Gay Agenda?

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
forlife wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
How can promoting sex between two people of the same sex encourage stability in any society? Maybe you should reread…I mean read for the first time, the general facts on homosexuality realitve to mental and physical health. Furthermore, how can exposing children to such a thing be healthy in any way.

I said that gay marriage promotes stability in society.

And I said that nothing which promotes the homosexual agenda is good for society.

Are we clear now?

Gays are going to exist regardless of your personal biases against them.

I have no personal bias against gays LIAR. What I have is no proof that gay marriage will not harm society and in fact I think it will.

The question is whether gay marriage provides stability to gays, their children, and society at large. The answer is a definitive “Yes”.

And I say the answer is NO.

Gay marriage reduces the spread of diseases like syphilus,

Ha ha…show me your proof or shut the fuck up.

and it provides longer term relationships which benefit both the couple and any children they may be raising.

If you think it’s better for a little boy (or girl) to have two fathers you are one sick bastard.

[/quote]

I agree with mick on all these point’s…where is the proof that gay marriage’s will have no long term negative effect on society. Preferably a 100+ year study. :smiley:

I wonder why I bother.

Forlife, these are your words, when presented negative correlations w/r/t gay marriage and the decline of traditional marriage:

I’m happy to ignore the correlations entirely, because I know they say nothing about causation.

Now, suddenly, after being shown what common sense should have dictated - that correlations matter and are often very suggestive of causation - you are willing to “discuss the correlations”.

So, we you lying then - or lying now?

"I believe I might of come up with a compromise to this problem that will make everyone happy!..

…but instead of referring to you as ‘married’ we’ll refer to you as ‘butt buddies.’ Instead of being ‘man and wife’ you’ll be ‘butt buddies.’ You won’t be ‘betrothed’ you’ll be ‘butt buu-ddies.’"

“We want to be treated equal!”

“You will be treated equal, but instead of being ‘engaged’ you’ll be ‘butt buddies.’ And everyone is happy!”

“What about lesbians?”

“Well like anyone cares about fucking dykes.”

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8966769242800433024&ei=XOm9SOKqE4zYqwOd8cCGCQ&q=south+park+and+butt+buddies&vt=lf&hl=en

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I just assumed that there must be something that’s God awful that I missed with the way people talk about gay people “pushing” their “agenda” on the rest of the world.[/quote]

They are pushing their agenda. That agenda is obtain full legal benefits and to get cultural acceptance. No reasonable person actually thinks their goal is to ‘turn’ straight people gay.

It’s understandable that some people have problems with their ‘agenda.’ Not everybody agrees that same-sex couples should have the legal benefits of opposite sex couples. The discussions on these forums alone should make that clear.

Personally, I do. As far as widespread cultural acceptance goes, you can’t force it. It will come later if at all.

[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:
Forlife, forget it, I guess I should have checked to see where you are from. But, you are also wrong about marriage providing stability in Gay Marriages. In Canada where it has been legal for who cares how long the average marriage lasted approximately 1-1.5 years, and most of those who were married were not in a monogamous relationship. Thus it can not be said that marriage creates stability, or more meaningful relationships. Check out www.protectmarriage.org[/quote]

Can we have a link that is unbiased (in either direction)? A peer-reviewed study in an established and respected journal would be nice.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
How can promoting sex between two people of the same sex encourage stability in any society? Maybe you should reread…I mean read for the first time, the general facts on homosexuality realitve to mental and physical health. Furthermore, how can exposing children to such a thing be healthy in any way.

Red herring.

I said that gay marriage promotes stability in society.

Gays are going to exist regardless of your personal biases against them. The question is whether gay marriage provides stability to gays, their children, and society at large. The answer is a definitive “Yes”. Gay marriage reduces the spread of diseases like syphilus, and it provides longer term relationships which benefit both the couple and any children they may be raising.
[/quote]

Can we have a link that is unbiased (in either direction)? A peer-reviewed study in an established and respected journal would be nice.

Personally, I don’t think there is any good evidence to support either proposition yet. Maybe there will be down the line if gay marriage remains legal in some states and its effect on traditional marriage in those states and society at large is studied.

[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:
But, you are also wrong about marriage providing stability in Gay Marriages.[/quote]

Did you read the research published yesterday in Developmental Psychology?

The national divorce rate for straight couples is around 50%. Despite that, we encourage marriage for straight couples because it still makes it more likely the couple will stay together.

Marriage provides a host of legal responsibilities and benefits to the couple, which create carrots and sticks for the couple to stay together. Again, it doesn’t guarantee the couple will stay together but it makes it more likely that they will.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The typical male of today acts just like a typical homosexual — hates commitment, wants absolutely nothing to do with kids, wants to have profligate sex anywhere and everywhere, and probably many other things. The Gay Agenda is to destroy society by making everyone either act like, accept, or become homosexual. This is rooted in a pronounced hatred of Man as a heroic and spiritual being. It is a secret and depraved wish for destruction.
[/quote]

As much as I consider Mick a troll, I’d have to say you take the cake Headhunter :wink:

If you want people to stay together and you want to decrease the spread of disease, you should support gay marriage. The statistics show that same sex couples in a marriage/civil union stay together longer, and have a lower disease rate.

That said, I’m curious how you would explain gays like myself that value commitment and monogamy, that are responsibly raising their children, and that inherently value mankind as worthy of dignity, kindness, and respect.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
I know you do, but it’s still all a choice. You had sex with your wife, and most homosexuals have had sex with women.[/quote]

Maybe if I write this enough times it will sink in.

Sexual behavior is different from sexual orientation. People can choose their behavior. People cannot choose their orientation.

Do you honestly believe that you could choose to have a relationship with a man that is as intimate and meaningful at all levels as the relationship you have with a woman?

I was married for 9 years, and my relationship with my wife was nowhere close to my relationship with my partner. As much as I wanted it to be otherwise, I couldn’t change my sexual orientation, and that directly affected the depth and quality of our intimacy.

[quote]But, I’m NOT for changing marriage, that’s not tolerance that’s acceptance. There’s a big difference.
[/quote]

Ask yourself what you want to accomplish. Gay marriage provides stability to society and decreases the disease rate. It is in the best interest of children who would otherwise be raised in a foster facility, or by same sex partners who are only living together without the commitments and responsibilities of marriage.

By fighting gay marriage, you are adding to the chaos, confusion, and spread of disease that you claim to oppose.

First you show your true colors:

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
And I said that nothing which promotes the homosexual agenda is good for society.[/quote]

Then in the next breath you deny it:

There are medications for multiple personality disorder. You might want to check it out.

You’re welcome to your opinion, but do you seriously expect people to take your word for it vs. the consensual conclusions of the major medical and mental health organizations who have scientifically researched the issue?

[quote]Gay marriage reduces the spread of diseases like syphilus,

Ha ha…show me your proof or shut the fuck up.[/quote]

A good troll should at least bother to read the thread before throwing out accusations that have already been addressed. I’ll help you out:

[quote]Legally recognizing lesbian and gay relationships could be a key weapon in the fight against sexually transmitted infections, particularly syphilis, research suggests.

A study of countries that allow same-sex marriage or offer civil unions to lesbian and gay couples has shown that rates of syphilis sharply dropped.

Smaller drops were seen in gonorrhea and HIV rates, although research author Thomas Dee said these are less significant.

Dee studied 12 countries across Europe that introduced some sort of legal recognition for lesbian and gay couples between 1989 and 2003.

Although Belgium and the Netherlands are the only two countries to allow full marriage rights, others offer some sort of protection and rights usually afforded only to married couples.

Syphilis rates in the 12 countries dropped by 24 percent, he found.

Dee, an assistant professor of economics at Swarthmore College in the United States, said the results suggest the introduction of marriage rights for same-sex couples reduces the amount of casual sex.

“The evidence shows these laws could dramatically reduce risky sexual behavior and the social costs of some sexually transmitted infections,” he said. “However, the results may be even more important because of what they suggest are the likely effects of gay marriage on the degree of personal commitment in same-sex relationships.”

The report will be published in the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research this month.[/quote]

[quote]If you think it’s better for a little boy (or girl) to have two fathers you are one sick bastard.
[/quote]

Research over two decades has proven that children raised by same sex parents are equally healthy and are no more likely to be gay than children raised by opposite sex parents.

Don’t let the facts interfere with your preconceptions, though:

[quote]Study: Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Kids
Researchers Say Children Who Grow Up in Households With Gay Parents Have Normal Self-Esteem

WebMD Health NewsReviewed by Louise Chang, MD
Oct.12, 2005 (Washington) – Children growing up in same-sex parental households do not necessarily have differences in self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional problems from children growing up in heterosexual parent homes.

“There are a lot of children with at least one gay or lesbian parent,” says Ellen C. Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. She revealed the findings at the American Academy of Pediatrics Conference and Exhibition.

Between 1 million and 6 million children in the U.S. are being reared by committed lesbian or gay couples, she says. Children being raised by same-sex parents were either born to a heterosexual couple, adopted, or conceived through artificial insemination.

“The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way,” she tells WebMD. “In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures.”

Study Results
Researchers looked at information gleaned from 15 studies on more than 500 children, evaluating possible stigma, teasing and social isolation, adjustment and self-esteem, opposite gender role models, sexual orientation, and strengths.

Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress.

“Some studies showed that single heterosexual parents’ children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex,” Perrin says. “They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school.”[/quote]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I’m happy to ignore the correlations entirely, because I know they say nothing about causation.

Now, suddenly, after being shown what common sense should have dictated - that correlations matter and are often very suggestive of causation - you are willing to “discuss the correlations”.

So, we you lying then - or lying now?
[/quote]

As I’ve said several times now, correlations cannot be used to draw conclusions about causality. There is no clearer way to put it. You cannot make a causal conclusion based on correlational data.

That said, I agree with you that correlations can suggest the possibility of a causal relationship. Again, that doesn’t justify drawing any conclusions about causality until proper research has been done.

Furthermore, it is important to consider all possibilities (a->b, b->a, and c->a,b), rather than only discussing one possibility as you continue to do. How about addressing the possibility that liberalism (variable c) leads to both tolerance for gay marriage (a) and lower willingness to stay in a straight marriage for its own sake (b)?

Now how about answering the three points I made in my last post? Or are you going to dodge them and resort to surface blanket assertions like you have done to this point?

Here, I’ll make it easy for you. Let’s start with just the first point and drill down on it. Let’s get past the surface and look at the underlying “logic” that supports your claims:

Isn’t surrogacy parenting by definition having children out of wedlock? One of the parents is having a biological child with a person to whom they are not married. How is that not having a child outside of the marriage?

Furthermore, that child is not being raised by its two biological parents, contrary to your mantra that it is paramount that a child be raised by both biological parents.

Where is the logical consistency in your argument here? This is my point: when you drill down and evaluate the essence of your arguments, they lack any substance or logical cohesiveness.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
"I believe I might of come up with a compromise to this problem that will make everyone happy!..

…but instead of referring to you as ‘married’ we’ll refer to you as ‘butt buddies.’ [/quote]

Cool, can we also refer to straight couples that have anal sex as butt buddies?

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
They are pushing their agenda. That agenda is obtain full legal benefits and to get cultural acceptance. No reasonable person actually thinks their goal is to ‘turn’ straight people gay.

It’s understandable that some people have problems with their ‘agenda.’ Not everybody agrees that same-sex couples should have the legal benefits of opposite sex couples. The discussions on these forums alone should make that clear.

Personally, I do. As far as widespread cultural acceptance goes, you can’t force it. It will come later if at all.[/quote]

Good post. I don’t really care about cultural acceptance, except to the extent that it is a catalyst for gays getting equal marriage/civil union rights.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Can we have a link that is unbiased (in either direction)? A peer-reviewed study in an established and respected journal would be nice.
[/quote]

See my earlier posts on gay marriage divorce rates and the reduction of syphilis due to gay marriage. I’ll provide more references if you are interested.