Welcome to Gaia! ::

N3bu
Why do you equate inbreeding with superior? The obvious answer here would be because you think it equates to greater intellect and physical appearance, but since you only admitted to an "affect" I feel you may not be comfortable or confident stating that that affect is an improvement.

Either way as I remember it, no serious consensus has been made to state such a thing since the 1940s when eugenics was all the rage.

Of course the less inbred races are superior. Inbreeding has quite a large effect on various things. I stated the most important being intellect and physical appearance. Surely someone with a higher intellect would be considered superior than someone with a lower? Or are you saying that every Homo Sapien is equal despite these differences? There's been a lot of studies on this, one in particular from the University of Western Ontario & the University of Berkeley California encountered much differences between those of a pure and and inbred race...
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
Personally? I believe the willingness to denote a superior group of people on the basis of genetic traits is pointless and nonsensical. Superiority belongs to individuals who work to surpass their peers in their fields of excellence. Not to people who were born into a genetic class of people with a high average IQ of 10 points.

Given that I find the whole notion of racial purity a pursuit in futility in the attempt by the social collective to genetically engineer a more able human being. I feel the biological difference between groups of people is trivial in comparison to the more pressing issues humans have to deal with.

Yet sadly, it still persists.
Camera Stellata 's avatar

7,400 Points
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Citizen 200
  • Full closet 200
Fermionic
Camera Stellata
Fermionic
Camera Stellata
Fermionic


It may not be a hate crime, but that doesn't change the underpinning of the mentality behind finding it objectionable.
Which is?


That it is an inferior love, unworthy of acceptance and recognition.
But it already is accepted and recognized through civil partnerships. Whats being argued here is not whether two people of the same sex can commit to one another in a legal union, it is about redefining marriage to be something which it is not.


This is a common mistake. "We accept that same-sex love and partnership is okay, but we still think that it is acceptable for us to reject it as wholesome on religious grounds". Religion has been redefining itself constantly, it has modified itself, in many cases (notably the CoE) to be in keeping with contemporary values. What is being argued, by me at least, is that it is an untenable position to assert that it isn't homophobic to consider gay marriage unacceptable. To go back to your previous statement; "Opposition to same sex marriage =/= homophobia."
I stand by that statement. Understanding marriage as a sacrament between a man and a woman does not imply any antipathy towards homosexuals. In what way is it homophobic?
Camera Stellata
Fermionic
Camera Stellata
Fermionic
Camera Stellata
Fermionic


It may not be a hate crime, but that doesn't change the underpinning of the mentality behind finding it objectionable.
Which is?


That it is an inferior love, unworthy of acceptance and recognition.
But it already is accepted and recognized through civil partnerships. Whats being argued here is not whether two people of the same sex can commit to one another in a legal union, it is about redefining marriage to be something which it is not.


This is a common mistake. "We accept that same-sex love and partnership is okay, but we still think that it is acceptable for us to reject it as wholesome on religious grounds". Religion has been redefining itself constantly, it has modified itself, in many cases (notably the CoE) to be in keeping with contemporary values. What is being argued, by me at least, is that it is an untenable position to assert that it isn't homophobic to consider gay marriage unacceptable. To go back to your previous statement; "Opposition to same sex marriage =/= homophobia."
I stand by that statement. Understanding marriage as a sacrament between a man and a woman does not imply any antipathy towards homosexuals. In what way is it homophobic?


It is the notion that sexuality and romantic love between same-sex couples is inferior, and distasteful, and that it is not worthy of a blessing or religious endorsement.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Yeah, the French are so intolerant!

That's why I say we ban them and get rid of them based on just a few protestors! emotion_donotwant
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Fermionic
Camera Stellata
Fermionic
Camera Stellata
Fermionic


That it is an inferior love, unworthy of acceptance and recognition.
But it already is accepted and recognized through civil partnerships. Whats being argued here is not whether two people of the same sex can commit to one another in a legal union, it is about redefining marriage to be something which it is not.


This is a common mistake. "We accept that same-sex love and partnership is okay, but we still think that it is acceptable for us to reject it as wholesome on religious grounds". Religion has been redefining itself constantly, it has modified itself, in many cases (notably the CoE) to be in keeping with contemporary values. What is being argued, by me at least, is that it is an untenable position to assert that it isn't homophobic to consider gay marriage unacceptable. To go back to your previous statement; "Opposition to same sex marriage =/= homophobia."
I stand by that statement. Understanding marriage as a sacrament between a man and a woman does not imply any antipathy towards homosexuals. In what way is it homophobic?


It is the notion that sexuality and romantic love between same-sex couples is inferior, and distasteful, and that it is not worthy of a blessing or religious endorsement.


/shrug

Can't help facts.


Also that's not necessarily afraid of gays per say, more or less just filled with the zealous over bearing hatred and rage that is the existence of such horrific things. emotion_donotwant
Suicidesoldier#1
Can't help facts.

Which facts?


Suicidesoldier#1
Also that's not necessarily afraid of gays per say, more or less just filled with the zealous over bearing hatred and rage that is the existence of such horrific things. emotion_donotwant

The social use of the word "homophobia" is well understood to mean a general distaste. You do yourself little credit paying undue attention to it.
CuAnnan's avatar

Dapper Genius

4,450 Points
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Autobiographer 200
  • Dressed Up 200
Shakespearean Quotations
Ireland

Citation required.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Fermionic
Suicidesoldier#1
Can't help facts.

Which facts?


Suicidesoldier#1
Also that's not necessarily afraid of gays per say, more or less just filled with the zealous over bearing hatred and rage that is the existence of such horrific things. emotion_donotwant

The social use of the word "homophobia" is well understood to mean a general distaste. You do yourself little credit paying undue attention to it.


That's what homo's say.

But I can tell you I ain't afraid of no homo. xp


They want to say it's because you're afraid of us.

Nope, it's because you're gay.


Well and you have a plot to take over the world I mean.

They do have a political agenda and are voting for Obama.
Suicidesoldier#1
Fermionic
Suicidesoldier#1
Can't help facts.

Which facts?


Suicidesoldier#1
Also that's not necessarily afraid of gays per say, more or less just filled with the zealous over bearing hatred and rage that is the existence of such horrific things. emotion_donotwant

The social use of the word "homophobia" is well understood to mean a general distaste. You do yourself little credit paying undue attention to it.


That's what homo's say.

But I can tell you I ain't afraid of no homo. xp


They want to say it's because you're afraid of us.

Nope, it's because you're gay.


Well and you have a plot to take over the world I mean.

They do have a political agenda and are voting for Obama.


I am unsure as to whom you are referring.
Exoth XIII's avatar

Quotable Genius

7,500 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Signature Look 250
pockybot

The ******** is an 'intollerent?"
Quote:
Hundreds of thousands of people turned up to protest gay marriage equality
around the Eiffel Tower.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/13/16493599-protesters-fight-gay-marriage-in-france-it-would-hurt-children?lite

AHAHAHAHAHA!
Quote:

his opponents have dented public support and forced deputies to put off a plan to allow lesbian couples access to artificial insemination.

Artificial insemination discourages the use of orphanages.
Quote:

"Nobody expected this two or three months ago," said Frigide Barjot, a flamboyant comedian leading the demonstration. At the rally, she read aloud a letter to Hollande asking him to withdraw the bill and hold a public debate on the issue.

She sounds hilarious!
Camera Stellata 's avatar

7,400 Points
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Citizen 200
  • Full closet 200
Fermionic
Camera Stellata
Fermionic
Camera Stellata
Fermionic


That it is an inferior love, unworthy of acceptance and recognition.
But it already is accepted and recognized through civil partnerships. Whats being argued here is not whether two people of the same sex can commit to one another in a legal union, it is about redefining marriage to be something which it is not.


This is a common mistake. "We accept that same-sex love and partnership is okay, but we still think that it is acceptable for us to reject it as wholesome on religious grounds". Religion has been redefining itself constantly, it has modified itself, in many cases (notably the CoE) to be in keeping with contemporary values. What is being argued, by me at least, is that it is an untenable position to assert that it isn't homophobic to consider gay marriage unacceptable. To go back to your previous statement; "Opposition to same sex marriage =/= homophobia."
I stand by that statement. Understanding marriage as a sacrament between a man and a woman does not imply any antipathy towards homosexuals. In what way is it homophobic?


It is the notion that sexuality and romantic love between same-sex couples is inferior, and distasteful, and that it is not worthy of a blessing or religious endorsement.
It's not something which can be sanctioned, no, but that's not the same as holding hostility towards homosexuals. In the same way, as a non-Catholic I can't take communion in a Catholic church, but that doesn't mean I'm the subject of religious prejudice.
Camera Stellata
Fermionic
Camera Stellata
Fermionic
Camera Stellata
Fermionic


That it is an inferior love, unworthy of acceptance and recognition.
But it already is accepted and recognized through civil partnerships. Whats being argued here is not whether two people of the same sex can commit to one another in a legal union, it is about redefining marriage to be something which it is not.


This is a common mistake. "We accept that same-sex love and partnership is okay, but we still think that it is acceptable for us to reject it as wholesome on religious grounds". Religion has been redefining itself constantly, it has modified itself, in many cases (notably the CoE) to be in keeping with contemporary values. What is being argued, by me at least, is that it is an untenable position to assert that it isn't homophobic to consider gay marriage unacceptable. To go back to your previous statement; "Opposition to same sex marriage =/= homophobia."
I stand by that statement. Understanding marriage as a sacrament between a man and a woman does not imply any antipathy towards homosexuals. In what way is it homophobic?


It is the notion that sexuality and romantic love between same-sex couples is inferior, and distasteful, and that it is not worthy of a blessing or religious endorsement.
It's not something which can be sanctioned, no, but that's not the same as holding hostility towards homosexuals. In the same way, as a non-Catholic I can't take communion in a Catholic church, but that doesn't mean I'm the subject of religious prejudice.


That is a false parallel to make. The root of not being able to take communion is not believing in its truth, and that you do not ascribe to it. The root of restricted same-sex marriage is that it is "unwholesome".
Fermionic
It is the notion that sexuality and romantic love between same-sex couples is inferior.
It is an infertile love. By its very nature it is unequal to hetero love.
Kaworu 17
Fermionic
It is the notion that sexuality and romantic love between same-sex couples is inferior.
It is an infertile love. By its very nature it is unequal to hetero love.


There is very little about nature that we can use to justify either. Is heterosexual love between barren individuals inferior to the same in fertile ones?

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games