[quote]bammon wrote:
Prejudice against christians? Who is trying to influence the way you live? Feel free to whorship Jehova all you want![/quote]
I was refering to verbal Christian bashing usually promulgated by the social liberals.
Homosexuals are also free to live with whom they want. And furthermore, in some states there are laws on the books protecting them from any sort of discrimination.
A sport? Probably not a sport but I think lothario comes close in some of his posts
[quote]My favorite bible verse is thus:
Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, “Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.” And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the lambs and toads and tree-sloths and fruit-bats and orangutans and breakfast cereals … Now did the Lord say, “First thou pullest the Holy Pin. Then thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the number of the counting, be reached, then lobbest thou the Holy Hand Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.”
[/quote]
I suppose that making fun of scripture can be considered intolerant.
By the way “bammon” welcome to T-Nation as I see this is your very first post! Unless, you are a current member under another name. No way to tell. The Interent…
You’ve actually now been weighed, measured, and found wanting![/quote]
Yes, by you and some of the social liberals who are pro gay marriage. Did we think that there was going to be a happy ending to this thread? LOL – You must know better than that, I know I do.
Um…okay you have been weighed and measured and whatever else you said about me back at you
Isn’t this crazy? lol
[quote]Alas, if the proof is in that a gay marriage that would include children shows statistically to have less problems [child abuse/neglect/runaways etc.,] than in a non-gay marriage, you’d absolutely have no problems with such unions since you have been consistently bubbling over ‘the sake of children’ issue.
Or now are you going to backtrack like your buddies, Bush,Cheney, Rumsfe…[/quote]
“My buddies.” More good humor-
Okay, let me guess, you voted for Kerry. So, you are a liberal who is for gay marriage and voted against Bush (or didn’t vote). Um…do you honestly think that we are ever going to agree on any political topic? Especially one so emotionally charged as gay marriage?
Funny stuff!
Now back to the debate:
I have stated repeatedly, and for your benefit I will repeat one more time:
If it is proven that homosexuality is totally genetic I will indeed change my postion on gay marriage.
How many “open minded” social liberals will state that if homosexuality is proven to be mostly nuture over nature will change their postion on the issue?
I bet none on this thread!
Who is open minded? Not (many of) the social liberals. They have a political agenda which takes precedent over any reason, scientific fact or logical argument.
It runs on emotion and heaven (a place many social liberals do not believe in) help anyone who attempts to argue the anti-gay marriage side as fervently as they argue the pro gay marriage end.
Back to the debate:
I have also changed my opinion on one more issue because of THIS VERY THREAD (some good things come from Internet debate). There needs to be a revamping of hospital visitation rights (and a few others). Any adult should be able to designate another unrelated adult as their “significant other” (For want of a better term). this would go for homsexuals as well as heterosexuals.
Question: have you ever read the Bible? If so then you know that there are several passages which speak directly against homosexual behavior.
Which ones? And what do they say? I am genuinely curious. I was told that there are two places in the Bible that directly speak against homosexuality. In these areas, the speak against homosexual practices and giving into homosexuality and not the orientation itself.
The “orientation” being that it’s okay to have homosexual desire, but not okay to act on it?
I am sincerely asking.
Yeah-that’s what I heard.
The desire is not what makes it wrong, it’s when it’s acted upon. We all have desires to do things that are hurtful, wrong, and deviant. But we don’t act on it.
Forget all the hokiness. I’m interested in what part of the bible addresses it. Do you know? [/quote]
Well, I don’t think some one trying to improve their life is “hoki”, but here is a text that talks about thoughts and behavior. Is this what you are looking for?
Romans 1:26-28
“26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
You know, Zeb-there are rarely long-term studies as to the likely results whenever we change a law and/or inculcate social change. When the civil rights act was passed, many feared that giving the blacks the vote would throw out political system into disarray because they were too uneducated, unintelligent, and ignorant to properly vote. The same thing for women when they were given the vote. These seemed to be legitimate concerns to many at the time. There were no longterm studies one way or another-there couldn’t be. Besides that, the fact that there might not be soley positive results from civil unions does not mean they shouldn’t be granted.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Well, I don’t think some one trying to improve their life is “hoki”, but here is a text that talks about thoughts and behavior. Is this what you are looking for?
Romans 1:26-28
“26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
[/quote]
Yup. Better. I’m only interested in the source. And it seems to me that if I were arguing against something largely based on the Bible, I would want to know exactly what it says and where it addresses the issue. But most people on this issue don’t. They simply regurgitate what they’ve heard religious figures spout.
No, but possibly an argument against marriage period. The value of the words “I do” has fallen to about the amount one would pay to sleep with 1960’s Playmate of the Year tonight. Then again, perhaps she is well maintained.[/quote]
Not that any of this has a thing to do with gay marriage. But, it helps to have some facts when you are posting about an issue as complicated as marriage and the value of “I do.”
According to Scott M. Stanley PHD “the rate of divorces per year per 1000 people in the U.S. has been declining since 1981.”
"So, what is the divorce rate? Consider the following statements:
Approximately 31% of your friends, aged 35 to 54, who are married, engaged, or cohabitating have already been previously divorced.
If your parents have been married many years (let’s say 35+ years) and have never been divorced, the likelihood of their marriage ending in divorce is nil.
The rate of divorces per year per 1000 people in the U.S. has been declining since 1981."
"A young couple marrying for the first time today has a lifetime divorce risk of 50%, unless current trends change significantly.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
You know, Zeb-there are rarely long-term studies as to the likely results whenever we change a law and/or inculcate social change. When the civil rights act was passed, many feared that giving the blacks the vote would throw out political system into disarray because they were too uneducated, unintelligent, and ignorant to properly vote. The same thing for women when they were given the vote. [/quote]
I do note the idea of your point. Social change in those two cases could not be studied ahead of time.
However, that is where the comparison ends. Blacks and women do not equal homosexuals. The former are gentic the latter is a behavior.
Beyond that your point is interesting.
Again, I don’t think a long term study regarding the effect on children is a bad idea. And I think that it could be done based upon children who have been raised (and are being raised) in gay homes.
Aside from that, I want to point out that it was you who actually changed my mind on one point regarding adult hospital visitation (and other such things) when it comes to two adults living together (homosexual or hetersexual).
You are actually more persuasive, as you give actual reasons and logical facts. You also forgo the name calling and I thank you for that
Good work ZEB. The b.s. just never ends. Keep talking… yawn You are officially boring… zzzzzzzz…
Jimmy Tango
11/29/05
02:52 PM
I know when I’ve finished saying everything that I’ve come to say. At this point, my posts will simply become various exercises in copying and pasting previous posts.
So, good luck everyone!
You must have been mistaken! You do have more to say. I welcome you back to the debate Mr. JimmyTango.
I have all of next week off too and the weather is not so good around here, so I’ll be on the forum quite a lot. Hopefully you will stay a while longer and tell us more about transsexuals and all of that other enlightened stuff.
No really, you were just starting to get my attention…
[/quote]
Anything of value that I’ve wanted to say on the topic at hand, I’ve already said. I’m satisfied.
I don’t want to convert anyone–I just wanted to present my beliefs and try to reconcile them with the beliefs of others who may appear at first to be diametrically opposed to my own.
If someone, such as yourself, finds that something I’ve said got their attention and, subsequently, their mind working enough to at least consider my point, then that is “mission accomplished” in my books. Anyone is free to use what I’ve said as a starting point for their own research.
My opinion is that it’s much better for someone to discover the answers to questions themselves, as opposed to having someone else tell them. And that is why I do not outwardly claim adherence to any set of religious/philosophical beliefs–for all intensive purposes, I am a practicing agnostic/existenialist, but, in my heart of hearts, I am something much different. I am extremely wary of aligning myself with any faction because I make it a point in forcing myself to keep my mind open at all times, at least in my discussions with others. As such, I do not like being labelled with any tag, because it is not an attempt at understanding at that point so much as it is an oversimplification or inherently biased judgement. Maybe, in the context of one small issue, I can be deemed a liberal, but I am definitely not a liberal when it comes to a vast number of other subjects, so, out of respect to myself and to others, I do not wish to be aligned with “social liberals” or any other political slant.
It is easy for all to see that each side is working with the best interests of society in mind, but how each side decides what those best interests are, is in many ways just a summation of personal opinions based on life experience. Presumably then, we are here to try to bridge any apparent gaps in our collective understanding with the use of logic and anecdotal evidence. At this point, I would like to think that I understand the brunt of the positions presented by most, if not all, sides.
I think I now understand where you’re coming from ZEB, and I can respect that. You are obviously not alone in your interpretation. But I have begun to reach a point, where I feel that I’m coming up against an inflexibility or arrogance, and because of that feeling, whether the arrogance I perceive is actually there or not, I am withdrawing because that says to me that I have reached a saturation point.
In other words, everything that you say to me at this point, ZEB, is nothing that I don’t already expect. I don’t mean that in a perjorative sense… not like in my previous post, for which I apologize.
It’s just more worth my time to pause and reflect now, and use what you and others have said as new starting points in my own research. I hope that that was something you were trying to accomplish here.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
You know, Zeb-there are rarely long-term studies as to the likely results whenever we change a law and/or inculcate social change. When the civil rights act was passed, many feared that giving the blacks the vote would throw out political system into disarray because they were too uneducated, unintelligent, and ignorant to properly vote. The same thing for women when they were given the vote.
I do note the idea of your point. Social change in those two cases could not be studied ahead of time.
However, that is where the comparison ends. Blacks and women do not equal homosexuals. The former are gentic the latter is a behavior.
Beyond that your point is interesting.
These seemed to be legitimate concerns to many at the time. There were no longterm studies one way or another-there couldn’t be. Besides that, the fact that there might not be soley positive results from civil unions does not mean they shouldn’t be granted.
Again, I don’t think a long term study regarding the effect on children is a bad idea. And I think that it could be done based upon children who have been raised (and are being raised) in gay homes.
Aside from that, I want to point out that it was you who actually changed my mind on one point regarding adult hospital visitation (and other such things) when it comes to two adults living together (homosexual or hetersexual).
You are actually more persuasive, as you give actual reasons and logical facts. You also forgo the name calling and I thank you for that
[/quote]
No problem. So, you are contending that long-term studies should be done. And if perhaps 30 years down the line, children raised by gay partners show no problems to speak or at least no more than anyone else, civil unions would perhaps be acceptable? I suppose I can appreciate that.
No, but possibly an argument against marriage period. The value of the words “I do” has fallen to about the amount one would pay to sleep with 1960’s Playmate of the Year tonight. Then again, perhaps she is well maintained.
[/quote]
I don’t agree with that. I can appreciate that the idea that everyone MUST get married to lead a happy and productive life should be discarded. But that doesn’t men the entire institution of marriage should be discarded. Percentage-wise there may not be near enough, but there are still plenty of happy, long-lasting, monogamous marriages.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Professor X wrote:
No, but possibly an argument against marriage period. The value of the words “I do” has fallen to about the amount one would pay to sleep with 1960’s Playmate of the Year tonight. Then again, perhaps she is well maintained.
I don’t agree with that. I can appreciate that the idea that everyone MUST get married to lead a happy and productive life should be discarded. But that doesn’t men the entire institution of marriage should be discarded. Percentage-wise there may not be near enough, but there are still plenty of happy, long-lasting, monogamous marriages.
[/quote]
That statement was tongue in cheek. I forgot that around here, all statements need to begin with the punchline before the joke is told. That way, no one gets confused. I am not for the disbanding of all marriage. However, I do find statements that marriage is “sacred” a tad bit funny considering the way so many seem to spit on the concept as they continue to sleep around or simply call things off as soon as the waters get rocky. While the institution of marriage may have originally been sacred, the acts of men have cheapened it. I can say with all honesty that I would have a hard time getting married today without a prenuptial agreement in hand.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Professor X wrote:
No, but possibly an argument against marriage period. The value of the words “I do” has fallen to about the amount one would pay to sleep with 1960’s Playmate of the Year tonight. Then again, perhaps she is well maintained.
I don’t agree with that. I can appreciate that the idea that everyone MUST get married to lead a happy and productive life should be discarded. But that doesn’t men the entire institution of marriage should be discarded. Percentage-wise there may not be near enough, but there are still plenty of happy, long-lasting, monogamous marriages.
That statement was tongue in cheek. I forgot that around here, all statements need to begin with the punchline before the joke is told. That way, no one gets confused. I am not for the disbanding of all marriage. However, I do find statements that marriage is “sacred” a tad bit funny considering the way so many seem to spit on the concept as they continue to sleep around or simply call things off as soon as the waters get rocky. While the institution of marriage may have originally been sacred, the acts of men have cheapened it. I can say with all honesty that I would have a hard time getting married today without a prenuptial agreement in hand.[/quote]
Well, sarcasm doesn’t always translate that well on the internet. I agree, though. Marriage is supposed to be sacred. Too often it’s not.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
About changing a 5000+ year old institution:
Where were you guys when they decided to make it easy to get a divorce? With all the talk of protecting the family unit, etc., I would imagine that if your concern REALLY was in protecting the strength of the institution, the very thing that drags it down and destroys it should be addressed with some measure of concern.
But not a peep out of you guys.
ZEB wrote:
That’s not necessarily true. And more importantly has NOTHING to do with the gay marriage debate. [/quote]
Ah but it does. We are talking about changing a 50000+ year old institution, remember? I’m just calling bullshit on your “reasons”, man… that’s all. This is simple logic, ZEB:
IF your intention was truly to “protect the sanctity of marriage”, THEN you guys (not just you, but your side of the argument here) would have raised a some kind of stink about divorce laws being eased recently.
Don’t just dismiss this as having nothing to do with gay marriage, ZEB… you’re not getting off the hook that easy this time. Explain yourselves! Why is letting less than 1% of the population get married when they were legally unable to previously SOOOO much more of a bigger deal than changing laws which actually tear at the very fabric of what you hold sacred?
Easy divorce laws have cheapened and marginalized the institution of marriage more than anything in history. They have made a mockery of your 5000000+ year old institution, ZEB. Look at the responses we have had in this last page. These guys are questioning the value of marriage itself, and it’s not because the gays have ruined it.
I have a feeling (oh no more liberal logic!) that having society step back from this weird anti-gay stance and accept the idea of gay marriage might actually have the opposite effect of what you fear. This might make us all re-examine what the hell marriage is really for, and what it is all about. Maybe people will come to believe it DOES mean something more than just a legal contract you can get out of whenever it becomes inconvenient.
Do you honestly think that homosexuals take marriage for granted in the same way that we do? And that’s right we do… we obviously take it for granted, because look at what we have done with it. Getting some gay folks in here might just spruce it up a bit, don’t you think? Get a bunch of people who truly treasure and cherish the chance to do what the rest of us could always do… kind of like Iraq.
Yeah, that’s right… I managed to segue into this yet again. How many people pecentage-wise voted in the last elections? Americans, I mean. How many Iraqis voted in their last (and first real one) election? Uh huh. Those numbers don’t lie, ZEB. You guys worry about how marriage is being marginalized and threatened, and the very people that would strengthen and appreciate it are being turned away because they aren’t cool enough to be in your club. I love me some irony!
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Ralph Waldo Emerson
I am gay. I think that gives me way more expertise on the subject than you. I was not raised to be gay, I was not encouraged to be gay, it is just what I am and have always been. Who I sleep with, who I marry, how i live my life is none of your business and should in no way be affected by your religious beliefs or anybody else’s.
Thank you. We’ll agree to disagree on this then.
I am a citizen of this country. I served in the armed forces, I vote and I pay my taxes. Therefore, I should have the same freedom to choose and marry the same sex partner of my choice as a straight citizen has to choose an opposite sex partner.
[quote]We are simply going to have to agree to disagree on this. For the multitude of reasons I have already given.[/quote] Ditto my above comment.
The links I posted were designed to show we know more about the results of gay parenting than you recognize. Never said there was a vast body of research on a subject that new.
[quote]And my links show that it seems that children thrive in a home where there is one man and one woman. [/quote] Children thrive in a loving stable home with good consistent parenting. This can happen (and is)in both gay and hetero homes. It can happen in homes where there are many men and women to contribute to child care. The nuclear family is a recent phenomenon. The extended family was the norm for much of human history. Since child abuse has been with us forever, but gay marriage/adoption has not, it is absurd to suggest that gay marriage will present any more of a danger than hetero marriage.
I am sorry you feel intimidated by me. Maybe some more biblechins are in order?
Well you mentioned intimidation. Try to have a sense of humor. This is the Internet afterall.
Furthermore, we don’t even know how people become gay in the first place! Is it nature or nuture or a combination of both?
NO ONE KNOWS! Stop pretending to know in order to push your liberal agenda Actually I have firsthand information. Quit making stuff up to push your religious agenda.
[quote]Because you are gay does not necessarily mean you know “how” you became that way.[/quote] Um, actually, it does. I pretty much know how how I got to be who I am and what I am. Maybe you don’t know how you became straight. You’ve probalby never had to question it. Since my very existence has been threatened and my sexuality questioned by the culture in which I live, I have had to examine it very closely, in pure self-defense. There was no day on which I awoke and said to myself “This seems like a great day to become gay. Everyone loves gay people, we are fully accepted, integrated and understood. I will face no danger or harassment in this Judeo-Christian society.” It is and was what I always have been. I don’t hate being gay. Frankly, I love it. In fact being an outsider has given me strength and perspectives that being part of the norm could never offer.
So my personal experience is ridiculous to you? Nope, nothing personal there.
[quote]Your personal experience is no better or worse than my own. And certainly not valid in putting forth an argument for such a societal change. [/quote] My personal experience of being gay is much better than yours, unless you are one of those former gays you’re always talking about. If not, you don’t know whereof you speak. I live being gay everday of my life. I know that no amount of prayer will change it, any more than it would change my eye color.
Ooo, more mockery and derision. Nice.
[quote]I question your sources and you call it mockery and derision? Yet, you call me a “fucktard” and that just fits right into the debate right? LOL[/quote] I haven’t called you a fucktard in weeks. And since it seems to have really gotten to you, I apologize for calling you a fucktard. I will refrain from it in the future. Actually, you mocked me, not my sources. To quote, “Your(sic) being funny again.” Cool thing about these threads is that I can go back and find previous posts to check for accuracy. Maybe you just forgot.
Actually if you were “playing” you would actually provide some peer reviewed studies rather than one of your “nutball” websites. Hey, you used the word to denigrate my links.
[quote]If nothing else I think we can both agree that you can find a link to back up just about anything you want to try to prove. It’s the Internet.[/quote]True enough.
[quote]That means that if it was proven conclusively that gay parents harmed children (not saying they do) you would not care about those children.
You are one social liberal who cares not about children, society or anything else. As long as your political agenda is realized!
Absolutely dispicable! [/quote]
Ooo, moral typification. Cool.
Well, if you had read the whole thing within it’s context (instead of pulling it out of context, as you have here), you would know it is not a cold statement. I think you are projecting your fears for your daughter all over everything that challenges your beliefs. I know for a fact that children raised in gay homes are happy and well adjusted. I know these children. Many of them are in their late teens and early twenties and they are remarkable people. You will most likely discount this information even though it is firsthand. That is the most perverse thing about Christians. You want others to respect your beliefs, from your firsthand experience of conversion or connection with God and Jesus, though you can produce no empirical evidence to support your beliefs. Yet you lend no credence to the firsthand experience of gay people. Sheer perversity.
It will never be proven conclusively that gay parents harm children. This is a conservative Christian boogeyman tactic.
Another quote out of context. I was not typing you in particular, though I am not surprised you took it that way. I was referring to the rhetoric put out by the Christian conservative movement in this country. If the shoe fits, it fits. The anti-gay movement in this country has turned this into a huge issue and is doing it’s best to demonize gays as the main threat to family, marriage and even civilization as we know it.
So I am not worried about the children. They’ll be better adjusted and happier than most other kids are today. Heck, they’ll be better adjusted than you.
Seriously, find a sense of humor. You might be able to find one cheap at a pawn shop. Not everything is an attack.
Your most underhanded method is to characterize any and all arguments presented in favor of gay marriage as silly, ridiculous, bad, stupid, foolish, etc.
[quote]Actually that’s not at all underhanded. If one is not given “Valid” arguments in favor of something it would be disengenuious to in fact claim that they are valid.
I simply give you my opinion on the topic. You like or you don’t. Nothing underhanded about it.
Underhanded: deceit, indirect, shifty, sneaky.
I think I have been very much forward and direct with my arguments. [/quote]
You have been presented with many valid arguments. You refuse to recognize them and resort to the very underhanded tactic of repeatedly insisting they are not. I would assume this is an attempt at creating truth by repeating a lie. This is very shifty, sneaky, deceitful and indirect. Good thing I know bullshit when I smell it.
What are you basing this on?
More repetition. The lie is still a lie.
[quote]ou should get some rest. Your arguments are tired.
Tired? At least I have arguments. Your ran out lady!
[/quote]
Refusal to recognize anothers argument as valid does not make the argument invalid. It does not mean you’ve won the debate, it just means you are stonewalling in hopes your opponent will go away.
I’m curious. What would you, in particular, consider to be a valid reason to extend marriage to include gay people? I suspect you would reject any reason presented to you, no matter what it was.
Ah but it does. We are talking about changing a 50000+ year old institution, remember? I’m just calling bullshit on your “reasons”, man… that’s all. This is simple logic, ZEB:
IF your intention was truly to “protect the sanctity of marriage”, THEN you guys (not just you, but your side of the argument here) would have raised a some kind of stink about divorce laws being eased recently.[/quote]
How can you sit here in 2005 and decide that “they” (my side) did not raise “a stink” about changing those exact laws so many years ago?
I was not interested in such things at the time and you were probably in 3rd grade. Shall we research and find out if they objected?
Why don’t you do a google search and tell me what you come up with.
First of all each situation is judged on its own merit. In other words, no matter what is going on, or not going on inside of the institution of marriage the onus is still on YOU (or your side) to demonstrate why gay marriage is good. How does gay marriage make this “terrible crumbling” (which it is not)
institution of marriage better? Or does it make it worse?
Explain exactly the impact it will have and give some good reasons. So far there have been empassioned pleas, but no good (as in valid) reasons. Trying to tarnish the institution of marriage and then coming to the erroneous conclusion that gay marriage would help marriage in general is actually silly.
“These guys?” Sheesh…please don’t quote the Professor his posts are a joke and I think he admitted that.
However, here is a quote for you, by Dr. Scott M. Stanely who researched divorce rates, and is not joking on a message board:
“The rate of dicorce per year per 1000 people in the U.S. has been declining since 1981.”
Do you want the link? (I didn’t want to post a link what with the possibility of a link war and all).
Although well intended, I think you are confused. How can opening up marriage to gays help us re-examine what marriage is for? I won’t call that “liberal logic.” I will call it bad logic.
Where is your evidence for this drastic conclusion? What do you base this on? lothario, you spout off from an emotional perspective. I admire your loyalty to your cause, but can’t yet give you any points for reason and logic.
Marriage might just be on the mend my friend! opening it up to gay marriage does what good? Please give facts from logical conclusions when you respond. I already understand how you feel “emotionally”.
I want to credit you for reaching.
Has this become a desperate grasping of thin invalid comparisons now?
lothario, at this point you need to examine the reasonable conclusions that I have reached regarding this issue. Then respond with such in return.
You and some of the others need to evaluate the facts before you win me (and the other 70% of Americans) over to your side.
Remember those pesky little critters called facts?
How do people become gay? There is no conclusive proof that it is genetic.
If it is even partially genetic then why has “reparitive therapy” helped to change almost 200 people from homosexual to heterosexual, according to one study alone? Could it be something regarding how they are raised which make them gay? There are many credible reports of this (but no proof). This would mean that it is not a conscious choice, or genetic!
(This would explain why they typical homosexual will state: “I didn’t choose to be this way.” )
What is the effect on children who are raised with gay parents. There have been no long term studies done as yet. How could being raised by a gay couple be better, or at least the same as being raised by a hetersexual couple.
Why encourage even more people to become gay (if it is not genetic and there is no conclusive proof that it is) by sanctioning gay marriage? Since many gays have stated that they would not have “consciously” chosen to be gay. And they are not totally satisfied with that lifestyle.
There are many more serious questions to be answered rearding the phenomena of homosexuality. But most importantly your side has given not one good (as in valid) reason to approve gay marrige. Which, while you down play it’s potential effect, actually changes a 5000+ year old institution which has been the very bedrock of the family for that many years.
In all fairness to Zeb, being against gay marriage does not mean that you approve of the state of heterosexual marriage today. That’s not logical and doesn’t follow. It’s inarguable that the divorce rate and infidelity is worrisomely high. But it doesn’t mean that ammending the laws and making divorce more difficult is the answer. Or that you have to feel that it is to be against gay marriage. It would just result in more unhappy marriages.
People get married too quickly and for the wrong reasons. And once married, they don’t make the proper committment and seek to work through problems. These are underlying issues that need attention. Divorce is often taken as the easy out. But there are also times when it’s the only answer. Even some fundamentalists would agree.
Zeb you mistakenly believe Christians as a whole are being bashed in this thread when in fact the only ones being slighted are the ‘bible-thumpers’ that corrupt that tradition of fellowship. Furthermore you guessed wrong- I didn’t vote for Kerry. I’m not a U.S citizen. Your neo-con chums are globally reknowned as backtrackers when the going gets rough.
[quote]WMD wrote:
Refusal to recognize anothers argument as valid does not make the argument invalid. It does not mean you’ve won the debate, it just means you are stonewalling in hopes your opponent will go away.
[/quote]
I think that sums it up.
All the [more-than] reasonable dialogue/ personal experiences/ links have been presented and most likely, Zeb deep inside concedes, but that thing called personal bias [or is it awkwardness] won’t allow him to openly agree.
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Ralph Waldo Emerson[/quote]
That’s a good one. Here’s one I like better:
“Part of courage is simple consistency”
Peggy Noonan
Um…Yea I heard you the first time
By that logic drug addicts know more than doctors on how to be treated. And heterosexuals like myself know more about marriage than lesbians like you do.
See how silly that is?
When you get the flu do you know “how” you got it? And when you have the flu are you able to treat it better than a doctor? (No not claiming gay is a disease, just a simple comparison…sheesh).
Plenty of things happen to us in our childhood. Why do we prefer what we do? You are not qualified to say “why” you are a lesbian. You are only qualified to state that you are in fact a lesbian (at this point in your life).
I always enjoy it when homosexuals drag out the “who I sleep with is my business” argument. (Here comes the stand pat answer). What you do in your personal life is indeed your own business. God bless America (didn’t mean to offend you with the God remark). You can do anything you want in the privacy of your own home (as long as it’s legal).
However, when you attempt to change a 5000+ year old institution it then becomes open for debate (as we are doing now). And it also becomes open to heterosexuals opinions, since you are trying to change a purely heterosexual institution to suit your own needs.
Simple huh?
[quote]I think that is very courageous of you to write these words. We disagree on only one aspect of the above (marriage).
Thank you. We’ll agree to disagree on this then.[/quote]
As you wish.
I thank you for your service to our country. ( I mean this very much )
Did you see what you just did? You drew an erroneous conclusion from four seperate and unrelated facts!
You are a citizen
Criminals are citizens. Should they have special rights?
You served in the armed forces.
Polygamists served in the armed forces. Those who have been involved in adult incest have served in the armed forces. Do each of those two groups deserve special rights?
You vote.
Shall I tell you who votes and why this has nothing to do with changing our well known marriage laws?
You pay taxes.
Death and taxes are the only two things that you really have to do huh?
What does that have to do with changing marriage laws? NOTHING!
You and lothario and anyone else who wants to jump in are simply going to have to argue “FOR” gay marriage on it’s own merits and not on some extemporaneous factors unrelated to the issue.
The fact is you have the exact same rights as I do right now! And guess what? I’m a citizen, vote, pay taxes, and do all those cool things that every other American does.
Does that mean that I deserve special rights? Noooooo.
Thank you for the honest statement. There is no vast body of research on the subject! I certainly hope that they do some. Until then well…
We need some long term studies to back that up. (You new I would say that right?)
Are you suggesting commune living? Or, is this a sign you are pro Polygamy?
Once again you are drawing the wrong conclusion from an unrelated fact. Simply because child abuse has existed for many years does not mean that it will not get worse (or better) if gay marriage is sanctioned and they adopt children.
Let me restate your own words back to you in a more logical manner:
It is absurd to suggest that you have enough facts to even suggest what effect gay marriage will have on children in the event they are adopted by two homosexuals.
I am shaking as I post this…(deep breath) but I think I can do it
[quote]Furthermore, we don’t even know how people become gay in the first place! Is it nature or nuture or a combination of both?
NO ONE KNOWS! Stop pretending to know in order to push your liberal agenda Actually I have firsthand information. Quit making stuff up to push your religious agenda. ;)[/quote]
Honestly, no one knows why yet and that is at the very center of my argument.
[quote]Because you are gay does not necessarily mean you know “how” you became that way. Um, actually, it does. I pretty much know how how I got to be who I am and what I am. Maybe you don’t know how you became straight. You’ve probalby never had to question it. Since my very existence has been threatened and my sexuality questioned by the culture in which I live, I have had to examine it very closely, in pure self-defense. Everyone loves gay people, we are fully accepted, integrated and understood. I will face no danger or harassment in this Judeo-Christian society." It is and was what I always have been. I don’t hate being gay. Frankly, I love it. In fact being an outsider has given me strength and perspectives that being part of the norm could never offer.
[/quote]
There is no conservative (or liberal) on the planet who will ever convince me that it is not difficult and painful to be gay. Only you know what you have gone through. I’m sure it was far from easy.
I think this built a toughness in you that has served you well in other endeavors in your life.
As I have stated on prior posts. I have never stated that being gay is a
conscious choice. No one knows how people become gay. However, do not rule out the possibility that upbringing does in fact play a role in it.
Never said that and don’t believe it. I think your personal experience has given you a different perspective on the issue. However, as I have stated, that does not mean that you “know” how you became gay. The best experts in the world still cannot answer that question.
As stated it does give you a unique perspective. Especially in terms of how you may have been discriminated against. You very much have my ear on that subject.
[quote] My personal experience of being gay is much better than yours, unless you are one of those former gays you’re always talking about. If not, you don’t know whereof you speak. I live being gay everday of my life. I know that no amount of prayer will change it, any more than it would change my eye color.
[/quote]
I agree with part of what you have stated. However, again you have no idea what could or could not change you as you don’t know why or how you got to be gay. Again…NO ONE KNOWS!
[quote]LOL I haven’t called you a fucktard in weeks. And since it seems to have really gotten to you, I apologize for calling you a fucktard. I will refrain from it in the future.[quote]
Apology accepted.
Your being funny again? Okay…but I had to comeback with something after “fucktard.”
That’s how the link war is played out around here. I post them, you post them and then we attack the other persons links…it’s okay to do that …really
By the way your links suck. (See…it’s okay…)
One is religious faith the other is anecdotal experiences.
I’m not looking for that. I am looking for a long term study which proves that children raised in gay homes turn out to be happy well adjusted adults!
I agree with you on this. But what you fail to see is that the pro gay movement has taken every opportunity to attack everyone (yes personally) who even so much as wants to debate the issue on facts!
Are both sides a bit off the wall? Yes, they are. Are you able to see the other side of the coin as well as you can see your side?
I know it’s difficult but the only way we are ever going to be able to meet in the middle is if you and I (and more like us) stop the name calling, finger pointing and actually do some serious research. And of course each side can give a little along the way.
Until that happens I don’t think you are going to see a change in that 70% anti-gay marriage figure.
Me? Hmm okay maybe me. But we do need those pesky facts to back up your hope of this.
It’s not underhanded. The definition of underhanded is “characterized by slyness, shifty, sneaky.”
I am none of the above! I am very upfront with my arguments and the fact that I don’t feel your side has presented good (as in valid) arguments bothers you. But, if you looked closely at your side, they are fraught with emotional pleas. There is a hopefullness that fills most of the posts from your side.
Typical comment:
“Gay folks will be just as good if not better parents than straight folks.”
How do you know this?
I don’t have to list them all just scroll back.
You seem so blind to the truth that you are compelled to call the truth bullshit!
You are on the side which continues to repeat lie after lie. How can the following be considered lies?
How do people become gay? There is no conclusive proof that it is genetic.
If it is even partially genetic then why has “reparitive therapy” helped to change almost 200 people from homosexual to heterosexual, in one study alone? Could it be something regarding how they are raised which make them gay? There are many credible reports of this (but no proof). This would mean that it is not a conscous choice, or genetic!
What is the effect on children who are raised with gay parents. There have been no long term studies done as yet.
Why encourage even more people to become gay? (if it is not genetic and there is no conclusive proof that it is) by sanctioning gay marriage? Since many gays have stated that they would not have “consciously” chosen to be gay. And they are not totally satisfied with that lifestyle
I know you want gay marriage. I get it. But maybe you are so close to the painting that you fail to see the entire picture. Just a thought…
Facts, that’s all I want and that is all that you and your side have been unable to present. Again, do you honestly think that 70% of Americans would be against gay marriage if they have been given a good argument by your side?
Why have 77% of Texans just voted down the possibility of gay marriage?
And it’s not just Texas. 17 other states have also struck down even the possibility of gay marriage by amendment.
And in the states where liberal justices have forced gay marriage onto the state law books some are pushing back!
“A Zogby International poll conducted in 2004 found that 69% of likely voters in Massachusetts want to vote on a constitutional amendment to keep Massachusetts a traditional marriage state.”
There is that 70% figure again. It keeps popping up every where in the country because these people (just like on this thread) have been given no compelling (or valid) argument why they should change the institution of marriage.
By the way:
"BOSTON, November 28, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) ? A family advocacy coalition has submitted double the required number of signatures necessary to ensure voters have an opportunity to overturn a 2003 activist court decision by voting on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex ?marriage? during the 2008 general election.
VoteOnMarriage.org collected over 120,000 signatures in time for the Wednesday deadline."
Your side is losing because of the lack of actual valid reasons to change the institution of marriage. That and I think the public is really tired of the militant attitude that your side displays at every opportunity.
As I have stated repeatedly, if it was proven conclusively that being gay is totally genetic I would have to reevaluate my position.
