unnatural.  By ignoring that some are attracted to their own gender is YOU going against nature.

Procreation is merely one aspect of sexual attraction and pairbonding, that's why people who cannot have children still marry, and we let them license the civil contract in its support.  The idea that procreation is the only or even an essential point of adult sexuality and pair-bonding is again unnatural thinking - ignoring the way the world really is and wanting to pretend its simpler so you can understand it.

Show me unbiased proof that someone is born with a propensity to be sexually atracted to someone of the same sex. Until then, it's a choice.

As you assume its a choice until proven otherwise? Even though no rational person thinks that opposite gender attraction is a choice? I do wonder when people bring this up if those who present it aren't themselves asexual and think everyone else is.  Does anyone really think someone chooses who's glance makes their pulse increase, their voice stammer, give them butterflies in their stomach?  Really?  You think people can 'choose' those reactions?  Maybe you can but seriously the vast majority of people can't.

"Innocent law abiding citizens"? Who has claimed that homosexuals are not law abiding citizens? What exactly does that have to do with granting them rights?

Again, its like you were raised in another country - this is the US, the government does not 'grant rights' our rights are innate and self-evident, we all have the right to marry irregardless of the government, its just a government that doesn't acknowledge these innate rights is corrupt and flawed.

f that were true, there would be at least as many homosexuals as there are heterosexuals and there would be little to no difference between the male and female bodies.

Again, such an illogical statement is hard to reply to - that there are normal variations in biological presentation in no way presumes that all these variations will have equal presentation.  Handedness is one - only 15% of the population is left handed, a normal variation - but using your bizarre logic since it is a normal variation there has to be 50% left handed?!  Surely you can see how silly your argument sounds?  That some people attracted to men are women and some are men is normal in that the biological mechanisms to make them attracted to men are potentially present in both genders - yes it expresses it self primarily in women but that in now way means it can't also totally normally do so in men.  Its like you are using the word 'normal' in place of 'average' which means its abnormal to be blonde, blue eyed, red haired, introverted, left-handed, tall, and every other single human characteristic.  Setting 'average' up as the goal of human existence is saying its best to 'mediocre'.

And your obsession with procreation - that is only one aspect of sexuality - it has many personal and societal benefits besides procreation our long legal history confirms this - being able to breed is NOT a historical requirement of licensing the civil contract - why all of a sudden is a potential tiny increase in the number of those citizens who won't be breeding with their spouse an issue?  Seems like a rationalization for some other agenda to me.

certainly marriage cannot be said to be a civil right or legal right to people who choose to have sex with those of the same sex because these relationships serve no good to the state, no good to the individuals practicing sodomy, and certainly are detrimental to children who need both male and female influences in their lives to become whole and healthy.

Actually the do, the exact same benefits as other citizens who marry men and women.  And unfortunately there is absolutely not evidence that children must be raised by a male and female - every study shows that the most important aspects that lead to successful child rearing are a stable home environment (which the civil contract of marriage provided regardless of the genders of the married couple) and 2 parents. Next comes wealth and everything else is a distant fourth.  And regardless of the qualities of the parents, be the fat, superstitious, stupid or whatever, their families would be made better by licensing them the contracts.  The state exists to serve the citizens and their needs equally in this country and if they are going to license a contract in support of marriage it needs to be available to married citizens, their spouses regardelss of the gender of their spouse.

 

Well Bob I see your still going on and on. Like talking with a bag over your head only your ears are  convinced by your so called logic. Obviously your whole effort is trying to make the perverse seem natural and " wholesome". Guess what ? The public isn't going for it.....  There are unending arguments saying " its not a baby its a fetus" Now we have legislation allowing that a baby that isn't successfully killed during partial birth abortion will be set aside on a table until it does in fact die. Thanks to the "logic and legislation" of our new culture. Love doesn't rquire sex or a certificate , so what is the purpose of you legislation really?  

Lets see workindad: ad hominem, strawman, strawman, red herring, and finally a question.

Answer: same purpose as the civil contract of marriage - an opportunity for married citizens make their marriages better for themselves, their spouses, their families, and society.

 BobVB:

Wow. The extent people go to try to justify something so patently false and worse, harmful to themselves and others is beyond belief.

This is my last post as it is obvious that when people are determined to deny what is true, right, obvious, and normal nothing can convince them otherwise.

 

 

"The extent people go to try to justify something so patently false and worse, harmful to themselves and others is beyond belief."

 

You took the words right out of my mouth!   But then superstition and self-righteousness have brought down more than one civilization.

 Whatever happened to Honesty and Integrity?

Why can we not find Politicians who Say What They Mean and Mean What They Say!

From a President who said he was going to have open government and then signs stimulus packages with into law without giving us, or the Congress a chance to read them!

To a Governor who said she was not going to support the Homosexual and agenda and then said it was the happiest day of her life as she signed Washington Sates ‘Domestic Partnership’ law. 

To Senator Ed Murray who was infuriated that I accused him trying to pass Homosexual Marriage legislation and then stating ‘It’s all about Marriage, and always has been.’ And when their petition before the Courts to Validate Homosexual Marriage was refused because they did not have all the rights of Marriage; what do you think they did?

That same Senator Ed Murray of King County introduced a new Bill, SB-5688 to “Expand the rights and responsibilities of Washington State registered domestic partners” to correct His oversight. Once SB-5688 to “Expand the rights and responsibilities of Washington State registered domestic partners” is signed by Our Governor Christine Gregoire it into law and most likely Before the Ink is even dry; The Homosexual and lobby will be requesting a new date on the Court’s docket. And this time they will most likely be rewarded for their labors while The “Marriage Covenant” will be buried in the graveyard of acceptance without knowledge or action by those it affects most.

Once "Marriage" is no longer confined to a Man and a Woman and the sole criterion becomes the presence of "Love" and "Mutual Commitment," it is impossible to exclude virtually any "Relationship" between two or more partners of either sex. To those who scoff at concerns that homosexuals and lesbians' marriage could lead to the acceptance of other harmful and widely-rejected sexual behaviors, it should be pointed out that until very recent times the very suggestion that two women or two men could "marry" was totally unacceptable.

What are homosexuals and lesbians' looking for? Validation of their life style?

At what cost? Marriage? Homosexuals and lesbians' want Society to Validate a life style that will degrade and destroy the "Marriage Covenant." A "Marriage Covenant" that is designed to birth the next generation of mankind. A "Marriage Covenant" that is designed to love, cares for, protect, raise, and instill knowledge and wisdom in a new born child.

At what cost? The Family? Homosexuals and lesbians' want Society to Validate a life style that will tear apart the "Family" that is the backbone of our society and a life style that cannot birth new generations that ensure the continuation of the "Family."

AT what cost? The continuation of mankind on the earth? Homosexuals and lesbians' cannot reproduce. They can only recruit.

The destructive effects of redefine the institution of marriage may not be immediately apparent, but the cumulative damage is inescapable. The eminent Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, analyzed cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, and found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as traditionally defined, and survived.

Hear This: You Get What You Pay For! If you do not DEMAND HONESTY and INTEGRITY of your leaders, You will not receive it. So what right do you have to expect it…

The "Marriage Covenant" must survive and take the MORAL HIGH GROUND it so justly deserves.

STOP SB-5688 and HB-1727 NOW!

Whatever happened to Honesty and Integrity?

Odd you should ask.  This 'cut and paste' letter has been left before.  There is no recruiting, more marriages will not lead to the destruction of marriage, and if you bother to actually read the works of Pitirim Sorokin, he is talking about heterosexual promiscuity and died before current understandings about sexual orientation.  Embracing his thesis would suggest that all sexually active people, regardless of the gender of their spouse, should marry for the betterment of society.  His is an argument FOR marriage equality.

Again, honesty and integrity would be a good thing - if only the people on your side of this issue would listen to you and get some for themselves.