If you bothered to read even a handful of the hundreds of posts I’ve made on this subject, you would know that I agree with every major medical and mental health organization that homosexuality is not an affliction or a mental illness, and that instead of trying to change your natural orientation, you will find peace and happiness by being true to who you are.
I like how we’ve gone down this rabbit hole, with you still failing to address my points about separation of church and state. I take it you wouldn’t like someone imposing their religious views on you through civil legislation any more than I do.
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
OBoile wrote:
super saiyan wrote:
OBoile wrote:
super saiyan wrote:
Many things we do have an effect on others whether we realize it or not. The Family Research Council has done a good job of explaining the effects of same-sex marriage on society. Here’s a link:
Yes, just like the pro-gay marriage people on this thread are biased. What’s your point? Are you saying the fact that the FRC is against gay marriage automatically makes their arguments false? Why don’t you try attacking the points they make rather than the organization?
Read my post from 12:28 pm. Pretty much refutes all of their points in a couple of sentances.
It didn’t refute anything from the link I posted. I doubt you even read the whole thing.[/quote]
Actually I did. If not for the entertainment value, it would have been a complete waste of time. The entire article consists of essentially two arguments:
Marriage is what we say it is and cannot be changed.
We speculate that gay marriages would be bad, thus they shouldn’t be allowed.
Neither argument was in any way convincing.
As per my post at 12:28… it turns out that the definition of marriage CAN indeed be changed. It also turns out that society didn’t implode.
[quote]forlife wrote:
In a nutshell, the link you posted argued that gays are incapable of being monogamous, so the benefits of marriage don’t apply to them.
Of course, it also notes that 25% of straight men cheat on their wives, but somehow that doesn’t invalidate the benefits of straight marriage.
If it comes down to monogamy, I’m assuming you support gay marriage for people that actually are monogamous, like my partner and me? [/quote]
Of note: 25% of men and 10% of women is far lower than any other statistic I’ve seen on this. Typically what I have seen is closer to 50% for each gender.
Didn’t you read it!? Having marriage for gay people will somehow make it less likely for straight people to be monogamous but ABSOLUTELY WON’T influence gay people to be more monogamous!
I have asked numerous board members how gay marriage will effect their life. None, not even thunderbolt, who you apparently have man-crush on, can give an answer. That has been my argument from the beginning. [/quote]
It isn’t a relevant question.
My neighbor down the street could marry, polygamously, his sister and his brother - and it wouldn’t affect my marriage at all.
So, should we let them marry on that basis?
Isn’t that amazing? The strength of the argument is that folks who agree with Dustin “get it”, and those who don’t “lag behind getting it”.
I wish you had produced this airtight logic earlier - would have saved me the trouble. After all, there is nothing more I aspire to than joining the enlightened club who “gets it”. Whew.
Because homosexuality (sexual preference) is not protected under the clause like race, gender, etc? I get all that but it is still discrimination, which you seem to agree apparently. These laws need to be amended.[/quote]
If you are suggesting that these laws need to be “amended”, then says nothing about its constitutionality. Both a law restricting gays form marriage and ones permitting gay marriage are both constitutional, genius. You continue to demonstrate your blinding ignorance on the topic.
[quote]Yeah, and the law use to say that adults couldn’t consume alcohol and that slaves were recognized as property and not human beings.
Great argument thunderbolt.[/quote]
And? You keep switcing back and forth - I explain the constitutionality, you start arguing for policy reasons to change the law. I start explaining policy reasons not to change the law, you start claiming that modern laws violate the constitution.
Enough backpeddling. Bottom line - traditional marriage laws are constitutional. If you want to make an argument saying the law should be changed, then make it, and stop tripping over your own idiocy and confusing the issues.
And, your argument regarding “what was discriminatory in the past that has since changed” isn’t relevant - each issue has its own independent merits. Just because some unrelated approach was changed does not mean that a separate, independent issue should also be changed. Whether or not gay marriage should be enacted rises or falls on its own merits.
Slavery is a violation of natural rights. Laws restricting marriage to a man and woman is not.
Part of voting is voting with your feet. If you haven’t matured enough to realize we live in a federal republic where different political results will result through democratic action, I can’t help you. Get back to your coloring book.
Folks already have the negative right to cohabitate how they want. What marriage provides are positive rights - entitlements. We want to keep these around as incentives to a social behavior that is a Good Thing.
Only for idiot anarchists, so it would be a win for about 12 people nationwide.
No, you tried to sound superior, and you looked like a clown doing it. We both know it.
[quote]And as for my argument, it has been consistent throughout this thread.
How does/will gay marriage effect you? [/quote]
I responded in a different post, but the question you ask isn’t threshold question for whether or not we should have gay marriage. If a man married a 9 year old girl, it wouldn’t affect my marriage at all, but we shouldn’t support marriage being extended to 9 year olds.
No, no one is answering because the answer - whichever way it goes - doesn’t inform the debate.
States most certainly have the right to define marriage as they see fit. You keep saying this, but never provide an argument. Are you up to it?
So?
But you never offer a rebuttal - if we should permit gay marriage on the basis that the state should not discriminate against consenting adult relationships, whatever they might be, what alternative consenting adult relationship doesn’t qualify for marriage?
You never say - you just muddle along, mumbling some nonsense. So, answer my question - what relationships would you, or could you, say “no” to for marriage purposes, so long as the adults were consenting?
Bigamy? Polygamy? Any kind of polyandry? Can a man marry ten wives? Can a wife marry another wife and a husband? Remember, the state can’t discriminate as long as the adults are consenting!
Burden is on you, but, to be fair, expectations are low.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
We are born and raised to like the opposite sex. It is only when something traumatizing or a man decides to become rebellious have I seen this happen.
Well just go look at all the studies on how people are not born gay. There is your proof.[/quote]
I knew that I really liked women when I was four years old and I watched “Some like it hot” with Marilyn Monroe. When she came out scantily clad I leaped from the couch and shouted “OOOOOO LAAA LAAA!!!”. My adolescent years were much easier b/c of that experience.
Unfortunately, the truth is the majority of people don’t have that moment and live with a lot of conflicting feelings on sexuality. I know this because I have information that you don’t Brother Chris, information that comes right from the mouths of people that struggle to identify their sexuality. People struggle to identify themselves because of individuals like your self that set Heterosexuality as a social standard and not a sexual preference. The notion is preposterous, I can assure you!
There are no conclusive studies that you speak of regarding Homosexuality and the ones that are out there show signs of genetic causes. Homosexuality is not an issue of choice, but simply a matter of acceptance and treating others the way we want to be treated. That’s it, the whole issue, and it’s nothing but the truth.
[quote]forlife wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
I really don’t know or care if their God is the same as my God. But at that time, there is no question that religion played a huge part in the development of our government. The Pledge of Allegiance has God in it. Not sure if this still happens, but if you went to court and were put on the stand, you had to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God. Do you really think it would be so easy to remove the idea of a God within our political structure when it is at the very core of it to start with?
My point is, is that that was the influence at that time. I personally don’t care if people’s God is the same as mine or not. I respect other religions as long as they don’t try to harm other people.
I can understand respecting other religions, but that is different from making laws based on a particular religion. What is your understanding of separation of church and state, and the reasons behind it?
On the Pledge of Allegiance, the words “Under God” were not part of the original Pledge. They were added by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1954. In the cases where “So Help Me God” is included in an oath, the officer has the option to omit these words as an “affirmation” rather than an “oath”.[/quote]
Well this is a democracy (well it used to be, and we hold some semblance of it in our left hands while we stroke our dicks with the other) and no one flipped their shit when these things occurred. We have people who want to its meaning and the sayings completely, I have yet to see anyone on a large and majority scale to agree with them on their thoughts and protest.
I have been in court enough to know that when I say “So help me, God.” it is an oath, never have I had anyone call it an affirmation, or heard anyone having it called an affirmation. The only reason I could see that the statement would be excluded is of course for religious reasons.
[quote]forlife wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
I like the idea that there is a higher standard to answer to, and not just some fabricated paper with writing on it.
I was raised to be a God fearing man ForLife, the more that God has been removed from government, the shittier things have gotten from my perspective. The fear and respect of the Lord is what keeps me in check.
Do you think people have to fear a “god” in order to live moral lives? I’ve never understood that mentality. Why not live your values for their own sake, rather than out of fear of hellfire or desire for eternal rewards?
My point is that your idea of “god” is very different from the ideas millions of other people have about “god”, and creating legislation based on any particular idea of “god” is going to hurt society more than help it. How would you like it if someone with a very different concept of “god” created civil laws based on that concept, which directly contradicted your own beliefs? That is a real danger, and is why we have separation of church and state in the first place.[/quote]
Fear of G-d does not provoke moral stability or excellence. Society does that, obviously your understanding of the Judeo-Christian faith is not all there, so please for your arguments sake, do not try and use it until you do. If you wish to learn something I will be glad to help you out.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
We are born and raised to like the opposite sex. It is only when something traumatizing or a man decides to become rebellious have I seen this happen.
Well just go look at all the studies on how people are not born gay. There is your proof.
I knew that I really liked women when I was four years old and I watched “Some like it hot” with Marilyn Monroe. When she came out scantily clad I leaped from the couch and shouted “OOOOOO LAAA LAAA!!!”. My adolescent years were much easier b/c of that experience.
Unfortunately, the truth is the majority of people don’t have that moment and live with a lot of conflicting feelings on sexuality. I know this because I have information that you don’t Brother Chris, information that comes right from the mouths of people that struggle to identify their sexuality. People struggle to identify themselves because of individuals like your self that set Heterosexuality as a social standard and not a sexual preference. The notion is preposterous, I can assure you!
There are no conclusive studies that you speak of regarding Homosexuality and the ones that are out there show signs of genetic causes. Homosexuality is not an issue of choice, but simply a matter of acceptance and treating others the way we want to be treated. That’s it, the whole issue, and it’s nothing but the truth.
Sky[/quote]
Well, from what you just said you just admitted that the homosexuals you have heard, from the horses mouth in a sense, they dealt with sexual identify their sexuality. Well, they could have gone heterosexual, but they choose homosexual. And from my horses mouth, both have said it was to rebel against either their father or ex-husband/boyfriends.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Rocks, bridges…trolls…yea…nice. You’ve got all the Internet talk down pat there junior. It’s a dam shame none of it helped you when TB took you apart piece by piece.
Like I said I’ll be watching and of course laughing…at you.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Well, from what you just said you just admitted that the homosexuals you have heard, from the horses mouth in a sense, they dealt with sexual identify their sexuality. Well, they could have gone heterosexual, but they choose homosexual. And from my horses mouth, both have said it was to rebel against either their father or ex-husband/boyfriends.[/quote]
Wow, two gay guys. How ever did you come up with such a statistically significant number of gays?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Well, from what you just said you just admitted that the homosexuals you have heard, from the horses mouth in a sense, they dealt with sexual identify their sexuality. Well, they could have gone heterosexual, but they choose homosexual. And from my horses mouth, both have said it was to rebel against either their father or ex-husband/boyfriends.
Wow, two gay guys. How ever did you come up with such a statistically significant number of gays?[/quote]
Four, now. Kidding aside, I have talked to more than just a few.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
We are born and raised to like the opposite sex. It is only when something traumatizing or a man decides to become rebellious have I seen this happen.
Well just go look at all the studies on how people are not born gay. There is your proof.
I knew that I really liked women when I was four years old and I watched “Some like it hot” with Marilyn Monroe. When she came out scantily clad I leaped from the couch and shouted “OOOOOO LAAA LAAA!!!”. My adolescent years were much easier b/c of that experience.
Unfortunately, the truth is the majority of people don’t have that moment and live with a lot of conflicting feelings on sexuality. I know this because I have information that you don’t Brother Chris, information that comes right from the mouths of people that struggle to identify their sexuality. People struggle to identify themselves because of individuals like your self that set Heterosexuality as a social standard and not a sexual preference. The notion is preposterous, I can assure you!
There are no conclusive studies that you speak of regarding Homosexuality and the ones that are out there show signs of genetic causes. Homosexuality is not an issue of choice, but simply a matter of acceptance and treating others the way we want to be treated. That’s it, the whole issue, and it’s nothing but the truth.
Sky
Well, from what you just said you just admitted that the homosexuals you have heard, from the horses mouth in a sense, they dealt with sexual identify their sexuality. Well, they could have gone heterosexual, but they choose homosexual. And from my horses mouth, both have said it was to rebel against either their father or ex-husband/boyfriends.[/quote]
The struggle wasn’t with whether to be straight or gay, but moreso the repercussions of repressing their homosexuality vs living an open and honest life with who he/she really is despite social recoil.
Slavery is a violation of natural rights. Laws restricting marriage to a man and woman is not.[/quote]
Well now, now that that’s all cleared up.
[quote]
What marriage provides are positive rights - entitlements. We want to keep these around as incentives to a social behavior that is a Good Thing.[/quote]
Well then, if it’s a “Good Thing” as you define it, it must be!
…and capitalization really helps the point.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Fear of G-d does not provoke moral stability or excellence. Society does that, obviously your understanding of the Judeo-Christian faith is not all there, so please for your arguments sake, do not try and use it until you do. If you wish to learn something I will be glad to help you out. [/quote]
You might try that line with a heathen that has never known “the Lord”, but it won’t work with me. I was a believer for far longer than you’ve been alive, including serving a full time mission in Australia for two years, and spending thousands of hours reading the bible and providing church service over the course of decades. If you wish to learn something though, I will be glad to help you out.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Four, now. Kidding aside, I have talked to more than just a few.[/quote]
The numbers upon which you’re basing your conclusions are staggering. Contrast that with thousands of people that have gone through reparative therapy programs, and according to research have NOT changed their sexual orientation as a result. The people that do go through these programs are at DOUBLE the risk of suicidal thoughts, drug/alcohol abuse, anxiety, and depression following the therapy.
You can quote your confused friends that have turned to the Catholic church to help them with their evil sexual tendencies, but I’ll go with the unanimous conclusions of the medical and mental health organizations, as well as my own personal experience.
[quote]TKDCadet04 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
We are born and raised to like the opposite sex. It is only when something traumatizing or a man decides to become rebellious have I seen this happen.
Well just go look at all the studies on how people are not born gay. There is your proof.
I knew that I really liked women when I was four years old and I watched “Some like it hot” with Marilyn Monroe. When she came out scantily clad I leaped from the couch and shouted “OOOOOO LAAA LAAA!!!”. My adolescent years were much easier b/c of that experience.
Unfortunately, the truth is the majority of people don’t have that moment and live with a lot of conflicting feelings on sexuality. I know this because I have information that you don’t Brother Chris, information that comes right from the mouths of people that struggle to identify their sexuality. People struggle to identify themselves because of individuals like your self that set Heterosexuality as a social standard and not a sexual preference. The notion is preposterous, I can assure you!
There are no conclusive studies that you speak of regarding Homosexuality and the ones that are out there show signs of genetic causes. Homosexuality is not an issue of choice, but simply a matter of acceptance and treating others the way we want to be treated. That’s it, the whole issue, and it’s nothing but the truth.
Sky
Well, from what you just said you just admitted that the homosexuals you have heard, from the horses mouth in a sense, they dealt with sexual identify their sexuality. Well, they could have gone heterosexual, but they choose homosexual. And from my horses mouth, both have said it was to rebel against either their father or ex-husband/boyfriends.
The struggle wasn’t with whether to be straight or gay, but moreso the repercussions of repressing their homosexuality vs living an open and honest life with who he/she really is despite social recoil.
[/quote]