Gay Marriage

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
1.) You just openly called for thought policing and forcing your social agenda on children in school, trying to wiggle out of spreading your view of the world thorough government action, enacted by the minority, isn?t going to fly. You can?t call tyranny freedom for the tyrannical.

2.) You aren?t calling for freedom either, freedom to ?marry?, I?m sorry but re-defining housing-requirements does not make people who live in colonias any more free.

You're arguing the state should be used as a tool to prevent freedom

3.) Your arguing that the state should be used as a tool to prevent freedom, as you destroy the definition of marriage and eliminate the value of that covenant.

4.) Your not calling for the freedom of gays to have the same benefits as anyone else, your calling for a special exception for gays, on that isn?t given to the incestuous or polygamists.

As I said before, you are a hypocrite in trying to bring ?freedom? to one group we ?discriminate against? because of the definition of the covenant of marriage, but not fighting for the same for others.

You have a social agenda to eliminate any judgment of personal immoral behavior, and that, not the personal evil that you?re trying to cover up with it, is what will bring you into self judgment in the end.

Hopefully you can see past the destructiveness of siding with socially destructive actions and come to understand that we keep things together for a reason.

I think it should be Illegal to be gay! They aren't normal humans, and shouldn't be treated as such

the difference between it being illegal to engage in a sexual activity and expanding government to approve of that sexual activity is obvious to all rational people.

Me thinks you doth protest too much, oh mighty Lord!

Seirously though, Why shouldn't gay people be allowed to have a legal marriage? I don't think they should be married in a church, at least not for a generation or so while us old schoolers fade away, LOL.

They didn't ask to be gay, it just turned out that way for them so why hold it against them or stand in the way of their happiness?? I would be willing to bet that they have wished many times they were hetrosexual. I know I'm glad I'm not gay, so I can have my own children, of which I have 3

 

[LordMagnusKain]

tss4
Sorry to hit you so hard, I didn?t notice that you?re a noobie and thus not battle hardened as the rest of us.

Seriously though, Why shouldn't gay people be allowed to have a legal marriage?

honestly, I don?t mind them being dedicated to each other, heck if it?s an honest monogamous commitment it?s much better than the standard homosexual life stile and certainly something I?m in favor of. But calling it marriage is an attempt to over-step the bounds of the state in recognizing the generally accepted morality of the land.

They didn't ask to be gay, it just turned out that way for them so why hold it against them or stand in the way of their happiness

Choosing to have homosexual sex is one thing, demanding that we accept a moral equivalency between those who have homosexual sex and those who have monogamous married sex is something quite different.

You don?t need the words ?marriage? attached to your communal property agreement, you don?t need to force people in Texas to recognize that the state of Maine has been usurped by judicial activists with morality completely contrary to their own, and you don?t need a legal document to be personally betroth to another person.

Here is why I?m against gay marriage:

Actually if I had a problem with men having sex with each other its that I've never seen a relationship like that that wasn't based on easy amoral sex. However, I know there are other states where that is acceptable and they make it work, So if it works for them fine.

In the end, with or without a state document, you know that God knows your heart.

So yea, I?m a bigot, and anyone that isn?t for all sorts of sexual morality having no barring on the definition of ?marriage? then they to are bigots, hypocritical thought policing bigots.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
tss4
Sorry to hit you so hard, I didn?t notice that you?re a noobie and thus not battle hardened as the rest of us.

Seriously though, Why shouldn't gay people be allowed to have a legal marriage?

honestly, I don?t mind them being dedicated to each other, heck if it?s an honest monogamous commitment it?s much better than the standard homosexual life stile and certainly something I?m in favor of. But calling it marriage is an attempt to over-step the bounds of the state in recognizing the generally accepted morality of the land.

They didn't ask to be gay, it just turned out that way for them so why hold it against them or stand in the way of their happiness

Choosing to have homosexual sex is one thing, demanding that we accept a moral equivalency between those who have homosexual sex and those who have monogamous married sex is something quite different.

You don?t need the words ?marriage? attached to your communal property agreement, you don?t need to force people in Texas to recognize that the state of Maine has been usurped by judicial activists with morality completely contrary to their own, and you don?t need a legal document to be personally betroth to another person.

Here is why I?m against gay marriage:

Actually if I had a problem with men having sex with each other its that I've never seen a relationship like that that wasn't based on easy amoral sex. However, I know there are other states where that is acceptable and they make it work, So if it works for them fine.

In the end, with or without a state document, you know that God knows your heart.

So yea, I?m a bigot, and anyone that isn?t for all sorts of sexual morality having no barring on the definition of ?marriage? then they to are bigots, hypocritical thought policing bigots.

Hmmmm... We'll lets agree to disagree for the time being. I believe this comes down fundamentally to a question of "is same sex intercourse immoral". You believe it is, I believe it isn't. All these grand theories that we've concocted about me oppressing you with the state and you oppressing them with the state are us trying to justify our cause. I think time and more discusion in society will help us settle this debate.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Hmmmm... We'll lets agree to disagree for the time being. I believe this comes down fundamentally to a question of "is same sex intercourse immoral".

ok, I agree; it comes down to our personal moral beliefs about what constitutes moral sex?

Now I?m happy to give people the same rights and responsibilities as marriage? but 1.) I don?t want it to be called marriage 2.) I don?t want to limit it in any way amongst adults 3.) I don?t want to imply any sexuality with it and 4.) I think it only pragmatic not to extend citizenship through it.

I want 2 sisters who raze some adopted children to have the same rights as 2 lesbians. I want to respect Native Americans who have no one ?father? or ?mother? but that are raised by the tribe. Over all, I don?t want to imply sexual morality of someone?s actions in sanctioning a pragmatic protection for a group.

The problem is that these sorts of compromise aren?t acceptable to those who want to use the legal system to redefine societal views of morality.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Hmmmm... We'll lets agree to disagree for the time being. I believe this comes down fundamentally to a question of "is same sex intercourse immoral".

ok, I agree; it comes down to our personal moral beliefs about what constitutes moral sex?

Now I?m happy to give people the same rights and responsibilities as marriage? but 1.) I don?t want it to be called marriage 2.) I don?t want to limit it in any way amongst adults 3.) I don?t want to imply any sexuality with it and 4.) I think it only pragmatic not to extend citizenship through it.

I want 2 sisters who raze some adopted children to have the same rights as 2 lesbians. I want to respect Native Americans who have no one ?father? or ?mother? but that are raised by the tribe. Over all, I don?t want to imply sexual morality of someone?s actions in sanctioning a pragmatic protection for a group.

The problem is that these sorts of compromise aren?t acceptable to those who want to use the legal system to redefine societal views of morality.

I'm willing to accept point 1 as a compromise.

Point 2 is interesting. I can see some merit to it.

Point 3 seems to be just an extension of point 2

Point 4 has merit too, allthough I think I'd wait on that one. People can do the same thing now they just have to get a willing person from the opposite sex to "marry" them.

An interesting idea is to completely remove marriage from the government. Instead make all unions between man/woman and man/woman a "civil union". Marriages would be recognised through the church. Is that a compromise you're willing to accept?

 

[aidanjm]

LordMagnusKain wrote:

> Drinking won?t kill you unless you drink to much,
> but ?normal? amounts of homosexual sex leads to much
> higher levels of cancer, not to mention a plethora
> of other problems

The study you linked (at www.nature.com) does not
support your contention that homosexual sex leads to
higher levels of cancer; rather, it points to the fact
that HIV/ AIDS infections increase risk of cancer.

(The link contained a summary of a study which found
elevated rates of cancer in people with HIV/ AIDS.
Given that HIV/ AIDS suppresses the immune system, it
is not surprising that people infected with this virus
have higher rates of cancer. The summary you linked
made no mention of whether the subjects in that study
were heterosexual or homosexual; or if they were male
or female. The study says nothing about the effects of
anal sex, per se, on human health. It also says
nothing about the health benefits, or otherwise, of
kissing, cuddling, or oral sex between same-sex
couples.)

> People arguing ?it?ll help gays? should recognize
> that this is an overall attempt to change the moral
> norms of society so that none of us make any
> moral-judgments about anti-social behavior.

You have yet to demonstrate that homosexuality, or
rather, behaviors stemming from a homosexual
orientation, are anti-social.

And by the way, you are free to make whatever moral
judgements you choose. However the state is not free
to arbitrarily deprive an entire class of people
access to an institution as important as marriage
without a damn good reason.

> as for a more detaled account of what makes
> homosexual sex ethicly bankrupt, thus not something
> that should have a government stamp-of-aproval on
> it:

The fact that a given activity is potentially risky (poses
a health risk) is not evidence that the activity is
intrinsically morally undesirable or inappropriate. For
example, every year school children experience
spinal cord injuries playing rugby/ football. This does
not happen with kids playing table tennis. Does this
mean that table tennis is somehow intrinsically a more
moral or ethically desirable activity than
rugby/ football? (Answer: No.) Is gardening a more
morally defensible activity than snow-sking?
(Answer: no.) Even if homosexual sex between males
constitutes a health risk, that does not make such
behavior "ethically bankrupt" (your words) or morally
undesirable.

> 1.) male/male penetration causes increased
> likelihood of anal infections w/ a reduced immune
> system.

I dispute your contention that anal sex per se is a
health risk. What evidence do you have to support
this?

Even if "male/male penetration" really does cause
increased likelihood of "anal infections" with a
reduced immune system, this is not an argument against
the morality of homosexuality (as I pointed out above)
or an argument against gay marriage. Risky activities
are not intrinsically immoral.

> 2.)The act of any homosexual sexual activity is
> destructive to emotional well-being.

The American Psychological Association doesn't agree
with you. They state that a homosexual orientation is
perfectly compatible with emotional and psychological
health:

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html

> 3.)female/female sexual activity increases likelihood
> of many forms of cancer.

Utter rubbish. This is absurd. What evidence do you
offer to support this claim?

As far as I am aware, older women who have never
had children have a *slightly* elevated risk for certain
cancers of the reproductive system. This is a risk faced
by any woman who doesn't have kids (nuns, spinsters,
lesbians who choose not to have children, etc.)

> 4.)disregarding basic sexual morality increases
> pre-marital sex rates.

Define basic sexual morality.

My version of "basic sexual morality" is that anything
you do should be with a consenting adult. No coercion,
no sexual exploitation, and respect for your partner.
Homosexuality, or gay marriage, is therefore not
inconsistent with my sexual morality.

> 5.)the average lesbian life style causes a higher
> substance abuse problem than average

What is the "average lesbian lifestyle"?

The one lesbian I know well gets up at 6 am, goes to
work, get's home at 8 pm. On the weekends she does the
shopping, and spends time in the garden...

> 6.)the average homosexual life style causes more std
> problems than the heterosexual counter-part.

What is the "average homosexual lifestyle"?

I would imagine the vast majority of homosexuals go to
work 5 days a week, relax on the weekends, spend time
with friends, blah blah, just like everyone else.

I have read that there is a higher rate of alcoholism
or drug problems in the gay community. My guess would
be that this stems at least in part from the stress of being
a member of a disliked minority group.

> 7.)the average homosexual lifestyle leads to a
> much-decreased ability to fight aids.

Again, what is the average homosexual lifestyle?

> you can disagree with these thigns being negative,

I disagree with the validity of your claims.

You have made some IMO crazy claims, but made no
effort whatsoever to provide documentation to support
those claims.

> but you'd better have an ethical basis for that
> view, otherwise your just ignorantly spouting off
> like so many others who's only reason for
> disagreeing is that they like to disagree. ?

It is you, I suspect, who is "ignorantly spouting
off".

> It is questionable as to why this is true, but
> suicide rates among gays is much higher.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case. However
I'd guess it would stem from whatever stress comes
from being a member of a disliked minority.

> not to mention other emotional trauma that being
> actively sexual in the homosexual community brings.

What does this mean? If a woman is living with her
female partner in a monogamous relationship, how is
that emotionally traumatic to either partner?

>> And, what about the great # of heterosexuals who
>> practice anal sex?
>
> I was referring to anal sex, and the rupture is
> because the penile tears the soft-tissue of the
> colon, particularly the likelyhood of spreading
> desease.

If this is the case, then perhaps gay males practising
anal sex should be advised to always use a water-based
lubricant... I read an essay a while back which pointed
out that the total number of heterosexual women
practicing anal sex with their male partners was 7 to 20
times the number of gay men practising anal sex... Guess
all those women must be walking around with ruptured
and diseased colons, too.

Again, EVEN IF anal sex per se is a potential health
risk, that does not make it an intrinsically immoral
activity. Nor is it an argument against gay marriage.

> 7.)the average homosexual lifestyle leads to a
> much-decreased ability to fight aids.
>
> journal of nature

That link ("journal of nature") has a description of a
study on people with HIV/ AIDS. It's NOT a study on
people "living a homosexual lifestyle" (whatever the
hell that is). There is no mention on that link of
whether the participants in that study were even
gay.)

> now I'll submit that it?s socially preferable to
> have people in monogamous relationships, but the
> idea that most gay marriage will be more monogamous

Heterosexuals are under no obligation to "prove" their
monogamy before they get married. Why are you holding
gay people to a higher standard?

> is show to be less likely by both the statement of
> the Gay and Lesbian Alliance ?the archaic
> institution of monogamy is destructive to society
> and should be next to be eliminated?

Do you really think that one organization speaks for
all gays and lesbians? I assume that gay people have
varying opinions on marriage. No doubt some gays
think that marriage is an anachronistic institution
(just like some straight people do). Presumably
other gays are more traditionally minded, and see
value in the institution of marriage.

> and the much increased likely hood of existing
> homosexuals to be part of the causal sex and random
> orgy seen.

What evidence do you have that gay people are any more
promiscuous than straight people?

 

[aidanjm]

It is worth pointing out that quite a few Christian churches, and also other religions, already do bless gay unions. For example, the Episcopal Church, the Metropolitan Community Churches, Reform Judaism, and the United Church of Christ. The Presbyterian and United Methodist churches may soon be joining this group.

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I don't believe that the church should condone gay marriagies, but the goverment shouldn't be able to decide if they are right or wrong either. After all, don't we have separation of Church and State in this country. At least we used to. The founding fathers whose experience taught them it was a good idea thought we should have it.

Are people aware that civil marriage (which is what we are talking about here) is NOT a religious institution? It is a CIVIL legal institution -- and therefore cannot legitimately be denied to a class of people on religious grounds. I have yet to hear a compelling public policy reason as to why marriage should be denied to same-sex couples. The proportion of gays in the community is small. (Say around 5%). I have yet to see convincing evidence that allowing such a small group of people the right to marry will somehow dramtically change things for the other 95% of the population.

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Then there is the fact that you can't change them no matter what the law says. If they want to live together that is their right. How would you stop them anyway, a secret police?

Why are you assuming it would be desirable for gay people to "change"? You haven't demonstrated that having a small proportion of the population as non-breeders is a bad thing. Consider the creative endeavors of gay people (the fact that gay people are so prominent in the creative arts, for example.) Maybe the fact that many gay people don't have children gives them more time and energy to devote to other creative pursuits or interests. This might even be a GOOD THING for society as a whole. I submit that the creative contributions that gay people have made to our society are enormous. It would be a poorer, and more dull, world, without gay people in it, IMO.

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I also think that if you have a couple of gay people who have a relationship they should be able to have the same legal rights as any other couple, and they need a legal paper to give them that. They should be able to bequeath their belongings/property without paying any more taxes then anyone else. They should also be able to get health insurance for their mate if one of them works and the other doesn't or has a job that doesn't provide it.

Extending those kinds of basic legal rights to same-sex couples is the just thing to do, in my opinion.

 

[nageov3t]

aidanjm --

good posts. marry me?

 

[HermDogg]

So basically what is being discussed now is that marriage=child-bearing license. Let's call a spade a spade and get rid of the whole damned marriage instituation altogether. The government can recognize two people (ANY two people) living together in a "civil union," and you can bar anyone you want from getting "Married" in a purely religious ceremony at a church.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: loki8481
aidanjm --

good posts. marry me?

We might not be very compatible. I get irritated by Ayn Rand fans, for some reason.

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: HermDogg
So basically what is being discussed now is that marriage=child-bearing license. Let's call a spade a spade and get rid of the whole damned marriage instituation altogether. The government can recognize two people (ANY two people) living together in a "civil union," and you can bar anyone you want from getting "Married" in a purely religious ceremony at a church.

I agree. Like seperation of church and state we need to take marraige and give it back to where it came from: The Church. Marriage is a religious right -- no pun intended -- the rule of government cannot assume, as it has with marriage, where its powers stop and the power of God begins. Lets all leave God to the churches and steeples and get on with our lives and start realizing GOD is not a four letter word like HATE.

 

[Frew]

Originally posted by: gutharius

Originally posted by: HermDogg
So basically what is being discussed now is that marriage=child-bearing license. Let's call a spade a spade and get rid of the whole damned marriage instituation altogether. The government can recognize two people (ANY two people) living together in a "civil union," and you can bar anyone you want from getting "Married" in a purely religious ceremony at a church.

I agree. Like seperation of church and state we need to take marraige and give it back to where it came from: The Church. Marriage is a religious right -- no pun intended -- the rule of government cannot assume, as it has with marriage, where its powers stop and the power of God begins. Lets all leave God to the churches and steeples and get on with our lives and start realizing GOD is not a four letter word like HATE.

If it is a religious right then anyone should be able to get married do to seperation between Church and State. But thats not how it works.

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: LeadFrog
If it is a religious right then anyone should be able to get married do to seperation between Church and State. But thats not how it works.

I think you and I are in agreement but there was a misunderstanding along the way. Plain and simple without all the confusing religious stuff. The seperation of church and state stopped short of marriage. This is somthing that should NOT have happened. Marriage and Godly unions belong to the Churches. Civil unions and unions with legal merit or responsibility belong to the goverment. I say seperate them. That way the churches say who can get married in the eyes of God and who cannot. Thereby alowing our democratic goverment to be a government standing for freedom from oppression and tyranny and one which allows all a full and unhindered pursuit of happiness.

 

[conjur]

Perhaps Bush should listen to his daughters:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/223288p-191737c.html

When Washington-area beautician Erwin Gomez and his longtime partner James Packard celebrate their marital vows with 400 of their closest friends next month, two of Gomez's best customers will probably be in attendance: President Bush's twin daughters, Jenna and Barbara.
Yesterday, the 39-year-old Gomez - a makeup expert for the Elizabeth Arden shop in the D.C. suburb of Chevy Chase, Md. - told Lowdown that the First Twins have become devotees of his popular eyebrow waxes over the past few weeks.

And, Gomez added, Bush's daughters have expressed an enthusiastic desire to go to Gomez and Packard's Sept. 11 wedding celebration at their home in Laytonsville, Md.

"I gave them the party invitation, and they said, 'That sounds great, we'd love to come - it sounds like a lot of fun,'" Gomez said.

"The way they reacted, they were very open-minded."

Never mind that their father supports a constitutional ban of gay marriages.

Heterosexual marriage, Bush said in February, is "the most enduring human institution" and "cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society."

While Gomez holds the hard-carousing girls in high regard ("so casual and so real"), his disgust for their father's politics is obvious.

"I think it's wrong - he has no right to touch that," he said. "He's trying to change the freedom of America. ... History is repeating itself, just like blacks and Jews were discriminated against."

Gomez and Packard were "wed" last spring in San Francisco after Mayor Gavin Newsome issued them and scores of others a marriage license.

But the legality of such unions has been in question since the California Supreme Court last week declared that Newsome exceeded his authority in sanctioning gay marriages.

As for the Bush sisters, "I've done their eyebrows three times - they usually just call my cell and pop in," said Gomez, who also plucks and waxes the eyebrows of Saudi Princess Haifa.

Yesterday, the First Twins' spokeswoman, Susan Whitson, had only this to say: "At this point I cannot confirm that the twins are attending. I only comment on official campaign activities."

 

[Kibbo]

aidenjm,

You seem to have found the most logical post the anti-gay marriage side seems to have to offer.

Since seeing the best they had was the reason I posted this originally, after reading that, I kinda went away. Thank you for taking up my slack and building the argument I should have. Better than I could've, in fact.

Cheers.

 

[3chordcharlie]

To someone up there:

Actually anal sex does carry greater health risks than most other kinds of sex. But the risks are in fact greater for females penetrated anally than for males; this is a little too far from the original topic, and not in teh best taste, and I'm not a medical expert, but I believe a little research will demonstrate that anal sex is inherently more dangerous than vaginal or oral sex, and that the risk of complication is substantially greater for women than for men.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
LordMagnusKain wrote:

> Drinking won?t kill you unless you drink to much,
> but ?normal? amounts of homosexual sex leads to much
> higher levels of cancer, not to mention a plethora
> of other problems

The study you linked (at www.nature.com) does not
support your contention that homosexual sex leads to
higher levels of cancer; rather, it points to the fact
that HIV/ AIDS infections increase risk of cancer.

(The link contained a summary of a study which found
elevated rates of cancer in people with HIV/ AIDS.
Given that HIV/ AIDS suppresses the immune system, it
is not surprising that people infected with this virus
have higher rates of cancer. The summary you linked
made no mention of whether the subjects in that study
were heterosexual or homosexual; or if they were male
or female. The study says nothing about the effects of
anal sex, per se, on human health. It also says
nothing about the health benefits, or otherwise, of
kissing, cuddling, or oral sex between same-sex
couples.)

> People arguing ?it?ll help gays? should recognize
> that this is an overall attempt to change the moral
> norms of society so that none of us make any
> moral-judgments about anti-social behavior.

You have yet to demonstrate that homosexuality, or
rather, behaviors stemming from a homosexual
orientation, are anti-social.

And by the way, you are free to make whatever moral
judgements you choose. However the state is not free
to arbitrarily deprive an entire class of people
access to an institution as important as marriage
without a damn good reason.

> as for a more detaled account of what makes
> homosexual sex ethicly bankrupt, thus not something
> that should have a government stamp-of-aproval on
> it:

The fact that a given activity is potentially risky (poses
a health risk) is not evidence that the activity is
intrinsically morally undesirable or inappropriate. For
example, every year school children experience
spinal cord injuries playing rugby/ football. This does
not happen with kids playing table tennis. Does this
mean that table tennis is somehow intrinsically a more
moral or ethically desirable activity than
rugby/ football? (Answer: No.) Is gardening a more
morally defensible activity than snow-sking?
(Answer: no.) Even if homosexual sex between males
constitutes a health risk, that does not make such
behavior "ethically bankrupt" (your words) or morally
undesirable.

> 1.) male/male penetration causes increased
> likelihood of anal infections w/ a reduced immune
> system.

I dispute your contention that anal sex per se is a
health risk. What evidence do you have to support
this?

Even if "male/male penetration" really does cause
increased likelihood of "anal infections" with a
reduced immune system, this is not an argument against
the morality of homosexuality (as I pointed out above)
or an argument against gay marriage. Risky activities
are not intrinsically immoral.

> 2.)The act of any homosexual sexual activity is
> destructive to emotional well-being.

The American Psychological Association doesn't agree
with you. They state that a homosexual orientation is
perfectly compatible with emotional and psychological
health:

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html

> 3.)female/female sexual activity increases likelihood
> of many forms of cancer.

Utter rubbish. This is absurd. What evidence do you
offer to support this claim?

As far as I am aware, older women who have never
had children have a *slightly* elevated risk for certain
cancers of the reproductive system. This is a risk faced
by any woman who doesn't have kids (nuns, spinsters,
lesbians who choose not to have children, etc.)

> 4.)disregarding basic sexual morality increases
> pre-marital sex rates.

Define basic sexual morality.

My version of "basic sexual morality" is that anything
you do should be with a consenting adult. No coercion,
no sexual exploitation, and respect for your partner.
Homosexuality, or gay marriage, is therefore not
inconsistent with my sexual morality.

> 5.)the average lesbian life style causes a higher
> substance abuse problem than average

What is the "average lesbian lifestyle"?

The one lesbian I know well gets up at 6 am, goes to
work, get's home at 8 pm. On the weekends she does the
shopping, and spends time in the garden...

> 6.)the average homosexual life style causes more std
> problems than the heterosexual counter-part.

What is the "average homosexual lifestyle"?

I would imagine the vast majority of homosexuals go to
work 5 days a week, relax on the weekends, spend time
with friends, blah blah, just like everyone else.

I have read that there is a higher rate of alcoholism
or drug problems in the gay community. My guess would
be that this stems at least in part from the stress of being
a member of a disliked minority group.

> 7.)the average homosexual lifestyle leads to a
> much-decreased ability to fight aids.

Again, what is the average homosexual lifestyle?

> you can disagree with these thigns being negative,

I disagree with the validity of your claims.

You have made some IMO crazy claims, but made no
effort whatsoever to provide documentation to support
those claims.

> but you'd better have an ethical basis for that
> view, otherwise your just ignorantly spouting off
> like so many others who's only reason for
> disagreeing is that they like to disagree. ?

It is you, I suspect, who is "ignorantly spouting
off".

> It is questionable as to why this is true, but
> suicide rates among gays is much higher.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case. However
I'd guess it would stem from whatever stress comes
from being a member of a disliked minority.

> not to mention other emotional trauma that being
> actively sexual in the homosexual community brings.

What does this mean? If a woman is living with her
female partner in a monogamous relationship, how is
that emotionally traumatic to either partner?

>> And, what about the great # of heterosexuals who
>> practice anal sex?
>
> I was referring to anal sex, and the rupture is
> because the penile tears the soft-tissue of the
> colon, particularly the likelyhood of spreading
> desease.

If this is the case, then perhaps gay males practising
anal sex should be advised to always use a water-based
lubricant... I read an essay a while back which pointed
out that the total number of heterosexual women
practicing anal sex with their male partners was 7 to 20
times the number of gay men practising anal sex... Guess
all those women must be walking around with ruptured
and diseased colons, too.

Again, EVEN IF anal sex per se is a potential health
risk, that does not make it an intrinsically immoral
activity. Nor is it an argument against gay marriage.

> 7.)the average homosexual lifestyle leads to a
> much-decreased ability to fight aids.
>
> journal of nature

That link ("journal of nature") has a description of a
study on people with HIV/ AIDS. It's NOT a study on
people "living a homosexual lifestyle" (whatever the
hell that is). There is no mention on that link of
whether the participants in that study were even
gay.)

> now I'll submit that it?s socially preferable to
> have people in monogamous relationships, but the
> idea that most gay marriage will be more monogamous

Heterosexuals are under no obligation to "prove" their
monogamy before they get married. Why are you holding
gay people to a higher standard?

> is show to be less likely by both the statement of
> the Gay and Lesbian Alliance ?the archaic
> institution of monogamy is destructive to society
> and should be next to be eliminated?

Do you really think that one organization speaks for
all gays and lesbians? I assume that gay people have
varying opinions on marriage. No doubt some gays
think that marriage is an anachronistic institution
(just like some straight people do). Presumably
other gays are more traditionally minded, and see
value in the institution of marriage.

> and the much increased likely hood of existing
> homosexuals to be part of the causal sex and random
> orgy seen.

What evidence do you have that gay people are any more
promiscuous than straight people?

You should know that LMK has been told all these things many times before. To state so adequately and with such detail state the case against him is a violation of the well known principle that you can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much.

 

[Ethex]

I think gay marriage is discriminatory to those lonely straight people who happen to have had a roommate of the same sex for a number of years. Why can?t they enjoy the benefits that come with marriage too?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Ethex
I think gay marriage is discriminatory to those lonely straight people who happen to have had a roommate of the same sex for a number of years. Why can?t they enjoy the benefits that come with marriage too?

They can.

 

[jdbolick]

I'm not a member of any religion and I think my objection to gay marriage is pretty straight-forward.


First, let's establish what exactly is at issue here:

Point A) The debate is not about what people are allowed to do, but whether or not the government will acknowledge and support their union.

I don't care if two gay people want to live together, exchange rings, have a ceremony, or even call themselves married. That's all fine with me. What I don't want is my government subsidizing their homosexual union with my tax money (which is what this is all about, given that the only tangible benefits of government recogniition besides pride are the tax breaks).


Point B) I don't want to subsidize homosexual unions because they aren't helpful to society.

I'll leave the argument about whether or not they're harmful to someone else, but numerous independent, scholarly (meaning you can't dismiss those conducting the studies as theocratic homophobes) sources have concluded that children raised in stable heterosexual households are far better off emotionally and psychologically than those raised in stable homosexual households. Much of that has to do with simple biology and the roles that nature associates with each sex. That's where the value to society comes in. The "one man - one woman" theoretically monogamous arrangement predates the monotheistic religions we traditionally associate with modern morality. I would presume that this developed because it does appear to be beneficial to society, specifically in terms of procreation and child-rearing.


Point C) Marriage is not a right.

There's a reason you have to get a marriage license. It's the same as driving or any other activity where the government is sanctioning a particular action. It's not something accorded to all individuals at birth. Behaviors are "rights," institutions are not. That's why the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws, because those governed private behaviors that had no perceived negative effect on society. Marriage, on the other hand, is associated with those aforementioned benefits. After all, we're not talking about just living together or any number of other arrangements. This is an official institution.


Point D) Turning marriage into a "right" threatens other systems.

It's not so much the homosexuals "tainting" society, as some claim, but rather the precedent that is set in according special privileges to certain groups that provide a perceived benefit to society. That, after all, is why married couples get tax benefits in the first place, because marriage is deemed to be beneficial to our society. But if courts rule that marriage benefits cannot be limited in any way, that not only opens the doors for polygamists, heterosexuals who just want to live together, and others, but it also would appear to invalidate other current benefit programs. How could anyone say that homosexuals married couples deserve the same benefits as heterosexual married couples and then defend the fact that military servicemen receive tax benefits that normal citizens do not? If we change these "benefits" from what benefits are supposed to mean into something everyone automatically qualifies for, or at least whatever boundaires the court deems reasonable rather than the legislature, how can there be any such thing as benefits anymore? Everyone would be treated equally, which theoretically would seem like a good thing, but actually isn't. I'm not saying that homosexual unions lead to communism, but they would induce one of the failings of that particular system. Removing benefits from government reduces its ability to promote individual aspects of society, presumably damaging the whole.



Somewhat unrelated point E) A rose by any other name...

Those who oppose gay marriage and support civil unions are kidding themselves. What you call something is irrelevant, and people who oppose gay marriage on those grounds aren't objecting in any logical manner in my opinion. The issue isn't what you call something and therefore whether or not someone else might be offended, but whether or not this is a practical, beneficial move for our society. I think it's pretty clear that gay marriage would do nothing good for society and could significantly harm it, as I haven't yet been able to envision any scenarios where it would benefit the nation beyond some amorphous, idealistic notion of "equality."

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Corn

Since I am the all knowing, all seeing Corn, I decide!

Hah, hail be to teh almighty Corn!

No, the Almighty Cornholio!!:laugh:

Cornholio. In a thread about gay marriage. Fvcking Hilarious :laugh:
You sir, are quite the comedian !

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: jdbolick
I'm not a member of any religion and I think my objection to gay marriage is pretty straight-forward.


First, let's establish what exactly is at issue here:

Point A) The debate is not about what people are allowed to do, but whether or not the government will acknowledge and support their union.

I don't care if two gay people want to live together, exchange rings, have a ceremony, or even call themselves married. That's all fine with me. What I don't want is my government subsidizing their homosexual union with my tax money (which is what this is all about, given that the only tangible benefits of government recogniition besides pride are the tax breaks).


Point B) I don't want to subsidize homosexual unions because they aren't helpful to society.

I'll leave the argument about whether or not they're harmful to someone else, but numerous independent, scholarly (meaning you can't dismiss those conducting the studies as theocratic homophobes) sources have concluded that children raised in stable heterosexual households are far better off emotionally and psychologically than those raised in stable homosexual households. Much of that has to do with simple biology and the roles that nature associates with each sex. That's where the value to society comes in. The "one man - one woman" theoretically monogamous arrangement predates the monotheistic religions we traditionally associate with modern morality. I would presume that this developed because it does appear to be beneficial to society, specifically in terms of procreation and child-rearing.


Point C) Marriage is not a right.

There's a reason you have to get a marriage license. It's the same as driving or any other activity where the government is sanctioning a particular action. It's not something accorded to all individuals at birth. Behaviors are "rights," institutions are not. That's why the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws, because those governed private behaviors that had no perceived negative effect on society. Marriage, on the other hand, is associated with those aforementioned benefits. After all, we're not talking about just living together or any number of other arrangements. This is an official institution.


Point D) Turning marriage into a "right" threatens other systems.

It's not so much the homosexuals "tainting" society, as some claim, but rather the precedent that is set in according special privileges to certain groups that provide a perceived benefit to society. That, after all, is why married couples get tax benefits in the first place, because marriage is deemed to be beneficial to our society. But if courts rule that marriage benefits cannot be limited in any way, that not only opens the doors for polygamists, heterosexuals who just want to live together, and others, but it also would appear to invalidate other current benefit programs. How could anyone say that homosexuals married couples deserve the same benefits as heterosexual married couples and then defend the fact that military servicemen receive tax benefits that normal citizens do not? If we change these "benefits" from what benefits are supposed to mean into something everyone automatically qualifies for, or at least whatever boundaires the court deems reasonable rather than the legislature, how can there be any such thing as benefits anymore? Everyone would be treated equally, which theoretically would seem like a good thing, but actually isn't. I'm not saying that homosexual unions lead to communism, but they would induce one of the failings of that particular system. Removing benefits from government reduces its ability to promote individual aspects of society, presumably damaging the whole.



Somewhat unrelated point E) A rose by any other name...

Those who oppose gay marriage and support civil unions are kidding themselves. What you call something is irrelevant, and people who oppose gay marriage on those grounds aren't objecting in any logical manner in my opinion. The issue isn't what you call something and therefore whether or not someone else might be offended, but whether or not this is a practical, beneficial move for our society. I think it's pretty clear that gay marriage would do nothing good for society and could significantly harm it, as I haven't yet been able to envision any scenarios where it would benefit the nation beyond some amorphous, idealistic notion of "equality."

A) I wish I had the opportunity to pick and choose who's marriages my tax dollars are subsidizing. It would be nice if we could deny heterosexual racist couples gov't money that comes from my pockets.

B) I guess you would prefer that homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt? Because all they'll be doing is doing 'harm' to society.

C) True, marriage is not a 'right'. People are denied driving licenses if they cannot demonstrate the ability to drive which will cause harm to others. What is the 'test' for marriage, such that if they fail, they will 'harm' society by marrying and 'not harm' society by not marrying. You mentioned tax dollars, anything else?

D) Ok.

E) Civil Unions do not provide the same rights as gay marriages. So it's understandable if someone would prefer civil unions over marriages.

 

[jdbolick]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
A) I wish I had the opportunity to pick and choose who's marriages my tax dollars are subsidizing. It would be nice if we could deny heterosexual racist couples gov't money that comes from my pockets.

I certainly agree, but government categorizations must be painted with a broad stroke. Unfortunately we can't meet every couple before deciding whether or not they're worthy. Taken as a generality, legally bound heterosexual couples are more beneficial to society than homosexual couples, unbound heterosexual couples, or mass groups.

B) I guess you would prefer that homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt? Because all they'll be doing is doing 'harm' to society.

Ideally, yes, we'd be better off if there were enough stable heterosexual couples to adopt every child. Those studies show that being raised in a homosexual home, even a stable one, does cause some damage to the child. And it's not just because of society's reaction to the home, but mostly the difficulties in developing gender identities and acclimating to society. It's sort of an inside-out problem than the reverse. But it's worth mentioning that those studies also indicate that stable homosexual environments are better than unstable heterosexual environments, and of course it seems like it's already a great deal of trouble to find homes for all children needing adoption. So I'm not really an advocate for bans on gay adoption, but I do believe that we're better off with more heterosexual adoptions.

C) True, marriage is not a 'right'. People are denied driving licenses if they cannot demonstrate the ability to drive which will cause harm to others. What is the 'test' for marriage, such that if they fail, they will 'harm' society by marrying and 'not harm' society by not marrying. You mentioned tax dollars, anything else?

As I said, unfortunately a government lacks the capacity to test individually. As a whole, however, the test is the resulting effect on society. So far that seems to be much more positive for one man-one woman heterosexual couples. While undoubtedly some homosexual couples could be great parents, the biological issues appear to be largely unavoidable. Some of the same problems surface in cases of divorce and single-parent homes, although to a lesser degree because there is no gender confusion involved.

E) Civil Unions do not provide the same rights as gay marriages. So it's understandable if someone would prefer civil unions over marriages.

Actually the ones I've seen or read about do. From what I've seen most states that entertain the idea of civil unions are basically doing everything they accord for marriage, they're just calling it something different. Moreover, even if they did include less benefits, I don't see the point in endorsing something halfway. I mean what's the real upside for society to gay marriage? You have two gay people a bit happier than they were before, theoretically anyway, but the union cannot produce children or raise children as effectively as a stable heterosexual couple. What's the benefit? I'm willing to be convinced, I just haven't seen a good argument for it.



And for the record, in addition to being agnostic, I've lived with gay people before.

 

[TuxDave]

Most of your posts are with the understanding the children raised by homosexual couples are indeed harmful. I don't know since I wasn't raised by homosexuals and I don't study sociology. So I'm really can't debate that side well. So I won't. On the other hand.

Actually the ones I've seen or read about do. From what I've seen most states that entertain the idea of civil unions are basically doing everything they accord for marriage, they're just calling it something different. Moreover, even if they did include less benefits, I don't see the point in endorsing something halfway. I mean what's the real upside for society to gay marriage? You have two gay people a bit happier than they were before, theoretically anyway, but the union cannot produce children or raise children as effectively as a stable heterosexual couple. What's the benefit? I'm willing to be convinced, I just haven't seen a good argument for it.

I'm just going by this website where it points out the difference between civil unions and civil marriages. I guess that's another area of debate. Some people want it to be the same but with different names. Other people want civil unions to just be a name with absolutely no legal benefits.

http://www.massequality.org/issue_cu.php

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: jdbolick
What I don't want is my government subsidizing their homosexual union with my tax money (which is what this is all about, given that the only tangible benefits of government recogniition besides pride are the tax breaks).

I'll leave the argument about whether or not they're harmful to someone else, but numerous independent, scholarly (meaning you can't dismiss those conducting the studies as theocratic homophobes) sources have concluded that children raised in stable heterosexual households are far better off emotionally and psychologically than those raised in stable homosexual households.

Removing benefits from government reduces its ability to promote individual aspects of society, presumably damaging the whole.

Your first point is simply not true. Even something so basic as a homosexual life partner being denied access to his/her lover in the hospital because they are not "family" pertains.

As for your second point, would you please provide links to these "numerous, independent, scholarly" studies, as I am truly unaware of them and wish to learn.

The first part of your third statement is as true as it is obvious, but I question your otherwise unsupported presumption that it would "damage the whole" of society. Please expand and expound on this, if you would.