Gay Marriage Discussion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
341

EDITED

[quote]Ironskape wrote:

I did.

[/quote]

That old chestnut eh? Pretend you’ve responded when you haven’t. Well, it’s all there to see over the last few pages. Most my points haven’t been addressed at all - as I said, your prerogative - and the few points you did respond to where nonsense and replete with personal attacks. I get it. If you don’t go along with the radical homosexual sex agenda then you’re a bigot. If you point out the gay community has a problem with sex offenders then you’re a hater.

Hard evidence? This isn’t an actuarial table it’s a debate about the social implications of gay marriage and other platforms of the radical homosexual lobby.

All the “benefits to society” of gay marriage? There are no benefits to society. And bringing children into the equation is criminal.

They’re two completely different things.

You’ve proved it scientifically? Why are your studies valid and mine aren’t?

So? So what? He said “gay” so I assumed he meant homosexual men because lesbians usually call themselves and are called lesbians as opposed to gay which is why they each get their own letter in the LGBTQI acronym; men get the “G” for gay and women get the “L” for lesbian or they can invent their own through some kind of “gender” delusion.

All know all about that community. I’m not ignorant about them. In fact, it’s what I know from personal experience that informs my opinions. There are many gays in the bodybuilding community you know. I have known gays personally and have had experience dealing with them.

And your grounds for such an accusation? And you’ve been through the statistics yourself for gay sex offenders have you? You need to provide grounds for dismissing these points. It’s not enough to just throw out a perjorative like “bigot” or “ignorant” or “prejudice”. Just saying that doesn’t make the facts go away.

Yes you demolished my argument with that “prejudice” word above. That makes the facts about homosexual sex offenders go away doesn’t it?

Eh…? I’ve provided stats to show just that in this thread already. And you’ve not refuted them. You’ve merely said that I’m “prejudiced” for citing them.

Please don’t address me as “honey”. I’m a guy. And if you’re a guy then it’s creepy and inappropriate to call another man “honey”.

Not at all. I’ve been utterly fascinated with the nature of man and civilisation my whole life and it’s crystal clear to me. It’s a fundamental aspect of my worldview.

It’s not particularly difficult to have an informed opinion about the state of affairs. And you’re not giving this forum the credit it’s due. I’m not speaking about myself but there are a number of very smart and talented people who post here. Tragically, one of the greats is no longer with us as he passed away recently. But my point is that this is not merely some obscure subforum on a BBing site. It’s attracted a small community that includes some very clever people.

Oh not this shot again. Look, gays were left alone to do what they want. Maybe a few were thrown in the can for the night under public decency laws when they pushed the envelope and started their “pride” marches and so on. But this is not a civil rights issue. Gays already have equality before the law. There are no “rights” that they’re lacking. They can marry a woman or not marry a woman same as a straight man. And a straight man can’t get married to another man. Gays are not specifically targeted. Whenever “homosexual” is used in legislation it’s always some positive right and special privilege. Gays are sacred cows and you’ll lose your job or get sued if you don’t humour the transvestite and allow him to creep out all the customers by wearing make up sand a skirt.

No one is talking about any of that. We’re talking about gay marriage which I strongly oppose and I have articulated clearly why I oppose it so strongly.

Relativism. Well, if we experiment already when we raise children then why not try. An experiment where we raise a child in a cage and only speak to it in Latin. No? Why not? We already experiment anyway right? Geez…

Again, relativism. Anyone who says a child doesn’t need a mother and a father for an ideal upbringing is being dishonest. Seriously, how can people pretend that a couple of gay men are the same as a married man and woman? It makes you sound preposterous when you make claims like that and pop up some stats, ignore my stats and posts and fling around a few ad hominem and claim you’ve “scientifically proven” your argument and so on. It’s really silly stuff.

Clearly not universally. See my reference to the French activist who was raised by two lesbians and said it was terrible and that he wants to ensure other children don’t go through the same thing.

Cite what exactly? I’ve provided page after page after page in this thread and others to substantiate my claims and if you point me to a claim I have made I will supply any relevant studies and links to studies. However, it’s clear that you are radically invested in this gay marriage/adoption thing and nothing will change your mind.

342

SexMachine, I’ll go back through this thread and look at the “page after page” of citations (of, I presume, peer-reviewed articles published in respected medical and psychological journals) you have made which support your claims as to the unsuitability of same-sex couples to be parents. while I do so, here are a few of the hundreds of articles I found which seem to suggest the opposite. Which seems a bit odd to me. Ah, well. Paediatrics and developmental psychology are not exactly what you might call exact sciences. There are bound to be some discrepancies of opinion. Anyway, have a look, and I’ll read the ones you’ve cited.

[i]As the social visibility and legal status of lesbian and gay parents has increased, three major concerns about the influence of lesbian and gay parents on children have been often voiced (Falk, 1994; Patterson, Fulcher & Wainright, 2002). One is that the children of lesbian and gay parents will experience more difficulties in the area of sexual identity than children of heterosexual parents.

For instance, one such concern is that children brought up by lesbian mothers or gay fathers will show disturbances in gender identity and/or in gender role behavior.

A second category of concerns involves aspects of children’s personal development other than sexual identity. For example, some observers have expressed fears that children in the custody of gay or lesbian parents would be more vulnerable to mental breakdown, would exhibit more adjustment difficulties and behavior problems, or would be less psychologically healthy than other children.

A third category of concerns is that children of lesbian and gay parents will experience difficulty in social relationships. For example, some observers have expressed concern that children living with lesbian mothers or gay fathers will be stigmatized, teased, or otherwise victimized by peers.

Another common fear is that children living with gay or lesbian parents will be more likely to be sexually abused by the parent or by the parent’s friends or acquaintances.

Results of social science research have failed to confirm any of these concerns about children of lesbian and gay parents (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002; Tasker, 1999).[/i]

New research shows that children adopted into lesbian and gay families are as well-adjusted as children adopted by heterosexual parents, and follow similar patterns of gender development, said Charlotte J. Patterson, PhD, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia.

Family type is not a predictor of a child?s psychological adjustment among early placed adopted children with lesbian, gay or heterosexual parents. An estimated 16,000 same-sex couples are raising more than 22,000 adopted children in the U.S., and these findings indicate that these children will likely fare no differently, as a result of their family type, than those being raised by heterosexual parents.

Results confirm previous studies in this current body of literature, suggesting that children raised by same-sex parents fare equally well to children raised by heterosexual parents.

Adolescents who have been reared in lesbian-mother families since birth demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment. These findings have implications for the clinical care of adolescents and for pediatricians who are consulted on matters that pertain to same-sex parenting.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/126/1/28.abstract

343

Okay varq. I’ll take a good look at all those studies and it will take me a little while so don’t expect a reply too soon please. There’s a lot of stuff there. I would just point out that a few of my detractors here have accused me of being “obsessed” with this stuff yet it’s gay marriage supporters who always have the “studies”.

And note that these studies have all been engineered from the start to support a certain position. I have explained how this mindset has harmed the hard sciences. An example is the APA’s classification of homosexuality as a mental illness. In the 70’s after years of (often violent) and disruptive protests at APA meetings and conferences, the APA decided to reclassify it.

Over night at the tick of a pen well over a hundred million people across the globe were “cured” of mental illness overnight. What does this tell you about the power of the gay “rights” lobby? The hard sciences wouldn’t dare conduct a study that showed much of what I’m saying. They’d be attacked as “homophobes”, lose their funding and maybe their tenure - it could literally ruin their lives and you know it. This is not the sort of climate under which impartial studies can be undertaken. It’s a highly controversial issue dominated by a very powerful, radical and dogmatic lobby group.

344

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Over night at the tick of a pen well over a hundred million people across the globe were “cured” of mental illness overnight. [/quote]

Well, with another tick of a pen, hundreds of millions of fat people were overnight considered to have a physical illness that before they had never been considered to have, so I guess it cuts both ways.

In previous centuries we considered people who had visions, heard voices, and went into trances to be holy people, prophets, and saints. Now we call them “epileptics” and “schizophrenics”.

In other words, our definition of what constitutes mental illness is always evolving the more we learn about the brain. And what we have learned about the genome seems to indicate that homosexuality is more genetic and hormonal than psychological.

Although there is probably not one single “gay gene” but a multitude of factors conferring gayness on a developing fetus, what does seem clear is that homosexuals are born, not made. Or at least, that if nature hasn’t done it, nurture probably won’t.

345

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Over night at the tick of a pen well over a hundred million people across the globe were “cured” of mental illness overnight. [/quote]

Well, with another tick of a pen, hundreds of millions of fat people were overnight considered to have a physical illness that before they had never been considered to have, so I guess it cuts both ways.

In previous centuries we considered people who had visions, heard voices, and went into trances to be holy people, prophets, and saints. Now we call them “epileptics” and “schizophrenics”.

In other words, our definition of what constitutes mental illness is always evolving the more we learn about the brain. And what we have learned about the genome seems to indicate that homosexuality is more genetic and hormonal than psychological.
[/quote]

I think you missed my point. The point is not whether homosexuality is a mental illness or not. That’s irrelevant. The issue is the medical and scientific community’s susceptibility to change their findings in response to social and political pressure as opposed to facts. Ideology constrains what scientists can say. For example, the guy who showed that different races had different average IQs was hounded and vilified and work in that field is now either non-existent or comprised of phoney studies that accord with convention. The same is true with the powerful homosexual lobby groups and a large percentage of public opinion so studies that show much of what I’m saying never get done because people don’t want their jobs threatened and lives ruined by Gaystapo and the RadEgal Scouts.

346

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I think you missed my point. The point is not whether homosexuality is a mental illness or not. That’s irrelevant. The issue is the medical and scientific community’s susceptibility to change their findings in response to social and political pressure as opposed to facts. [/quote]

I think I got your point. Hence the sarcastic remark about obesity being called a “disease”.

Yes, but far less since the Scopes trial.

Are you referring to J. Philippe Rushton, Tatu Vanhanen, or somebody else?

Never heard of these two lobby groups. They must be strictly Australian organisations. :wink:

347

^^ I was talking about Charles Murray and the Bell Curve study.

348

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ I was talking about Charles Murray and the Bell Curve study.[/quote]

Gotcha.

You might be interested in reading about the two men I mentioned. Rushton was arrested for “inciting racism”. Of course, his book was pretty provocative.

EDIT: I was wrong. Not arrested, just investigated.

349

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ I was talking about Charles Murray and the Bell Curve study.[/quote]

Gotcha.

You might be interested in reading about the two men I mentioned. Rushton was arrested for “inciting racism”. Of course, his book was pretty provocative.

EDIT: I was wrong. Not arrested, just investigated.[/quote]

I think those names ring a bell. I’ll take a look, thanks. Although I’m not fixated on race; I know there are other factors - environment etc - and there are always many who fall outside of their culture’s averages and transcend biological limitations. But at the same time you cannot help but have to make certain decisions based upon experience and generalisations.

350

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ I was talking about Charles Murray and the Bell Curve study.[/quote]

Gotcha.

You might be interested in reading about the two men I mentioned. Rushton was arrested for “inciting racism”. Of course, his book was pretty provocative.

EDIT: I was wrong. Not arrested, just investigated.[/quote]

I think those names ring a bell. I’ll take a look, thanks. Although I’m not fixated on race; I know there are other factors - environment etc - and there are always many who fall outside of their culture’s averages and transcend biological limitations. But at the same time you cannot help but have to make certain decisions based upon experience and generalisations.
[/quote]

They ring the bell curve, you mean to say?

Vanhanen was another who was under investigation for possible incitement, but in his case the police dropped the investigation. His thesis, which he co-authored with Richard Lynn, is about the correlation between per-capita GDP and average national IQ. Basically, the book says, the dumber your people are, the poorer your country will be. Which seems kind of self-evident, but think of where the poorest countries in the world are, and what colour the skin is of the inhabitants of these countries, and you can see how this might be considered “racist”.

351

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
That old chestnut eh? Pretend you’ve responded when you haven’t. Well, it’s all there to see over the last few pages. Most my points haven’t been addressed at all - as I said, your prerogative - and the few points you did respond to where nonsense and replete with personal attacks. I get it. If you don’t go along with the radical homosexual sex agenda then you’re a bigot. If you point out the gay community has a problem with sex offenders then you’re a hater.
[/quote]

“Points” is a generous term. You keep saying that the normalization of homosexuality is a symptom of societal decline and not a cause.

Look at the countries that oppress or criminalize homosexuality. Would you say they are thriving bastions of the human race? Is Uganda a utopia in your worldview? What about Russia, how are they doing as a society?

Nations that have made strides toward gay marriage legalization, on the other hand, are faring, for the most part, much better:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/19/gay-marriage-around-the-world-2013/

(I’m fully aware many of these countries have problems. Convince me they’re worse than those of countries that criminalize homosexuality, I dare you.)

Until you convince me that Canada and the Netherlands are rapidly deteriorating into a hedonistic cesspool of despair, your argument that gay acceptance is a part of social decline isn’t one to be taken seriously.

And, for the record, I actually don’t think you’re a bigot just because you oppose gay marriage. Using words and phrases like “radical gay agenda”, “Gaystapo” and “RadEgal Scouts” however, leads me in that direction.

You’ve provided exactly one cited study. The others were either uncited and pulled from an anti-gay Christian blog or case studies, which are not valid. More on that in a bit.

You know all about our community, huh?

Tell me, do you like being lectured on how squatting hurts your knees by the guy who has been through exactly 5 leg workouts? That’s the vibe I get from you.

I’ve been a part of the gay community for 6 years. I’ve been to pride events (which, in my city, are a very family-friendly affair), I’ve been to gay bars, and let us not forget that I’ve been in a gay relationship for the past two years with a loving boyfriend that I plan on proposing to in April.

I squat the house, buddy. Go back to your leg extensions.

Lumping a lot of your similar points into this response. Fair?

Once again, to me, you’ve provided exactly one study to prove your point. In case you’ve willfully forgotten, this was my response dismissing it:

(of the Erickson study)
“I’ve already explained why I think a study from 1988 with a tiny sample size lifted from a single hospital that failed to disclose its measurement procedures isn’t valid proof for your argument.”

Yet you keep hoisting it up as irrefutable proof, and then claiming I haven’t “addressed your points” or “read the statistics for myself”. I don’t want to keep repeating myself, so find some new goddamn points.

Your other “facts” come from another anti-gay christian blog that didn’t cite a real study, case studies, and a comically inaccurate interpretation of the “culture” of bears and twinks.

I’m obviously not going to spend time refuting a study that, by all accounts, doesn’t exist.

Case studies are not valid measures of trends. It’s one instance. That’s the entire concept behind sociology: we must look at the big picture, not individual dots.

And finally…I can tell you what bears and twinks are really about, if you’d like. Some guys like big, burly, hairy guys. Others like lithe, hairless, more feminine guys. You can be a twink well into your 40’s, if you’re a certain body type. It’s not my thing, personally, but it’s no more evidence of pedophilia prevalence than a straight guy’s attraction to college chicks.

Mine is the null hypothesis, that gay people are no more likely to abuse children than straight people. It’s up to you to prove otherwise, and you haven’t done so.

Good to see you have the same security in your masculinity as the average 11-year-old. Another man calls me “honey” every day, doesn’t bother me. :wink:

I don’t trust anyone who claims that the nature of man and civilization is “crystal clear” to him. To me, it’s the sign of someone with a grossly inflated sense of his own intelligence.

Wasn’t it Socrates that said “I know one thing: that I know nothing”?

Don’t skirt my point. Why were the fifties a boon for civilization? More than half of society was cut off from the highest echelons of success, either by societal pressure or straight up law. I’ve gathered that you’re not from the United States, so I won’t pretend to know what things were like in your neck of the woods, but that was the case here.

And, once again, we’ve had this discussion. To quote myself -again-:

"There is no “special treatment”. If I had the option to marry a man, so would you. Don’t want to marry a man? No one is forcing you to. "

If you’re not enticed or placated by your newfound freedom to marry a man, maybe you can understand why the fact that I “can marry a woman” seems like bullshit to me.

Yes we are. The same thing you call “societal decline” I call “social progression”.

Relativism? How the hell is your assertion that “Society is in decline because of the destruction of the family unit” an absolutely true statement?

And really? That’s where you jump? Seriously, when you see a kid being raised by a gay couple, and he’s perfectly healthy and well-adjusted, do you just close your eyes and go “lalalalalala-I-can’t-hear-you-lalalal”?

Show me how two, any two, straight couples are the same. I, and now Varqanir (who did a much better job than me, I’m humbled to say), have provided several studies to back our assertion that, yes, a child doesn’t need a female mother and a male father to have a ideal upbringing. There are more important aspects to raising a child.

I’ve only ignored your stats to the contrary because I haven’t yet ordered the necessary ecto-locator to find them, as they seem to be invisible. Please, provide them. You’ve been given several chances, and I’m starting to suspect you’re full of shit.

Of course not universally. But see my reference from a month ago to the young American activist who was raised by two lesbians and said it was a wonderful experience that shaped him into a well-adjusted and successful young man, and that other children shouldn’t be denied such a loving home.

You don’t seem to have eyes for such things.

Some gay parents will be terrible. I know. Many straight parents are terrible, too. But, like straight couples, I think the vast majority of gay couples will do just fine.

The scientific community agrees with me. But, I guess they’ve all been “corrupted” by our “radical agenda”.

Page after page? I’ve asked for studies on why gay parents aren’t as good as straight parents, you’ve yet to provide a single one.

And really…what did you expect? That I, a gay man in a monogamous relationship with my boyfriend, who is actively making plans for his future that includes marriage and children would just…concede? That I would just give up fighting for the right to marry because some people think it’s gross? That I would just take your word that I can’t be a fantastic father because of my attraction to other men? That I shouldn’t even be allowed to adopt because I’m more likely to molest my child than a straight person? That the family I want is a sign of the destruction of modern life?

Of course I’m radically invested in the topic. It is, literally, one that shapes my entire future.

I am a productive member of society. Being married to my husband with the option to raise children would give me the standing and means to contribute even more. For you to suggest otherwise based on groundless accusations and psuedo-science is insulting to me, my future family, and the thousands of other gay couples unfairly restricted from the institution of marriage.

I’ve said my piece. I’ve made my points. I’ll read your response, if any, and I’ll back out of this thread.

352

^ this is a mockery of marriage, not 2 gays having equal rights as a couple. Which for me is the issue, call it whatever, but allow them the rights as a married couple just like anyone else.

In terms of the left getting an inch, and then going for a mile, what would be the next issue? I know a majority of Americans are dolts who need to be spoon fed their opinions, but it’s not unreasonable to deal with issues on a case by case basis.

353

As far as I have seen, and experienced. The institutions out there for children, like group homes and such are places where kids have a tendency to prey on one another sexually.

Many of the institutions themselves, ones affiliated with religion to be included have very poor reputations when it comes to this topic…

But what’s worse is the simplest idea that young developing kids would benefit from someone who genuinely gives a shit, regardless of their sexual inclinations. So long as they have kids well being as a priority, who cares about their sexual preference?

Categorizing all gays as paedo’s is just straw man, and poor form.

354

[quote]Severiano wrote:
As far as I have seen, and experienced. The institutions out there for children, like group homes and such are places where kids have a tendency to prey on one another sexually.

Many of the institutions themselves, ones affiliated with religion to be included have very poor reputations when it comes to this topic…

But what’s worse is the simplest idea that young developing kids would benefit from someone who genuinely gives a shit, regardless of their sexual inclinations. So long as they have kids well being as a priority, who cares about their sexual preference?

Categorizing all gays as paedo’s is just straw man, and poor form. [/quote]

The original point was gays were statistically more likely to be sexual predators, yes some gay families will be fine like you say. If 1% more children in these gay homes were abused than in straight homes would you be okay with the whole thing? What about 5-10% or even more?

355

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
The original point was gays were statistically more likely to be sexual predators, yes some gay families will be fine like you say. If 1% more children in these gay homes were abused than in straight homes would you be okay with the whole thing? What about 5-10% or even more?[/quote]

I don’t find that argument particularly compelling.

Statistically, men are much more likely to abuse than women. Statistically, a male relative or acquaintance is much more likely to be an abuser than a stranger.

Yet we still allow children to come in contact with male relatives.

We accept greater risks of molestation because the alternative - never allowing men around their children - is even less desirable.

356

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ I was talking about Charles Murray and the Bell Curve study.[/quote]

Gotcha.

You might be interested in reading about the two men I mentioned. Rushton was arrested for “inciting racism”. Of course, his book was pretty provocative.

EDIT: I was wrong. Not arrested, just investigated.[/quote]

I think those names ring a bell. I’ll take a look, thanks. Although I’m not fixated on race; I know there are other factors - environment etc - and there are always many who fall outside of their culture’s averages and transcend biological limitations. But at the same time you cannot help but have to make certain decisions based upon experience and generalisations.
[/quote]

They ring the bell curve, you mean to say?

Vanhanen was another who was under investigation for possible incitement, but in his case the police dropped the investigation. His thesis, which he co-authored with Richard Lynn, is about the correlation between per-capita GDP and average national IQ. Basically, the book says, the dumber your people are, the poorer your country will be. Which seems kind of self-evident, but think of where the poorest countries in the world are, and what colour the skin is of the inhabitants of these countries, and you can see how this might be considered “racist”.

[/quote]

Yes I’ve read a bit about that on a naughty hate site run by a Southern gentleman from Japan by name of Jared Taylor. A significant study purported to show a “cut off point” on average IQ at which a nation can be “civilised”. The cut off point is 97. Of course there are a huge range of different IQ scales and you need to understand how statistics work and the limitations of tests and so on but broadly speaking is the average IQ of a nation is below 97 it’s not going to be a civilised nation. Furthermore, if there’s a small sub-population of a different ethnicity with a significantly higher average IQ then they’re going to dominate the professions and the political sphere. For example, Japanese communities in parts of the Pacific Islands and South America, Indians in Fiji, Han Chinese in Malaya(although they’ve become a large proportion of the population now) and Jews in Eastern Europe(and just about everywhere else they are for that matter).

357

I’m starting to wish I hadn’t started this thread. It’s getting a bit overwhelming. Talk about obsessed. It’s not as if I’m advocating anything radical. I’m just appealing to the status quo - and it’s not an unusual thing. As I said, people have voted time and time again, even in liberal states like California, against gay marriage. And I don’t live in some whacky blue state in America. I support traditional marriage; don’t want it changed.

I don’t want it changed to allow gay men or zoophiles or polygamists or non-amorous life partnerships or any other kind of change. And I am (rightfully) concerned about the drastic decline in our fertility rate, by our aimless, hedonistic, permissive society; a society characterised by cultural and moral decline. I’ll start to respond to the comments above in order but please allow me a little time. I appreciate the time you’ve taken in your replies at any rate.

358

[quote] Ironskape wrote:

“Points” is a generous term. You keep saying that the normalization of homosexuality is a symptom of societal decline and not a cause.

[/quote]

Well yes. That is what I believe. I don’t believe that men having sex with each other brings fire and brimstone down upon the city. What I do believe is that a civilisation in decline is often characterised by moral decline, hedonism and excess, promiscuity and sexual deviancy(heterosexual and otherwise), debauchery and so on; an environment in which homosexuality and other deviant acts are on the rise, more visible, more accepted etc. This is what I believe and I’m not alone in my beliefs. Some very influential thinkers in our age and from many ages in the past have come to the same conclusions. I came to my conclusions independently and I’ve always had an instinctual aversion to homosexuality. I believe this instinctual aversion has a biological basis and that the revulsion that “straight” or normal men instinctively feel towards homosexual acts is a natural mechanism as it is unnatural and unhealthy for the species to not produce and rear children; the next generation; the continuation of the line.

What’s that got to do with anything? I’m not advocating oppressing homosexuals like they do in some countries. I’m pretty liberal and permissive. I wouldn’t support any legislation that specifically targets and oppresses gays. That’s not what we’re talking about. It’s a red herring. I’m only appealing to the status quo of traditional marriage which is not an institution designed to oppress gay people. It’s what we normal people do. We have families with our spouses and raise children to perpetuate the species. We want to keep that institution sacred. Understand? That’s not oppressing gay people. They can go do what they want over there wherever they want away from me.

Again, I’m not advocating criminalising homosexuality so those countries are besides the point. And furthermore, they don’t “criminalise homosexuality” they criminalise homosexual acts. They criminalise sodomy. That’s not the same thing as criminalising “homosexuality”. There’s a difference between criminalising an act and a person. It’s not discriminatory to criminalise an act like sodomy or any other act for that matter. And again, I’m not advocating criminalising anything. This is all a red herring and has nothing to do with gay marriage or my position on anything. As I said, I’m actually very liberal about this sort of stuff as far as I’m concerned. I don’t advocate targeting anyone or criminalising anything, I’m simply asking people to leave marriage alone and go and do their own thing, preferably behind closed doors.

I don’t have to convince you of anything. It’s your civic duty as a serious individual to know a bit about ethics, history and the current state of affairs and if you haven’t drawn similar conclusions about the state of affairs then I don’t take you seriously.

Look at who’s advocating what. I’m not advocating anything radical. They are. And they are a very powerful lobby group with a very radical agenda. It is quite appropriate to use terms such as I have given the way these radical activists operate. I have legitimate concerns and I’ve expressed them in detail over the last couple of years on this forum. And I’ve always tried to be liberal and fair about things. I think I was naughty once and said the word “faggotry” and I was pulled over by the resident PC police and re-educated and made penance and so on. Maybe I could lay some pansies on some gay monument or something and I’ll be forgiven.

359

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’m starting to wish I hadn’t started this thread. It’s getting a bit overwhelming. Talk about obsessed. It’s not as if I’m advocating anything radical. I’m just appealing to the status quo - and it’s not an unusual thing. As I said, people have voted time and time again, even in liberal states like California, against gay marriage. And I don’t live in some whacky blue state in America. I support traditional marriage; don’t want it changed.

I don’t want it changed to allow gay men or zoophiles or polygamists or non-amorous life partnerships or any other kind of change. And I am (rightfully) concerned about the drastic decline in our fertility rate, by our aimless, hedonistic, permissive society; a society characterised by cultural and moral decline. I’ll start to respond to the comments above in order but please allow me a little time. I appreciate the time you’ve taken in your replies at any rate.[/quote]

You’re entitled to your opinions, but you’re just as biased as everyone else here, even though you seem to play the “objective” card by engaging in confirmation bias to find studies to support your opinion, even if they are of dubious origins or websites. If someone posts something counter, you’re aim is to discredit it instead of seeing that there might be a rational countervailing argument.

Furthermore, it’s a heck of a jump to always bring up pedophiles, zoophiles, etc. But yeah, and the end of the day I don’t even know why it’s debated anymore. After dozens of pages no one one’s opinions seemingly have changed, so it’s almost pointless arguments, which is why I don’t really bother to waste much time and energy on it.

What does incense me, however, is that those who throw up the traditional marriage card the loudest are often quick to ignore other more pressing threats to marriage in western cultures, specifically divorce, adultery, family violence, etc., and all are treated with equal condemnation in Judeo-Christian teaching.

If nothing else, I do recall you once agreeing that you could get on board with states recognizing civil unions only between any two consenting individuals, leaving marriage ceremonies to be privately at the discretion of individuals and their respective faiths. I still think this is a sensible approach, and it removes the state from the institution of marriage as a legal process.

I don’t really have anything more to say on the issue, so if you’re tired of the topic, why not take the high road, AGREE TO DISAGREE, and let the topic rest?

360

[quote] JR249 wrote:

What does incense me, however, is that those who throw up the traditional marriage card the loudest are often quick to ignore other more pressing threats to marriage in western cultures, specifically divorce, adultery, family violence, etc., and all are treated with equal condemnation in Judeo-Christian teaching.

[/quote]

That’s a fair point and I agree. Personally, I’m a person with deep convictions and when I say something I mean it. A man is only as good as his word. And I have absolutely no time for people who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk like those sideshow clown religious types who are sleeping with their assistants and secretaries on the side and so on. And although I may have a touch of the Puritan in me(not sure how that got there being a Catholic by ancestry), I am most certainly not a wowser, a prude or any kind of crank. As I said, I try to be realistic and liberal about these things. I know there will always be a gay segment of society. We can’t snuff it out so to speak. So gay people do have a place in society by virtue of their continued presence. I don’t have any problem with them dominating certain professions like hair dressing, acting and so on. So I try to live and let live. I don’t advocate any laws that specifically target gay people(although I would like to see public indecency and obscenity charges brought against some of the homosexual exhibitionism we see at “pride” marches and so on). But I would equally welcome such charges being brought against heterosexual behaviour in public that’s inappropriate. So I’m not a bigot nor do I have any double standards. I have convictions and I live by them a and stand by them.

Under the right circumstances. Although I’m not convinced it’s needed. You seemed to be saying if I recall correctly, that you think civil unions should allow gay couples to receive the same benefits from the state that married couples do. This is something I don’t really accept because the state has good reason to encourage heterosexual marriage and it should extend special privileges to married couples. I’m not complaining that my girlfriend and I don’t get the same benefits as married couples. And neither should gay couples. My relationship with my girlfriend and the relationship between two gay men is inferior to a marriage and a family. I have no problem with gay people being able to visit their sick partner in hospital or leave their assets to their partner when they die or whatever. But that can be done without civil unions. Anyway, civil unions is an area where I could certainly negotiate and make compromises. But redefining marriage is not something I can accept. In fact, I think it’s an unnecessary provocation from an element of society that I have an aversion to and towards whom I think I’ve been quite tolerant - especially given all the provocative attacks on traditional values and the church and the public exhibitionism and sexualisation of everything in gay culture. Frankly, I’d like to see less of gay culture and I’d like to not have to see homosexual imagery on television/advertisements/pride parades etc. But being a liberal and tolerant person I’m not going to advocate some hard line vice crackdown by the police or anything. I’m just saying how I think things should be and how I’d like them to be.

Yes, civil unions could be a good way to come to a compromise. However, radical activists never actually stop. So they will continue pushing for marriage no matter what. They’ll agitate and antagonise Christians and traditionalists and so on. You know how it is with radicals.

I always agree to disagree about everything with everyone. And about letting the topic rest; yes I’m tired of getting half a dozen different people posting long comments full of stuff I’ve covered before and sprinkled with pejoratives; bigot, hater, homophobe etc. Although from what I remember you’ve been pretty respectful. But I’m still going to post comments relating to gay marriage at times when it’s relevant or something is in the news. It’s not a no go area. For one thing the media and the homosexual lobby have put it front page and centre themselves and there are laws being brought in and rulings made that are of interest and concern to me. I’m not sure why you want the subject to be rested but I will not try to maliciously vilify gay people or anything. I know there are a lot of heterosexual child molesters too. I’m not saying gay people are inherently evil or anything(not moreso than anyone else - but I do think it’s a pretty sleazy and debauched scene). I shouldn’t have to keep pointing this out but as I said people like to accuse me of being a hater because I won’t sign on to every aspect of the agenda.