Biden says gay marriage 'inevitable'

[amicus]

The following is going to be difficult for the 'usual suspects' here to understand as they believe all things emerge from collective determinations of what is right/wrong, et cetera, in social groups.

NATURE, in Caps for a reason, determines the basic principles by which a species survives and flourishes.

Nature, as it applies to homo sapiens, created two sexes, not three, not forty-three, but two...and for a reason.

Nature inured man with an aversion to those that are different, and only man and his institutions, can force black to sit down with white. Only man can legislate equality between the races or the sexes and force acceptance upon a population.

Nature provides a competition between racial and ethnic groups to set one against the other so that the 'best', that survives, will continue the species.

So too, with the 'gentle sex', women have been second class citizens until the last hundred years for reasons that nature determined, not men.

Social engineering can go only so far to fulfill the dreams of visionaries who perceive a world of total equality, before the real and basic nature of the beast rebels.

Be careful, very careful, of just how far you push your social justice on people who may just rise up and say; NO! Not only no, but Hell No!

Think about it.

Amicus

 

[sr71plt]

That is the real definition.



Wikipedia: Homophobia

Sorry, I'll accept Webster's over Wikipedia for definitions. There's nothing in the root words put together for "homophobia" to take it beyond simple hatred of gays. The originator of the term wasn't being precise. The current definition is precise.

With your chosen difinition, what then is the word for someone who just hates gays without any propensity to being gay themself?

I suggest you might just leave the working definition as it is and go off and find another word for your bent definition.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Cybered with any seventeen-year-old girls lately, Ami?

 

[xssve]

WASHINGTON -- Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.


New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal

 

[xssve]

Sorry, I'll accept Webster's over Wikipedia for definitions. There's nothing in the root words put together for "homophobia" to take it beyond simple hatred of gays. The originator of the term wasn't being precise. The current definition is precise.

With your chosen difinition, what then is the word for someone who just hates gays without any propensity to being gay themself?

I suggest you might just leave the working definition as it is and go off and find another word for your bent definition.

Hater. It does appear to correlate with racism.

I leave to your Wikiphobia and your logophobia.

 

[sr71plt]

WASHINGTON -- Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.


New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal

OK, we're all gay. I can live with that.

 

[Stella_Omega]

OK, we're all gay. I can live with that.

I've always figured as much.

 

[xssve]

Double post.

 

[xssve]

OK, we're all gay. I can live with that.

Pretty much, there are no external symptoms, so we're all physically capable of it, most mammals engage in it, so it is, to some degree, a social construct - nor does it interfere with male fertility, might even enhance it: since the female mammal is typically only fertile at fixed, and sometimes infrequent intervals - once a month or so for human females - whereas sperm tends to lose it's motility after a much shorter period, it's typical for males of any mammalian species to ejaculate more frequently than the females experience estrus - whatever the means, and those who ejaculate more frequently would tend to have higher motility rates than those who ejaculate less frequently.

Contrary to ami, NATURE doesn't deal in abstract gender constructs in the teleological manner he suggests, that's superstition and magical thinking - it only "deals with" behavior, cause and effect, and as a human, as long as you're ready once a month with motile sperm, it doesn't matter much what you do the rest of the time.

 

[xssve]

Be careful, very careful, of just how far you push your social justice on people who may just rise up and say; NO! Not only no, but Hell No!

Yes, by all means, let us protest against so unnatural a concept as "justice".

 

[sr71plt]

Pretty much, there are no external symptoms, so we're all physically capable of it, most mammals engage in it, so it is, to some degree, a social construct - nor does it interfere with male fertility, might even enhance it: since the female mammal is typically only fertile at fixed, and sometimes infrequent intervals - once a month or so for human females - whereas sperm tends to lose it's motility after a much shorter period, it's typical for males of any mammalian species to ejaculate more frequently than the females experience estrus - whatever the means, and those who ejaculate more frequently would tend to have higher motility rates than those who ejaculate less frequently.

Contrary to ami, NATURE doesn't deal in abstract gender constructs in the teleological manner he suggests, that's superstition and magical thinking - it only "deals with" behavior, cause and effect, and as a human, as long as you're ready once a month with motile sperm, it doesn't matter much what you do the rest of the time.

Although I can live with everyone basically being bisexual (and even say I believe that on occasion), I still don't go with that definition and still will go with the one Webster's gives, which doesn't extrapolate away from the root elements of the word in sweeping, assuming, inclusive generalizations. I pretty much believe that much of pyschology and pyschiatry is a bunch of airy-fairy hooey, based more on the need to attract grants and attain tenure than on common sense. And this is one of those cases.

You can do as you please, of course. You did, in fact, come up with a good source for your assertion.

But, on the other hand, it gives me great amusement to think of Ami as being gay.

 

[amicus]

Pretty much, there are no external symptoms, so we're all physically capable of it, most mammals engage in it, so it is, to some degree, a social construct - nor does it interfere with male fertility, might even enhance it: since the female mammal is typically only fertile at fixed, and sometimes infrequent intervals - once a month or so for human females - whereas sperm tends to lose it's motility after a much shorter period, it's typical for males of any mammalian species to ejaculate more frequently than the females experience estrus - whatever the means, and those who ejaculate more frequently would tend to have higher motility rates than those who ejaculate less frequently.

Contrary to ami, NATURE doesn't deal in abstract gender constructs in the teleological manner he suggests, that's superstition and magical thinking - it only "deals with" behavior, cause and effect, and as a human, as long as you're ready once a month with motile sperm, it doesn't matter much what you do the rest of the time.[/QUOTE]

~~~

I like it when one of our Litsters drops a six dollar word; I do so occasionally also, just to see if anyone worthy is reading.

Definition of TELEOLOGICAL

: exhibiting or relating to design or purpose especially in nature

Man has studied 'nature' aka, 'reality' from the beginning of focused thought and in the attempt to put 'faith' and 'belief' in its' proper emotional category.

There are those who use the 'diversity' of nature to substantiate their 'beliefs' concerning issues of a personal nature. Scientific methodology includes a supposition or a theory, with evidence, that is put forth for 'peer' questioning and criticism.

There are anomalies in nature, abberations if you prefer, such as an individual born with both a penis and a vagina. That is somewhat rare and surely not applauded as a mutation that benefits the continuation of the species.

Homosexuality is one such anomaly that is closely related to the 'social nature' of homo sapiens, in that personal intimacy is a psychological ingredient necessary to the well being of an individual. When heterosexual relationships are not available, such as in prisons or wartime, people turn to each other for solace.

There is a question in my mind, based on an assumption that male and female psychological foundations are genetically based and are transmitted on a 'variable' scale of maximum to minimum in each gender and that the possibility exists, no matter how rare, that an equal inheritance of male and female, may appear in any given individual, thus rendering the individual without an innate gender, may occur.

It is then that 'nurturing' and social environment comes into play as both can influence the cognitive gender preference of the individual.

Your divorcement of 'social' from 'justice', is mere intellectual dishonesty as, 'social justice' is a stand alone concept and beneath you if you expect any respect in the intellectual community.

Amicus

 

[Safe_Bet]

It is the original meaning of the word, it's been "bastardized" to refer to any fear of homosexuality, regardless of the underlying cause.

"I don't care what you call it, you can call it a banana if you want too."
Sen. John McCain

Is THAT what the hell he was talking about????

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I really get tired of people making dogmatic statements when even the most cursory of research would show how incorrect the statement is. Among the Attic Greeks, sexuality was sexuality and who you engaged was up to you. Most upper class men had wives, entertained themselves with hetairae and had teen-age boyfriends. Much of Classical Rome felt the same way. At least four of the earliest and most revered saints in the Catholic tradition were same-sex lovers. So give up with the ignorance, Ami. Your scholastic failings are becoming an embarrassment/

 

[xssve]

Although I can live with everyone basically being bisexual (and even say I believe that on occasion), I still don't go with that definition and still will go with the one Webster's gives, which doesn't extrapolate away from the root elements of the word in sweeping, assuming, inclusive generalizations. I pretty much believe that much of pyschology and pyschiatry is a bunch of airy-fairy hooey, based more on the need to attract grants and attain tenure than on common sense. And this is one of those cases.

You can do as you please, of course. You did, in fact, come up with a good source for your assertion.

But, on the other hand, it gives me great amusement to think of Ami as being gay.

It remains the clinical definition, and the original meaning, nevertheless, and I invite you to come up with an authoritative source that maintains it isn't.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You mistake dogma for probability statements.

If I assert that pussies respond optimally to dicks the statement is statistically correct, but there's always someone who disagrees because they have a ideosyntonic experience that significantly deviates from the mean. If youre a gambler, though, you wanna bet your money on my assertion.

 

[xssve]

Amicus

Anybody else hear a squeaking noise?

 

[sr71plt]

It remains the clinical definition, and the original meaning, nevertheless, and I invite you to come up with an authoritative source that maintains it isn't.

Why would I do that? I have an authoritative definition source defining it as I understand it. Webster's.

And it's not like I have to use for anything important.

 

[sr71plt]

You mistake dogma for probability statements.

If I assert that pussies respond optimally to dicks the statement is statistically correct, but there's always someone who disagrees because they have a ideosyntonic experience that significantly deviates from the mean. If youre a gambler, though, you wanna bet your money on my assertion.

So, what you're saying is that, underneath it all, you know you're gay(?)

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

At one time or another plenty of people have accused me of being gay but gay isnt my internal experience, and is something I cant fathom...like Indian music I finally concluded they were speaking about themselves and projecting it on me.

 

[xssve]

Why would I do that? I have an authoritative definition source defining it as I understand it. Webster's.

And it's not like I have to use for anything important.

Websters by convention, tends towards the colloquial definition, I've explicitly stated that I was referring to the original, and clinical definition, and included two sources - the word was coined by Psychologist George Weinberg, and that's what he said it meant, and I don't know how much more authoritative you can get, Websters will have to take the dive

 

[Stella_Omega]

Anybody else hear a squeaking noise?

Whut?

 

[sr71plt]

Websters by convention, tends towards the colloquial definition, I've explicitly stated that I was referring to the original, and clinical definition, and included two sources - the word was coined by Psychologist George Weinberg, and that's what he said it meant, and I don't know how much more authoritative you can get, Websters will have to take the dive

That's nice for you. Webster's is fine with me on that definition. It follows the root words without waltzing off into thin, unprovable air.

(You can't take having anyone not hup toing to you, can you? I don't agree with you--or your choice of psychologists; get over it.)

 

[xssve]

Anyway, "symptoms" in my previous post should have been in quotes, I can't believe you let that one slip by while getting all personal about the technical meaning of another word - a more accurate statement would be, "no external markers", and little natural law superstitions like ami's generally don't take into account the existence of chimera's, which exist, in nature, in spite of being "unnatural", and are not generally considered a particular threat to anyone, unless the threat be to some abstract philosophy that would rather wish them away.

If healthy Chimera's with external markers are not unnatural, I don't know why ones without external markers should be.

You're not churning out cannon fodder and obedient little workers/consumers like you ought?

Horrors, how is Whitey supposed to compete with the lazy Brown races, who breed like... animals?

Fortunately, the Quiverfull's are taking up the slack, and the Catholic Church has determined that Jeebus kills.

 

[xssve]

That's nice for you. Webster's is fine with me on that definition. It follows the root words without waltzing off into thin, unprovable air.

(You can't take having anyone not hup toing to you, can you? I don't agree with you--or your choice of psychologists; get over it.)

You're right, Weinberg just invented the word - what the fuck does he know?

Lol, give it up.