No, I don’t think anyone is faking it. My point is that this is a group of highly sexed individuals who are able to have sex with just about anyone at any time.
The government discriminates with all of us on a regular basis, or havn’t you noticed?
I’m over 40 and in great shape, how come I can’t join the Marines? I’m not young enough that’s why.
How come someone who is 15 years old cannot drive a car?
How come you have to be at least 21 years of age to drink?
I’m sure you got the idea. And again who is to say that we draw the line at homosexuals getting married. Why can’t we extend it beyond there? I gave you a few examples above. If someone truly wants to marry their sister why can’t they? If someone really wants to marry 2 women instead of just one why can’t they? All three are in love, all three are adults. Hopefully you’ll see the problem in your logic.
[quote]Also as I stated there are studies which indicate that about 30% or so who sincerely go through therapy change their preference to heterosexual.
If one can change their preference why should laws be changed to accommodate them? If one is able to have sex with either sex then why change laws to accommodate them?
Do you think, if a black man wanting to marry a white woman, went through “therapy”, his preference could be changed into wanting to marry a black woman?[/quote]
My point above was that they seem to be able to change their “preference” on a whim. So why should we change a 5ooo year old tradition to support this whim?
[quote]Would you agree that, despite the fact that they can be “changed”, religion, class, and citizenship are not reasonable causes for the government to disallow two people to marry?
I’m sorry, I just see “the ability to change or not” as being a nonissue here.[/quote]
Well, there are certain social and legal which govern our system. And stating that they should not have to change even though they can is tantamount to saying that this 5000 year old tradition we call marriage really doesn’t mean anything at all so let’s change it to accomodate this tiny minority of true homosexuals who want to marry.
And I ask you again, where does it stop if homosexuals were granted the right to marry? Tell me, should polygamy be accepted, if all are consenting adults? How about an adult brother and sister marrying? What about a man marrying his property?
If you draw a line before any of the above you are discriminating.
[quote]
Fact: Sex cannot be changed. Preference to marry someone of the same sex should not be forced to change.
Why do you keep missing that point?[/quote]
I simply disagree with your premise. There is proof that sexual preference can and has in fact been changed for many.
If you are claiming that all “preferences” should be honored by the sanctity of marriage then again I ask you where do you draw the line?
I was wondering when you were going to get around to using that word “homophobia”. If society is not willing to accept gay marriage we are homophobic, ha ha. We’re also not willing to accept a brother and sister marrying are we “incestaphobic”? And we don’t accept three people of any sex marrying are we “polygaphobic”? That really is a tired out over used argument. No one is afraid of anything. It’s just a matter of supporting traditional values and not allowing any of the groups mentioned to marry.
As I’ve already shown you in the examples above, government discriminat, it’s what they do, and it’s a good thing that they do it.
I am interested on your take on the various marriages that I’ve suggested. If you have time over the holiday I’d appreciate reading your response.
No actually they’re not “born that way”. At least there is no proof of such. And there is mounting evidence to show that it’s more nurture than nature. But I will concede that no one knows for sure the answer to that question. And if no one knows why do you take such a hard stand that some folks are “born that way”? Could it be the great amount of programming that you’ve endured from liberal University’s and a liberal media?
When using statistics as the basis for your argument rather than just illustration thereof the issue of sources and citations becomes relevant. I don’t question that you saw those numbers somewhere, but there’s a wide range of meaning possible depending on how they were collected, by whom, for what, etc.[/quote]
You make a very good point. Here is some interesting information:
"MacIntosh, H. (1995) Attitudes and Experiences of Psychoanalysts in Analyzing Homosexual Patients. Journal of the American Psychiatric Association 1183.
422 psychiatrists were asked if they had successfully treated homosexuals, and did they agree that a homosexual can be changed to heterosexual. Of the 285 responses, which involved 1,215 homosexuals, the survey stated that 23% changed to heterosexuality. 84% benefited significantly by reducing their attraction to other members of the same gender, with a decrease in homosexual activity."
Here’s one from 1998. It mentions that 99% of homosexuals later said that “treatment can be effective.”
"Nicolosi, J., Byrd, A., Potts, R. (1998) Towards the Ethical and Effective Treatment of Homosexuality. Encino CA:
Nicolosi surveyed 850 individuals and 200 therapists and counselors ? specifically seeking out individuals who claim to have made a degree of change in sexual orientation. Before counseling or therapy, 68% of respondents perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, with another 22% stating they were more homosexual than heterosexual. After treatment only 13% perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entire homosexuality, while 33% described themselves as either exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual, 99% of respondents said they now believe treatment to change homosexuality can be effective and valuable."
Throckmorton asks a very interesting question and one OF MANY that you have yet been unable to answer. And by the way this is from 1996:
"Throckmorton, W. (1996) Efforts to modify sexual orientation: A review of outcome literature and ethical issues. Journal of Mental Health and Counseling. 20, 4: 283-305.
" submit that the case against conversion therapy requires opponents to demonstrate that no patients have benefited from such procedures or that any benefits are too costly in some objective way to be pursued even if they work. The available evidence supports the observation of many counselors ? that many individuals with same-gender sexual orientation have been able to change through a variety of counseling approaches." (p. 287)
And of course Dr. Spitzers landmark study from 2001:
"Dr. Robert Spitzer (2001)
Dr Spitzer is a psychiatry professor at Columbia University. He conducted a study of 143 ex-gays and 57 ex-lesbians who reported that they have become “straight.” 2 He reported his findings at a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association on 2001-MAY-9. He concluded, as a result of 45 minute interviews with each subject, that 66% of the males and 44% of the females had arrived at “good heterosexual functioning.”
According to Cnn.com, that term is defined as having been “in a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year, getting enough satisfaction from the emotional relationship with their partner to rate at least seven on a 10-point scale, having satisfying heterosexual sex at least monthly and never or rarely thinking of somebody of the same sex during heterosexual sex.”
Regent University’s Law Review for Spring, 2002, is entirely devoted to a discussion of various aspects of homosexuality, including the origins and causes of homosexual behaviors. The Law Review includes a study, " Homosexuality: Innate and Immutable?" by Dr. A. Dean Byrd and Stony Olsen.
After discussing the lack of evidence on the genetic origins of homosexuality, Dr. Byrd and his associate detail the various environmental factors that can lead a person into a homosexual lifestyle.
Gender Confusion: Dr. George Rekers, an expert on Gender Identity Disorders, is author of dozens of scholarly research papers on homosexuality and wrote Growing Up Straight: What Every Family Should Know About Homosexuality in 1982. He is also editor of Handbook of Child and Adolescent Sexual Problems, published in 1995. Dr. Rekers stated in 1995, that "Gender nonconformity in childhood may be the single common observable factor associated with homosexuality. Some of the typical childhood factors leading to homosexuality are: feeling of being different from other children; perception of father as being distant, uninvolved and unapproving; perception of mother being too close, too involved; diminished or distorted masculinity or femininity; premature introduction to sexuality; and gender confusion.
Failure To Internalize Maleness: Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality has written: “Homosexuality is a developmental problem that is almost always the result of problems in family relationships, particularly between father and son. As a result of failure with father, the boy does not fully internalize male gender identity, and develops homosexuality. This is the most commonly seen clinical model.”
Dr. George Rekers, writing in Growing Up Straight, observes: “Many studies of homosexual patients as well as of nonpatient homosexuals have established a classic pattern of background family relations. The most frequent family pattern reported from the male homosexuals includes a binding, intimate mother in combination with a hostile, detached father.”
Sexual Abuse By Same-Sex Predator: In studies conducted by Diana Shrier and Robert Johnson in 1985 and 1988, males who had been sexually abused as children were almost seven times as likely as non-molested boys to become homosexuals.
Dr. Gregory Dickson recently completed a doctoral dissertation on the pattern of relationships between mothers and their male homosexual sons. His paper is entitled: “An Empirical Study of the Mother/Son Dyad in Relation to the Development of Adult Male Homosexuality: An Object Relations Perspective.”
Dr. Dickson’s study is reviewed on the NARTH web site. His study sheds new light on the relationship between early childhood sexual abuse and a child’s later involvement in homosexual behaviors. According to Dickson, an alarming 49% of homosexuals surveyed had been molested compared to less than 2% of heterosexuals.
His study affirms previous findings of Dr. David Finkelhor (1984), which found that boys victimized by older men were four times more likely to be currently involved in homosexual behaviors than were non-victims. As Finkelhor observed: “It may be common for a boy who has been involved in an experience with an older man to label himself as homosexual (1) because he has had a homosexual experience and (2) because he was found to be sexually attractive by a man. Once he labels himself homosexual, the boy may begin to behave consistently with the role and gravitate toward homosexual activity.” (Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research, New York: The Free Press, 1984).
Dr. Dickson’s study suggests that sexual abuse should be considered in evaluating the factors that contribute to the development of adult homosexual behaviors. Dickson writes: “An experience of sexual abuse could possibly contribute to the sexualizing of the unmet needs for male affection, attention, and connection.”
Dr. Dickson continues: “Given the relational deficits [with his mother] experienced by the male child, it is also possible that the molestation, as devastating as it may have been emotionally, simultaneously may be experienced by some of the boys as their first form of adult male affection, as well as something relational that is not shared in common with his mother.”
Counselor Dr. Robert Hicks, author of The Masculine Journey, has written: “?In counseling gay men for twenty years, I have not had one yet whom I would say had a normative childhood or normative adolescent development in the sexual arena. More often than not I have found stories of abusive, alcoholic, or absent (physically and emotionally) fathers: stories of incest or first experiences of sex forced upon them by older brothers, neighborhood men, or even friends. I sometimes find these men have had early exposure to pornography?.”
I think most homosexuals are in fact oversexed bisexuals (and the stats prove this out). And hence they are not able to carry on a lasting relationship with someone of the opposite sex. And I’m guessing it’s not because they’re truly homosexual (how can you have sex with someone of the opposite sex if you are truly homosexual) but because of they’re sincere desire for sex with anyone at any time from either gender.
And it’s this promiscuity which leads those who call themselves homosexual to choose a lifestyle which is in every way bleak.
Here are some interesting statistics from the CDC:
"Men who have sex with men, who make up less than 2% of the US population, account for 56% of the adult AIDS cases. As of January 1, 1997, 324,728 men who have sex with men have been diagnosed with AIDS.
HIV/AIDS Among Homosexuals
The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is responsible for causing AIDS, for which there exists no cure. Homosexual men are the largest risk category. The CDC reports that homosexuals comprise the single largest exposure category of the more than 600,000 males with AIDS in the United States. As of December 1999, “men who have sex with men” and “men who have sex with men and inject drugs” together accounted for 64 percent of the cumulative total of male AIDS cases.39
There are currently an estimated 900,000 people in the United States that are infected with the HIV virus, or 1 in 300 Americans, and this disease has cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars. Although medical breakthroughs have decreased the rate of AIDS deaths annually, the rate of new infections per year has remained the same, at 40,000, despite the twenty-year “safe-sex” campaign.[6] New infections among homosexual men climbed 17% between 1999 and 2002 ? the largest jump of any exposure category.[7] AIDS remains the fifth leading cause of death among those aged 25-44, and 59.7 % of new cases are contracted by homosexual men. According to the Centers for Disease Control, homosexual men are a thousand "
The list of other contagious diseases that homosexuals are at high-risk of acquiring is as long as your arm. The risk of anal cancer soars to an astounding 4000 % for those engaging in anal intercourse compared to those who don’t, and it doubles again for those who are HIV positive
Well that’s just it isn’t it? We don’t know who is “convertable” and who is not.
[quote]
Your statistics, whatever their accuracy or applicability, still leave substantial residual of gays with no lifetime hetero experience. [/quote]
Yes, about 13% of all who call themselves “homosexual” have never had sex with someone of the opposite sex. Keep in mind that it’s 13% of the 2% who claim to be homosexual. That is a very tiny figure isn’t it?
[quote]
So to use the black-white analogy, we could say that many an octaroon has passed for being pure white, but no purely black man has. Similarly that there may be those who are sexually flexible doesn’t change that there are some who are not.[/quote]
Oh I certainly agree, and I stated above. It seems that about 13% of less than 2% of the population can truly call themselves homosexual.
No one has yet determined exactly how one becomes “gay”. Nor do we know why some stay “gay” and some change their preference. We do know that almost 90% of all “gay” people have had, or continue to have sex with someone of the opposite sex.
Odd huh?
How many straight men could have sex with another man?
[/quote]
Quite a few apparently.
If we dismiss the “it’s hardwired” theory, then how do we explain that men who’s very career often depend on not engaging in gay sex (Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, etc…) do so? These people have more to lose than most if their indiscretions become public knowledge, yet they still do it… That strong an urge seems to me a little bit more than a hobby or simple curiosity.
No, I don’t think anyone is faking it. My point is that this is a group of highly sexed individuals who are able to have sex with just about anyone at any time.
Regardless of if a person is gay, bisexual, or straight, the government does not have the right to discriminate between which consenting legal adults enter into a legal contract together.
The government discriminates with all of us on a regular basis, or havn’t you noticed?
I’m over 40 and in great shape, how come I can’t join the Marines? I’m not young enough that’s why.
How come someone who is 15 years old cannot drive a car?
How come you have to be at least 21 years of age to drink?
I’m sure you got the idea.
[/quote]
You shouldnt need the difference between bigotry and a legal drinking age explained to you.
Are you seriously playing the slippery slope card? Yes, zeb, if we let them niggers marry, next step is people marryin’ they dogs. We gotta draw tha line sumwhere!
Please.
Yay, the sanctity of marriage argument! 5000 years ago, women were property, blacks could not marry whites, marriages were arranged by the family (not the marrying persons), and there was no such thing as divorce.
Please dont give me that “we cant change tradition” bullshit.
Yep, thats what its like living in a constitutional democratic republic. See, in one of these, the whims of the majority cannot control the rights of a minority, no matter how small.
God bless America, Zeb.
Did you just ask about a man marrying an inanimate object (which cannot consent, does not have legal standing, and could not sign a marriage license)?
Look, when you’re ready to leave out the stupid questions, let me know.
As far as brother and sister go, like I said, any two people consenting should be elegible. As to polygamy, thats another issue entirely, HOWEVER, (and heres where your little “sippery slope” theory dies) just because one thing CAN REASONABLY be disallowed by the government, does not mean that ANYTHING can arbitarily be disallowed.
Yes, children cannot marry (because they cannot legally consent). This does not mean it would be ok for the government to say that people with brown eyes cannot marry.
Yes, dogs cannot marry. This does not mean people over 6 foot 5 cannot marry.
Its a stupid, stupid, stupid argument to simply point out that the government CAN place some restrictions on who can marry, therefore the restriction you’re supporting MUST be valid.
Let it go.
sigh Whats your point? That since some restrictions can exist, the government can place any restriction they want? That “anything can be called discriminating therefore its ok to discriminate”? You’re making zero sense here.
I’m beginning to wonder if you actually read any of the words I write.
It doesnt matter if sexual preference can be changed. That issue is irrelevant.
You draw the line, primarily, at consent. Chilren, animals, “property”, people in a coma, etc, cannot consent. From there, yes, there may be some other issues (such as polygamy) that warrant their own consideration.
Please, please get off the “slippery slope” bs.
Read above. Why arent you clamoring against divorce then? Why arent you arguing that the family, or tribe, should decide who gets married, instead of the people involved? Why are women no longer considered property?
Oh wait, many things about “traditional marriage” have already changed? No foolin! And you accept these changes without question? I’ll be damned.
Sorry bro, for the government to unreasonably withhold legal benefits from homosexuals is bigoted, discriminatory, and can and should be changed.
No, see, what you did, was point out other irrelevant examples and tried to make the argument that, since the government CAN say no to some things, its fine for the government to say no to anything it damn well pleases at the moment.
You could probably make very convincing arguments against polygamy and incest…but (read carefully) those issues have no relation to gay marriage. Nope, not even the littlest, tiniest bit.
I’ll say it again: one restriction being reasonable does not, inherently, make another restriction (or any random restriction) reasonable.
By “sex” I mean man and woman. Yes, most people are born as a man or a woman, and have no choice over this, and no reasonable control.
I should really get a bingo card for these debates.
I could make a square for the slippery slope theory, one for the “sanctity of marriage” argument, one for the “liberal brainwashing” stuff… it might actually be a lot of fun.
Dude, seriously, just read these words. Please.
In my opinion, it does not matter if homosexuals are born that way or acting by choice. The matter is irrelevant.
No one has yet determined exactly how one becomes “gay”. Nor do we know why some stay “gay” and some change their preference. We do know that almost 90% of all “gay” people have had, or continue to have sex with someone of the opposite sex.
Odd huh?
How many straight men could have sex with another man?
Quite a few apparently.
If we dismiss the “it’s hardwired” theory, then how do we explain that men who’s very career often depend on not engaging in gay sex (Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, etc…) do so? These people have more to lose than most if their indiscretions become public knowledge, yet they still do it… That strong an urge seems to me a little bit more than a hobby or simple curiosity.
[/quote]
You further prove my point that most homosexuals are in fact bisexual. The above three are pretty good examples.
You further prove my point that most homosexuals are in fact bisexual. The above three are pretty good examples.
[/quote]
I fail to see how that proves any point.
If they actually were bisexual, in the sense of deriving just as much excitement and pleasure with women as they do with men, they shouldn’t then have any problems abstaining from gay sex during their time in the public eye. Especially if they spend a good part of that time denouncing gay sex (ie, Haggard).
It seems more likely that attraction towards other men is their true nature and that while they can manage to hide it or repress it for some length of time, it eventually expresses itself.
You shouldnt need the difference between bigotry and a legal drinking age explained to you.[/quote]
Why are you ignoring the fact that some would say that it is bigoted to deny a 40 year old who is in better shape than most 21 year olds the right to serve their country?
Is that not age discrimination?
Is it okay to discriminate against someone for age but not sexual preference? Come on Cap, you have to look outside the politically correct box now and then.
[quote] And again who is to say that we draw the line at homosexuals getting married. Why can’t we extend it beyond there? I gave you a few examples above. If someone truly wants to marry their sister why can’t they? If someone really wants to marry 2 women instead of just one why can’t they? All three are in love, all three are adults. Hopefully you’ll see the problem in your logic.
Are you seriously playing the slippery slope card? Yes, zeb, if we let them niggers marry, next step is people marryin’ they dogs. We gotta draw tha line sumwhere!
Please.[/quote]
And you are ignoring my question. Why don’t you answer it?
Too hard?
Tell me why polygamists cannot marry? Tell me why someone cannot marry their sister? Do you have an answer for this? Why is their right to marry less important than the homosexuals right?
I’ll post this separately in case you miss it.
[quote]Yay, the sanctity of marriage argument! 5000 years ago, women were property, blacks could not marry whites, marriages were arranged by the family (not the marrying persons), and there was no such thing as divorce.
Please dont give me that “we cant change tradition” bullshit.
[/quote]
You are dodging the point. There were plenty of things wrong many years ago. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that marriage is one of societies most important societal institutions and should be respected as such. You have to be able to give at least one good argument for changing this age old institution. So far I’ve not heard one good argument. I know that we don’t rush off and change the institution of marriage for a handful of people who seem to be able to have sex with everything that moves.
Read the a couple of threads up on the basic promiscuity of this group, and the bleak health statistics that follow.
And you want to change the institution of marriage for this tiny group?
Honestly, if I were not living in this politically correct age this would be laughable.
[quote]Yep, thats what its like living in a constitutional democratic republic. See, in one of these, the whims of the majority cannot control the rights of a minority, no matter how small.
God bless America, Zeb.
[/quote]
Then by all means tell me why other minority groups are not having their wishes fullfilled when it comes to marriage?
Again, are the rights of polygamists and those who want to follow a leagal incestuous relationship any less important than those who are homosexual?
And as long as we’re on rights of the minority, I’m still waiting for you to tell me why I can’t join the Marines when I can perform just as well if not better than most on any physical or mental test.
Are my rights not important?
Tell me the reason that government discriminates regarding the groups above. And should they keep doing it?
It’s not at all stupid. Didn’t you read about the man who wanted to marry his dog? Should I find the article for you? Wacky? Yes, I think it is. But give it time. 25 years ago two homosexuals marrying was considered wacky? I guess you have not lived long enough to see the full circle of crazy which has no reverse button.
[quote]As far as brother and sister go, like I said, any two people consenting should be elegible.
[/quote]
So, you are for a brother and sister marrying. Now tell me do the brother and sister have a right to have children? I think you know where I’m going with this, but play along anyway because you’ve opened a pandoras box with this one.
[quote]As to polygamy, thats another issue entirely, HOWEVER, (and heres where your little “sippery slope” theory dies) just because one thing CAN REASONABLY be disallowed by the government, does not mean that ANYTHING can arbitarily be disallowed.
[/quote]
BUT WAIT! Why did you disallow Polygamy? Don’t they have the right to be happy, just like the two homosexuals in question? Come on now you BIGOT!
Give me one good reason why Polygamists should not be allowed to marry.
But you just said that three people cannot marry each other. Now tell me why that’s wrong but two homosexuals marrying should be okay.
Do you have an answer?
[quote]If you draw a line before any of the above you are discriminating.
sigh Whats your point? That since some restrictions can exist, the government can place any restriction they want? That “anything can be called discriminating therefore its ok to discriminate”? You’re making zero sense here.
[/quote]
I’m saying that “discriminating” by the government has been going on for a long time. And that every government operates this way.
Now you tell me why it’s okay to discriminate against polygamists but not homosexuals regarding marriage.
What’s the reason? Are you a “POLYGAPHOBE”?
[quote]It doesnt matter if sexual preference can be changed. That issue is irrelevant.
[/quote]
I’m sorry I gave you that impression, but let me explain. You say it matters not that preference can be changed. That means that you are saying if one man wants to marry another then it should be allowed based upon their desire to do so. Correct?
And if that’s the case, since you are not basing it on anything but their desire to do so then why can’t others who are also in a minority group have that same right. And you cannot give me any good reason why Polygamists for example cannot have that same right. Is it just because you think it’s wrong?
If so, how dare you try to force your values on those poor people.
There you go again discriminating against Polygamists. I hate to say it but I’m beginning to think you are in fact a POLYGAPHOBE!
[quote] Why arent you clamoring against divorce then?
[/quote]
Well, first of all this is a thread on homosexuality. If it were one on divorce the first thing I would do is point out BB’s great thread begun a couple of months ago regarding divorce. It seems that if you take away those who have married multiple times that brings the divorce rate way down. There were some other interesting points as well.
It seems marriage is not in as bad a shape as you are insinuating. Not that your argument would have any merit anyway, that is “marriage is already wrecked so why not let a promiscuous group like homosexuals marry?”
But up to now no one has actually tried to force a change such as someone marrying another of the same sex.
Do you see where I stand on the issue?
[quote]Sorry bro, for the government to unreasonably withhold legal benefits from homosexuals is bigoted, discriminatory, and can and should be changed.
[/quote]
I can only ask you again, why change it for homosexuals and not the rest of those who want to marry. And then where do you draw the line?
By the way, according to the latest polls and actual state referendums it seems that about 70% of the people are against homosexuals marrying.
I don’t think you’ll see any sort of change in the near future.
Sorry.
You’ll have to take the blinders off. The subject is expanding the boundaries of marriage. And if you do so for one group I ask you, why can’t you do it for another. I know that you don’t care about Polygamists, but they fall in love as well. And denying them the right to marry seems unfair if you’re going to actually allow two people of the same sex to marry.
Tell me, what’s the difference?
[quote]I’ll say it again: one restriction being reasonable does not, inherently, make another restriction (or any random restriction) reasonable.
[/quote]
That’s funny, you’ve just tried to make an argument based on the reverse of that statement. You are sounding a bit shallow here. As long as your group gets the benefit we can then restrict all others. So, you’re for restrictions regarding other minority groups rights, just as long as homosexuals are allowed special rights.
I see, and that makes no sense.
[quote] most people are born as a man or a woman, and have no choice over this, and no reasonable control.
[/quote]
Nonsense, sex change operations have been going on for at least 30 years.
And there is mounting evidence to show that it’s more nurture than nature. But I will concede that no one knows for sure the answer to that question. And if no one knows why do you take such a hard stand that some folks are “born that way”? Could it be the great amount of programming that you’ve endured from liberal University’s and a liberal media?
3
[quote]I should really get a bingo card for these debates.
I could make a square for the slippery slope theory, one for the “sanctity of marriage” argument,
[/quote]
Which is a good argument on it’s own, and one that you have not been able to refute.
[quote]Dude, seriously, just read these words. Please.
In my opinion, it does not matter if homosexuals are born that way or acting by choice. The matter is irrelevant. [/quote]
And I do understand what you’re saying. Circumstances do not matter. All that matters is that these two people of the same sex want to marry.
And, if that’s your argument (do I have that right), then why can’t polygamists marry? You see they don’t “have to” marry more than one person, but they want to, so very badly. And again, why can’t those who practice incest marry? Why would you deny happiness to these folks? And don’t forget the financial benefits and other rights.
By your own logic circumstances don’t count, only the desire for adults to marry count.
It seems more likely that attraction towards other men is their true nature…
[/quote]
Let’s stop right here, who says that it’s their “true nature”? You? Other social liberals? Those who say that people are “born that way”, with no proof? No one can say for sure.
If a man is able to have sex with a woman and also a man I think it’s pretty safe to say that that man is a bisexual by nature. What else can you call him?
I don’t think anyone is repressing anything. What they’re doing is experiencing what they truly want, that being able to have sex with both genders. Your contention that if any of the men in question were allowed to marry another man so many years ago then they would not be having sex with another man is not valid. How do you know that they would not have been sneaking around on that man with another woman? Since the person is obviously able to have sex with both (bisexual).
You shouldnt need the difference between bigotry and a legal drinking age explained to you.
Why are you ignoring the fact that some would say that it is bigoted to deny a 40 year old who is in better shape than most 21 year olds the right to serve their country?
Is that not age discrimination?
Is it okay to discriminate against someone for age but not sexual preference? Come on Cap, you have to look outside the politically correct box now and then.
[/quote]
Because (a)the fact that “some would say” does not actually make it so, (b) the fact that “the other guy gets away with it” is not a reasonable defense for anything, and (c) the issue is irrelevant (if you wish to debate agism in the military, feel free to start a thread on it).
I’ve already explained that each issue warrants its own consideration. Hence, allowing homosexuals to marry is its own issue, without relation to incest or pedophilia or beastiality or polygamy.
Your question is flawed, and has already been answered, repeatedly.
Why cant you stay on the topic of gay marriage, instead of having to bring up irrelevant topics? Are you seriously unable to get the “oh no its gonna be a freeforall!” idea out of your head?
If you were arguing against someone who was claiming that interracial marriage should be illegal, and they asked you those same questions, how would you respond? Would you need to explain polygamy and incest as it related to interracial marriage?
Sorry, Zeb, you lose.
And there are some still wrong, like the fact that two men or two women cannot get married.
haha. So now it can change, sometimes, but you just havent been given a good enough reason. cute.
Yay! The “gays are immoral and degenerative” argument!
I almost got bingo with that one!
Whats that? Oh boy, the “poisioning the well” fallacy… I WIN!
So was letting blacks marry or giving women legal standing, in their own times. Dont worry, one day the rest of you will catch up with social progress, and future generations will look back and scratch their heads at this.
Because things like polygamy and interfamily marriage present different legal issues, Zeb. But, I’m sorry, go on with your “if we can stop one, we can stop whichever ones we want!” logic. Its cute, really.
Not in the least. However, a marriage of more than two people would mean different legal rights (such as estate, stuff like that). The issue simply becomes more complicated from a legal standpoint.
Ok, lets say you’re right and they shouldnt be allowed to discriminate against you based on your age.
Whats your point? The marines get away with it, so anybody can? If I murder someone, could I turn around and say “Well people get away with it all the time!”?
If its a true concern, you should be trying to reverse the wrong in that situation, not use the wrong in that situation to justify wrong in another situation.
Answered those questions, Zeb. Ever heard of “two wrongs dont make a right”? Hm?
And years before that blacks marrying whites was wacky, and before that women not being property was wacky, and people choosing who they marry was wacky, and divorce is STILL, to some, wacky (by wacky I mean evil and you burn in hell for it).
A dog will never be able to consent to marriage, and the primary factor in any legal contract (which marriage is) is consent. So, again, the slippery slope fails you.
Is marriage a contract to have children, or is marriage a contract that gives people tax breaks, powers of estate, etc, etc? Is it possible to get married and never have children? Is it possible to be married and not have sex at all?
Perhaps we just view marriage differently. You seem to be of the mindset that marriage is only so a mom and dad can raise a family, I view it more as a legal contract between two people that involves their financial and legal standings.
sigh That other idiot Mick said I was a bigot because I said having sex with a lightbulb sounds painful. Stop being a jackass, it only makes you look bad.
If you could read (and stop being a fucking moron), you’ll notice I never disallowed it, I said its another issue entirely.
Actually reading the words in front of your fucking face: try it sometime.
Well, an obvious issue, is, if three people are married, and one goes on life support… of the remaining two, one wants to take them off and the other wants to keep them on. Who should be allowed to make that decision?
Thats just an example off the top of my head of why polygamy is its own issue.
Now can we get back to the issue at hand, or would your rather avoid it some more?
No, I said its another issue, you interpreted it as such (like a fool), now you’re repeating your misinterpretation as though its fact (like a jackass), and trying to “use my own words against me”.
I’m sure you dont always have to be an idiot in debates, why this one?
Duh, yah! Da facct dat I dinndnt say dat in da furst plac!
I said its another issue interely that brings up different points. Not that similar legal contracts could not be made for people who wish to have those types of marriages.
So since its happened in the past, we shouldnt do anything to stop it now. Wow, what sane logic.
I never discriminated. Also, what different legal aspects would be required for homosexual marriage as compared to heterosexual?
No, but you’re a homophobe since you want so badly for the government to keep laws that are biased against them.
I’m saying the government has no legitimate reason to say that the two cannot be married.
The rights would work differently in a polygamous or polyamorous marriage, for stuff like the reason I cited above.
No, I dont think its “wrong”, it just brings up different legal issues not otherwise present.
Good thing thats not the case. but nice try
Please, ass, I said they warrant their own consideration, not that they are grounds for disallowing legal contracts that provide the same benefits of marriage.
BUT ITS NOT A THREAD ABOUT POLYGAMY OR INCEST!!! WHY DO YOU BRING THOSE UP THEN OMGWTFLOLBBQPWNED!!!
Nope, point is you dont really care about the “traditional” marriage construct, you just use that as an excuse for personal anti-gay bigotry.
You seem to think that two men marrying is the end of the world, or at least the beginning of it.
So you cant actually argue that gays SHOULDNT marry, other than gloom and doom predictions about what it will bring on. Nice.
I wonder how many people were against slaves going free…
Too bad. Oh well, though, only a coward would sit back and allow wrong to occur just because the majority thinks its ok.
Already explained. Read above.
My group? I’m actually not gay (but if you’re trying to insult me, go ahead, I’ve fooled around with a couple of guys, didnt really get anything out of it though).
And no, I’m not for restrictions on minority groups, but I understand that different situations sometimes can bring about their own legal issues. There are no different legal issues between two men then there are for a man and a woman.
Reasonable control. Careful, I know you’re losing the debate and running scared when I have to pre-empt every word because you’ll try to twist it or find loopholes
sigh
once again
The idea of more than two people getting married brings up different legal issues. So, the fair thing to do would be to create contracts that give all the legal benefits of marriage but are prepared for such issues (like one person getting divorced but the others remaining in the marriage).
Sounds fair, right?
As far as incest, the same idea is plausible.
Even for gays; if you want to call it a civil union or whatever, go ahead.
Why are you so worried that two men living together could get tax breaks?
Why are you afraid that two women who want to give each other hospital visitation rights could do so?
I dont see whats so scary about allowing a gay couple to say “we are married”, and have them get the same legal benefits of marriage that a straight couple can get, unless you have homophobic issues.
[quote]Damici wrote:
Um . . . you WERE kidding about Anne Heche, right? Anne Heche is bisexual. She’s been in relationships with men, and she’s been in relationships with women. Her previous relationship happened to be with a woman. Her present one happens to be with a man.
[/quote]
So you are saying that anyone who was straight, then started with the same sex is bisexual? Dude, you need to stop before you embarrass yourself any further. Thousands of gays were straight, or thought they were straight, before they changed. Most of these people would say they are gay, not bisexual. Get a grip!
And how is it acceptable that someone is straight, then realizes they are gay and it cannot happen the other way round?
It seems more likely that attraction towards other men is their true nature…
Let’s stop right here, who says that it’s their “true nature”? You? Other social liberals? Those who say that people are “born that way”, with no proof? No one can say for sure.
If a man is able to have sex with a woman and also a man I think it’s pretty safe to say that that man is a bisexual by nature. What else can you call him?
I don’t think anyone is repressing anything. What they’re doing is experiencing what they truly want, that being able to have sex with both genders. Your contention that if any of the men in question were allowed to marry another man so many years ago then they would not be having sex with another man is not valid. How do you know that they would not have been sneaking around on that man with another woman? Since the person is obviously able to have sex with both (bisexual).
[/quote]
Bisexual “true nature”? How can anything different from a procreative model (man & woman) be “true nature” as no other biological mating behavior supports survival of the species?
So unless nature is trying to make this person’s genetic line, through a genetic defect, go extent, it is not “true nature”.
So we are then left with it being a choice and changeable or being a genetic defect.
It seems more likely that attraction towards other men is their true nature…
Let’s stop right here, who says that it’s their “true nature”? You? Other social liberals? Those who say that people are “born that way”, with no proof? No one can say for sure.
If a man is able to have sex with a woman and also a man I think it’s pretty safe to say that that man is a bisexual by nature. What else can you call him?
I don’t think anyone is repressing anything. What they’re doing is experiencing what they truly want, that being able to have sex with both genders. Your contention that if any of the men in question were allowed to marry another man so many years ago then they would not be having sex with another man is not valid. How do you know that they would not have been sneaking around on that man with another woman? Since the person is obviously able to have sex with both (bisexual).
Bisexual “true nature”? How can anything different from a procreative model (man & woman) be “true nature” as no other biological mating behavior supports survival of the species?
So unless nature is trying to make this person’s genetic line, through a genetic defect, go extent, it is not “true nature”.
So we are then left with it being a choice and changeable or being a genetic defect.
[/quote]
Where you go wrong is expecting nature to work as you think it does or should and calling unnatural what works differently instead of respecting nature as it actually works and calling that natural.
It seems more likely that attraction towards other men is their true nature…
Let’s stop right here, who says that it’s their “true nature”? You? Other social liberals? Those who say that people are “born that way”, with no proof? No one can say for sure.
If a man is able to have sex with a woman and also a man I think it’s pretty safe to say that that man is a bisexual by nature. What else can you call him?
I don’t think anyone is repressing anything. What they’re doing is experiencing what they truly want, that being able to have sex with both genders. Your contention that if any of the men in question were allowed to marry another man so many years ago then they would not be having sex with another man is not valid. How do you know that they would not have been sneaking around on that man with another woman? Since the person is obviously able to have sex with both (bisexual).
Bisexual “true nature”? How can anything different from a procreative model (man & woman) be “true nature” as no other biological mating behavior supports survival of the species?
So unless nature is trying to make this person’s genetic line, through a genetic defect, go extent, it is not “true nature”.
So we are then left with it being a choice and changeable or being a genetic defect.
Where you go wrong is expecting nature to work as you think it does or should and calling unnatural what works differently instead of respecting nature as it actually works and calling that natural.
[/quote]
Riiight! Trying to make it personal again Orion and ignoring the facts?
Show me where a human gene line can be carried on in nature without male/female procreation. But since it can’t occur in nature you have no valid point.
I suggest you read up on Darwin’s natural selection.
It seems more likely that attraction towards other men is their true nature…
Let’s stop right here, who says that it’s their “true nature”? You? Other social liberals? Those who say that people are “born that way”, with no proof? No one can say for sure.
If a man is able to have sex with a woman and also a man I think it’s pretty safe to say that that man is a bisexual by nature. What else can you call him?
I don’t think anyone is repressing anything. What they’re doing is experiencing what they truly want, that being able to have sex with both genders. Your contention that if any of the men in question were allowed to marry another man so many years ago then they would not be having sex with another man is not valid. How do you know that they would not have been sneaking around on that man with another woman? Since the person is obviously able to have sex with both (bisexual).
Bisexual “true nature”? How can anything different from a procreative model (man & woman) be “true nature” as no other biological mating behavior supports survival of the species?
So unless nature is trying to make this person’s genetic line, through a genetic defect, go extent, it is not “true nature”.
So we are then left with it being a choice and changeable or being a genetic defect.
Where you go wrong is expecting nature to work as you think it does or should and calling unnatural what works differently instead of respecting nature as it actually works and calling that natural.
Riiight! Trying to make it personal again Orion and ignoring the facts?
Show me where a human gene line can be carried on in nature without male/female procreation. But since it can’t occur in nature you have no valid point.
I suggest you read up on Darwin’s natural selection.
[/quote]
I suggest you take into account that biology has evolved (snicker…) since Darwin.
Bees do not procreate either and yet they work and sacrifice themselves for the hive.
Why?
Because a large enough part of their genome gets passed on through their queen or the next queen to make it worth it for their genes to make thousands of not procreating bees to support one that does.
How big of a leap is it to believe that the occasional non procreating human plays a similar role in human societies?
Since homosexuality IS there must be a reason for its existence.
I’ll chime in for the hell of it. I only read the first page, so if I am repeating something, sorry…
I don’t think sexuality is a choice. I have yet to see ANYONE say,“I think I’ll be straight.” No one here made the choice to be straight and if you did, I’d really like to hear how that went, lol.
If you think about it, logically, sexually would be determined genetically for the following reasons…
You have to have some underlying drive to procreate. Without this, new generations wouldn’t exist, blah blah blah.
Homosexuality could be viewed as a genetic “balance” to even out population growth. Some of you might remember the study done on adult male rams which showed that some of them were in fact homosexual. I doubt these animals made a “choice” to become gay.
If you guys want to discus genetics, well, lets go there.
Arguing that genes are only carried from parents to offspring is correct (in higher life forms, i wonder if we can make E.Coli gay? lol) Most people question the existence of a gay gene. The problem with this stance is that assuming one gene determines sexuality would be ignorant.
Even something as simple as eye color is a polygenic trait. How many genes are involved, if true, as well as what affects these genes (other genes, mutations, etc) would be very difficult and seeing as there’s not really a good way to make money from research to discover genes linked to homosexuality, we might not ever know.
Behavioral acts affect the majority of our behaviors, but I would say that the determination of sexuality is right up there with the need for food, shelter and sleep. The problem with the behavioral argument is, when did this behavior start and how was it taught to the offspring. Its sort of like which came first, the chicken or the egg, metaphorically speaking.
You have to have someone be taught this behavior, but that can only happen from a role model of the same species. Seems like a mobius strip. There is no beginning. Its a poor argument since there’s no proof that every single human, mammal, reptile, bird, amphibian, etc, learned how to court and mate from its parents. You reach a point back far enough that these animals had to know how to innately, not be taught. That would also explain how sexuality came into play, genetically.
Genetically speaking, you can see that a persons brain chemistry is linked to his / her sexuality. Gays tend to have a different brain chemistry that is not very hard to distinguish from that of a straight person.
Chemicals, or more correctly, signaling molecules, are produced directly from genes. I know your brain chemistry changes depending upon what is going on around you, say, fear, excitement, depression, etc, but I’d like to bet that your brain chemistry cannot be changed so that one is attraced to someone of the same sex.
As well, the condition of being gay CAN be genetic if you take into account dominant and recessive alleles. Both parents might carry one “gay gene” while the other gene is a “straight gene.” You have a 50 / 50 chance of gay offspring. If only 1 of the 4 genes is a gay gene, then no offspring will be gay since the straight gene will “mask” the affect of the gay gene (at least thats one way of looking at it). So at least 50% of the genes involved from both parents MUST be the “gay genes.”
Take into account that now, all the gay genes must be paired properly to produce a gay offspring. Makes sense why its not a 1:1 ration of gay to straight in the world. Its not even close to that.
I’ll probably think or something else to say later…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I don’t think anyone is repressing anything. What they’re doing is experiencing what they truly want, that being able to have sex with both genders. Your contention that if any of the men in question were allowed to marry another man so many years ago then they would not be having sex with another man is not valid. How do you know that they would not have been sneaking around on that man with another woman? Since the person is obviously able to have sex with both (bisexual).[/quote]
Since when did sexual orientation become about being able to have sex? Sure lots of ‘bisexual’ inmates out there, they seem to be able.
And your notion that gays would sneak off to have affairs with women is just plain ignorant and you have no idea what you’re talking about.
The reason you can’t imagine yourself being a homosexual is PRECISELY why it’s not a choice. I never made a choice to be attracted to women and neither did anyone else, it just the way you’re wired. There’s no crossroads of sexual orientation to stand on.
Nobody goes ‘Hmmm, what can I do to become even more socially ostracized than I already am? Ahh, of course have man on man sex! Sounds gross but I really want to be beaten to death with a pipe or thrown out of home. And plain old masochism is so retro.’
Even the US Surgeon General Satcher said in his 2001 report: “Sexual orientation is usually determined by adolescence, if not earlier (Bell et al, 1981), and there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed (Haldeman, 1994; APA, 2000).”
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
blah blah blah … Keep throwing up straw men and I’ll be sure to ignore you.[/quote]
See, now it’s great you learned a descriptive phrase for describing a fallacious argument. Kudos to you. However, to the extent my statements actually constituted a straw man argument, it would be great if you would point out the specifics of how they qualified.
You made a very general statement, and I explored several possible meanings. To the extent you disagree with any of the implications of your statements, you could always try being more clear.
When you finally got around to trying to respond, you highlighted that you didn’t get the point - pay attention below.
[quote]…
BostonBarrister wrote:
But there may just be more appropriate parallels. For instance, the country must be bigoted against non-farmers. There are benefits that one can only attain by choosing to own and/or run a farm. I do not have any desire whatsoever to own or work on a farm, and am thus not able to take advantage of those benefits. The bigotry is self evident. Please initiate the lawsuit on my behalf.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yay, another one! Wow you’re good at these! The analogy almost makes sense if you ignore the teensy tiny itty bitty little fact that the government does not discriminate over who can become a farmer and who can take advantage of those benefits (the same way it DOES discriminate over who can get married and who can take advantae of those benefits). See, the option to be a farmer is open to all, the option to get married is not.
Now, you MIGHT be making a point that the government is biased towards those who want to get married vs those who want to stay single (by giving those who want to marry special benefits), but thats another discussion altogether, isnt it?
Bringing up strawmen just shows your fear of the actual issue. How about we stick to that?[/quote]
Here is where you miss the point completely, but unsurprisingly.
The government doesn’t discriminate at all in terms of who can become a farmer, and the government does not discriminate at all in terms of who can enter into a marriage. There is no person who is incapable of being a farmer, and there is no person who is incapable of entering into a marriage. Let me repeat that so you can comprehend: There is no person who is disallowed from entering into a marriage as marriage is defined.
There are, of course, people who do not want to be farmers; they don’t want to take the actions prescribed to be considered “farmers” and get the benefits, even if they would rather raise a garden on a city rooftop and get a tax break for farmers. There are also people who do not want to marry; they do not wish to enter into the particular contractual relationship we define as marriage, even if they would rather enter into some other relationship and still get a tax break.
Was that clear enough? Sometimes I’m not sure how basic I need to get - but it’s important that you comprehend the “actual issue” after all.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
What, you say that I could always start a farm if I wanted to do so? That, my friend, is the difference for which you were searching. It’s the action that matters.
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yes, and a man, of any sexual preference, could marry a woman.[/quote]
By Jove, he may have it!
[quote]
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But why should he be forced to? What makes the sex of the people involved a legitimate reason for the government to disallow marriage? [/quote]
Unfortunately, apparently not. No one would for him to do anything. It’s a fairly straightforward issue: the government defines the parameters of the benefit, and you choose to take the particular action required to get the benefit or you choose not to take the particular action required and you forego the benefit. This isn’t controversial.
[quote]
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
A man, of any race, could marry a member of the same race. A man, of any religion, could marry a member of the same religion. Same for class, citizenship, and a variety of other issues.
But why should they be forced to?[/quote]
Again, they aren’t. No one is forced to marry, and no one is prohibited from marrying - as I pointed out before, any couple can hold themselves out as “married” in any context other than a tax return, can contract for the same property rights and decision-making authority as a marriage and can have a marriage ceremony. The only question is whether someone can disregard the parameters placed on a governmental benefit and just do whatever he wants and claim it anyway.
[quote]Majin wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I don’t think anyone is repressing anything. What they’re doing is experiencing what they truly want, that being able to have sex with both genders. Your contention that if any of the men in question were allowed to marry another man so many years ago then they would not be having sex with another man is not valid. How do you know that they would not have been sneaking around on that man with another woman? Since the person is obviously able to have sex with both (bisexual).
Since when did sexual orientation become about being able to have sex? Sure lots of ‘bisexual’ inmates out there, they seem to be able.[/quote]
Yes, I’ve heard the “inmate excuse” before. But as we both know these people are NOT inmates. They travel about freely and actually choose to have sex with both men and women. That’s called “bisexuality” and it is far, far more prevelent than homosexuality.
Tell me is there a bisexual gene?
Funny stuff.
You must have misunderstood what I was saying. I never said that homosexuals would sneak off to have sex with someone of the opposite sex. I said that bisexuals may do this.
Now that doesn’t quite make sense does it? If you could show me some science which proves that homosexuality is genetic then of course that would be the end of the debate. Otherwise, you, like so many other social liberals are simply spewing forth what has been fed to you by those claiming without any proof at all that homosexuality is genetic.
There are many theories which claim that it is something that happens during your formative years as a child, and growing which causes this abnormality. But, certainly no one absolutely knows for sure. But it is at least as good a bet that it is nurture and not nature which causes homosexuality.
With males for example:
Regent University’s Law Review for Spring, 2002, is entirely devoted to a discussion of various aspects of homosexuality, including the origins and causes of homosexual behaviors. The Law Review includes a study, " Homosexuality: Innate and Immutable?" by Dr. A. Dean Byrd and Stony Olsen.
After discussing the lack of evidence on the genetic origins of homosexuality, Dr. Byrd and his associate detail the various environmental factors that can lead a person into a homosexual lifestyle.
Gender Confusion: Dr. George Rekers, an expert on Gender Identity Disorders, is author of dozens of scholarly research papers on homosexuality and wrote Growing Up Straight: What Every Family Should Know About Homosexuality in 1982. He is also editor of Handbook of Child and Adolescent Sexual Problems, published in 1995. Dr. Rekers stated in 1995, that "Gender nonconformity in childhood may be the single common observable factor associated with homosexuality.
Some of the typical childhood factors leading to homosexuality are: feeling of being different from other children; perception of father as being distant, uninvolved and unapproving; perception of mother being too close, too involved; diminished or distorted masculinity or femininity; premature introduction to sexuality; and gender confusion.
Failure To Internalize Maleness: Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality has written: “Homosexuality is a developmental problem that is almost always the result of problems in family relationships, particularly between father and son. As a result of failure with father, the boy does not fully internalize male gender identity, and develops homosexuality. This is the most commonly seen clinical model.”
Dr. George Rekers, writing in Growing Up Straight, observes: “Many studies of homosexual patients as well as of nonpatient homosexuals have established a classic pattern of background family relations. The most frequent family pattern reported from the male homosexuals includes a binding, intimate mother in combination with a hostile, detached father.”
Sexual Abuse By Same-Sex Predator: In studies conducted by Diana Shrier and Robert Johnson in 1985 and 1988, males who had been sexually abused as children were almost seven times as likely as non-molested boys to become homosexuals.
Dr. Gregory Dickson recently completed a doctoral dissertation on the pattern of relationships between mothers and their male homosexual sons. His paper is entitled: “An Empirical Study of the Mother/Son Dyad in Relation to the Development of Adult Male Homosexuality: An Object Relations Perspective.”
Dr. Dickson’s study is reviewed on the NARTH web site. His study sheds new light on the relationship between early childhood sexual abuse and a child’s later involvement in homosexual behaviors. According to Dickson, an alarming 49% of homosexuals surveyed had been molested compared to less than 2% of heterosexuals.
His study affirms previous findings of Dr. David Finkelhor (1984), which found that boys victimized by older men were four times more likely to be currently involved in homosexual behaviors than were non-victims.
As Finkelhor observed: "It may be common for a boy who has been involved in an experience with an older man to label himself as homosexual (1) because he has had a homosexual experience and (2) because he was found to be sexually attractive by a man.
Once he labels himself homosexual, the boy may begin to behave consistently with the role and gravitate toward homosexual activity." (Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research, New York: The Free Press, 1984).
Dr. Dickson’s study suggests that sexual abuse should be considered in evaluating the factors that contribute to the development of adult homosexual behaviors. Dickson writes: “An experience of sexual abuse could possibly contribute to the sexualizing of the unmet needs for male affection, attention, and connection.”
Dr. Dickson continues: “Given the relational deficits [with his mother] experienced by the male child, it is also possible that the molestation, as devastating as it may have been emotionally, simultaneously may be experienced by some of the boys as their first form of adult male affection, as well as something relational that is not shared in common with his mother.”
Counselor Dr. Robert Hicks, author of The Masculine Journey, has written: "?In counseling gay men for twenty years, I have not had one yet whom I would say had a normative childhood or normative adolescent development in the sexual arena.
More often than not I have found stories of abusive, alcoholic, or absent (physically and emotionally) fathers: stories of incest or first experiences of sex forced upon them by older brothers, neighborhood men, or even friends. I sometimes find these men have had early exposure to pornography?."
Do I think you made a conscious decision one day to be attracted to someone of the same sex? Of course not, how foolish, and I never suggested such a thing. But I do think that we are all to a large degree the product of our upbringing.
That’s an interesting quote. The first part agrees with what I’ve posted. Sexuality is “determined by adolescence.” The surgeon General is placing more importance on upbringing here. He did not say that one was “born that way” did he?
As far as people changing I could post volumes of data which supports the fact that people can and do change their preference. It happens all of the time. In fact, about 30% or so of all who go through therapy are indeed changed.
What do you say to that? Because some have tried and failed means that no one can change? How ridiculous.
You shouldnt need the difference between bigotry and a legal drinking age explained to you.
Why are you ignoring the fact that some would say that it is bigoted to deny a 40 year old who is in better shape than most 21 year olds the right to serve their country?
Is that not age discrimination?
Is it okay to discriminate against someone for age but not sexual preference? Come on Cap, you have to look outside the politically correct box now and then.
Because (a)the fact that “some would say” does not actually make it so,[/quote]
And of course the same can be said of your argument regarding homosexuals.
My point is valid, the government does in fact discriminate and it is supposed to be for the greater good.
I don’t agree with their stance on military service and you don’t agree with their stance on homosexuals marrying. But they do discriminate, that’s something that we’ll have to agree on.
[quote]
And again who is to say that we draw the line at homosexuals getting married. Why can’t we extend it beyond there? I gave you a few examples above. If someone truly wants to marry their sister why can’t they? If someone really wants to marry 2 women instead of just one why can’t they? All three are in love, all three are adults. Hopefully you’ll see the problem in your logic.
Are you seriously playing the slippery slope card? Yes, zeb, if we let them niggers marry, next step is people marryin’ they dogs. We gotta draw tha line sumwhere!
Please.
And you are ignoring my question. Why don’t you answer it?
Too hard?
I’ve already explained that each issue warrants its own consideration. Hence, allowing homosexuals to marry is its own issue, without relation to incest or pedophilia or beastiality or polygamy.
Your question is flawed, and has already been answered, repeatedly.[/quote]
Once again you ingore the question. We are discussing the changing of a 5000 year old institution. It is an argument about marriage not just homosexuals. And if marriage is changed for one class why can’t it be changed for another.
And once again you avoided my question. I’ll keep asking it until you answer, okay?
Why can’t three Polygamists get married?
[quote]Tell me why polygamists cannot marry? Tell me why someone cannot marry their sister? Do you have an answer for this? Why is their right to marry less important than the homosexuals right?
I’ll post this separately in case you miss it.
Why cant you stay on the topic of gay marriage, instead of having to bring up irrelevant topics? Are you seriously unable to get the “oh no its gonna be a freeforall!” idea out of your head?
If you were arguing against someone who was claiming that interracial marriage should be illegal, and they asked you those same questions, how would you respond? Would you need to explain polygamy and incest as it related to interracial marriage?[/quote]
Because the argument is larger than homosexuals getting married. As I stated above, it’s about marriage. And marriage is far, far bigger than two homosexuals wanting to tie the knot.
Yes, I always lose in the eyes of the social liberals, and that’s fine by me. As long as I’m right I don’t mind.
That’s not a reason to allow homosexuals to marry, that’s merely a snide remark. Why don’t you simply give me some good reasons, no ONE good reason why we should change the institution of marriage for a few, and not a few others?
[quote]
Read the a couple of threads up on the basic promiscuity of this group, and the bleak health statistics that follow.
Whats that? Oh boy, the “poisioning the well” fallacy… I WIN![/quote]
More snide remarks, are you done with this debate?
My point is that the level of promiscuity seems so high (based upon valid statistics) that it would certainly be a mockery to allow such a group the right to marry. And I also wonder how many would marry.
In fact I bet if we check we can see how long homosexual unions last in areas where marriage is allowed. Maybe I’,m wrong on this one aspect of the debate, why don’t you check it out and let me know. It would surely be more productive than posting more of your unrelated comments.
[quote]And you want to change the institution of marriage for this tiny group?
Wait a minute, are you suggesting that everyone get what they want? Then we can discuss polygamists and those practicing incest to also marry.
But, you’d rather not talk about that right?
[quote]
Honestly, if I were not living in this politically correct age this would be laughable.
So was letting blacks marry or giving women legal standing, in their own times. Dont worry, one day the rest of you will catch up with social progress, and future generations will look back and scratch their heads at this.[/quote]
First of all there is no comparison between someone of another race marrying and two homsexuals marrying. Your logic is flawed. Black people cannot change their color (not that they’d want to). However, homosexuals become heterosexuals all the time. Would you like me to repost some of the credible studies which demonstrate this?
Now I ask you again, if two of the same gender can marry why can’t three or more marry?
You don’t like that question because it’s one more thing that puts into clear perspective the foolishness of your entire argument.
[quote]
Then by all means tell me why other minority groups are not having their wishes fullfilled when it comes to marriage?
Because things like polygamy and interfamily marriage present different legal issues, Zeb. But, I’m sorry, go on with your “if we can stop one, we can stop whichever ones we want!” logic. Its cute, really.[/quote]
I don’t think that you find it very cute. In fact, I think you find it quite frustrating. As you try to patch together an argument for two homosexuals getting married you are faced with the reality that other groups just as important as homosexuals want the same right.
Now tell me how does polygamy and incest present different legal arguments. And why shouldn’t their rights be respected just like the homosexuals rights?
Tell us all.
[quote]
And as long as we’re on rights of the minority, I’m still waiting for you to tell me why I can’t join the Marines when I can perform just as well if not better than most on any physical or mental test.
Are my rights not important?
Ok, lets say you’re right and they shouldnt be allowed to discriminate against you based on your age.
Whats your point? The marines get away with it, so anybody can? If I murder someone, could I turn around and say “Well people get away with it all the time!”?
If its a true concern, you should be trying to reverse the wrong in that situation, not use the wrong in that situation to justify wrong in another situation.[/quote]
My point is that government makes laws which are supposed to be for the greater good. There are reasons why a 40 year old man cannot join the military regardless of his ability to pass all the physical tests.
Government makes laws, that’s part of what they do. When you argue that they have no right to prevent two homosexuals from marrying you are very wrong on that one. Along with your other flawed arguments that is.
[quote]
Did you just ask about a man marrying an inanimate object (which cannot consent, does not have legal standing, and could not sign a marriage license)?
Look, when you’re ready to leave out the stupid questions, let me know.
It’s not at all stupid. Didn’t you read about the man who wanted to marry his dog? Should I find the article for you? Wacky? Yes, I think it is. But give it time. 25 years ago two homosexuals marrying was considered wacky? I guess you have not lived long enough to see the full circle of crazy which has no reverse button.
And years before that blacks marrying whites was wacky, and before that women not being property was wacky, and people choosing who they marry was wacky, and divorce is STILL, to some, wacky (by wacky I mean evil and you burn in hell for it).[/quote]
Your argument is this: Things change over time and all change is good. And that’s simple incorrect. Many changes that have been made are good. But that doesn’t mean that the change that you are proposing is good. Each change must stand on its own merits. And two homosexual marrying has no merit and produces no common good.
[quote]
A dog will never be able to consent to marriage, and the primary factor in any legal contract (which marriage is) is consent. So, again, the slippery slope fails you.[/quote]
Not at all. In fact, it holds quite true. If the state has no right to limit marriage contracts then any combination will do. And that is really the crux of your argument is it not? If not then what you are saying is let’s extend this marriage contract to include only homosexuals.
And as far as the dog argument, which has less merit than the argument that polygamist will through at us, it’s not as silly as you think.
If a dog is my property why can’t I do what I want with it? If the dog is happy that will sooth the animal rights activists (other nutty liberals). And if the dog makes me happy, um, don’t I have the right to pursue happiness?
Okay, as I’ve said before Polygamy, incest, a person marrying an animal, all might sound silly to you right now because you have not been indoctrinated into being sympathetic to their rights. But, the powerful homosexual lobby, liberal media and liberal Universities have all helped you along in your thinking regarding homosexual marriage.
20-25 years from now, who knows? The argument can be made for certain. Maybe then you’ll be the one with the “closed mind”.
So, you are for a brother and sister marrying. Now tell me do the brother and sister have a right to have children? I think you know where I’m going with this, but play along anyway because you’ve opened a pandoras box with this one.
[quote]
Is marriage a contract to have children, or is marriage a contract that gives people tax breaks, powers of estate, etc, etc? Is it possible to get married and never have children?[/quote]
Interesting questions. Originally I think marriage was to have children, but it was for other reasons as well.
According to my wife, yes! But I always get me way.
Sorry I couldn’t resist.
I would be for some sort of contract to honor a relationship outside of marriage. But it would not just be for two homosexuals. It would be for any two or more people who have lived together as a “family.” So that they could have special rights, visiting a loved one in the hospitial and making life or death decisions for example.
[quote]
As to polygamy, thats another issue entirely, HOWEVER, (and heres where your little “sippery slope” theory dies) just because one thing CAN REASONABLY be disallowed by the government, does not mean that ANYTHING can arbitarily be disallowed.
BUT WAIT! Why did you disallow Polygamy? Don’t they have the right to be happy, just like the two homosexuals in question? Come on now you BIGOT!
sigh That other idiot Mick said I was a bigot because I said having sex with a lightbulb sounds painful. Stop being a jackass, it only makes you look bad.[/quote]
The other idiot? Okay, that was mean.
Actually, calling someone a “polygaphobe” is stupid. Just as stupid as calling someone a “homophobe.” It’s just that you’re used to the latter and not the former. Wait a few years.
[quote]If you could read (and stop being a fucking moron), you’ll notice I never disallowed it, I said its another issue entirely.
Actually reading the words in[/quote]
I sense a frustration setting in.
I’ll remind you that we are discussing the institution of marriage, not what training program that we’re all going to use next week. And all things have to be considered. Not thinking about polygamy and incest in the same breath as homosexuality is naive. Why is your pet minority group entitled to more benefits than other groups?
It really is a good question and needs to be considered in any serious debate involving homosexuals marrying.
[quote]Give me one good reason why Polygamists should not be allowed to marry.
Well, an obvious issue, is, if three people are married, and one goes on life support… of the remaining two, one wants to take them off and the other wants to keep them on. Who should be allowed to make that decision?
Thats just an example off the top of[/quote]
That’s easily solved. Prior to the “marriage” each partner is designated the decision maker in such an event.
There, solved. Now why can’t polygamists marry? Tell me again why you are (are you ready?) a POLYGAPHOBE?
[quote]
Its a stupid, stupid, stupid argument to simply point out that the government CAN place some restrictions on who can marry, therefore the restriction you’re supporting MUST be valid.
Let it go.
But you just said that three people cannot marry each other. Now tell me why that’s wrong but two homosexuals marrying should be okay.
No, I said its another issue, you interpreted it as such (like a fool), now you’re repeating your misinterpretation as though its fact (like a jackass), and trying to “use my own words against me”.
I’m sure you dont always have to be an idiot in debates, why this one?[/quote]
It seems that on this thread you’ve resorted to name calling and personal attacks. Now don’t get me wrong, I can go that route, but really what’s the point?
I don’t have a problem with a legal contract of some sort of a "family relationship"as I stated above.
[quote]
If you draw a line before any of the above you are discriminating.
sigh Whats your point? That since some restrictions can exist, the government can place any restriction they want? That “anything can be called discriminating therefore its ok to discriminate”? You’re making zero sense here.
I’m saying that “discriminating” by the government has been going on for a long time. And that every government operates this way.
So since its happened in the past, we shouldnt do anything to stop it now. Wow, what sane logic. [/quote]
As I’ve told you countless times; government discriminates, and has been since the beginning, for the greater good. You and I like some forms of their discrimination, but we don’t like others.
[quote]
What’s the reason? Are you a “POLYGAPHOBE”?
No, but you’re a homophobe since you want so badly for the government to keep laws that are biased against them.[/quote]
Okay, and your a “POLYGAPHOBE” and a “INCESTAPHOBE” and a “ANIMALAPHOBE” and probably plenty of other “phobes” if I thought about it longer.
Yes, I think you discriminate far more than me.
[quote]
I’m sorry I gave you that impression, but let me explain. You say it matters not that preference can be changed. That means that you are saying if one man wants to marry another then it should be allowed based upon their desire to do so. Correct?
I’m saying the government has no legitimate reason to say that the two cannot be married.[/quote]
Yet, you cannot give me even one good reason to change this 5000 year old institution.
Odd huh?
And if that’s the case, since you are not basing it on anything but their desire to do so then why can’t others who are also in a minority group have that same right. And you cannot give me any good reason why Polygamists for example cannot have that same right. Is it just because you think it’s wrong?
[quote]
The rights would work differently in a polygamous or polyamorous marriage, for stuff like the reason I cited above.
No, I dont think its “wrong”, it just brings up different legal issues not otherwise present.[/quote]
So, tell me are you for any sort of relationship being given the opportunity to marry?
Do you draw a line in the sand anywhere? Fair question, you know where I’m drawing it.
[quote]If so, how dare you try to force your values on those poor people.
Why arent you clamoring against divorce then?
Well, first of all this is a thread on homosexuality.
BUT ITS NOT A THREAD ABOUT POLYGAMY OR INCEST!!! WHY DO YOU BRING THOSE UP THEN OMGWTFLOLBBQPWNED!!![/quote]
Because anything that changes the institution of marriage is a thread about marriage.
If we wanted to allow monkeys to play baseball would the topic be about monkeys or baseball? Or would it be about both?
Please stop this senseless dodging of the main issue.
[quote]
If it were one on divorce the first thing I would do is point out BB’s great thread begun a couple of months ago regarding divorce. It seems that if you take away those who have married multiple times that brings the divorce rate way down. There were some other interesting points as well.
It seems marriage is not in as bad a shape as you are insinuating. Not that your argument would have any merit anyway, that is “marriage is already wrecked so why not let a promiscuous group like homosexuals marry?”
Nope, point is you dont really care about the “traditional” marriage construct, you just use that as an excuse for personal anti-gay bigotry.[/quote]
Anytime someone opposes (fill in the blank) they are “hateful” right?
How foolish of you to post such nonsense. I am “pro marriage” and I think that homosexuals marrying is not a good thing for marriage. And that’s why I continually bring up other sorts of relationships that will have their day in the sun IF homosexuals are allowed this right.
Don’t get me wrong, if they never were brought up homosexuals marrying would still be a travesty!
[quote]
You seem to think that two men marrying is the end of the world, or at least the beginning of it.[/quote]
Not at all, it’s one more step in the wrong direction for this country. And by the way, I’m not opposed to putting my money where my mouth is. I’ve given a great deal of money to politicians and political action groups that are working against this very thing.
[quote]
So you cant actually argue that gays SHOULDNT marry, other than gloom and doom predictions about what it will bring on. Nice.[/quote]
You’re confused again, it’s up to YOU to point out how things would be better if homosexuals were allowed to marry. And so far you’ve given me nothing in that direction. Remember, the onus is on those wanting to change the system to show how that change would be beneficial.
You may now begin giving me that list of reasons why we should allow homosexuals to marry. I’m waiting.
[quote]
I wonder how many people were against slaves going free…[/quote]
There is no comparison between blacks and homosexuals. And the NAACP would appreciate it if you stopped making those comparisons. I believe not long ago they had a bit of a disagreement with one of the powerful homosexual lobby groups about using that comparison.
You see it’s not just me that thinks that that is an unfair and inaccurate comparison.
[quote]
I don’t think you’ll see any sort of change in the near future.
Too bad. Oh well, though, only a coward would sit back and allow wrong to occur just because the majority thinks its ok.[/quote]
You’re getting confused again. I’m not against homosexuals marrying because a huge majority of 70% are against it. I’m against it because it’s wrong. And I very much doubt that the millions of people who vote down gay marriage in referendum form are trying to please each other. They know it’s wrong and they follow their concsience.
It’s the social liberals that have this, and most of everything else, wrong.
[quote]
There are no different legal issues between two men then there are for a man and a woman.[/quote]
The same can be said about an incestuous relationship. So tell me why would you discriminate against them?
[quote]
most people are born as a man or a woman, and have no choice over this, and no reasonable control.
Nonsense, sex change operations have been going on for at least 30 years.
Reasonable control. Careful, I know you’re losing the debate and running scared when I have to pre-empt every word because you’ll try to twist it or find loopholes[/quote]
Losing the debate? Wow! I’m not trying to be insulting but you seem rather naive to suggest such a thing. You must know by now that there is no winner or lose in message board debates.
We do this for plenty of reasons, entertainment for one. But I certainly hope that you’re not trying to “win”. Anyone taking the time to read these long posts have probably already made up their mind about the topic. They’re either for or against.
You need to rethink why you’re actually posting to me. Here’s a clue, it has nothing to do with “winning” or “losing” anything.
(Zeb eye roll)
[quote]
And there is mounting evidence to show that it’s more nurture than nature. But I will concede that no one knows for sure the answer to that question. And if no one knows why do you take such a hard stand that some folks are “born that way”? Could it be the great amount of programming that you’ve endured from liberal University’s and a liberal media?
3
I should really get a bingo card for these debates.
I could make a square for the slippery slope theory, one for the “sanctity of marriage” argument,
Which is a good argument on it’s own, and one that you have not been able to refute.
Dude, seriously, just read these words. Please.
In my opinion, it does not matter if homosexuals are born that way or acting by choice. The matter is irrelevant.
And I do understand what you’re saying. Circumstances do not matter. All that matters is that these two people of the same sex want to marry.
And, if that’s your argument (do I have that right), then why can’t polygamists marry? You see they don’t “have to” marry more than one person, but they want to, so very badly. And again, why can’t those who practice incest marry? Why would you deny happiness to these folks? And don’t forget the financial benefits and other rights.
By your own logic circumstances don’t count, only the desire for adults to marry count.
Right?
sigh
once again
The idea of more than two people getting married brings up different legal issues. So, the fair thing to do would be to create contracts that give all the legal benefits of marriage but are prepared for such issues (like one person getting divorced but the others remaining in the marriage).
Sounds fair, right?
As far as incest, the same idea is plausible.
Even for gays; if you want to call it a civil union or whatever, go ahead.
Why are you so worried that two men living together could get tax breaks?[/quote]
I’m not the least bit “worried”. As I suggested earlier there could be a “family” or “relationship” act passed which gives everyone living in such a relationship certain rights. But it would not single out homosexuals in any way as there are many groups and pairs of people who could and should benefit. A widow living with her care taker for example.
[quote]
I dont see whats so scary about allowing a gay couple to say “we are married”, and have them get the same legal benefits of marriage that a straight couple can get, unless you have homophobic issues.[/quote]
Yes, it always comes down to name calling when the social liberals who grew up spoon fed gallons of politically correct crap have nothing else to say.
Back to the topic, I’m against homosexuals being able to say “we’re married” obviously. And I feel this way because I am “for” the institution of marriage. And such and act does nothing to further or benefit that institution and in many ways can be seen as degrading it.
Now it’s time for you to give me a big long list of reasons why a 5000 year old institution needs to be changed to accommodate less than one percent of the population.
Hey Cap it seems that the slippery slope is in action in the Netherlands and Belgium, the first two countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals.
Now who would have ever thought that polygamists would want the same rights?
