Gay marriages... dictated by religious authorities

[MidGe]

I thought long and hard before posting this on this forum. I think it is the most appropriate.

Firstly, I don't think it belongs to politics as I fail to see the issue as a Rep Vs Dem one.

To avoid flames I am not discussing here the religious or sacramental meaning or "marriage". To me that is neither here nor there, somewhat quaint and irrelevent. To paraphrase Marx, why would I want to join a club that doesn't want me. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I just don't get the point about gay marriage being an issue. Marriage in the legal sense is a "legal union" or "legal entity" that has rights and responsibilities like those associated with other legal entities, like private or public or limited companies. Making those rights and responsibilities available to gays, or universally, has no impact at all on the heterosexual ones. It is not taking anything away from them. It simply allows people to enter into that agreement without discrimination. Call it "pairage" if you have an issue with the definition of marriage and change the statute to say that pairage has exactly the same right and responsibilities than marriage. Simple, effective and less discriminatory. Bear in mind that there are many economic and other advantages to this "legal union"! The most imporatnt ones being the effect on the application of inheritance law and the right to make medical decisions on the partner's behalf, if incapacitated, for instance. Those are by no means the only advantages, but it will vary from juridiction to juridiction.

It seems to me that, the way the statutes are currently worded, it would be the same as limiting directorship or shareholdership of some legal entities (companies, for instance) to heterosexuals only. Very clearly discriminatory.

I think that our society seems to be totally blind to the interferences of religious authorities (mullahs, bishops and other so called moral authorities ) into the secular aspects of life.

What prompt this post is the regressive two states decision to reverse gay marriage and the pontificating (what else could he do given his position /images/graemlins/smile.gif ) by Benedict XVI on his trip to spain.

[Darryl_P]

The issue is not very important to me but if I had to take a stance I'd be against it. My main reason is that it adds to the amount of "unbrainwashing" I have to give to my kids as they grow up.

Regardless of what society says, I am raising my kids according to the concept that men and women living together, having sex etc. is natural and the same with two people of the same sex is unnatural, bad, to be ashamed of, means you're a loser, a deviant, etc.

I'm not saying this to convince others of my position, but rather that I will be raising my kids this way no matter what anyone says.

When they go to school and gay marriages are accepted by the law and by society, they will hear stuff that contradicts my teachings. That will force me to explain it all and to the extent that their friends' parents can't be bothered to explain it to their friends, it will put a rift between my kids and some of their friends. It will also contribute to my kids distrusting the school system, becoming anti-society, creating alliances with religious extremists eventually leading to a war against the liberals and atheists.

I'm exaggerating for effect here and I'm sure the impact will not be that great, but the DIRECTION is bad and that's why I'm against it.

You could say I'm wrong to believe what I believe and that's fine, but I'd appreciate it if my kids didn't have to be exposed to your moral opinions when they go to state subsidised public schools.

If teachers never mentioned the issue, never said stuff like "Johnny has two daddies and that's ok because some people have a mommy and a daddy, others two mommies, others two daddies and it's all good", then I'd have no problem at all. But somehow I can't see it staying out of the school system.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
My main reason is that it adds to the amount of "unbrainwashing" I have to give to my kids as they grow up.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean "rebrainwashing".

[Phil153]

I am an atheist and against gay marriage, so it's not just religious folk that have an issue with it. While your arguments are reasonable, I don't believe society should sanction depravity. Publicly recognizing gay couples is on par with legalizing polygamy or beastiality IMO.

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
I am an atheist and against gay marriage, so it's not just religious folk that have an issue with it. While your arguments are reasonable, I don't believe society should sanction depravity. Publicly recognizing gay couples is on par with legalizing polygamy or beastiality IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was wondering if you could go a little more indepth on this please. I am always confused by the comparison to polygamy and beastiality. Especially when the issue of marriage is brought up when two adults of the same sex want to get together for a monogomous relationship. I have trouble seeing what's so wrong with these relationships.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If teachers never mentioned the issue, never said stuff like "Johnny has two daddies and that's ok because some people have a mommy and a daddy, others two mommies, others two daddies and it's all good", then I'd have no problem at all. But somehow I can't see it staying out of the school system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a problem with them teaching the sky is blue?
Isn't it a fact in our society that some children comes from homes with 2 daddies, some from homes with two mommies, some from 1 mommy, some from 1 granny and an aunt, whatever.
I could see a problem if teachers were teaching "this is the way it should be, it a better union." but why should teachers not teach what IS ??
puzzled in flatbush.

[FlFishOn]

" Making those rights and responsibilities available to gays, or universally, has no impact at all on the heterosexual ones. It is not taking anything away from them."

False. SOciety ends up with many fewer functional nuclear families, a requisite for a healthy future society. The early returns from Europe are in. Gay marriage is the begining of the end for families.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
I have trouble seeing what's so wrong with these relationships.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sad indeed. Moral relativism has found purchase.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it a fact in our society that some children comes from homes with 2 daddies, some from homes with two mommies,

[/ QUOTE ]

WHile it is a fact, it is a tiny percentage, and the bulk of America still sees it as deviant. That used to be enough for the left educators to leave it alone.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My main reason is that it adds to the amount of "unbrainwashing" I have to give to my kids as they grow up.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean "rebrainwashing".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm betting my BR you have no kids. With luck for mankind, that will remain unchanged.

[Case Closed]

FlFishOn,

Do you have any intention of bring forth and arguments or just insulting other posters?

A question for you though. In what ways are we seeing the negative impacts of gay marriage in Europe? How do we know these are directly connected? Do you have any evidence to back up these opinions?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

WHile it is a fact, it is a tiny percentage, and the bulk of America still sees it as deviant. That used to be enough for the left educators to leave it alone.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, schools should only teach common place facts and not bother with US volcano's or people that have walked on the moon. What is your threshold number or percentage before facts should be taught?

[FlFishOn]

Research Holland. I saw a full exposition of this but where? I can't remember, I read too much.

[FlFishOn]

Unworthy of reply.

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
Research Holland. I saw a full exposition of this but where? I can't remember, I read too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am having trouble finding anything finding anything that expresses a negative view of the aftermath of gay-marriage legalization. I have found that the rates of gay marriage have gone down. And that only 3.6% of marriages are between persons of the same sex.

I'll keep looking, but initial findings are not too promising.

[FlFishOn]

All societies have a stake in the future generations. It's a huge responsibility, to propagate the species.

Instead of asking straights to find fault with gay sham 'marriage' I think it is much more important for gays to prove, beyond any scientific doubt, that gay sham 'marriage' is totally benign with respect to the future generations every society requires. I'm certain this can not be done.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
but why should teachers not teach what IS ??

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine as long as they give the full range of facts such as...

- the law says Johnny has 2 daddies but biologically that's impossible. In reality he has a mommy somewhere but she either died or abandoned him.

- the percentages of people with the various family structures are...

- the percentages of people who think same sex partnerships represent deviant behavior are...

- my opinion (ie. the teacher's) is irrelevant to what yours (the student's) should be. Ask your parents if you want help in deciding what's good and bad on this issue


If there were laws about how the subject could be addressed to kids and care was taken to make it purely factual and non-opinionated then I suppose I could go along with it.

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
All societies have a stake in the future generations. It's a huge responsibility, to propagate the species.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. Although the homosexual population does exist and there is no question about that. I think that population is very small and should be allowed to exist in any way they want to which does not do harm to others. They just want to be together and have the same legal rights as other citizens in commited relationships.

[ QUOTE ]


Instead of asking straight to find fault with gay sham 'marriage' I think it is much more important for gays to prove, beyond any scientific doubt, that gay sham 'marriage' is totally benign with respect to the future generations every society requires. I'm certain this can not be done.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am confused by this statement. Are you asking for gay people to prove that their existance will not be a detriment to future generations of people?

[Case Closed]

FlFishOn,

Is this the type of thing you wanted me to find?
Link (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1140886/posts)

[FlFishOn]

That's what I read. I spent 20 minutes and couldn't find it.

[Riddick]

I wish we could all put gay marriage behind us so that we can start to focus on what is really corrupting society - interracial marriage.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
I am confused by this statement. Are you asking for gay people to prove that their existance will not be a detriment to future generations of people?


[/ QUOTE ]

No. They simply need to prove that gay sham 'marriage' is benign to society instead of insisting that the straight community defend heterosexual marriage.

[kevin017]

i wish i could put flfishon in a bottle and everytime someone tried to disagree with me I could let him out to pwn them.

gay marriage deprives straight people of the coolness of being in the marriage club. straight people view marriage as something with specific entry requirements and it is special to be a part of this club, and they don't want gay people bastardizing their clubs entrance requirements, because then the club isn't really very meaningful anymore.

being gay is caused by changes in your brain (and probably other stuff too but at least that), due to both genetics and environment. i bet we'll have a pill that fixes it right up within 20 years...

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
being gay is caused by changes in your brain (and probably other stuff too but at least that), due to both genetics and environment. i bet we'll have a pill that fixes it right up within 20 years...

[/ QUOTE ]
So much better if they could have an anti-bigotry pill. Sadly, being sane, I don't believe that's likely.

Perhaps we could have a go at breeding bigotry out of the population - what do you reckon?

chez

[bunny]

I agree with you - gay marriage should be the same "legislatively". If religious people see them as not "proper" marriages then they shouldnt recognise them. The argument that allowing this distorts what is socially acceptable and makes it harder to bring up kids correctly seems strange to me. I think the same can be said for any controversial legislation a parent disagrees with. Continued to its conclusion it seems to imply that society shouldnt have rules regarding how contentious issues are handled - this seems backwards to me.

I also agree that it is a hidden religious influence from our history (especially here in australia where, until recently, religion stayed pretty much out of politics).

[Phil153]

This isn't a religious issue and to frame it as such is disingenuous.

[bunny]

On my part at least it's just mistaken, not disingenuous. I thought that the legislative existence of marriage was implemented to give some legal bite to the religious concept. I also assumed that's why gay marriage wasnt recognised (because it doesnt fit with what is religiously condoned as marriage).

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I was wondering if you could go a little more indepth on this please. I am always confused by the comparison to polygamy and beastiality. Especially when the issue of marriage is brought up when two adults of the same sex want to get together for a monogomous relationship. I have trouble seeing what's so wrong with these relationships.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a perversion of the natural state of affairs, and as such it weakens the social fabric in the same way polygamy and bestiality do. Consenting adults can of course do what they wish, but society needs to sets some standards on the degree of perversion it's willing to publicly acknowledge and embrace.

Social moral standards affects the development of children. For examples, adults are free to engage in heterosexual orgies, but it's harmful for children to learn about these at an early stage or think they're an acceptable behaviour. Teenagers coming of age are best served by seeking out monogamous, emotionally fulfilling relationships with members of the opposite sex. Decreeing other alternatives to be acceptable is bad for society and individuals in my opinion.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought that the legislative existence of marriage was implemented to give some legal bite to the religious concept. I also assumed that's why gay marriage wasnt recognised (because it doesnt fit with what is religiously condoned as marriage).

[/ QUOTE ]

You're probably right. My only point is that while atheists tend to be more liberal (blasé?) than theists, some of us have very similar morals and ideas about society for reasons not related to god or the bible. There are good secular arguments for most religious positions on social policy.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
...My only point is that while atheists tend to be more liberal (blasé?) than theists, some of us have very similar morals and ideas about society for reasons not related to god or the bible. There are good secular arguments for most religious positions on social policy.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know how it is in america (I had assumed it was moreso than here) but many advocates of legislation like this in australia specifically argue from religious premises. Certainly, if there are secular reasons then they should be considered.

I was agreeing with what I had assumed midge was saying - namely that religious justification has no part in politics.

I'm interested you regard homosexuality as against nature, yet not institutionalised marriage itself. Are you sure that monogamy is the "natural" state of affairs? I confess ignorance, but I would have guessed that primitive humans wouldnt follow this practise (multiple partners is common enough in a society with entrenched monogamistic practises - I think it would be even greater without societal constraints).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was wondering if you could go a little more indepth on this please. I am always confused by the comparison to polygamy and beastiality. Especially when the issue of marriage is brought up when two adults of the same sex want to get together for a monogomous relationship. I have trouble seeing what's so wrong with these relationships.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a perversion of the natural state of affairs, and as such it weakens the social fabric in the same way polygamy and bestiality do. Consenting adults can of course do what they wish, but society needs to sets some standards on the degree of perversion it's willing to publicly acknowledge and embrace.

Social moral standards affects the development of children. For examples, adults are free to engage in heterosexual orgies, but it's harmful for children to learn about these at an early stage or think they're an acceptable behaviour. Teenagers coming of age are best served by seeking out monogamous, emotionally fulfilling relationships with members of the opposite sex. Decreeing other alternatives to be acceptable is bad for society and individuals in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

And in the same way that anal sex, condoms, vibrators, internet porn, electricity, vaccines and GMOs do?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a perversion of the natural state of affairs, and as such it weakens the social fabric in the same way polygamy and bestiality do. Consenting adults can of course do what they wish, but society needs to sets some standards on the degree of perversion it's willing to publicly acknowledge and embrace.

[/ QUOTE ]
C'mon Phil you're just making this up. There is no natural state of affair of which it's a perversion.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...My only point is that while atheists tend to be more liberal (blasé?) than theists, some of us have very similar morals and ideas about society for reasons not related to god or the bible. There are good secular arguments for most religious positions on social policy.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know how it is in america (I had assumed it was moreso than here) but many advocates of legislation like this in australia specifically argue from religious premises. Certainly, if there are secular reasons then they should be considered.

I was agreeing with what I had assumed midge was saying - namely that religious justification has no part in politics.

I'm interested you regard homosexuality as against nature, yet not institutionalised marriage itself. Are you sure that monogamy is the "natural" state of affairs? I confess ignorance, but I would have guessed that primitive humans wouldnt follow this practise (multiple partners is common enough in a society with entrenched monogamistic practises - I think it would be even greater without societal constraints).

[/ QUOTE ]

Practically all the impetus to the anti-gay marriage in the US comes from religious groups. Specifically it comes from Christian groups, although that is most likely simply a result of Christian groups being the more prominent and populous of the groups over here. Can't say as I've heard a lot from Jewish or Muslim groups speaking out against homosexuality, although I would imagine they probably? hold similar views.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a perversion of the natural state of affairs, and as such it weakens the social fabric in the same way polygamy and bestiality do. Consenting adults can of course do what they wish, but society needs to sets some standards on the degree of perversion it's willing to publicly acknowledge and embrace.

[/ QUOTE ]
C'mon Phil you're just making this up. There is no natural state of affair of which it's a perversion.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Especially in a modern society that has come almost the entire way down the road of completely divorcing sex from reproduction.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a perversion of the natural state of affairs, and as such it weakens the social fabric in the same way polygamy and bestiality do.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only perversion is you calling it so. It is found in all cultures and in most species.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Teenagers coming of age are best served by seeking out monogamous, emotionally fulfilling relationships with members of the opposite sex.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless, of course, they happen to be gay.


[ QUOTE ]
No. They simply need to prove that gay sham 'marriage' is benign to society instead of insisting that the straight community defend heterosexual marriage.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea that gay couples have to somehow "prove" to the heteros that their marriage won't hurt them or society is ridiculous. How exactly are they supposed to do this? I suppose interracial couples should be forced to prove to all the racists in the world that their marriage will be benign as well?

[evolvedForm]

Why do you think it's okay to keep your child from being exposed to society? Guidance is one thing, but it seems that you want to brainwash him. No offense intended, I just don't understand why people think it is ethical to control their childrens' minds.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a perversion of the natural state of affairs, and as such it weakens the social fabric in the same way polygamy and bestiality do.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only perversion is you calling it so. It is found in all cultures and in most species.

[/ QUOTE ]
So is polygamy, beastiality and sex with underage females. But society doesn't allow those.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a perversion of the natural state of affairs, and as such it weakens the social fabric in the same way polygamy and bestiality do.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only perversion is you calling it so. It is found in all cultures and in most species.

[/ QUOTE ]
So is polygamy, beastiality and sex with underage females. But society doesn't allow those.

[/ QUOTE ]

You understand that just saying words doesnt demonstrate that your analogy is valid right?

"I think we should be able to watch TV past nine o'clock."

"No, thats too late, and really you should be sleeping so you can get to work tomorrow."

"Well sure, but I mean, people stay up late all the time, and they still manage to get to work, usually."

"Yeah, well people murder people all the time too, you don't think thats ok do you? Murderer."

??????

[Phil153]

Thank you for making my point. I'm trying to show that HIS comments are invalid. Just because all cultures and all species do something doesn't mean it's normal or desirable behaviour. Get it?

???????????

[MidGe]

Dear Notable Twit,

[ QUOTE ]
Just because all cultures and all species do something doesn't mean it's normal or desirable behaviour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not desirable, but surely not perverted or abnormal, and definitely not in the class of pedophilia or bestiality. It is the natural order of things as found in nature and as specified by the designer if that is your leaning. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for making my point. I'm trying to show that HIS comments are invalid. Just because all cultures and all species do something doesn't mean it's normal or desirable behaviour. Get it?

???????????

[/ QUOTE ]

You are misrepresenting the direction of the argument. YOU were the first to use that line of reasoning in condemning gay marriage as somehow analogous to bestiality. Your plan was, I assume, to draw some connection to some shocking and 'obviously abhorrent' practice or something, and therefore attack gay marriage by association. Your analogy was terrible, and my little re-enactment was aimed at that.

But you are correct, if anyone was using the idea that societies in the past have condoned or accepted homosexual activity as some sort of proof that it is a moral practice, then they were wrong. However, if they were using that as support for the idea that homosexuality has a long history in humans and is also prevalent in nature, that is NOT the same false analogy that your were employing.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Dear Notable Twit,

[ QUOTE ]
Just because all cultures and all species do something doesn't mean it's normal or desirable behaviour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not desirable, but surely not perverted or abnormal, and definitely not in the class of pedophilia or bestiality. It is the natural order of things as found in nature and as specified by the designer if that is your leaning. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I just read that specific quote. Phil, do you know what normal means? If all species do it, it IS normal. It may or may not be beneficial, but it is certainly normal.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Phil, do you know what normal means? If all species do it, it IS normal. It may or may not be beneficial, but it is certainly normal.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't want to get bogged down in semantics. Certain things that exist across all species are neither normal nor functional. An example is schizophrenia. Other mammals get it and it exists in every culture. Yet, most people would like to see a cure for this affliction even though it's "normal" by your definition.

Regarding my arguments - it's often stated by gays that "some members of all species exhibit homosexual behavior, therefore it must be normal and natural, and should be accepted as such". I'm simply saying that this idea is bankrupt, and the examples I gave show why.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Certain things that exist across all species are neither normal nor functional. An example is schizophrenia. Other mammals get it and it exists in every culture. Yet, most people would like to see a cure for this affliction even though it's "normal" by your definition.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes and so is pancreatic cancer and a huge list of other "ailments". Any reasons the "victims" (according to you) should be discriminated against economically or legally?

Your position doesn't stand up. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Phil, do you know what normal means? If all species do it, it IS normal. It may or may not be beneficial, but it is certainly normal.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't want to get bogged down in semantics. Certain things that exist across all species are neither normal nor functional. An example is schizophrenia. Other mammals get it and it exists in every culture. Yet, most people would like to see a cure for this affliction even though it's "normal" by your definition.

Regarding my arguments - it's often stated by gays that "some members of all species exhibit homosexual behavior, therefore it must be normal and natural, and should be accepted as such". I'm simply saying that this idea is bankrupt, and the examples I gave show why.

[/ QUOTE ]
Would you disagree that it is normal for some percentage of people, and as you say, other mammals, to be schizophrenic?

[Metric]

Although no one is likely to listen to me, I think marriage should be a purely religious sacrament, as it was originally. No government "stamp of approval" is needed.

The association with government sponsorship should be broken entirely. Any two (or more) people should be able to draw up contracts enumerating specific shared legal authority, authority in medical decisions, ownership of property, etc. etc. etc. There is no reason to associate such contracts with the historical religious sacrament of marriage, as this is the source of approximately 100% of the arguments surrounding gay marriage. Marriage is something that takes place in the specific context of one's personal religious beliefs and practices.

Problem solved: The religious component is not contaminated, and the law is not discriminitory.

[Darryl_P]

I don't want to control my kids' minds or brainwash them. I just want to prevent others from doing it. They will grow up and make up their own minds eventually, so using force on them will only backfire anyway. There are some issues, like homosexuality, which are best left to a later age though IMO.

Quite frankly I don't trust a lot of teachers because they work hard for crappy pay, despite being well educated, so there has to be something in it for them. For some it's just a genuine desire to do good (those are the good teachers, hats off to them) but in a lot of cases (thinking back to my own schooling) that something is the ability to mould kids' minds in their own (sometimes warped and perverted) ways.

So rather than give them an issue which, bolstered by legal legitimacy, gives them free range to impart their subjective views on my kids, I'd rather the issue stay off the table in the school system and have them focus on the 3 Rs instead.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
The only perversion is you calling it so. It is found in all cultures and in most species.

[/ QUOTE ]

The human species is different from other species on this planet. Humans can rationalize things. A reasonable gay human male knows that it is not normal for a human male to want to insert his penis into another human male's rectum. He knows, that despite his own desires, the normal receptical for a human male's penis is a human female's vagina.

Saying homosexuality is perfectly moral amoung humans because homosexuality is seen across many different animal species is ridiculous. In fact the whole arguement is degrading to gays as it lowers them to the level of the unrational animal. You should be ashamed of propagating it. Using your logic I could conclude its ok for you to eat your offspring because I saw my guppies eat their offsprings.

Stu

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Although no one is likely to listen to me, I think marriage should be a purely religious sacrament, as it was originally. No government "stamp of approval" is needed.

The association with government sponsorship should be broken entirely. Any two (or more) people should be able to draw up contracts enumerating specific shared legal authority, authority in medical decisions, ownership of property, etc. etc. etc. There is no reason to associate such contracts with the historical religious sacrament of marriage, as this is the source of approximately 100% of the arguments surrounding gay marriage. Marriage is something that takes place in the specific context of one's personal religious beliefs and practices.

Problem solved: The religious component is not contaminated, and the law is not discriminitory.

[/ QUOTE ]
100% correct imo.

chez

[Darryl_P]

I should add that there is some level of brainwashing that is impossible to not do, in that kids will ask a lot of questions about the basic issues of life, some of which will require an opinion or stance.

As a parent, you can remove yourself from answering these by diverting it to society at large, giving them the consensus view every time. But in this case, the kid will not develop a sense of identity. He will feel like a child of society rather than a child of your family. One could argue that this is not a bad thing, but since parenting takes a lot of time and effort, I don't want to be doing it just to serve society. I might as well just be another Mother Theresa if that's what's important.

Alternatively, you can say: this is what I believe but a lot of people don't agree. If your behaviors are consistent with your words, ie. he sees you being friendly with similarly-minded people and not-so-friendly with others, then the kid will adopt your ways anyway and since it's presented to him in a non-overbearing way, it may be the most effective brainwashing method of all, even if you don't intend it as such.

Then there's the overbearing method of drilling stuff into him like a drill sargeant. That will likely make him confused because he won't see why it's so frickin' important and there's a good chance he'll revolt but then later in life (after you die) feel guilty that he rejected everything you stood for. Not good.

OK this is very oversimplified and there are zillions of other possible scenarios, but these are some that seem to happen pretty often.

[MidGe]

Metric,

I agree with you, have no issue with the religious meaning of marriage. However when the law starts discriminating between its own citizens about economic advantages I have an issue. That is the essence of my OP. Any churches, mullah, rabbis, whatever should NOT dictate the legal position which should be without discrimination.

I am very happy that a secular marriage be, or not, recognized by the catholic or other churches. That is NOT the issue. However when the catholic or whatever, or whenever, church or religion starts to interfere and dictates what the secular laws should be, I have an issue.

[oneeye13]

[ QUOTE ]
All societies have a stake in the future generations.

[/ QUOTE ] aren't you republican?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I am very happy that a secular marriage be, or not, recognized by the catholic or other churches. That is NOT the issue. However when the catholic or whatever, or whenever, church or religion starts to interfere and dictates what the secular laws should be, I have an issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said and ITA. Marriage in the civil context is a legal contract, not a religious sacrament.

And I think anyone who claims this isn't a religious issue is fooling themselves (although I'm sure there are a few athiests who don't like it as well, for nonreligious reasons).

As for the comparisons to bestiality and sex with children, they don't hold water because we are no longer talking about 2 consenting adults. They are more similar to rape, since one party does not have the ability to give consent. Comparisons to polygamy or prostitution are better, since those involve consenting adults.

And the idea that teachers are going to somehow corrupt your children's minds if gay marriage was legal is silly. Your children will likely at some point in their education have a gay teacher, a gay classmate, or a gay friend. They may even be gay themselves. Outlawing legal rights for gay couples does nothing to eliminate this exposure to homosexuality that you seem so fearful of.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
And the idea that teachers are going to somehow corrupt your children's minds if gay marriage was legal is silly. Your children will likely at some point in their education have a gay teacher, a gay classmate, or a gay friend. They may even be gay themselves. Outlawing legal rights for gay couples does nothing to eliminate this exposure to homosexuality that you seem so fearful of.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume this part is directed at me and not MidGe. Being exposed to homosexuals and homosexuality is one thing, but having it legitimized and declared officially equivalent to heterosexuality is another.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume this part is directed at me and not MidGe. Being exposed to homosexuals and homosexuality is one thing, but having it legitimized and declared officially equivalent to heterosexuality is another.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your point, but can I ask you how you would feel if one of your own children happens to be gay? Would you still not want your child to be equal or legitimate in the eyes of the law?

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
Although no one is likely to listen to me, I think marriage should be a purely religious sacrament, as it was originally. No government "stamp of approval" is needed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any idea why marriage was established, taking in the big societal/species picture?

Perhaps before you scrap what might be the single most important piece of society ever developed you should be able to answer that above question. My guess is that you can not.

I'll help you out a little later, it's not that hard.

[vhawk01]

Single most important piece of society? Wow, thats a bold assertion that cannot possibly be backed up.

All the same, I'll put my money on fire.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have any idea why marriage was established, taking in the big societal/species picture?

Perhaps before you scrap what might be the single most important piece of society ever developed you should be able to answer that above question. My guess is that you can not.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the idea that allowing monogamous homosexual couples the same legal protections as heterosexuals, would somehow "scrap" the institution of marriage is false. Not to mention paranoid.

As for the "big species" picture, I assume you are talking about procreation. I am sure, according to your definition of marriage, my wife and I's union should be outlawed as well, since we have no children and do not plan to have any.

I think all of this gay marriage debate boils down to the fact that a lot of people want to return to some sort of imaginary Norman Rockwelian version of our country's past, where all women stayed home and had babies and all homosexuals were in the closet.

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Although no one is likely to listen to me, I think marriage should be a purely religious sacrament, as it was originally. No government "stamp of approval" is needed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any idea why marriage was established, taking in the big societal/species picture?

Perhaps before you scrap what might be the single most important piece of society ever developed you should be able to answer that above question. My guess is that you can not.

I'll help you out a little later, it's not that hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now this is a little out of line. Is there a reason you continue to try and make points by having people look up the facts for you? I think it would be a lot better if you explained to us why you hold the opinions and provided some evidence for them. Instead of ordering people with differing opinions to do it for you.

[FlFishOn]

It's a mental exercise not a research project.

P.S. I'm sorry I couldn't remember where I read that piece you re-located.

P.P.S. I no longer support my opinions with links, it's a waste of effort. Few are read, fewer are responded to. Most are dismissed if read, all in all a waste of my time. Add to that the volume that I read and the shoddy state of my memory for what I read where, I can't invest the time.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
All societies have a stake in the future generations. It's a huge responsibility, to propagate the species.

Instead of asking straights to find fault with gay sham 'marriage' I think it is much more important for gays to prove, beyond any scientific doubt, that gay sham 'marriage' is totally benign with respect to the future generations every society requires. I'm certain this can not be done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Legalizing gay marriage doesn't change anything. Without legal gay marriage... gays are still gay. A homosexual is a homosexual whether they can marry or not. Your argument is illogical.

Also- gay couples can and do have children. Another reason your argument is hollow.

Also- we're not exactly in a population crisis. Even if your premise was remotely accurate, you'd have to show that there's an issue with birthrates.

I think people should save everyone time and admit there's no logical reason to prevent gay marriage rights except to placate the bigotry of homophobes. Then we can acknowledge its irrational and move on.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a perversion of the natural state of affairs

[/ QUOTE ]

You might have to define 'natural' since homosexuality is completely natural. ie- found consistantly and throughout nature.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Although no one is likely to listen to me, I think marriage should be a purely religious sacrament, as it was originally. No government "stamp of approval" is needed.


[/ QUOTE ]

(1) I'm not certain that it was originally just a religious sacrament. Remember that marriage was usually a business transaction. "Original" marriage bares little resemblence to marriage today (except perhaps arranged marriages in Afghanistan?)
(2) Religion has little to do with a lot of people's marriages. This is why Justice of the Peace and Sea Captains can marry people. It is a legal procedure. If you want to have a religious ceremony along with it, that's up to you. The important part as far as the govt. is concerned is the signing of the license with appropriate witnesses.
(4) No religion is forced to marry someone they don't choose to. So their religion is not threatened.

[ QUOTE ]
Any two (or more) people should be able to draw up contracts enumerating specific shared legal authority, authority in medical decisions, ownership of property, etc. etc. etc. There is no reason to associate such contracts with the historical religious sacrament of marriage, as this is the source of approximately 100% of the arguments surrounding gay marriage. Marriage is something that takes place in the specific context of one's personal religious beliefs and practices.


[/ QUOTE ]

They have these legal contracts - its called legal marriage (which is completely different then a religious marriage... which, has no legal binding.)

[ QUOTE ]
Problem solved: The religious component is not contaminated, and the law is not discriminitory.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is backwards. We need to figure out how to keep the religious components from contaminating the legal components.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
The human species is different from other species on this planet. Humans can rationalize things. A reasonable gay human male knows that it is not normal for a human male to want to insert his penis into another human male's rectum. He knows, that despite his own desires, the normal receptical for a human male's penis is a human female's vagina.

[/ QUOTE ]

No action is inherently rational. Actions are rational based on the desirability of their outcomes. If your goal is to be "normal," then yes homosexuality is irrational in the context of achieving that goal. If your goal is to be happy, then homosexuality can be the only rational course of action.

[Metric]

The point, of course, is that marriage exists independently of a government stamp of approval. Marriage will certainly not go away, and if anything the more conservative church-controlled aspect of marriage would become more significant than before.

My only suggestion is to remove the association of marriage (what the priest does for you) with a specific cookie-cutter, government-endorsed contract. Any group of people (2 or more, gay, straight or whatever -- the law doesn't care and neither do religious people) should be able to draw up their own legal contract resembling the shared rights and responsibilities of marriage, and customized to their particular situation.

So marriage becomes more "holy," the law becomes less discriminatory and more flexible all around. How does everyone not win?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The point, of course, is that marriage exists independently of a government stamp of approval. Marriage will certainly not go away, and if anything the more conservative church-controlled aspect of marriage would become more significant than before.

My only suggestion is to remove the association of marriage (what the priest does for you) with a specific cookie-cutter, government-endorsed contract. Any group of people (2 or more, gay, straight or whatever -- the law doesn't care and neither do religious people) should be able to draw up their own legal contract resembling the shared rights and responsibilities of marriage, and customized to their particular situation.

So marriage becomes more "holy," the law becomes less discriminatory and more flexible all around. How does everyone not win?

[/ QUOTE ]
Tick

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
So marriage becomes more "holy," the law becomes less discriminatory and more flexible all around. How does everyone not win?

[/ QUOTE ]
The people who want to impose their lifestyle on others don't win. The bigots don't win.

Sadly there are many of them.

chez

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand your point, but can I ask you how you would feel if one of your own children happens to be gay? Would you still not want your child to be equal or legitimate in the eyes of the law?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question and my answer is the same for a child of mine as it is for anyone else, ie...

I expect sexuality to not be a factor in any dealings not related to sexuality, so in these areas (representing 99+% of all dealings) there would be equal and legitimate treatment under the law.

For the remaining 1% it's basically a case of tough luck for both me and my son. I might try to get him to look on the bright side and remind him he's living in one of the most gay-tolerant countries in the world in the most gay-tolerant time in history and hope he sees that as a positive.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I might try to get him to look on the bright side and remind him he's living in one of the most gay-tolerant countries in the world in the most gay-tolerant time in history and hope he sees that as a positive.

[/ QUOTE ]

ORLY

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I expect sexuality to not be a factor in any dealings not related to sexuality

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I think you are confusing a legal issue with a sexual one. Many married people do not have sex at all. Many unmarried people do have sex. Many heterosexual married couples have "unnatural" or "non-procreative" sex. Issues of sexuality and what people consider "normal" have nothing to do with the legal protections of marriage, which is what homosexuals want and what the OP was addressing.

I don't think homosexuals care if you think their sexuality is perverse or if the church won't recognize their union. But they would like to be able to leave their inheritance to their loved one, or act as a health care proxy for them, or any of the other rights us "normal" people take for granted.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I think you are confusing a legal issue with a sexual one. Many married people do not have sex at all. Many unmarried people do have sex. Many heterosexual married couples have "unnatural" or "non-procreative" sex.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am well aware of this. I still maintain that the issue of marriage is related to sexuality.

[ QUOTE ]
Issues of sexuality and what people consider "normal" have nothing to do with the legal protections of marriage, which is what homosexuals want and what the OP was addressing.


[/ QUOTE ]

If the legal protections were only related to the couple, then I'd be OK with it. Trouble is, marriage involves more than just two adults. It is the buliding block for a family which involves children.

I didn't see anywhere in the OP where children were explicity mentioned which IMO is unfortunate because the issue is complex enough to warrant specific attention.

If the important stuff is just the tax benefits, inheritance issues (from partner to partner, not partner to children), and other legal issues affecting only the adults, why not just demand "equivalent to marriage" status on those? Why go for the whole nine yards and demand full marriage?

BTW I'm also OK with the state getting out of the marriage business altogether, which I believe is acceptable to most of the gay community.

[TheScientist]

In 100 years society will look back at the gay marriage issue and wonder what in the world took us so long. It will be a bit of an embarassment, in fact.
There is no reason two consenting adults should be denied the benefits of the marriage contract. Calling it 'marriage' is probably the biggest point of dispute. For a married heterosexual couple, it probably doesn't sit right that two men or women could unite and profess to have something as intimate as a marriage. Here's the thing though; individually, you don't have to recognize it. If you're religious, you know that God does not see this union as equal to your marriage. That's fine for people to think that way, it is not fine, however, to impose one's personal values on two consenting adults who are not harming anyone.

[TheScientist]

[ QUOTE ]
If the legal protections were only related to the couple, then I'd be OK with it. Trouble is, marriage involves more than just two adults. It is the buliding block for a family which involves children.

I didn't see anywhere in the OP where children were explicity mentioned which IMO is unfortunate because the issue is complex enough to warrant specific attention.


[/ QUOTE ]

Homosexual partners don't tend to reproduce, so that takes care of most of it. Exceptions abound, of course. I'd be interested in knowing if the adopted children of gay couples are more likely to be gay than your typical adopted child.

More likely the fear is that, 'with all these gay couples around, my children are going to think it is okay to be gay as well'. But sexuality is a strong biological pull, not an eny-meeny-miny-mo choosing of sides. In the rare case that your child does turn out to be gay, it will be highly destructive if you've always told them that such behavoir is 'deviant and immoral'. In the more probable scenario that they are straight, you are only perputating the rampant homophobia in this country.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
If the important stuff is just the tax benefits, inheritance issues (from partner to partner, not partner to children),

[/ QUOTE ]

Or partner to children. There are gay couples with children.

[ QUOTE ]
Trouble is, marriage involves more than just two adults. It is the buliding block for a family which involves children.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Marriage involves 2 adults.

As I've mentioned before, my wife and I do not have children nor do we plan to. Are we married? Yes. Are we a family? Yes, regardless of your opinion. Do we get all the legal rights heterosexual couples who have children get? Yes. And so should homosexual couples.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
In 100 years society will look back at the gay marriage issue and wonder what in the world took us so long. It will be a bit of an embarassment, in fact.


[/ QUOTE ]

My version has society looking back at a major war and wondering why the two warring sides couldn't have settled their disputes without so much bloodshed. Lack of foresight and/or intelligence is the current favorite to be the consensus reason.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
More likely the fear is that, 'with all these gay couples around, my children are going to think it is okay to be gay as well'.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not it at all. I'm not terribly worried if one or two of my children ends up being homosexual. Really. This is one of the reasons we're expecting number 4 right now, hoping to take it up to about 8 or so.

My concerns relate to what shape society takes in the future and what the predominant values are, gays' status being just one of many related issues.

It's about whether we get our purpose from a higher place and do our best to satisfy that, or whether we just do whatever feels good without regard to the wider-reaching ramifications.

For example, a society needs to plan for the future, with part of the plan dealing with the succession of its members after death. Promoting and legitimizing homosexuality cannot be consistent with such a plan as it contributes to a decline in the population. One could argue that the world is overpopulated as it is, so a decline can't hurt. To that my answer is: let other societies decline, not ours.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
My concerns relate to what shape society takes in the future and what the predominant values are


[/ QUOTE ]

I hope the predominant values include respect and equal treatment for all, and an end to prejudice against all minorities including gays.

[ QUOTE ]
For example, a society needs to plan for the future, with part of the plan dealing with the succession of its members after death. Promoting and legitimizing homosexuality cannot be consistent with such a plan as it contributes to a decline in the population.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is backwards thinking. It assumes that treating homosexuals as equal members of society would somehow stop heterosexuals from having children.

In what way would you expect legitimizing gay unions to lead to a decline in heterosexual birth rates? I am curious.

Changes in the education and status of women, as well as increased overall wealth of the people, have far more effect on birth rates than whether gay couples get to call themselves married or not.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
More likely the fear is that, 'with all these gay couples around, my children are going to think it is okay to be gay as well'.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not it at all. I'm not terribly worried if one or two of my children ends up being homosexual. Really. This is one of the reasons we're expecting number 4 right now, hoping to take it up to about 8 or so.
My concerns relate to what shape society takes in the future and what the predominant values are, gays' status being just one of many related issues.

It's about whether we get our purpose from a higher place and do our best to satisfy that, or whether we just do whatever feels good without regard to the wider-reaching ramifications.

For example, a society needs to plan for the future, with part of the plan dealing with the succession of its members after death. Promoting and legitimizing homosexuality cannot be consistent with such a plan as it contributes to a decline in the population. One could argue that the world is overpopulated as it is, so a decline can't hurt. To that my answer is: let other societies decline, not ours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, no offense, but thats hilarious. Are you seriously having 8 kids for the purpose of 'covering all your bases,' just in case a few of them turn out gay? Thats what you seem to be implying. Hey, they're your kids, do whatever you want, but man, that is hilarious to me.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, no offense, but thats hilarious. Are you seriously having 8 kids for the purpose of 'covering all your bases,' just in case a few of them turn out gay?

[/ QUOTE ]

I said it's ONE of the reasons, among many others. It's the ole' theory of not putting all of one's eggs in one basket. I don't see what's so funny about that, but if you want to have a laugh, have a good one.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
If the legal protections were only related to the couple, then I'd be OK with it. Trouble is, marriage involves more than just two adults. It is the buliding block for a family which involves children.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it's even bigger than that, it is the engine that provides future generations. This, of course, is impossible to grasp as a 22 YO, college indoctrinated automaton.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong. Marriage involves 2 adults.

As I've mentioned before, my wife and I do not have children nor do we plan to. Are we married? Yes. Are we a family? Yes, regardless of your opinion. Do we get all the legal rights heterosexual couples who have children get? Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your relationship has no significance to society. No kids, no count.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
This is backwards thinking. It assumes that treating homosexuals as equal members of society would somehow stop heterosexuals from having children.


[/ QUOTE ]

It would certainly have an effect on some people on the fence, yes. Just as there are steadfast gays and hardcore heteros, there are others who could go either way (or go both ways). It could also cause heteros to have fewer children since they may see less of a point if society is rewarding the opposite. One's desire to have children is strongly dependent on how one sees the kids' future prospects, and if the future looks more and more like a dead end street, then that could have a negative impact on fertility.

[ QUOTE ]
In what way would you expect legitimizing gay unions to lead to a decline in heterosexual birth rates? I am curious.


[/ QUOTE ]

It would create a culture whereby having a biological mother and father is no better than having non-biological same sex parents.

One by-product of this could be an increased demand for adoptions by gay couples which would incentivize irresponsible sexual behavior by straights. Don't want the baby, no problem, we don't have to take responsibility, we can get $X by giving it up for adoption and laugh all the way to the bank. It's only a human life after all. What the heck does that little bugger need his real parents for, heh.

The responsible ones would feel less reason to be responsible since society is incentivizing them otherwise and that might get them to just say it's not worth it ... all the time and trouble to raise kids and then society, rather than acknowledging and rewarding them for contributing to the society's future, takes the fruits of their labor and gives it to homosexuals who have little stake in the more distant future.

That type of thing.


[ QUOTE ]
Changes in the education and status of women, as well as increased overall wealth of the people, have far more effect on birth rates than whether gay couples get to call themselves married or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I'm not singling out the gay issue, nor do I consider it the most important. In fact, on this one I think there is plenty of room for compromise such as removing state involvement from all marriages for example.

[TheScientist]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the legal protections were only related to the couple, then I'd be OK with it. Trouble is, marriage involves more than just two adults. It is the buliding block for a family which involves children.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it's even bigger than that, it is the engine that provides future generations. This, of course, is impossible to grasp as a 22 YO, college indoctrinated automaton.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe I couldn't see it. With everyone turning gay, there won't be enough people to reproduce and humanity will die out. Damn, if only someone had pointed this out to begin with, I think we would have all been able to reach a consensus by now.

Honestly.. do we really think 'allowing' gays to be gay is even going to put a dent in the population? (Isn't that a good thing?) Is it better to encourage them into relationships which are unnatural to them?

What I see is a bunch of people saying 'no' because they just don't like the sound of it. I never thought of myself as champion of this cause, but honestly I can't come up with anything grounded in actual logic to make me think otherwise.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
It would certainly have an effect on some people on the fence, yes. Just as there are steadfast gays and hardcore heteros, there are others who could go either way (or go both ways). It could also cause heteros to have fewer children since they may see less of a point if society is rewarding the opposite. One's desire to have children is strongly dependent on how one sees the kids' future prospects, and if the future looks more and more like a dead end street, then that could have a negative impact on fertility.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you are in the "hardcore hetero" camp.

No offense intended but I think your posts show a fundamental misunderstanding of homosexuality. As if there's an army of "on the fence" bisexuals just waiting for laws to change so they can finally declare their allegiance to the gay team.

And how does gay marriage lead to heteros' kids' futures being a "dead end street"? These leaps of logic are escaping me. You are implying that hetero couples will say, "What's the point of even having kids, now that those damn gays can get married? Guess we'll just scrap the whole damn thing."

[ QUOTE ]
I said it's ONE of the reasons, among many others. It's the ole' theory of not putting all of one's eggs in one basket. I don't see what's so funny about that, but if you want to have a laugh, have a good one.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I actually thought vhawk had misread your meaning. Guess not. The fact that one of the actual reasons you are having 8 kids is so you can rest easy knowing that most of them will likely be heterosexual... is fascinating to me.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, no offense, but thats hilarious. Are you seriously having 8 kids for the purpose of 'covering all your bases,' just in case a few of them turn out gay?

[/ QUOTE ]

I said it's ONE of the reasons, among many others. It's the ole' theory of not putting all of one's eggs in one basket. I don't see what's so funny about that, but if you want to have a laugh, have a good one.

[/ QUOTE ]

You dont see whats funny about having a whole bunch of kids in order to make sure you have a 'good one?' Ok, maybe funny is the wrong word, although its still funny to me. I hope you don't let your kids know that they were an insurance policy against their older brothers phallic proclivities. Make sure you make one who's good at climbing, one who's good at digging, and one who can parachute too, because life is a lot like Lemmings.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
No offense intended but I think your posts show a fundamental misunderstanding of homosexuality. As if there's an army of "on the fence" bisexuals just waiting for laws to change so they can finally declare their allegiance to the gay team.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are looking for something too extreme and naturally not finding it. The effects I'm talking about are slow and subtle and take a long time to creep into peoples' subconscious.

[ QUOTE ]
And how does gay marriage lead to heteros' kids' futures being a "dead end street"?

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's what society is telling them they should be doing, given that society doesn't care about the succession of its members, rewarding opposing behaviors instead, then that could be interpreted as a dead end street, or at least a long uphill battle against a lot of opposition -- something that doesn't faze me personally, but might have such an effect on some.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that one of the actual reasons you are having 8 kids is so you can rest easy knowing that most of them will likely be heterosexual... is fascinating to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I want my genes to continue on for as long as possible, preferably for as long as humanity exists, and I also want to maximize their representation. Is that so unusual? If one of my kids is homosexual, well, there's a dead end branch for my genes. So I want to make sure there are other branches that are not dead end.

I really fail to see what's so unusual about this.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
And it's even bigger than that, it is the engine that provides future generations. This, of course, is impossible to grasp as a 22 YO, college indoctrinated automaton.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're always saying this, but you never mention yourself. Are you completely free of indoctrination? Infallible? You don't agree that everyone is exposed to some level of indoctrination, that it's unavoidable?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Your relationship has no significance to society. No kids, no count.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if he and his wife find the cure for cancer, they're historically insignificant?

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your relationship has no significance to society. No kids, no count.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if he and his wife find the cure for cancer, they're historically insignificant?

[/ QUOTE ]


They can cure cancer unmarried, no? Same difference.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
...there won't be enough people to reproduce and humanity will die out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you're aware that Spain and Italy have a native fertility rate near to 1 child per couple. As a scientist, just how long do you think they can keep that up?

In the US it's still above 2. What sounds right to you? Is 1 OK? Shoot, if the entire country went gay what do you think it might be?

Actually, I don't care how many folks are gay. I lived in San Francisco for a decade. What I can't accept is anything that might produce fewer fully functional nuclear families. You can not be sure that widespread gay sham marriage will be totally benign. It is unknowable and I don't wish to risk it.

[flaag]

I think future civilizations would be much better off if we prohibited bigots from marrying and reproducing. They are much more destructive than "the gays".

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...there won't be enough people to reproduce and humanity will die out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you're aware that Spain and Italy have a native fertility rate near to 1 child per couple. As a scientist, just how long do you think they can keep that up?

In the US it's still above 2. What sounds right to you? Is 1 OK? Shoot, if the entire country went gay what do you think it might be?

Actually, I don't care how many folks are gay. I lived in San Francisco for a decade. What I can't accept is anything that might produce fewer fully functional nuclear families. You can not be sure that widespread gay sham marriage will be totally benign. It is unknowable and I don't wish to risk it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really mean this bolded part? Are you sure you don't want to soften that a bit? Your criteria for any sort of progressive strategy or development is "First you must prove that there is absolutely no chance that this could have any sort of negative impact on X." Am I right to assume that you only hold gays and other 'undesirable' groups to this same criteria? How would you have felt about legalizing interracial marriages? Surely, it was at least possible that allowing these types of things would have a fundamentally negative net impact on 'nuclear families,' no? How about marriages based on love, as opposed to arranged marriages?

[TheScientist]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you're aware that Spain and Italy have a native fertility rate near to 1 child per couple. As a scientist, just how long do you think they can keep that up?


[/ QUOTE ]

There is a concept called the demographic transition. Essentially it describes how population growth closely follows a countrys development. The countries which have made the demographic shift end up having a slightly larger death rate than birth rate. This is a natural progression, but to the countries facing a shortage of young workers, it is a problem. (Not addressing this problem leaves the aged population in a bad predicament, with rising medical costs and tax dollars dwindling) Luckily there's still a vast army of young, motivated workers quite anxious to migrate to developed countries. The more interesting question then becomes; how long can Spain and Italy retain their traditional racial identity and culture? Still, totally irrelevant in this conversation. Why? Because legalizing same sex marriage isn't going to affect the birth rate to any great degree.

[ QUOTE ]
In the US it's still above 2. What sounds right to you? Is 1 OK? Shoot, if the entire country went gay what do you think it might be?

[/ QUOTE ]

See...this is what is so funny to me. How often do you sit around with your friends and talk about what other guy you'd hook up with if only gay marriages were legal? What do you mean never? Do you really think there's a large percentage of the population that thinks 'Well, gee, I'd really like to marry another man, but since that's not legal i think I'll try my luck with this whole heterosexual thing and have kids instead.'

Another thought; I have no idea as to the makeup of homosexuality, whether it is genetic or otherwise. But if it is at least in part genetic, why would you want to pressure these people to reproduce? It seems like if there were an open, nonhostile environment for gays to live, the 'genetic' gays would slowly die out.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
In the US it's still above 2. What sounds right to you? Is 1 OK? Shoot, if the entire country went gay what do you think it might be?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this something you worry about?


[ QUOTE ]
You can not be sure that widespread gay sham marriage will be totally benign. It is unknowable and I don't wish to risk it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, better safe than sorry. There's a real possibility that the straights will see all the fun the gay couples are having with their dinner parties and their musical theatre and whatnot, and decide to try the fabulous gay lifestyle for themselves.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your relationship has no significance to society. No kids, no count.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if he and his wife find the cure for cancer, they're historically insignificant?

[/ QUOTE ]

They can cure cancer unmarried, no? Same difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

A person's personal relationships impact his work and accomplishments. I suppose if they were "together" but not "married" that would work, but you said their relationship was irrelevant and I think that's absurd.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Your relationship has no significance to society. No kids, no count.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct. I think every childless and infertile couple might as well just get a divorce, and accept that they are worthless in society's eyes.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
Why? Because legalizing same sex marriage isn't going to affect the birth rate to any great degree.


[/ QUOTE ]

Once you prove this I will consent. It is sine qua non with respect to my acceptance.

I'm nearly certain you will find a (negative) correlation.

[madnak]

Wait - so you're opposed to gay marriage solely because you think it may lower the birth rate? I have to admit I've never heard that one before.

The low birth rate "crisis" seems silly to me in general. Obviously the birth rates in Spain and Italy won't remain so low indefinitely. Trends can't simply be extended into infinity. The social and physical environment have a major impact on birth rates. When a society is stable, expensive and overcrowded, it makes sense to have fewer children. When a society is small and unstable it makes sense to have more children. Moreover, those who can support a large number of offspring are selected for. The explosion in world population over the last 100 years makes it clear, IMO, that we don't have to worry about humans "not reproducing enough." Our biologies provide sufficient motivation.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait - so you're opposed to gay marriage solely because you think it may lower the birth rate? I have to admit I've never heard that one before.

The low birth rate "crisis" seems silly to me in general. Obviously the birth rates in Spain and Italy won't remain so low indefinitely. Trends can't simply be extended into infinity. The social and physical environment have a major impact on birth rates. When a society is stable, expensive and overcrowded, it makes sense to have fewer children. When a society is small and unstable it makes sense to have more children. Moreover, those who can support a large number of offspring are selected for. The explosion in world population over the last 100 years makes it clear, IMO, that we don't have to worry about humans "not reproducing enough." Our biologies provide sufficient motivation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Me thinks you might just find that he thinks this population explosion is made up of the irrelevent or even worse.

chez

[Peter666]

"It is not taking anything away"

Marriage is recognized by the State because it sees the propagation of children as necessary and beneficial to the future of the state. State recognition and support of marriage is a not a "right" meant to only please the couple involved.

[vhawk01]

There is almost no possible way that THAT is the reason marriage is recognized by the state.

[revots33]

From Black's Law Dictionary, 8th ed.:

[ QUOTE ]
marriage: The legal union of a couple as husband and wife. The essentials of a valid marriage are 1) parties legally capable of contracting to marry, 2) mutual consent or agreement, and 3) an actual contracting in the form required by law. Marriage has important consequences in many areas of the law, such as torts, criminal law, evidence, debtor-creditor relations, property, and contracts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must be missing the part about propagation of the species.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
There is almost no possible way that THAT is the reason marriage is recognized by the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the practice of civilizations for five thousand years would counter that. But I would like to hear your argument against.

[vhawk01]

You think that the reason that, in the United States, we recognize marriage as distinct from other types of unions, is based on propagation of the species? In a country where there are so many children born out of wedlock? Isn't it far more likely that it is simply a holdover from our religious (Puritanical) and historical roots? In other words, you may be correct about the origins of the institution of marriage, but there is almost no practical application of that in this country, today.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the practice of civilizations for five thousand years would counter that. But I would like to hear your argument against.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that producing children is often a side effect of marriage, and that the government generally supports this side effect. (Usually, but not always - as in China's 1-child policy.)

It is not, however, the legal basis for marriage nor is it the condition that gives people the "right" to get married. The legal protections of marriage are granted to all married couples whether they have children or not. And it is the legal protections that gays want. And what the OP was talking about.

Or perhaps we should amend the law so that all fertile couples must sign a binding agreement to have children, or else their marriage application will be denied. Why should a woman have the right to decide whether she wants to bear children, anyways?

[Peter666]

"but there is almost no practical application of that in this country, today."

This is probably true. So why should we even have state recognized marriage to begin with, and why do gays need it?

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
From Black's Law Dictionary, 8th ed.:

[ QUOTE ]
marriage: The legal union of a couple as husband and wife. The essentials of a valid marriage are 1) parties legally capable of contracting to marry, 2) mutual consent or agreement, and 3) an actual contracting in the form required by law. Marriage has important consequences in many areas of the law, such as torts, criminal law, evidence, debtor-creditor relations, property, and contracts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must be missing the part about propagation of the species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and so do the gays. They are able to make private contracts amongst themselves anyways. Why marriage?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
"but there is almost no practical application of that in this country, today."

This is probably true. So why should we even have state recognized marriage to begin with, and why do gays need it?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are asking two completely different questions. Marriage, in the legal sense, serves to bind two people who choose to join, in terms of finances, etc., and also infers certain legal rights, i.e. medical decisions. In that regard, I suppose it is at least useful, if not necessary. However, I wouldn't be absolutely opposed to getting rid of marriage as a LEGAL or state-sponsored entity. Leave it to those who want it.

Why do gays want it? For exactly the reasons above.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From Black's Law Dictionary, 8th ed.:

[ QUOTE ]
marriage: The legal union of a couple as husband and wife. The essentials of a valid marriage are 1) parties legally capable of contracting to marry, 2) mutual consent or agreement, and 3) an actual contracting in the form required by law. Marriage has important consequences in many areas of the law, such as torts, criminal law, evidence, debtor-creditor relations, property, and contracts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must be missing the part about propagation of the species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and so do the gays. They are able to make private contracts amongst themselves anyways. Why marriage?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think mostly this is wrong. I think that MOST gay couples want marriage for the practical reasons. You say they can 'already make contracts' but I am not sure that is accurate. There are numerous cases of families taking over the right to make medical decisions, despite clearly laid out agreements between the parties, simply because they aren't married. We as society put special emphasis on the marriage, and gays cannot currently enjoy the benefits of that emphasis.

However, I am sure there are also gay couples who want gay marriage for more symbolic and emotional reasons. Perhaps they simply want to be able to avail themselves of the things that other people enjoy. I mean, what if we had 'marriage' and then, exactly the same legally but only used for specific people, we had 'fat marriage.' Its exactly the same, we just wont call it marriage, because its kind of gross. I don't see what these silly fat people are getting so worked up about, I mean, jeez, they get the same benefits!

[Peter666]

"However, I am sure there are also gay couples who want gay marriage for more symbolic and emotional reasons. Perhaps they simply want to be able to avail themselves of the things that other people enjoy."

Like making children? This is an emotional and psychological issue. Legal means already exist for common law people to make important decisions on each others behalf. A medical directive can appoint anyone you wish to make medical decisions for you, and a will can let you leave money to whomever you want. So I don't think this is for practical reasons, but the emotional reasons you outline above.

We are essentially in a culture war where gays want to be thought of as completely normal people and accepted by society as such. But they are not. Their sexual preference is a statistical anomoly, a minor reflection of societal behaviour, and there is no reason for anyone to accept it as something healthy or desirous.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
We are essentially in a culture war where gays want to be thought of as completely normal people and accepted by society as such. But they are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well at least you are not trying to beat around the bush like some others. I'd actually prefer it if people just admitted they were against gay marriage because they think gays are abnormal or perverse, rather than all the attempts to sugarcoat their prejudice.

From today's USA Today, I'm sure this is all the gay's fault:

[ QUOTE ]
SECTION: LIFE; Pg. 1D

LENGTH: 450 words

HEADLINE: Society switches focus away from children;
Not as much adult life spent with kids

BYLINE: Sharon Jayson

BODY:


The USA is becoming a much more adult-focused society after being child-centered for decades, a report suggests.

Longer life expectancy, delayed marriage and childbearing, and increased childlessness add up to a longer life without kids, says the analysis, released today by the non-partisan National Marriage Project at Rutgers University.

Child-rearing occupies a smaller share of a person's adult life because there are longer periods before and after raising children compared with previous generations, says Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, the project's co-director and author of the study. It is based on U.S. Census data as well as cultural and social research.

"It's almost as if raising children, which used to become the common lot of most adults, now has become more of a niche in your life rather than one of the main features of adult life," she says.

In 1970, for example, 73.6% of women ages 25-29 had at least one minor child at home; 30 years later, 48.7% did.

In 1990, the most common household type was married couples with children. Now, single, childless households are the most prevalent.

And today, more women in their 40s are childless, the report says. One in 10 were childless in 1976; in 2004, it was about one of five.

Although Whitehead says Americans aren't "anti-child," she suggests that a society indifferent to parenting will further aggravate current attitudes and account for what Whitehead calls "the cultural devaluation of child-rearing."

"People who are rearing children and have children in the household no longer represent the dominant force in society or politics," she says.

The shift also is evident on TV, says William Douglas, a professor of communication at the University of Houston and author of Television Families: Is Something Wrong in Suburbia? "The plot more often than previously focuses around parents. Children simply no longer hold this elevated status where the plot is necessarily around them."

Workplace policies also reflect the greater attention to adults, says Thomas Coleman of Unmarried America, a Glendale, Calif., group, formerly the American Association of Single People.

"The so-called family-friendly programs that emerged in the '80s and '90s are being replaced with work-life programs," he says. "The terminology is changing to be more generic."

Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution's Center on Children and Families is not ready to sound any alarms yet about what this adult focus suggests for child well-being.

Fewer children "may make for a more adult-oriented society," she says, "but it's not necessarily going to have bad consequences for children. Everything depends on how much we're investing in those smaller numbers of children."


[/ QUOTE ]

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
"However, I am sure there are also gay couples who want gay marriage for more symbolic and emotional reasons. Perhaps they simply want to be able to avail themselves of the things that other people enjoy."

Like making children? This is an emotional and psychological issue. Legal means already exist for common law people to make important decisions on each others behalf. A medical directive can appoint anyone you wish to make medical decisions for you, and a will can let you leave money to whomever you want. So I don't think this is for practical reasons, but the emotional reasons you outline above.

We are essentially in a culture war where gays want to be thought of as completely normal people and accepted by society as such. But they are not. Their sexual preference is a statistical anomoly, a minor reflection of societal behaviour, and there is no reason for anyone to accept it as something healthy or desirous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, my use of an analogy to 'fat weddings' seems to have unintended implications, both accurate and misleading. Even if we were to grant that somehow homosexuality was not 'healthy or desirous' you still have absolutely no leg to stand on. We still allow fat people to get married, no matter how terrible a message this may send to the rest of society. No one cries, "But how will I explain to my children when they come home asking questions about why the fat man is holding hands with the fat woman?"

Needless to say, I don't really agree with you that homosexuality is in some way unhealthy (well, besides all sex being technically unhealthy and homosexual sex between men being slightly higher risk than heterosexual sex). But even if it were, there is simply no reason to single out homosexuality as the one 'unhealthy' lifestyle that we choose to segregate and attack. At least, there is no secular, rational reason. There are plenty of "Jebus says" and "It's icky" reasons, I suppose.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We are essentially in a culture war where gays want to be thought of as completely normal people and accepted by society as such. But they are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well at least you are not trying to beat around the bush like some others. I'd actually prefer it if people just admitted they were against gay marriage because they think gays are abnormal or perverse, rather than all the attempts to sugarcoat their prejudice.

From today's USA Today, I'm sure this is all the gay's fault:

[ QUOTE ]
SECTION: LIFE; Pg. 1D

LENGTH: 450 words

HEADLINE: Society switches focus away from children;
Not as much adult life spent with kids

BYLINE: Sharon Jayson

BODY:


The USA is becoming a much more adult-focused society after being child-centered for decades, a report suggests.

Longer life expectancy, delayed marriage and childbearing, and increased childlessness add up to a longer life without kids, says the analysis, released today by the non-partisan National Marriage Project at Rutgers University.

Child-rearing occupies a smaller share of a person's adult life because there are longer periods before and after raising children compared with previous generations, says Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, the project's co-director and author of the study. It is based on U.S. Census data as well as cultural and social research.

"It's almost as if raising children, which used to become the common lot of most adults, now has become more of a niche in your life rather than one of the main features of adult life," she says.

In 1970, for example, 73.6% of women ages 25-29 had at least one minor child at home; 30 years later, 48.7% did.

In 1990, the most common household type was married couples with children. Now, single, childless households are the most prevalent.

And today, more women in their 40s are childless, the report says. One in 10 were childless in 1976; in 2004, it was about one of five.

Although Whitehead says Americans aren't "anti-child," she suggests that a society indifferent to parenting will further aggravate current attitudes and account for what Whitehead calls "the cultural devaluation of child-rearing."

"People who are rearing children and have children in the household no longer represent the dominant force in society or politics," she says.

The shift also is evident on TV, says William Douglas, a professor of communication at the University of Houston and author of Television Families: Is Something Wrong in Suburbia? "The plot more often than previously focuses around parents. Children simply no longer hold this elevated status where the plot is necessarily around them."

Workplace policies also reflect the greater attention to adults, says Thomas Coleman of Unmarried America, a Glendale, Calif., group, formerly the American Association of Single People.

"The so-called family-friendly programs that emerged in the '80s and '90s are being replaced with work-life programs," he says. "The terminology is changing to be more generic."

Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution's Center on Children and Families is not ready to sound any alarms yet about what this adult focus suggests for child well-being.

Fewer children "may make for a more adult-oriented society," she says, "but it's not necessarily going to have bad consequences for children. Everything depends on how much we're investing in those smaller numbers of children."


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank the Lord (figure of speech /images/graemlins/grin.gif) for that. I can think of few 'arguments' that get under my skin worse than "But what about the CHILDREN!?!?!?111oneone!!"

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"but there is almost no practical application of that in this country, today."

This is probably true. So why should we even have state recognized marriage to begin with, and why do gays need it?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are asking two completely different questions. Marriage, in the legal sense, serves to bind two people who choose to join, in terms of finances, etc., and also infers certain legal rights, i.e. medical decisions. In that regard, I suppose it is at least useful, if not necessary. However, I wouldn't be absolutely opposed to getting rid of marriage as a LEGAL or state-sponsored entity. Leave it to those who want it.

Why do gays want it? For exactly the reasons above.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you see... if gay couples are allowed to make medical decisions for each other and gain the other legal benefits and responsibilities that come with a legal marriage... people will stop reproducing and the human race will die out.

I'm laughing just typing this, but that apparently is the reason FlFish and others who oppose it have been arguing. So, obviously gay marriage is bad. It's the END OF OUR SPECIES. (ORGAN NEEDLEDROP)

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
"It is not taking anything away"

Marriage is recognized by the State because it sees the propagation of children as necessary and beneficial to the future of the state. State recognition and support of marriage is a not a "right" meant to only please the couple involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just so.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
Needless to say, I don't really agree with you that homosexuality is in some way unhealthy (well, besides all sex being technically unhealthy and homosexual sex between men being slightly higher risk than heterosexual sex).

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to research the mortality rates, str8 VS gay. You'll be enlightened. Then you'll dismiss it. Ignorance will again be bliss.

[bdypdx]

"... Making those rights and responsibilities available to gays, or universally, has no impact at all on the heterosexual ones. It is not taking anything away from them. It simply allows people to enter into that agreement without discrimination..."

Exactly! I have hetero siblings, 2 sisters and 1 brother, who are married. They agree that I will not be taking anything away from them if I am allowed to "marry" my partner.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Needless to say, I don't really agree with you that homosexuality is in some way unhealthy (well, besides all sex being technically unhealthy and homosexual sex between men being slightly higher risk than heterosexual sex).

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to research the mortality rates, str8 VS gay. You'll be enlightened. Then you'll dismiss it. Ignorance will again be bliss.

[/ QUOTE ]

All right, I'm a med student, a poker player, and a baseball fanatic, so there is little that I love more than health statistics. Seriously. I will endeavor to look this up for you, I suppose, although if you have these so-called gay mortality statistics handy I would really appreciate it. Offhand, I am fairly positive that the CDC and NIH do not sort or collect data on health statistics based on sexual orientation. I suppose that someone, somewhere, does or has. Could you help a brotha out?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
"... Making those rights and responsibilities available to gays, or universally, has no impact at all on the heterosexual ones. It is not taking anything away from them. It simply allows people to enter into that agreement without discrimination..."

Exactly! I have hetero siblings, 2 sisters and 1 brother, who are married. They agree that I will not be taking anything away from them if I am allowed to "marry" my partner.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we're trying to reach a quorum, I also agree that you won't be taking anything away from me if you get married.

<-----straight

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
They agree that I will not be taking anything away from them if I am allowed to "marry" my partner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Listen to how selfish that is. Won't be taking away...

What exactly will your sham marriage be adding to American society?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They agree that I will not be taking anything away from them if I am allowed to "marry" my partner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Listen to how selfish that is. Won't be taking away...

What exactly will your sham marriage be adding to American society?

[/ QUOTE ]

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Ok, man, you went over the deep end now. Wow, that is some classic [censored] right there. He is trying to find happiness in his life, and even if this doesn't in ANY WAY take anything away from anyone else, thats no good, because it doesn't HELP them. Trust me man, me feverishly masturbating to porn on the internet doesn't help anyone else out, but I don't plan on stopping and feel thats its pretty got-damn American. You got a problem with that too? What if I promise only to watch videos of straight sex, homey?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They agree that I will not be taking anything away from them if I am allowed to "marry" my partner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Listen to how selfish that is. Won't be taking away...

What exactly will your sham marriage be adding to American society?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its sad that people have such low self-worth that they can't see any value unless they add some mythical value to society. Sadder that they try to devalue such a society by making others in it miserable.

chez

[FlFishOn]

Here's all I know. Insurance companies do know. There was a time when, if your occupation was florist or hairdresser AND you were male, life insurance was not available.

Hard #s? I don't have 'em. I don't need 'em. A guess? Gay males live 5-10 years less than str8s.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's all I know. Insurance companies do know. There was a time when, if your occupation was florist or hairdresser AND you were male, life insurance was not available.

Hard #s? I don't have 'em. I don't need 'em. A guess? Gay males live 5-10 years less than str8s.

[/ QUOTE ]

"There was a time"? Yes, you are probably right. Certainly, during the eighties and early nineties, at the height of the AIDS epidemic, this was probably the case. Is it the case now? I would strongly doubt it. I mean, I'm not going to argue that there is a slightly higher incidence of AIDS in homosexual populations. Thats probably the case. But with the treatments for AIDS these days, and the relatively low incidence nationwide, I cant see this having that significant of an impact on overall life expectancy. If you honestly think that its even CLOSE to ten years, you are insane. There aren't any first-world countries that have a life expectancy ten years shorter than ours in the US. Even poor, black people living in DC's 8th District, one of the worst places in the US health-wise, aren't TEN YEARS shorter than the national average.

The fact that you "don't have 'em, don't need 'em" doesn't surprise me. Nor does the fact that your recollection of your anecdotal experience so closely matches your preconceptions. Wouldn't you rather actually know, rather than just assume? It doesn't bother you that you might be GROSSLY inaccurate on this issue, which seems to be pretty central to your opinion on homosexuality?

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's all I know. Insurance companies do know. There was a time when, if your occupation was florist or hairdresser AND you were male, life insurance was not available.

Hard #s? I don't have 'em. I don't need 'em. A guess? Gay males live 5-10 years less than str8s.

[/ QUOTE ]

You never have hard numbers. Or seem to remember where any of the articles you read are located.

I know it makes sense that homosexual men would have, on average, a shorter lifespan. But there is no way that it can be proven with any serious statistical data. As it pertains to women though, I highly doubt they would have a shorter life span than the average woman.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's all I know. Insurance companies do know. There was a time when, if your occupation was florist or hairdresser AND you were male, life insurance was not available.

Hard #s? I don't have 'em. I don't need 'em. A guess? Gay males live 5-10 years less than str8s.

[/ QUOTE ]

You never have hard numbers. Or seem to remember where any of the articles you read are located.

I know it makes sense that homosexual men would have, on average, a shorter lifespan. But there is no way that it can be proven with any serious statistical data. As it pertains to women though, I highly doubt they would have a shorter life span than the average woman.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say that it COULDN'T be proven with mortality data. It certainly could. Now, I don't know if this mortality data is actually available (those liberal bastards at the CDC would get killed by the PC police if they collected it, right FlFishOn?), but if it was we could certainly evaluate it.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
What exactly will your sham marriage be adding to American society?


[/ QUOTE ]
Equality or non-discrimination on the basis of sexuality!

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What exactly will your sham marriage be adding to American society?


[/ QUOTE ]
Equality or non-discrimination on the basis of sexuality!

[/ QUOTE ]

Plus, you never know, maybe they will invent some sort of crazy, awesome, kinky sex thing that we can all learn about and enjoy. /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

And this would be lost if we don't allow them to be married, of course, because if they aren't married they can't have sex. Bible says so.

[bdypdx]

"What exactly will your sham marriage be adding to American society?"

First of all it wouldn't be a "sham" marriage.

Second, I contribute to society even without marriage. I just want the same rights/privledges that a hetero couple gets. Basically, I work and pay taxes, so I should get the same benefits.

Third, I contribute to my family. My neices and nephew will get a nice college stipend from their gay uncle.

Fourth, the corporation I work for, makes quite a bit of $$$ from my efforts.

Fifth, volunteer work outside of the gay community.

Selfish? No, I contribute to my family and society.

[KeysrSoze]

[ QUOTE ]
Hard #s? I don't have 'em. I don't need 'em. A guess? Gay males live 5-10 years less than str8s.

[/ QUOTE ]

So do coal miners. Whats your point?

[vhawk01]

Coal miners and banana-pickers cannot get married. Also, presidents.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"What exactly will your sham marriage be adding to American society?"

First of all it wouldn't be a "sham" marriage.

Second, I contribute to society even without marriage. I just want the same rights/privledges that a hetero couple gets. Basically, I work and pay taxes, so I should get the same benefits.

Third, I contribute to my family. My neices and nephew will get a nice college stipend from their gay uncle.

Fourth, the corporation I work for, makes quite a bit of $$$ from my efforts.

Fifth, volunteer work outside of the gay community.

Selfish? No, I contribute to my family and society.

[/ QUOTE ]
but what about the state sponsored breeding program that fishy and saint peter value so highly?

chez

[bdypdx]

....adding to American society?....

American society would be a hell of a lot more boring without us gay folks.

You Puritan types don't really contribute much when it comes to the fun of life.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's all I know. Insurance companies do know. There was a time when, if your occupation was florist or hairdresser AND you were male, life insurance was not available.

Hard #s? I don't have 'em. I don't need 'em. A guess? Gay males live 5-10 years less than str8s.

[/ QUOTE ]

You never have hard numbers. Or seem to remember where any of the articles you read are located.

I know it makes sense that homosexual men would have, on average, a shorter lifespan. But there is no way that it can be proven with any serious statistical data. As it pertains to women though, I highly doubt they would have a shorter life span than the average woman.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say that it COULDN'T be proven with mortality data. It certainly could. Now, I don't know if this mortality data is actually available (those liberal bastards at the CDC would get killed by the PC police if they collected it, right FlFishOn?), but if it was we could certainly evaluate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I googled and blew 15 minutes looking. Nuthin.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
"What exactly will your sham marriage be adding to American society?"

First of all it wouldn't be a "sham" marriage.

Second, I contribute to society even without marriage. I just want the same rights/privledges that a hetero couple gets. Basically, I work and pay taxes, so I should get the same benefits.

Third, I contribute to my family. My neices and nephew will get a nice college stipend from their gay uncle.

Fourth, the corporation I work for, makes quite a bit of $$$ from my efforts.

Fifth, volunteer work outside of the gay community.

Selfish? No, I contribute to my family and society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not one item on point, all emotional crap and off topic. Care to try again? Try to come up with one.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What exactly will your sham marriage be adding to American society?


[/ QUOTE ]
Equality or non-discrimination on the basis of sexuality!

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a right, as far as I know.

I expect better from y'all. Well, really, I don't. In fact I expect just about the level of nonsense you provide.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
Plus, you never know, maybe they will invent some sort of crazy, awesome, kinky sex thing that we can all learn about and enjoy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. After doing there level best to spread AIDS we're owed a little something.

P.S. Just say no to gerbils and poppers.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What exactly will your sham marriage be adding to American society?


[/ QUOTE ]
Equality or non-discrimination on the basis of sexuality!

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a right, as far as I know.

I expect better from y'all. Well, really, I don't. In fact I expect just about the level of nonsense you provide.

[/ QUOTE ]
With medical technology progress nicely everyone will able to live as they wish and still participate in your breeding program.

Relax

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Plus, you never know, maybe they will invent some sort of crazy, awesome, kinky sex thing that we can all learn about and enjoy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. After doing there level best to spread AIDS we're owed a little something.

P.S. Just say no to gerbils and poppers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel the same way about gonorrhea and chlamydia. No one I hate more than stupid soldiers. Soldiers and gays, I hope they burn in hell, right FlFishOn? Yer with me, right man?

Quick, start yelling at us for being brainwashed by the establishment!! There's still time!!

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Plus, you never know, maybe they will invent some sort of crazy, awesome, kinky sex thing that we can all learn about and enjoy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. After doing there level best to spread AIDS we're owed a little something.

P.S. Just say no to gerbils and poppers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel the same way about gonorrhea and chlamydia. No one I hate more than stupid soldiers. Soldiers and gays, I hope they burn in hell, right FlFishOn? Yer with me, right man?

Quick, start yelling at us for being brainwashed by the establishment!! There's still time!!

[/ QUOTE ]
oh! his big on the army is he? so that's what the breeding program is for.

chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Not a right, as far as I know.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, I am starting to realise that the USA is not about Equality, Freedom and such high brow concepts, according to some (too many, imo) of its citizens.

[Peter666]

Great, an "adult society". What are we going to do with all these adults when they are old and grey and don't have families and children to take care of them? Soylent green? This is when selfish people will be rewarded for their years of imprudent pleasure.

Ironically, religion and evolution come nicely together as the only one's left to populate society are muslims and traditional Catholics, which is exactly what is happening in France today. The gay agenda is bound for self destruction.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]

Ironically, religion and evolution come nicely together as the only one's left to populate society are muslims and traditional Catholics, which is exactly what is happening in France today.

[/ QUOTE ]
No big suprise. Religon is very fit.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]

Great, an "adult society". What are we going to do with all these adults when they are old and grey and don't have families and children to take care of them? Soylent green? This is when selfish people will be rewarded for their years of imprudent pleasure.

Ironically, religion and evolution come nicely together as the only one's left to populate society are muslims and traditional Catholics, which is exactly what is happening in France today. The gay agenda is bound for self destruction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckily, with this shift to a more adult population, people are remaining far healthier later in their lives, and can continue being productive and useful members of society for far longer. Well, except for all those selfish bastards, right?

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They agree that I will not be taking anything away from them if I am allowed to "marry" my partner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Listen to how selfish that is. Won't be taking away...

What exactly will your sham marriage be adding to American society?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're the only one here sounding selfish.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
"What exactly will your sham marriage be adding to American society?"

First of all it wouldn't be a "sham" marriage.

Second, I contribute to society even without marriage. I just want the same rights/privledges that a hetero couple gets. Basically, I work and pay taxes, so I should get the same benefits.

Third, I contribute to my family. My neices and nephew will get a nice college stipend from their gay uncle.

Fourth, the corporation I work for, makes quite a bit of $$$ from my efforts.

Fifth, volunteer work outside of the gay community.

Selfish? No, I contribute to my family and society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Though I've done it myself... don't feed the bigots. He's a waste of time.

[kurto]

Actually, I do know that gays have a higher mortality rate via suicide. Though that's not attributed to being gay so much as the stress and unhappiness of living in a society of ignorant bigots like Fish.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I do know that gays have a higher mortality rate via suicide. Though that's not attributed to being gay so much as the stress and unhappiness of living in a society of ignorant bigots like Fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Adolescent suicide, for sure, and I will assume you are right for suicide in general. I was waiting to bring that up, actually. I was planning to say something along the lines of "I think you do your part in shortening the average life of homosexuals, FlFishOn." But he took an unanticipated turn and just admitted that he had no statistics and was talking out of his ass.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
There was a time when, if your occupation was florist or hairdresser AND you were male, life insurance was not available.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because there are no heterosexual florists or hairdressers, ha! Oh, and don't forget grade school teachers... if your kid's first grade teacher is a man, pull him or her out of that school immediately. They might catch the Gay.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I do know that gays have a higher mortality rate via suicide. Though that's not attributed to being gay so much as the stress and unhappiness of living in a society of ignorant bigots like Fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Adolescent suicide, for sure, and I will assume you are right for suicide in general. I was waiting to bring that up, actually. I was planning to say something along the lines of "I think you do your part in shortening the average life of homosexuals, FlFishOn." But he took an unanticipated turn and just admitted that he had no statistics and was talking out of his ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the countless posts I've read by him, I didn't really expect anymore. Of course even if there were statistics, they would do nothing to show why gays shouldn't marry... if anything, one could argue that it would show why they SHOULD be allowed to marry since studies have shown that married men typically live longer then those who are not.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's all I know. Insurance companies do know. There was a time when, if your occupation was florist or hairdresser AND you were male, life insurance was not available.

Hard #s? I don't have 'em. I don't need 'em. A guess? Gay males live 5-10 years less than str8s.

[/ QUOTE ]

"There was a time"? Yes, you are probably right. Certainly, during the eighties and early nineties, at the height of the AIDS epidemic, this was probably the case. Is it the case now? I would strongly doubt it. I mean, I'm not going to argue that there is a slightly higher incidence of AIDS in homosexual populations. Thats probably the case. But with the treatments for AIDS these days, and the relatively low incidence nationwide, I cant see this having that significant of an impact on overall life expectancy. If you honestly think that its even CLOSE to ten years, you are insane. There aren't any first-world countries that have a life expectancy ten years shorter than ours in the US. Even poor, black people living in DC's 8th District, one of the worst places in the US health-wise, aren't TEN YEARS shorter than the national average.

The fact that you "don't have 'em, don't need 'em" doesn't surprise me. Nor does the fact that your recollection of your anecdotal experience so closely matches your preconceptions. Wouldn't you rather actually know, rather than just assume? It doesn't bother you that you might be GROSSLY inaccurate on this issue, which seems to be pretty central to your opinion on homosexuality?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are clearly willing to argue out of ignorance but unlike myself you lack the perspective of dozens of years? You make your case based only on what you wish to be true, typical of the child or liberal.

[ QUOTE ]
Even poor, black people living in DC's 8th District, one of the worst places in the US health-wise, aren't TEN YEARS shorter than the national average.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know so little, I fear for the state of education in America. Black male life expectancy, just average blacks, is ~7 years less than whites. Add aggravating factors and it might be 15 years in some cohorts.

[FlFishOn]

One summary on gay life expectancylink (http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499)

[MidGe]

From your link:

From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US2 and Finland3 to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
From your link:

From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US2 and Finland3 to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you even bother to post this? It does not impeach the facts. It's juvenile bomb throwing, something right at your level.

[MidGe]

If restricting human rights is better than promoting health and well being, I guess, it is clear which level you come from, juvenile or not!

PS: You brought the link in! You want to be selective about what it contains?

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
... if anything, one could argue that it would show why they SHOULD be allowed to marry since studies have shown that married men typically live longer then those who are not.


[/ QUOTE ]

Kinda like the guy who heard that 95% of accidents occur within 5 miles of home and so he moved.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Kinda like the guy who heard that 95% of accidents occur within 5 miles of home and so he moved.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the type of FlFishOn argument, dude. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
That's the type of FlFishOn argument, dude.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arguing the normal way doesn't seem to get anywhere with you guys since you're obviously interested in something other than reaching a compromise, greater understanding, or any other positive result of normal adult debate.

Y'all assume we have certain emotions like fear or disgust, and that if we don't mention it we're just sugar-coating, beating around the bush or whatever. With that attitude it's hard to make progress IMO.

One area of possible compromise (the best IMO) is to get the state out of the marriage business altogether. It's been mentioned at least 3 times in this thread yet no one on the pro gay side has addressed it directly. Is it because it represents a POSITIVE step towards possible reconciliation maybe!?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's the type of FlFishOn argument, dude.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arguing the normal way doesn't seem to get anywhere with you guys since you're obviously interested in something other than reaching a compromise, greater understanding, or any other positive result of normal adult debate.

Y'all assume we have certain emotions like fear or disgust, and that if we don't mention it we're just sugar-coating, beating around the bush or whatever. With that attitude it's hard to make progress IMO.

One area of possible compromise (the best IMO) is to get the state out of the marriage business altogether. It's been mentioned at least 3 times in this thread yet no one on the pro gay side has addressed it directly. Is it because it represents a POSITIVE step towards possible reconciliation maybe!?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that's unfair. Fishys posts are filled with nothing but unpleasentness, hate and fear - there nthing to reach a compromise with.

Your idea of seperating marriage from state has been suggested and endorsed by several of us. Contracts between consenting adults should have legal status regarding next of kin, medical decisions etc etc. Marriage can be left for religon.

chez

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that's unfair. Fishys posts are filled with nothing but unpleasentness, hate and fear - there nthing to reach a compromise with.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK you have a point. Although I think it's better to ask him if he has hate or fear rather than just assume it. He can't bite through the internet after all.

[ QUOTE ]
Your idea of seperating marriage from state has been suggested and endorsed by several of us. Contracts between consenting adults should have legal status regarding next of kin, medical decisions etc etc. Marriage can be left for religon.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well then case closed as far as I'm concerned. We can wait for another issue to arise before going to war with one another /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that's unfair. Fishys posts are filled with nothing but unpleasentness, hate and fear - there nthing to reach a compromise with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to suffer a shudder when I see 'compromise' in areas of truth/knowledge. I realize this has slipped into the political realm which is all about compromise and maneuvering for position, but I think there's enough 'search for the truth' element left in it to maintain a take-no-prisoners approach about the nature of homosexuality in humans.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that's unfair. Fishys posts are filled with nothing but unpleasentness, hate and fear - there nthing to reach a compromise with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to suffer a shudder when I see 'compromise' in areas of truth/knowledge. I realize this has slipped into the political realm which is all about compromise and maneuvering for position, but I think there's enough 'search for the truth' element left in it to maintain a take-no-prisoners approach about the nature of homosexuality in humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

The root is found in moral relativism, the idea the there really are no absolutes with respect to right and wrong. US college education is a study in the justification of all things normal and perverted. In fact, nothing is perverted anymore.

I'm not buying it. Mark me down as against gerbils and poppers on a fundamental, hopelessly perverted level.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The root is found in moral relativism, the idea the there really are no absolutes with respect to right and wrong. US college education is a study in the justification of all things normal and perverted. In fact, nothing is perverted anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need more crayons. Black and white is so depressing.

I realize the condition is caused by confusing 'no absolute morality' with 'no morality'.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not buying it. Mark me down as against gerbils and poppers on a fundamental, hopelessly perverted level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I've marked you down much lower than that :-) that's the advantage of relativistic morality ... there are lots of shelves.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
I realize the condition is caused by confusing 'no absolute morality' with 'no morality'.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not so confusing. There's a well worn path found throughout all human history connecting these two.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... if anything, one could argue that it would show why they SHOULD be allowed to marry since studies have shown that married men typically live longer then those who are not.


[/ QUOTE ]

Kinda like the guy who heard that 95% of accidents occur within 5 miles of home and so he moved.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny. Though I don't know if you intended to it to analogous. There are health benefits to marriage.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I realize the condition is caused by confusing 'no absolute morality' with 'no morality'.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not so confusing. There's a well worn path found throughout all human history connecting these two.

[/ QUOTE ]
just one path? sigh

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
From your link:

From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US2 and Finland3 to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's hilarious. Its like FlFish picked out a link that refers to himself.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
That's funny. Though I don't know if you intended to it to analogous. There are health benefits to marriage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did mean it to be analogous although I realize it's not 100% on the mark (maybe 95% though). The implication is that having a piece of paper saying you're married doesn't really change how you actually live, so it won't affect your mortality to any significant extent.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From your link:

From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US2 and Finland3 to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's hilarious. Its like FlFish picked out a link that refers to himself.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not surprising. Intellectual bigotry against people who hold differing opinions is necessary for people in the public eye. It's a sad state of affairs, and says far more about the gay defenders than the "bigots".

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
I realize this has slipped into the political realm which is all about compromise and maneuvering for position, but I think there's enough 'search for the truth' element left in it to maintain a take-no-prisoners approach about the nature of homosexuality in humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be possible if it could be agreed that there is one truth applicable to everyone rather than different truths for different people.

Without that agreement, the discussion would need to start at a much more fundamental level before it gets into the level of detail we're discussing here.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I realize the condition is caused by confusing 'no absolute morality' with 'no morality'.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not so confusing. There's a well worn path found throughout all human history connecting these two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh... Not really. Abrahamic absolutism is the exception, not the rule. And yes, I know you're "secular," that doesn't change the fact you're taking an Abrahamic position.

[kurto]

I think marriage is more then a piece of paper. Certainly there are gay couples living together. But, as a person who is married, there are many benefits to being married. The gay couples lives would be better if they received the same benefits of marriage as I.

I don't think its too hard to imagine that whatever benefits conservatives think marriage has for heterosexual couples would also be a benefit for homosexual couples.

Is it so hard to imagine that, in a society where a gay couple is allowed to marry, that they too would receive the health benefits that heterosexual men who are married reportedly have?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
That would be possible if it could be agreed that there is one truth applicable to everyone rather than different truths for different people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm from the school of thought that believes that whatever the truth is a) it exists b) it's very, very unlikely to be halfway between to opposing positions.
( no claim that any supported position reflects reality, the odds are often long against that also).

As an aside, what is the difference between different truths for different people and no truth? ( you should zig over to the postmodernist thread and make a case for it there, it's taking quite a beating so far).

[vhawk01]

You guys are attacking FlFishOn needlessly. His link, that I asked him to provide, does quite a nice job of proving exactly MY point. Here, read this from the link:

"In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996."

Thats exactly what I was saying. The statistics he chooses to believe in, that "In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men." was true, in Vancouver, in the late '80's. It is certainly not true any longer.

Thanks for the link, FlFishOn.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
I think marriage is more then a piece of paper. Certainly there are gay couples living together. But, as a person who is married, there are many benefits to being married. The gay couples lives would be better if they received the same benefits of marriage as I.

I don't think its too hard to imagine that whatever benefits conservatives think marriage has for heterosexual couples would also be a benefit for homosexual couples.

Is it so hard to imagine that, in a society where a gay couple is allowed to marry, that they too would receive the health benefits that heterosexual men who are married reportedly have?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm perfectly OK with equal footing on benefits as well as scrapping the whole state-sponsored marriage concept itself. I view the piece of paper from the state as little more than a piece of paper, and that would apply to straights and gays equally if it were legalized for gays.

The joke/analogy was about how marriage affects mortality. You say marriage includes health benefits, which is a factor that lowers mortality. My position is that people will get important treatment they need somehow, even if they have to pay more for it, rather than forego the treatment altogether. So it's not a matter of who gets more medical care, but rather who gets it at a better price IMO.

Again, I'm not saying gays shouldn't get it at the same price as straights (all else being equal). What I am saying is that I don't think a given person will have significantly lower mortality just by getting a state marriage certificate (gay or straight).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's all I know. Insurance companies do know. There was a time when, if your occupation was florist or hairdresser AND you were male, life insurance was not available.

Hard #s? I don't have 'em. I don't need 'em. A guess? Gay males live 5-10 years less than str8s.

[/ QUOTE ]

"There was a time"? Yes, you are probably right. Certainly, during the eighties and early nineties, at the height of the AIDS epidemic, this was probably the case. Is it the case now? I would strongly doubt it. I mean, I'm not going to argue that there is a slightly higher incidence of AIDS in homosexual populations. Thats probably the case. But with the treatments for AIDS these days, and the relatively low incidence nationwide, I cant see this having that significant of an impact on overall life expectancy. If you honestly think that its even CLOSE to ten years, you are insane. There aren't any first-world countries that have a life expectancy ten years shorter than ours in the US. Even poor, black people living in DC's 8th District, one of the worst places in the US health-wise, aren't TEN YEARS shorter than the national average.

The fact that you "don't have 'em, don't need 'em" doesn't surprise me. Nor does the fact that your recollection of your anecdotal experience so closely matches your preconceptions. Wouldn't you rather actually know, rather than just assume? It doesn't bother you that you might be GROSSLY inaccurate on this issue, which seems to be pretty central to your opinion on homosexuality?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are clearly willing to argue out of ignorance but unlike myself you lack the perspective of dozens of years? You make your case based only on what you wish to be true, typical of the child or liberal.

[ QUOTE ]
Even poor, black people living in DC's 8th District, one of the worst places in the US health-wise, aren't TEN YEARS shorter than the national average.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know so little, I fear for the state of education in America. Black male life expectancy, just average blacks, is ~7 years less than whites. Add aggravating factors and it might be 15 years in some cohorts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't tell me what I know about my city and its health statistics, thank you. Since you decided to impeach me, here are my data, from a 2002 report by the State Center for Health Statistics Administration, a part of the DC DoH.

Average life expectancy in DC: 68
Average life expectancy of male in DC: 62
Average life expectancy of AA in DC: 64.4
Average life expectancy of AA male in DC: 57.5.

Thats about a 4 year difference from the overall average. Far less than the 15 you seem to imply, but maybe this is what you were referring to:

Average life expectancy of white in DC: 76.1
Average life expectancy of white male in DC: 71.4

Here it is around a 14 year difference, more what you were talking about. So, yes, compared to one specific priveledged group, that has higher health statistics across the board, there is a larger gap. But I hardly think thats a fair comparison.

Either way, there is no way that homosexual males are even close to as much of a underserved and at-risk group as the AA population in DC. I chose this group expressly for the reason that they are, in my recollection, one of the absolute worst groups (health-stat-wise) in the whole US. Almost no other major groups will have health stats anywhere near this bad.

[vhawk01]

Oh, and the overall number, for just the US, is that blacks live to be 72.7, whereas average is 77.5 and whites are 78.0. Thats more like 5 years than 7, but I suppose close enough for government work, right? For males its 69.0/75.3/74.8, so again closer to 6 yrs than 7.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and the overall number, for just the US, is that blacks live to be 72.7, whereas average is 77.5 and whites are 78.0. Thats more like 5 years than 7, but I suppose close enough for government work, right? For males its 69.0/75.3/74.8, so again closer to 6 yrs than 7.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why bother to post this? A waste to write and to read.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's all I know. Insurance companies do know. There was a time when, if your occupation was florist or hairdresser AND you were male, life insurance was not available.

Hard #s? I don't have 'em. I don't need 'em. A guess? Gay males live 5-10 years less than str8s.

[/ QUOTE ]

"There was a time"? Yes, you are probably right. Certainly, during the eighties and early nineties, at the height of the AIDS epidemic, this was probably the case. Is it the case now? I would strongly doubt it. I mean, I'm not going to argue that there is a slightly higher incidence of AIDS in homosexual populations. Thats probably the case. But with the treatments for AIDS these days, and the relatively low incidence nationwide, I cant see this having that significant of an impact on overall life expectancy. If you honestly think that its even CLOSE to ten years, you are insane. There aren't any first-world countries that have a life expectancy ten years shorter than ours in the US. Even poor, black people living in DC's 8th District, one of the worst places in the US health-wise, aren't TEN YEARS shorter than the national average.

The fact that you "don't have 'em, don't need 'em" doesn't surprise me. Nor does the fact that your recollection of your anecdotal experience so closely matches your preconceptions. Wouldn't you rather actually know, rather than just assume? It doesn't bother you that you might be GROSSLY inaccurate on this issue, which seems to be pretty central to your opinion on homosexuality?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are clearly willing to argue out of ignorance but unlike myself you lack the perspective of dozens of years? You make your case based only on what you wish to be true, typical of the child or liberal.

[ QUOTE ]
Even poor, black people living in DC's 8th District, one of the worst places in the US health-wise, aren't TEN YEARS shorter than the national average.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know so little, I fear for the state of education in America. Black male life expectancy, just average blacks, is ~7 years less than whites. Add aggravating factors and it might be 15 years in some cohorts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't tell me what I know about my city and its health statistics, thank you. Since you decided to impeach me, here are my data, from a 2002 report by the State Center for Health Statistics Administration, a part of the DC DoH.

Average life expectancy in DC: 68
Average life expectancy of male in DC: 62
Average life expectancy of AA in DC: 64.4
Average life expectancy of AA male in DC: 57.5.

Thats about a 4 year difference from the overall average. Far less than the 15 you seem to imply, but maybe this is what you were referring to:

Average life expectancy of white in DC: 76.1
Average life expectancy of white male in DC: 71.4

Here it is around a 14 year difference, more what you were talking about. So, yes, compared to one specific priveledged group, that has higher health statistics across the board, there is a larger gap. But I hardly think thats a fair comparison.

Either way, there is no way that homosexual males are even close to as much of a underserved and at-risk group as the AA population in DC. I chose this group expressly for the reason that they are, in my recollection, one of the absolute worst groups (health-stat-wise) in the whole US. Almost no other major groups will have health stats anywhere near this bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Help me out here. You found a cohort that has 14+ years less life expectancy AND this is exactly what I suggested AND I'm outta line. WTF? Grow up.

Your 4 year difference is a fraud. Do you see why? I'd be very surprised if you did.

[vhawk01]

Because its comparing the average in DC, which has a high number of African Americans, which 'bring down' the average? Perhaps you are right, but it is equally unfair to compare the African American life expectancy in DC to the national average. It is better to compare it to the non-black average in DC, but I didnt have those numbers. I gave you the white numbers. Its unfair to compare to the national average because there may (are) contributing factors that are specific to the location. Comparing them to farmers in Iowa, white or otherwise, is misleading and practically useless. People living in cities have far different health profiles than those in more rural environs.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and the overall number, for just the US, is that blacks live to be 72.7, whereas average is 77.5 and whites are 78.0. Thats more like 5 years than 7, but I suppose close enough for government work, right? For males its 69.0/75.3/74.8, so again closer to 6 yrs than 7.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why bother to post this? A waste to write and to read.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it doesn't hurt to have the actual numbers? It was posted in support of your ~7 years figure. You see, when you randomly spout off numbers and figures on here, most people tend to completely dismiss them as made-up or horribly out of date (as per your link on homosexual mortality). I just wanted it to be clear that your numbers were relatively accurate on this one, single subject.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Arguing the normal way doesn't seem to get anywhere with you guys since you're obviously interested in something other than reaching a compromise, greater understanding, or any other positive result of normal adult debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the reason it is hard to find common ground on this issue, is because we obviously see it as fundamentally different. Some of us see gay people as normal human beings who happen to have been born with a sexual orientation that puts them in the statistical minority. We do not see them as abnormal, or perverted, or in any way defective as human beings. That is why we feel they deserve the same rights as the rest of us - including the right not to be discriminated against. Saying you'll "allow" gays certain types of legal protections, but not the full institution of marriage like everyone else, is discrimination, at least in my view, and it's no different than racial discrimination.

Others do see gays as defective, obviously. And FFish's statement about their "sham marriages", or that gays have done "their level best" to spread AIDS to the world pretty much shows why it's hard to debate the issue of equal rights rationally with people who are bigoted.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm from the school of thought that believes that whatever the truth is a) it exists b) it's very, very unlikely to be halfway between to opposing positions.


[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. Although I do like to seek compromise in discussions usually because it creates a more lively, focused and open discussion, thus giving me more info. which helps in my quest for ultimate truth.

[ QUOTE ]
As an aside, what is the difference between different truths for different people and no truth? ( you should zig over to the postmodernist thread and make a case for it there, it's taking quite a beating so far).

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you assuming I'm on the side of moral relativism? If so, you haven't read many of my posts. If not, then I don't see what you mean here. I see mainly anti-postmodernism sentiment in that thread, which is pretty much my position as well.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
And FFish's statement about their "sham marriages", or that gays have done "their level best" to spread AIDS to the world...

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate what gays are doing to America. I own that.

They have also, throught their action, excerbated the spread of AIDS. Here's how. In the early years of the disease they fought every possible battle to keep the SF bath houses open. But far worse, in order to generate broad based support for AIDS funding, they implemented a fraudulent PR effort to make AIDS a str8 disease. It clearly was not, in AMerica, a str8 disease and much effort was misdirected, allowing the disease to spread. For this I hate them. It was an epidemiological fraud writ large.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think marriage is more then a piece of paper. Certainly there are gay couples living together. But, as a person who is married, there are many benefits to being married. The gay couples lives would be better if they received the same benefits of marriage as I.

I don't think its too hard to imagine that whatever benefits conservatives think marriage has for heterosexual couples would also be a benefit for homosexual couples.

Is it so hard to imagine that, in a society where a gay couple is allowed to marry, that they too would receive the health benefits that heterosexual men who are married reportedly have?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm perfectly OK with equal footing on benefits as well as scrapping the whole state-sponsored marriage concept itself. I view the piece of paper from the state as little more than a piece of paper, and that would apply to straights and gays equally if it were legalized for gays.

The joke/analogy was about how marriage affects mortality. You say marriage includes health benefits, which is a factor that lowers mortality. My position is that people will get important treatment they need somehow, even if they have to pay more for it, rather than forego the treatment altogether. So it's not a matter of who gets more medical care, but rather who gets it at a better price IMO.

Again, I'm not saying gays shouldn't get it at the same price as straights (all else being equal). What I am saying is that I don't think a given person will have significantly lower mortality just by getting a state marriage certificate (gay or straight).

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing in terms of health benefits; I actually wasn't referring to the legal medical benefits. I'm talking about the fact that married men live longer then single men because they are actually happier, have less stress, receive psychological support, happier, etc.

Though this stuff sounds 'wishy washy', its documented that the emotional benefits from marriage carry on to physical benefits. Add in all the benefits from the legal end as the icing on the cake.

Regarding getting the govt. out: I'm torn. I think we as a society like the govt side of it, which amounts to all the legal parts we all agree are good and should be shared. We have all of those benefits (and responsibilities) codified by law in something we call "Marriage."

IMO- Its the religion part of marriage that is causing all of the problems. As far as the govt is concerned (that is until Bush & like minded politicians got involved)... the religious aspect is arbitrary and unnecessary. And, whether or not gays can marry, would not effect them. If Gays can marry, a Catholic Church would not have to marry gays.

Currently the government has NO say in marriages in terms of religion. As it should be.

For some reason, people are getting hung up on the term 'marriage.' As far as the law is concerned, "marriage" is simply the legal term for the union which allows all those benefits and responsibilities that a lot of people are saying gays should have. I think some people are having semantics issues.

[ QUOTE ]
What I am saying is that I don't think a given person will have significantly lower mortality just by getting a state marriage certificate (gay or straight).

[/ QUOTE ] If you're very literal, I think you are correct. I am merely saying that 'marriage' as the term for life-partners, apparently bestows health benefits for those who do it. The reason I originally brought this up is because Fish was trying to point out that the Homosexual lifestyle meant a shorter lifespan. If he was concerned about their health (which, is pretty unlikely if you read his bile) then he should embrace homosexuals being allowed to marry since promoting the benefits of marriage to them could, theorectically, increase their lifespan.

Anyhoo... enough of that. It was nice chatting with you.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]


Why bother to post this? A waste to write and to read.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the most ironic thing you've posted yet.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From your link:

From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US2 and Finland3 to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's hilarious. Its like FlFish picked out a link that refers to himself.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not surprising. Intellectual bigotry against people who hold differing opinions is necessary for people in the public eye. It's a sad state of affairs, and says far more about the gay defenders than the "bigots".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm either dense or what you're saying isn't clear. (perhaps a little of both?) I think it would help if you specified exactly what constitutes 'intellectual bigotry' and how you see it manifesting itself.

If refuting ignorance, dishonesty and prejudice is 'a sad state of affairs' then perhaps we should strive to be as sad as possible.

[Phil153]

Anyone who criticizes homosexuality as a lifestyle choice is labelled a "homophobe" or bigot. Homophobe in particular is a loaded term and is as close to an ad hominem strawman as you'll ever get. I have no fear nor a particular revulsion toward gays - I put them on par with vomit fetishists or BDSM practitioners. Clearly something at some point has [censored] up the wiring in their brain, either through genes, prenatal hormone levels, stunted psychosexual development or personal choices. This doesn't make them less as people or less deserving of rights under the law.

My only interest in this discussion is to keep this perverted behavior out of the mainstream so that less bi curious teens will pick up the unhealthy habit of buttsexing another man.

[FlFishOn]

I assume you are aware of the irony in your choice of avatar.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who criticizes homosexuality as a lifestyle choice is labelled a "homophobe" or bigot. Homophobe in particular is a loaded term and is as close to an ad hominem strawman as you'll ever get. I have no fear nor a particular revulsion toward gays - I put them on par with vomit fetishists or BDSM practitioners. Clearly something at some point has [censored] up the wiring in their brain, either through genes, prenatal hormone levels, stunted psychosexual development or personal choices. This doesn't make them less as people or less deserving of rights under the law.

My only interest in this discussion is to keep this perverted behavior out of the mainstream so that less bi curious teens will pick up the unhealthy habit of buttsexing another man.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone questioning the gay lifestyle is a bigot or a homophobe. There is a difference between "questioning" something and being judgemental or hateful or trying to repressive a group simply because you don't agree with their lifestyle choices.

Also, many of the people who criticize gays make illogical or erroneous statements which they use to reinforce their dislike of the group. Most of the arguments, for instance, against allowing gays to marry don't make any sense. The arguments are very similar to arguments used years ago which felt threatened by the idea of a white woman marrying a black person. There was no logic, it was entirely based in racial bigotry.

As to your arguments-- You say 'clearly' that something has #*#*@! up their wiring... considering the homosexuality has been consistant not only in humans but also throughout the natural kingdom (not to mention every variation of sexuality from asexuality to species that have both sexes, etc.), that there's ample evidence that you're wrong. homosexuality is quite normal.

[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't make them less as people or less deserving of rights under the law.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we certainly agree here. And that really is the basis of the whole thread. And really the entire thrust of all the tangents this thread has taken all comes back to this... that regardless of one's views on the gay community, they deserve the same rights as everyone else. (contrary to what it appears FlFish has been arguing throughout)

[ QUOTE ]
My only interest in this discussion is to keep this perverted behavior out of the mainstream so that less bi curious teens will pick up the unhealthy habit of buttsexing another man.

[/ QUOTE ] I really don't think it being in the mainstream really changes that much. Even when society has had zero tolerance for homosexual behaviour, it happened. And if you have no interest in doing it, I don't think seeing it around you is going to change that. I've had gay friends, co-workers, etc for 20 years and never once has being exposed to them made me why to 'try' things out. Either you're interested or you're not.

On a related note...'buttsex' is far from limited to the gay community. I remember last year being the only guy in a conversation with a group of 4 women talking about their experiences with (and one's particular love) for anal-sex. Whether or not gays can marry (or even if they cease to exist) would not make that practice disappear.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who criticizes homosexuality as a lifestyle choice is labelled a "homophobe" or bigot. Homophobe in particular is a loaded term and is as close to an ad hominem strawman as you'll ever get. I have no fear nor a particular revulsion toward gays - I put them on par with vomit fetishists or BDSM practitioners. Clearly something at some point has [censored] up the wiring in their brain, either through genes, prenatal hormone levels, stunted psychosexual development or personal choices. This doesn't make them less as people or less deserving of rights under the law.

My only interest in this discussion is to keep this perverted behavior out of the mainstream so that less bi curious teens will pick up the unhealthy habit of buttsexing another man.

[/ QUOTE ]
You claim in very degoratory terms that homsexuality is perverted. You have backed this up with no rational argument, rather you find the idea revolting and believe that if you find something revolting then anyone who does such a thing is perverted.

When I call you a homophobe (which I do) that's all I mean.

chez

[JackOfSpeed]

[ QUOTE ]
I wish we could all put gay marriage behind us so that we can start to focus on what is really corrupting society - interracial marriage.

[/ QUOTE ]

[JackOfSpeed]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who criticizes homosexuality as a lifestyle choice is labelled a "homophobe" or bigot. Homophobe in particular is a loaded term and is as close to an ad hominem strawman as you'll ever get. I have no fear nor a particular revulsion toward gays - I put them on par with vomit fetishists or BDSM practitioners. Clearly something at some point has [censored] up the wiring in their brain, either through genes, prenatal hormone levels, stunted psychosexual development or personal choices. This doesn't make them less as people or less deserving of rights under the law.

My only interest in this discussion is to keep this perverted behavior out of the mainstream so that less bi curious teens will pick up the unhealthy habit of buttsexing another man.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think society's (relative) increase in the tolerance of homosexuality over the last twenty years has led to an increase in the incidence of homosexuality (your last sentence suggests that you would think this)? If so, your understanding goes against the research done on this subject, and you need to do your homework before continuing to participate in this thread. If you don't think that, then you are being disingenous for your reasons about wanting to prevent gay marriages.

[Youre A Towel]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who criticizes homosexuality as a lifestyle choice is labelled a "homophobe" or bigot. Homophobe in particular is a loaded term and is as close to an ad hominem strawman as you'll ever get. I have no fear nor a particular revulsion toward gays - I put them on par with vomit fetishists or BDSM practitioners. Clearly something at some point has [censored] up the wiring in their brain, either through genes, prenatal hormone levels, stunted psychosexual development or personal choices. This doesn't make them less as people or less deserving of rights under the law.

My only interest in this discussion is to keep this perverted behavior out of the mainstream so that less bi curious teens will pick up the unhealthy habit of buttsexing another man.

[/ QUOTE ]

You contend "buttsexing another man" is "unhealthy." I can only imagine that you feel that you feel the same way about "buttsexing a woman" (if not, please explain your reasoning why one is unhealthy and the other is not).

There are a far greater number of heterosexual couples than homosexual companies in this country. Studies have shown that well over 25% of such couples have engaged in "buttsexing" each other, so undoubtedly the overwhelming majority of "buttsexing" incidents occur in heterosexual relationships. Stopping gay marriage won't be enough to advance your "only interest in this discussion," then! Cameras in the bedroom, perhaps? /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[Phil153]

Society in general has become far more tolerant of homosexual behavior. I agree that few people are going to become a lifelong gay as a result of community acceptance. But bisexual behavior is EXTREMELY dangerous in spreading disease to the heterosexual population (e.g. AIDS) and also weakens ordinary heterosexual relationships and blurs the boundaries of normality. I don't have hard data but from what I've seen there is more practice and acceptance of bisexuality in men today, especially among minorities and people from low socioeconomic backgrounds.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
You contend "buttsexing another man" is "unhealthy."

[/ QUOTE ]
It's an extremely unhealthy, extremely high risk behavior, and is the sole reason that HIV-AIDS exists in the world today. I agree that heterosexual couples do this also, but the risk factors associated with gay behavior are far higher, due to the culture of barebacking and having anal sex with multiple partners. Bisexuals are still a major source of disease transmission to the heterosexual community.

[ QUOTE ]
Stopping gay marriage won't be enough to advance your "only interest in this discussion," then! Cameras in the bedroom, perhaps?

[/ QUOTE ]
I consider homosexuality to be a mental sickness which weakens personal and social boundaries. I am against social acceptance in the same way as I'm against acceptance of scat porn, vomit fetishes and BDSM. Children and teenagers should be protected from these illnesses for as long as possible.

And yes, I'd like to see more people educated about the dangers of anal sex.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
But bisexual behavior is EXTREMELY dangerous in spreading disease to the heterosexual population (e.g. AIDS)

[/ QUOTE ]

AIDS never was an exclusively gay disease (even though it was thought so back in the early eighties). The current distribution of AIDS among males and females kind of renders sexual orientation irrelevent in terms of threat. Promiscuity, on the other hand, actually is a threat.

[ QUOTE ]
and also weakens ordinary heterosexual relationships

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't.

[ QUOTE ]
and blurs the boundaries of normality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
buttsexing another man ... is the sole reason that HIV-AIDS exists in the world today.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have no credibility when you make statements like that, unfounded in facts. This is pure bigotry, a behaviour that is far more dangerous to society than anal sex, imo.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
And yes, I'd like to see more people educated about the dangers of anal sex.



[/ QUOTE ]

How about if a health and welfare orginazation instructed gay men on the joy's and benefits of anal lingus versus the danger of unprotected anal sex. Would this satisfy your education requirements?

edit: my friend ran a gay establisment in Alaska, and Health and Welfare, actually provided him with posters that said: consider licking his ass, instead of [censored] his ass.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But bisexual behavior is EXTREMELY dangerous in spreading disease to the heterosexual population (e.g. AIDS)

[/ QUOTE ]

AIDS never was an exclusively gay disease (even though it was thought so back in the early eighties). The current distribution of AIDS among males and females kind of renders sexual orientation irrelevent in terms of threat. Promiscuity, on the other hand, actually is a threat.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is wrong. Bareback anal sex among gays was the sole cause of the spread of AIDS. The infection rate among heterosexuals was not sufficient to spread the disease until a critical mass of infections was reached after many years of gay activity.

I'll post some extremely damning data from the CDC when I get home. Homosexuals continue to be the leading cause (by far) of AIDS transmission, despite being a tiny proportion of the population. This is because buttsex is 200-1000 times more likely to result in infection than heterosexual sex.

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it a fact in our society that some children comes from homes with 2 daddies, some from homes with two mommies,

[/ QUOTE ]

WHile it is a fact, it is a tiny percentage, and the bulk of America still sees it as deviant. That used to be enough for the left educators to leave it alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

woo hoo - another victory for mob rule.
rb

[KeysrSoze]

Man, you'd think the way Phil's going on that gay marriage is worse that marrying a colored.

[JackOfSpeed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it a fact in our society that some children comes from homes with 2 daddies, some from homes with two mommies,

[/ QUOTE ]

WHile it is a fact, it is a tiny percentage, and the bulk of America still sees it as deviant. That used to be enough for the left educators to leave it alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

woo hoo - another victory for mob rule.
rb

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I could be wrong about this, but doesn't the bulk of America see online gambling as deviant? Just because the majority is uncomfortable with some behavior doesn't mean we should attempt to prevent that behavior at all costs. Tyranny of the majority sucks when it takes away the rights of the minority.

And I don't think it's worth engaging Phil any more on this, he has fully revealed the disingenuity in his stance over his last several posts. If he was truly interested in a grander social cause like preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS, he would be advocating for safe sex, not advocating AGAINST a policy which encourages healthy, monogamous relationships. The paradox is that the further homosexuals are pushed back into the closet, the more promiscuous they will be (as they can't be in consistent, stable relationships for fear of the social stigma, but no public policy will fully repress basic sexual urges) and the more anonymous their sexual partners will be (this is a terrible problem for the spread of STDs like AIDS obv.).

[GreekHouse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And FFish's statement about their "sham marriages", or that gays have done "their level best" to spread AIDS to the world...

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate what gays are doing to America. I own that.

They have also, throught their action, excerbated the spread of AIDS. Here's how. In the early years of the disease they fought every possible battle to keep the SF bath houses open. But far worse, in order to generate broad based support for AIDS funding, they implemented a fraudulent PR effort to make AIDS a str8 disease. It clearly was not, in AMerica, a str8 disease and much effort was misdirected, allowing the disease to spread. For this I hate them. It was an epidemiological fraud writ large.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you hate Muslims? What about Germans? What about people from Salem?

People from each of these groups have done this way worse than spreading AIDS. But of course, it wasn't the entire group in any of the cases. This post is just an example of completely irrational bigotry.

[Schmitty 87]

Completely agree with OP (and others expressing similar sentiments). The amount of churches preaching blatant hatred at people for expressing their natural desires is sickening.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
False. SOciety ends up with many fewer functional nuclear families, a requisite for a healthy future society. The early returns from Europe are in. Gay marriage is the begining of the end for families.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah yes, all those gay people would enter into heterosexual marriages if we didn't let them marry each other. This is just plain silly, even for you.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Teenagers coming of age are best served by seeking out monogamous, emotionally fulfilling relationships with members of the opposite sex. Decreeing other alternatives to be acceptable is bad for society and individuals in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I think the scientific jury is still out about what causes homosexuality, but I think it's pretty apparent that by pubery, sexual orientation is pretty well set. Social stigma attached to homosexual behavior doesn't, IMO, significantly reduce the number of people engaging in homosexual behavior, it just make life much more difficult for those who are homosexually oriented. The vast majority of us are wired to be attracted to the opposite sex. Evolution will insure that this will always be the case. Tolerating homosexual behavior poses no threat to society. Now if you were to replace "members of the opposite sex" in the quoted statement with "members of whatever sex they are attracted to", I would agree with it.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a perversion of the natural state of affairs, and as such it weakens the social fabric in the same way polygamy and bestiality do.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only perversion is you calling it so. It is found in all cultures and in most species.

[/ QUOTE ]
So is polygamy, beastiality and sex with underage females. But society doesn't allow those.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of societies do allow polygamy. I don't see why people are so worried about polygamy. Not that I have any desire to have more than one wife.

[CORed]

Just skimmed the article, but I would like to point out that correlation does not prove causation. Holland has implemented a whole slew of socially liberal policies in the mast few decades (most of which I agree with, BTW). To single out gay marriage as the sole cause of the increase in out-of-wedlock birhts is pretty silly

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have trouble seeing what's so wrong with these relationships.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sad indeed. Moral relativism has found purchase.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then again, maybe it's rational thought.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Although no one is likely to listen to me, I think marriage should be a purely religious sacrament, as it was originally. No government "stamp of approval" is needed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent idea.