The sources he quoted are not credible on their face, ass, or anywhere else. Any bunch of hucksters spouting bullshit about “family”, “tradition”, or whatever other nonsense in a veiled smokescreen of homophobia should be given neither creedence, nor respect.
Debate NAMBLA? What’s wrong with you? Coming up with facts to debate NAMBLA, or gay-bashers (which is what those websites represent, I don’t care how many times they say the word “family”) is likke debating Intelligent Design people: it shouldn’t be done because it gives respectability to an indefensible position.[/quote]
While I agree with you on NAMBLA I question your attack on any site which claims to be “pro family.” It seems that credibility is in the eye of the beholder …in everyones case!
In any case it is still your responsibility to refute someones argument in a debate. That is if you are trying to make a valid point and nout just spout off. Not that spouting off is unheard of on Internet message boards…and I’m guilty of this myself at times.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Are you finished? Or are you also going to bash the the federal agency Centers for Disease Control stating they are some right-wing biased organization as well? You seemed to ignore that one, wonder why?
I guess any source I site that doesn’t agree with your position is biased. Maybe you should save us all some time and just quote yourself as that is the only source you seem to think is valid.
No. The CDC is valid. The other ones are biased, agenda-pushing hate-filled pieces of shit.
[/quote]
If I don’t agree with someone’s lifestyle why does that make me “hate-filed”? Can I not care for a person or group of people and still not accept or condone their behavior?
I think that is a very PC thing to do calling someone hateful when you don’t like their message. If you really looked at the facts you would see that hate is not a factor.
I say that the gay lifestyle causes more disease and death than the hetero lifestyle (see CDC website for details) and I don’t support that and think it is wrong.
You say, gays can do what they want and I don’t care.
Now let’s assume we have some power to change the situation so that our points of view will cause some impact. What will your impact be? Gays will continue to engage in a destructive lifestyle and continue having more health issues and continue dying as a result. What will be my impact? Less gays will engage in a destructive lifestyle. Less will get sick and less will die.
So as my position has a more positive outcome for gays than yours.
So who really is the hatemonger?
And incase you and others think that being gay is genetic and they can’t change their behavior or lifestyle, there are many doing it every day.
Okay: to all the ninnies posting sites that change peoples’s sexualities…
Stop it. These things are not real. All they do is turn homosexuals into closet homosexuals.
If these things are true, then just ask yourself: what would be needed to turn YOUR sexuality around? How long would it take, what would be the program, could it be done on a out-call basis?
Or, you could ask the deeper question: who the fuck says you have to change your sexuality?
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Okay: to all the ninnies posting sites that change peoples’s sexualities…
Stop it. These things are not real. All they do is turn homosexuals into closet homosexuals.
If these things are true, then just ask yourself: what would be needed to turn YOUR sexuality around? How long would it take, what would be the program, could it be done on a out-call basis?
Or, you could ask the deeper question: who the fuck says you have to change your sexuality? [/quote]
Once again you spout off with no evidence to back up your claim. Whereas the poster whom you are responding to has put forth evidence for his position.
Eventually those on your side are going to have to refer to actual proof to support their position. Some of the arguments that you and your fellow proponents of gay marriage have put forth are silly based on emotional reasoning.
You sit there and spout off about people that you have never met claiming that they are “closet homosexuals.” If a couple hundred “homosexuals” went through therapy and are now happily married to someone of the opposite sex who are you to claim that they are “closet homosexuals?” How do you know that?
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
This is probably the worst slippery slope argument I’ve ever seen.
[/quote]
Thank you, my point exactly, legislation to alter public behavoir is conditionally ineffective. The death penalty is proven to be ineffective at deterring criminal behavoir (outside of the convict in the chair). Prohibition was exorbitantly ineffective at stemming alcohol consumption. To think that just by granting homosexuals the “privilege” of marriage you’ll alleviate some of the more deviant homosexual behavoir is nothing more than folly.
There are further reasons why the ‘homosexual marriage will combat promiscuity and STDs’ line of thinking is PROBABLY wrong, if you would’ve read my further posts before posting yourself.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
What the hell are you talking about? A sexual assault is a sexual assault.[/quote]
Wait for it…
There it is!
“Supposed”, as if sexual orientation is imaginary?
Sexual orientation has no bearing on a sex-based crime? huh.
Do you know what the word ‘mitigate’ means?
First, while you’re looking up mitigating, look up discriminating as well.
This clearly went over your head. At what point do I, vis a vis the law, regain the ability to distinguish between hetero and homosexuals? Not that I’m trying to discriminate against them, but at some point, it might be convenient for both me and them. I’m sure there are homosexuals that want to be easily discriminated from me. Why should our government be forced to make this decision for us/me?
Once again you spout off with no evidence to back up your claim. Whereas the poster whom you are responding to has put forth evidence for his position.
Eventually those on your side are going to have to refer to actual proof to support their position. Some of the arguments that you and your fellow proponents of gay marriage have put forth are silly based on emotional reasoning.
[/quote]
Zeb, I’m not trying to single you out at all, but come on man! What is your evidence, other than a few lines out of the Bible, that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Even if he did make it up, wouldn’t allowing them to get “bonded” help contain the first two items on the list?
Prof., correct me if I’m wrong, but homosexuals ARE allowed to be “bonded”. Bonding may or may not help those items, we’d have to test it to find out. The question really is: “Should the entire nation be forced to accept/take part in it?”
Also, the general line of thought is extremely optimistic. We could encourage gay marriage as well as straight marriage, then outlaw divorce and begin to stem the AIDS epidemic because everyone will be honoring their marital vows.
After that, we’ll ship every death row criminal to Texas, where I’m sure they’ll have enough chairs, throw the switch on the lot of them and watch crime rates plummet from the deterant effect. Finally, we’ll outlaw alcohol and watch drunk driving evaporate. Let me know when [/quote]
Dude, what the living hell are you talking about? How is allowing two gay people to get “hitched” forcing me to do anything? How is it forcing you to do anything? You are the one that claimed you had facts that support the spread of disease and promiscuity. Well, would or wouldn’t two people being “married” help decrease the spread of that? If you say “no”, then you obviously believe that our current concept of marriage is so loosely held together that being married doesn’t stop, or decrease the occurance of, the couple from sleeping around with other people at all. If you do believe that, then why are you trying so desperately to uphold a failing institution as if it is sacred and untouchable?
[quote]lucasa wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
This is probably the worst slippery slope argument I’ve ever seen.
Thank you, my point exactly, legislation to alter public behavoir is conditionally ineffective. The death penalty is proven to be ineffective at deterring criminal behavoir (outside of the convict in the chair). Prohibition was exorbitantly ineffective at stemming alcohol consumption.
To think that just by granting homosexuals the “privilege” of marriage you’ll alleviate some of the more deviant homosexual behavoir is nothing more than folly.
There are further reasons why the ‘homosexual marriage will combat promiscuity and STDs’ line of thinking is PROBABLY wrong, if you would’ve read my further posts before posting yourself.
[/quote]
The slipperly slope I was refering to was the subesequent, ridiculous legislation you were discussing which would never come to pass. But I guess your point was just that you think granting gays rights to civil union is in the same vein. In fact, it’s not.
We pass new laws all the time to encompass new realities and adapt to changing social mores and norms. Allowing it is completely different from prohibition in an attempt to stop a behavior or the death penalty as detterrence. (in fact, the death penalty is only marginally for deterrence.
There are other reasons to punish besides deterrrence: retribution being a main one and incapacitation of dangerous invdividuals another [and the death penalty is the ultimate incapaciation whether or not it’s just]) The purpose of allowing civil unions is not to alleviate deviant sexual behavior at all. It’s to allow homsexuals in a committed relationship to have the same legal rights as heterosexuals.
If gay promiscuity goes down, that’s great. But it’s not the point, and it’s not the purpose.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
The slipperly slope I was refering to was the subesequent, ridiculous legislation you were discussing which would never come to pass. But I guess your point was just that you think granting gays rights to civil union is in the same vein. In fact, it’s not.
We pass new laws all the time to encompass new realities and adapt to changing social mores and norms. Allowing it is completely different from prohibition in an attempt to stop a behavior or the death penalty as detterrence. (in fact, the death penalty is only marginally for deterrence.
There are other reasons to punish besides deterrrence: retribution being a main one and incapacitation of dangerous invdividuals another [and the death penalty is the ultimate incapaciation whether or not it’s just]) The purpose of allowing civil unions is not to alleviate deviant sexual behavior at all. It’s to allow homsexuals in a committed relationship to have the same legal rights as heterosexuals.
If gay promiscuity goes down, that’s great. But it’s not the point, and it’s not the purpose.
[/quote]
Once again, thanks. You seem to keep agreeing with me without actually saying so. I’m trying to be polite, it wasn’t a ‘slippery slope’. Prof. asserted that homosexual promiscuity and prolific STDs would somehow be alleviated by allowing homosexuals to marry. My assertion was that legislating behavior like that often has little to no effect.
As well, your lectures on the death penalty are unwarranted. I’m well aware of the purposes and efficacy of the death penalty. Just so we’re clear, I’m in favor of the death penalty for one reason: I don’t believe in State reformation.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Prof. asserted that homosexual promiscuity and prolific STDs would somehow be alleviated by allowing homosexuals to marry. My assertion was that legislating behavior like that often has little to no effect.
[/quote]
That isn’t what was stated. The concept is, if two gays are allowed to get married, would this, in your mind, help decrease the occurance? Of course it won’t be “alleviated” across the board just like diseases are still being spread by heterosexuals. However, wouldn’t most people agree that a goal of monogamy helps decrease the spread of disease in heterosexual populations? It has nothing to do with legislating behavior. It has everything to do with opening an option to a group of people that is currently closed.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dude, what the living hell are you talking about? How is allowing two gay people to get “hitched” forcing me to do anything? How is it forcing you to do anything? You are the one that claimed you had facts that support the spread of disease and promiscuity. Well, would or wouldn’t two people being “married” help decrease the spread of that? If you say “no”, then you obviously believe that our current concept of marriage is so loosely held together that being married doesn’t stop, or decrease the occurance of, the couple from sleeping around with other people at all. If you do believe that, then why are you trying so desperately to uphold a failing institution as if it is sacred and untouchable?[/quote]
Prof., man, are you under a rock? Homosexuals CAN get married. My question is why should all 50 states recognize them when it’s obvious that a majority of them don’t want to?
You’re putting words in my mouth, I claimed NO facts on homosexual marriage and it’s affect on promiscuity and STDs. I think there’s some studying that needs to be done and it shouldn’t be done by changing federal law against the majority opinion.
Lastly, like I said, I think you’re being overly optimistic and drawing associations that don’t exist (and maybe misunderstanding my meaning). Promiscuity and marriage are not mutually exclusive. Promiscuity and monogamy are. Further monogamy doesn’t cause marriage and marriage doesn’t cause monogamy. So if you asked the question “Would homosexual marriage decrease the amount of promiscuity?” Logically, the answer is no, marriage doesn’t cause monogamy and therefore doesn’t reduce promiscuity. Now, I understand that applying cold hard logic to a situation that involves groups of people and emotional states is tenuous in and of itself. However, to make an assertion based on the misapplication of logic is classically ill advised. Adapting the logical model to include more human aspects makes even less sense, those who are monogamous aren’t spreading diseases and those who are promiscuous aren’t the ones looking to get married.
So gay marriage would have no effect on promiscuity or disease. Unless there are a large contingent of homosexual individuals who are promiscuous solely because they can’t get married, the idea that marriage will stem promiscuity/disease is logically unfounded. I’m not saying that a monogamous marriage isn’t privileged, I’m saying that monogamy and marriage have no cause/effect relationship whatsoever.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
The slipperly slope I was refering to was the subesequent, ridiculous legislation you were discussing which would never come to pass. But I guess your point was just that you think granting gays rights to civil union is in the same vein. In fact, it’s not.
We pass new laws all the time to encompass new realities and adapt to changing social mores and norms. Allowing it is completely different from prohibition in an attempt to stop a behavior or the death penalty as detterrence. (in fact, the death penalty is only marginally for deterrence.
There are other reasons to punish besides deterrrence: retribution being a main one and incapacitation of dangerous invdividuals another [and the death penalty is the ultimate incapaciation whether or not it’s just]) The purpose of allowing civil unions is not to alleviate deviant sexual behavior at all. It’s to allow homsexuals in a committed relationship to have the same legal rights as heterosexuals.
If gay promiscuity goes down, that’s great. But it’s not the point, and it’s not the purpose.
Once again, thanks. You seem to keep agreeing with me without actually saying so. I’m trying to be polite, it wasn’t a ‘slippery slope’. Prof. asserted that homosexual promiscuity and prolific STDs would somehow be alleviated by allowing homosexuals to marry. My assertion was that legislating behavior like that often has little to no effect.
As well, your lectures on the death penalty are unwarranted. I’m well aware of the purposes and efficacy of the death penalty. Just so we’re clear, I’m in favor of the death penalty for one reason: I don’t believe in State reformation.[/quote]
Yeah. Maybe we are agreeing. I wouldn’t feel equipped to say that gay marriage will decrease promiscuity. I don’t think there’s enough evidence to suggest that. The ones in monogomous relationships now could well be the ones who formalize it through a civil union. And there could be no impact on the others. Maybe they like their lifestyle. Or not. Maybe it would encourage monogamy. But, yes. I think it irrelevant. Encouraging monogamy and discouraging promiscuity is not the point of civil unions and is the reason to allow them (in my mind).
[quote]Professor X wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Prof. asserted that homosexual promiscuity and prolific STDs would somehow be alleviated by allowing homosexuals to marry. My assertion was that legislating behavior like that often has little to no effect.
That isn’t what was stated. The concept is, if two gays are allowed to get married, would this, in your mind, help decrease the occurance? Of course it won’t be “alleviated” across the board just like diseases are still being spread by heterosexuals. However, wouldn’t most people agree that a goal of monogamy helps decrease the spread of disease in heterosexual populations? It has nothing to do with legislating behavior. It has everything to do with opening an option to a group of people that is currently closed.[/quote]
Yeah. It very well might. It might not. It wouldn’t if those who would marry are already monogomous. I agree that it has nothing to do with legislating behavior. But it is a question of whether it would result in people who aren’t currently monogamous becoming so. Who knows? But, again, that’s really besides the main point in my opinion.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
That isn’t what was stated. The concept is, if two gays are allowed to get married, would this, in your mind, help decrease the occurance? Of course it won’t be “alleviated” across the board just like diseases are still being spread by heterosexuals. However, wouldn’t most people agree that a goal of monogamy helps decrease the spread of disease in heterosexual populations? It has nothing to do with legislating behavior. It has everything to do with opening an option to a group of people that is currently closed.[/quote]
Sorry, if I misrepresented your assertions to jsbrook Prof. I was merely trying to rectify the arguments jsbrook made with the context of the arguments I put forth, i.e. That it was not an assertion of a slippery slope, and that the issue wasn’t necessarily about further legislation, but legislation’s effects on behavior. To address your arguments more directly, I don’t believe allowing to homosexuals to get married will have any effect whatsoever on promiscuity and STDs. While marriage does promote a goal of monogamy, a goal of monogamy doesn’t require marriage. If homosexuals are/were intrinsically more monogamous and have/had fewer STDs we wouldn’t be asking what effect the ‘privelege’ of marriage would have, the answer would be clear.
And you’re right, it’s not about legislating behavior, its about the cost/benefit of federally sanctioning homosexual marriage. So, the assertion that promiscuity and STDs will change as a result of honoring homosexual marriage is tangential.
IMO:
Benefit: A small group of individuals are allowed the ‘privilege’ of marriage, and get to feel better about themselves. I could be wrong about the specific number, but my understanding is that it’s less than an integer percentage of the U.S. population.
Cost: The instantly forseeable cost is that federal legislation in a democratic republic is once again trounced in favor of the minority over the majority. The unforseen costs invoke the need for Occam’s razor and we’ll save ourselves that trouble, No?
I truly don’t give a shit one way or the other, but I surely won’t go out of my way to stop some gay people from getting married. I don’t even understand the debate. There is a seperation of church and state for a reason. The belief that this will cause the downfall of society has no base in reality. What I don’t understand is why it bothers some “straight” people so much. If you are comfortable about your own sexuality, why does the thought of “gay marriage” cause so much conflict?