Proof Gay Marriage is Wrong

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I have given stats which demonstrate that gays have:

Higher suicide rate

Higher depression and anxiety rate.

Higher rate of AIDS and STD’s.

Higher rate of domestic problems.

[/quote]

To me this is the bottom line. Any other lifestyle or behavior that has been demonstrated to be this self-destructive has been made illegal. Drug use, prostitution, gambling in most States, etc. All behaviors that are illegal because of their self-destructive nature.

Now look at Zeb’s statistics (which he has posted 3 million times) that clearly demonstrate the self-destructive nature of homosexual relations and sexual activity.

So the problem with gay marriage is this:

  1. It would be supporting sexual activity that is already illegal in most States

  2. It would be inconsistent with other vice laws because other self-destructive behaviors are illegal based purely on their destructive effects

  3. It would be changing the definition of marriage for a very small percentage of the population

So in order to make same-sex marriage legal:

  1. All the current laws banning homosexual behavior would need to be repealed

  2. All the other moral (Vice) laws designed to protect against self-destructive behavior (drug use, etc…) would need to be repealed

  3. The definition of marriage (which has stood for thousands of years) would need to be changed

  4.  All for less that 2.1% of the population
    

So when you look at this logically they are asking more than just equal rights. They are asking for a change in the moral laws or moral “fabric” of society.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
The fact that a lifestyle is destructive has no bearing on whether someone is allowed to get married or not.

True. Then we should just uphold the current laws banning same sex sexual acts. So gays can marry they just can’t engage in any homosexual sex acts, because to do so would be against the law.

You have just solved the debate for us. Married yes, gay sex no. This way they can have equal rights and still not break the law. Gee Tango, you are sooo smart.
[/quote]

Ban the act? Hmmm? This is probably the best idea tango has ever had.

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:

Did you not read WMD’s report on the peer review of ZEB’s Spitzer study? That pretty much destroys the validity of Spitzer’s study. And if you understand that ZEB is constantly harping about how homosexuality is a behaviour (reversion therapy being a key piece of supporting evidence in his belief) then you’d be able to conclude that his position is significantly weakened unless he can come up with other sources. I call it getting owned. Whatever.

[/quote]

I read WMD’s posts. Some were very good and some were lacking, just like Zeb’s.

It is silly to classify homosexuality as a behavior or an action. It is both and everything in between. Bisexuality is a good example of this.

I have not read all 1000 plus posts, but I have read many of them. I am up to speed.

[quote]
Anyways, ZEB keeping up or leading the debate? Care to explain how you judged that? Is that in sheer stubborness or number of posts? Which points are the good points on both sides? I’m curious.

Since you seem to be an impartial judge, I’d like to know. Seriously… if you are.[/quote]

I am not impartial, I don’t know anyone that is on this subject.

I am pro gay rights, but I don’t understand this gay marriage thing.

Zeb has good points that lack of gay marriage is not discrimination. Gay people have the right to get married to people of the opposite sex, same as everyone else.

I think that changing from gay to straight is much more complex than Zeb’s posts indicate. I am skeptical of this.

I think being gay is a hard life.

I don’t think changing the institution of marriage is necessarily the right thing to do. I remain unconvinced.

I do think gays should have rights to hospital visitation, health benefits etc.

And for the love of God, please stop saying “owned”.

Carry on with the debate!

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
The fact that a lifestyle is destructive has no bearing on whether someone is allowed to get married or not.

We do not prevent convicted felons from getting married–John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, and “Night Stalker” Richard Ramirez being a few ‘notable’ cases. We do not prevent drug addicts from getting married. We do not prevent those with terminal diseases from getting married. We do not prevent any demographic which exhibits any sign of increased mortality from getting married based on that alone.

Destructive lifestyles don’t count against homosexuals in terms of barring marriage rights and priviledges.


The above was reposted for ZEB and Lorisco’s benefit because it has yet to be addressed by any of them.

Please explain how my logic does not make sense here.

If the only reason is tradition, then please see my other posts about the validity of tradition alone. Like, uh, the last one I just posted on what Martin Luther wrote about in the 16th century.

Changing a 5000+ year old institution for about 1% of a population that has shown themselves to be unworthy in every way of the privilidge of marriage. Not just because of the disease that is spread by same sex sex. But because of the the overwhelming statistics which demonstrate that same sex relationships do not last. And in fact provisions for cheating are built into the majority of them.

And on top of that it has also been demonstrated that same sex relationships be them two men or two women are fraught with both verbal and physical abuse!

These folks need help not enablers!

I will consider this your admitting to being owned in the category of “Relevance of Destructive Behaviour In Determining Right to Get Married”.

Case closed.

You have sort of an “owned” fixation huh?

I have given stats which demonstrate that gays have:

Higher suicide rate

Higher depression and anxiety rate.

Higher rate of AIDS and STD’s.

Higher rate of domestic problems.

You have done nothing but post that you “own” everyone.

I have also demonstrated beyond any doubt that the Bible is against homosexual behavior (when the topic of the Bible came up).

Your side have given not one valid reason for gay marriage to date.

Quite honestly the debate is over. It’s just a matter of rehashing what was already stated (which has been going on for a few pages now). And I’m willing to do that so that more people are able to read the truth, unlike what they get from the media.

There, I have just “owned” you for maybe the 23rd time. :slight_smile:

Hey I like playing the “owned” game…lol
[/quote]

Y’think there’s any possibility the reason gays are so depressed and prone to suicide is people like you screaming about how they’re going to hell and that they’re “unnatural”?

[quote]harris447 wrote:

Y’think there’s any possibility the reason gays are so depressed and prone to suicide is people like you screaming about how they’re going to hell and that they’re “unnatural”?

[/quote]

No. The reason is the lifestyle. It’s destructive.

I still hate this thread btw. Nope, nothing valuable for me to contribute other than my hate of this thread…

GAINER.

[quote]harris447 wrote:

Y’think there’s any possibility the reason gays are so depressed and prone to suicide is people like you screaming about how they’re going to hell and that they’re “unnatural”?

[/quote]

Interesting question harris. And I think this is your first post in a long time which did not (at least directly) include attack words. Kudos! :slight_smile:

As to your question:

It seems that alcoholics have a larger degree of anxiety and depression as well. Do you think they drink because they are depressed? Or, are they depressed so they drink?

(Either way it’s a destructive life. But not as destructive a life as homosexuality. According to the statistics alcoholics live longer and healthier lives than homosexuals and lesbians!)

Interesting stuff the politically correct hate to read.

Back on topic:

Do fat people eat because they are depressed or are they depressed because they are fat?

On and on…

It’s my contention and there is sufficient data to back up the contention that homosexuals feel “different” from a very young age.

Why they feel “different” has been and will be debated for quite sometime. I think they feel different because of external reasons. As some research points out homosexual males usually have a distant father and a domineering mother. But that’s not always the case. They can feel different for other reasons as well.

The powerful gay lobbies and the social liberals will tell you that they are born with inherent homosexual desires, but this has never been proven! But because of their closed minded stance much research is either neglected or not done because people are in fear of being labeled a homophobe.

So, in one way the gay lobbies and social liberals win. But in a much larger way they lose! As we are not even close to understand why people are gay. And that is a very important topic and should be researched at even greater depths.

I think (at this point) homosexuals are somehow ostrasized as children and this somehow develops into erotic feelings for those of the same sex.

A better explanation by those who know more:

"Friedman, Richard, Downey, Jennifer. (1993) Neurobiology and Sexual Orientation: Current Relationships, 5. J. Neuropsychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences 131, 139.

Some typical childhood factors related to homosexuality are: feeling of being different from other children; parent, sibling, peer relationships; perception of father as being distant, uninvolved, unapproving; perception of parental perfection required; perception of mother as being too close, too involved; premature introduction to sexuality (such as child abuse or incest); gender confusion; defensive detachment, reparative drive, same-sex ambivalence; unmet affection needs; diminished/distorted masculinity, femininity."

"Nimmons, David. (March 1994). Sex and the Brain, Discover, 64-71.
"It is important to stress what I didn’t find.

I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. INAH 3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women’s sexual behavior?. Since I looked at adult brains, we don’t know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later."

"Romeo, M.E., et al. (2001, October). Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 30 (5): 535-541.

942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation that did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation."

Byne, W., (1994). The Biological Evidence Challenged. Scientific American, 54.
“The incidence of homosexuality in the adopted brothers of homosexuals (11%) was much higher than recent estimates for the rate of homosexuality in the population (1 to 5%).”
“Indeed, perhaps the major finding of these heritability studies is that despite having all of their genes in common and having prenatal and postnatal environments as close to identical as possible, approximately half of the identical twins were nonetheless discordant for orientation. This finding underscores just how little is known about the origins of sexual orientation.”

It’s all very interesting but more research needs to follow. Until then we would indeed be foolhardy to allow same sex unions at any level!

The pain that homosexuals experience has more to do with the lifestyle that they lead than what others think of the lifestyle that they lead.

Think about it. One is external which means that there is some play on regular basis, but not much. The other is internal. They live with themselves day after day week after week year after year. They go from one relationship to another. The abuse is higher, the health risks are higher, disease is higher. Just about all of the dangers are higher.

Would anyone rational person be happy for long under those conditions?

We do know for sure that this is not a happy or healthy life for anyone who considers themselves homosexual. And quite honestly it’s very sad that those on the far left fail to see the paiin of those they say they are trying to help.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Lets go for another 1000 posts![/quote]

Zap brother…

you’re thinking too small…

I think they should go for another 10,000 posts!

HAHA

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
The fact that a lifestyle is destructive has no bearing on whether someone is allowed to get married or not.

True. Then we should just uphold the current laws banning same sex sexual acts. So gays can marry they just can’t engage in any homosexual sex acts, because to do so would be against the law.

You have just solved the debate for us. Married yes, gay sex no. This way they can have equal rights and still not break the law. Gee Tango, you are sooo smart.

Ban the act? Hmmm? This is probably the best idea tango has ever had.[/quote]

It is already banned in most States.

[quote]harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
The fact that a lifestyle is destructive has no bearing on whether someone is allowed to get married or not.

We do not prevent convicted felons from getting married–John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, and “Night Stalker” Richard Ramirez being a few ‘notable’ cases. We do not prevent drug addicts from getting married. We do not prevent those with terminal diseases from getting married. We do not prevent any demographic which exhibits any sign of increased mortality from getting married based on that alone.

Destructive lifestyles don’t count against homosexuals in terms of barring marriage rights and priviledges.


The above was reposted for ZEB and Lorisco’s benefit because it has yet to be addressed by any of them.

Please explain how my logic does not make sense here.

If the only reason is tradition, then please see my other posts about the validity of tradition alone. Like, uh, the last one I just posted on what Martin Luther wrote about in the 16th century.

Changing a 5000+ year old institution for about 1% of a population that has shown themselves to be unworthy in every way of the privilidge of marriage. Not just because of the disease that is spread by same sex sex. But because of the the overwhelming statistics which demonstrate that same sex relationships do not last. And in fact provisions for cheating are built into the majority of them.

And on top of that it has also been demonstrated that same sex relationships be them two men or two women are fraught with both verbal and physical abuse!

These folks need help not enablers!

I will consider this your admitting to being owned in the category of “Relevance of Destructive Behaviour In Determining Right to Get Married”.

Case closed.

You have sort of an “owned” fixation huh?

I have given stats which demonstrate that gays have:

Higher suicide rate

Higher depression and anxiety rate.

Higher rate of AIDS and STD’s.

Higher rate of domestic problems.

You have done nothing but post that you “own” everyone.

I have also demonstrated beyond any doubt that the Bible is against homosexual behavior (when the topic of the Bible came up).

Your side have given not one valid reason for gay marriage to date.

Quite honestly the debate is over. It’s just a matter of rehashing what was already stated (which has been going on for a few pages now). And I’m willing to do that so that more people are able to read the truth, unlike what they get from the media.

There, I have just “owned” you for maybe the 23rd time. :slight_smile:

Hey I like playing the “owned” game…lol

Y’think there’s any possibility the reason gays are so depressed and prone to suicide is people like you screaming about how they’re going to hell and that they’re “unnatural”?

[/quote]

Well, clearly from a biological perspective it is unnatural. There is no getting around the biological fact that the anus was not designed (or evolved) as a sex organ or organ of procreation (which would support survival of the fittest). So the biological fact is that the human body was not designed to function in a manner required for gays sex. That’s just they way it is and will never change until guys start shooting babies out of there ass! (Excuse my French).

[quote]elevationgain wrote:
I still hate this thread btw. Nope, nothing valuable for me to contribute other than my hate of this thread…

GAINER.[/quote]

Thanks for stopping by. You be sure to come back now when you have some more meaningful insights for us!

[quote]harris447
11/03/05
06:23 PM
New Jersey, USA

Lorisco wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Campaign Life Coalition, founded in 1978, has been one of the first pro-life organizations to emphasize the international dimension of attacks on life and family. Along with a couple of other groups it pioneered pro-life lobbying at United Nations conferences. CLC president, Jim Hughes, is currently also vice-president of the International Right to Life Federation.

Do you have any studies from godhatesfags.com?

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.[/quote]

Interesting that back on 11-03 harris thought the CDC was a valid site for statistics. Perhaps they became less valid in his eyes when the facts started turning up anti-gay.

Oh well…

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
The fact that a lifestyle is destructive has no bearing on whether someone is allowed to get married or not.

True. Then we should just uphold the current laws banning same sex sexual acts. So gays can marry they just can’t engage in any homosexual sex acts, because to do so would be against the law.

You have just solved the debate for us. Married yes, gay sex no. This way they can have equal rights and still not break the law. Gee Tango, you are sooo smart.

Ban the act? Hmmm? This is probably the best idea tango has ever had.

It is already banned in most States.
[/quote]

"The Lawrence court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that attempt to criminalize homosexual activity between consenting adults acting in private. It also invalidates laws against heterosexual sodomy…"

Unless something happened since 2003.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

Well, clearly from a biological perspective it is unnatural. There is no getting around the biological fact that the anus was not designed (or evolved) as a sex organ or organ of procreation (which would support survival of the fittest). So the biological fact is that the human body was not designed to function in a manner required for gays sex. That’s just they way it is and will never change until guys start shooting babies out of there ass! (Excuse my French).

[/quote]

Same for oral sex then (shooting babies out of mouths) and masturbation (shooting babies out of hands). It’s not just every day that you come across such bizarre mental imagery.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:

I can’t even figure out where you got 90% for something called “verbal aggression” which you state as being worse than abuse.

(continues to talk to Jimmy like a young child)

You see Jimmy a long long time ago before there was anything called an Interet there things called “books.”

Books are wonderful things Jimmy and I am going to post the statistics for about the 6th time because I know you are young and have a hard time keeping up. Hey we were all young Jimmy don’t feel at all bad about it.

Now Jimmy do you see the very first sentence in the following:

“A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships.”

(The above sentence means that the following information came right from that very source :slight_smile:

“The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.[69]”

Now if you want to check that out Jimmy I suggest that you do so. Every statistic that I have posted are from credible sources.

Now run along you have plenty of work to do…

(The little tyke goes skipping off to check all of those nasty resources which demonstrated that homosexual behavior is not physically or mentally healthy)

And another saga ends…

:slight_smile:

… as soon as ZEB can understand how to cite a source properly.

Look it up duh! gave you the name of the resource…

I get it now (hits head with palm) we are just doing the one line denial stuff!

What’s wrong are you tired?

Up all night doing nasty things?

LOL

There I “owned” you again…:slight_smile:

[/quote]

ZEB, the way you cited your source I couldn’t find anything about your stat: “A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships.”

The Journal of Interpersonal Violence contains many published papers and findings. Expecting someone to try and flush it out when you could have provided volume numbers, pages, and the title of the study itself is a bit of a stretch. How hard can it be to post a link?

Your later posts have much better cited material–as someone who is actually interested in learning more, thank you for providing these links. That way, I can make my own opinion from the same materials that you did. Sometimes they need to be questioned. I post everything so it’s easy for others to find.

It’s just a common courtesy when you’re bringing what you think are facts to the table.

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
The fact that a lifestyle is destructive has no bearing on whether someone is allowed to get married or not.

True. Then we should just uphold the current laws banning same sex sexual acts. So gays can marry they just can’t engage in any homosexual sex acts, because to do so would be against the law.

You have just solved the debate for us. Married yes, gay sex no. This way they can have equal rights and still not break the law. Gee Tango, you are sooo smart.

Ban the act? Hmmm? This is probably the best idea tango has ever had.

It is already banned in most States.

"The Lawrence court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that attempt to criminalize homosexual activity between consenting adults acting in private. It also invalidates laws against heterosexual sodomy…"

Unless something happened since 2003.[/quote]

Don’t know if anything has changed since 2003 other than Texas rejecting gay marriage.

So I guess the next item on the list is to remove all vice laws. Those also should be considered protected if done in a private residence by consenting adults. Looks like preferential treatment of gays compared to drug addicts.

We need a new twist to this discussion, so here it is. I call it “If gay marriage were legal”

If gay marriage were legal:

  1. Your children, my children, and any children attending public school would be taught that being gay is OK, even though the facts and statistics show otherwise.

more to come…

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

Well, clearly from a biological perspective it is unnatural. There is no getting around the biological fact that the anus was not designed (or evolved) as a sex organ or organ of procreation (which would support survival of the fittest). So the biological fact is that the human body was not designed to function in a manner required for gays sex. That’s just they way it is and will never change until guys start shooting babies out of there ass! (Excuse my French).

Same for oral sex then (shooting babies out of mouths) and masturbation (shooting babies out of hands). It’s not just every day that you come across such bizarre mental imagery. [/quote]

In my opinion the fact that there are people like you who think homosexuality is ok and normal is bizarre as well. I mean, think about it, how bizarre is some guy sticking his wang in some other guys anus, Hello! That is what crap comes from, not babies. And the fact that they want this kind of behavior to not only be tolerated but accepted as normal, is the bizarrest thing of all.

ZEB

I’m curious at how powerful the gay and lesbian lobbyists can be if they only represent, as some people have stated on this thread, 2% of the population?

How can they have so much power so as to go up against major religious, traditional lobbyists?

I can’t seem them having more money than anyone.

I’m curious because you always allude to these lobbyists and how powerful they are and I have no idea what you’re talking about.

Maybe my being canadian has something to do with it.

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
ZEB wrote:

I get it now (hits head with palm) we are just doing the one line denial stuff!

What’s wrong are you tired?

Up all night doing nasty things?

LOL

There I “owned” you again…:slight_smile:

LOL - I almost laughed myself into a coma![/quote]

You were that close, huh? Maybe you should do some cardio or eat better or something. :slight_smile: