Proof Gay Marriage is Wrong

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
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]

While they only represent about 2% of the population they also represent the left wing in this country. Every liberal wonder boy and girl who thinks that gay marriage is a fine thing support these groups with their dollars!

In addition to this the gay lobby folks, and the social liberals play mean! They brand people “homophobes” and call them every nasty name they can think of, if they even think of standing up to them.

We got to see only a glimpse of the nastiness that you guys are capable of right here on this very thread. Sure my side did some name calling, but no where near what you guys did.

Just flip through the last 40 some pages and see who is calling people names! You guys want what you want and dam the statistics, tradition, religion and any other fact.

There is a certain hesitance about standing up to anything “gay” in this country. You guys have cowed the average man into thinking that they have to be open minded enough to accept just about everything. Nothing says it better than the 1999 Sienfeld program which had a gay theme. The words are still in our pop culture: “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.” Remember those words? That was Seinfeld as Mr. average man not wanting to offend.

That’s where most stand publicly.

Privately is another matter. John Q. Public will still go into a voting booth or answer a poll question and stab you right square in the back. And the reason is he doesn’t like being called homophobic! You pissed him off and scared him a little so he’ll shut his mouth in public. But don’t think for a second you have won him over. The average guy has been turned off by the militancy shown by your side.

And that’s the reason that there will be no gay marriage! Politicians who derive their power from their constituents are not about to tick them off.

Liberal Judges will not be able to get you past this one even if there were enough of them, which there isn’t. And the US Supreme Court will be no help to you as it has turned even more conservative.

You must win over the people. Not intimidate them!

If you guys were smart you would start a new campaign and drop the name calling and soften your image. Get people to like you not fear what you will call them.

Did you ever hear the phrase: “half a loaf is better than none?” Gay marriage is not going anywhere. In fact, you have created a huge backlash that has no end in sight. Rather you should be fighting for certain rights. Hospital visitation etc. That is something that is reasonable in most peoples opinion.

Okay no more free advice…

Hopeuflly the above answers some of your questions.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
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.

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.
[/quote]

Whoa, you want us to think about it?

Bizarre might be okay for some, but not in my Circus! Nope, it’s all super hot petite french Amelie babes running around in anything you can see through, able to contort their bodies into the most amazing and handy-to-use positions developed with the latest advances in modern technology. Yep, no bizarre for me. This ring master cracks his own whip, and the not the whips of others, thank you very much!

Sorry, I just needed something to counteract your subversive little sojourn into taboo-land. Very clever, but it won’t work this time, or any other time, on me, Lorisco–if that is, in fact, your real name.

But what the hell am I doing here, anyways? It’s Friday night! And my whip needs cracking!

L8RSK8RS

I happened to catch this on another forum:

"Homophobia is one of those ugly cant-words ? like racist and sexist ? that no self-respecting speaker of the English language would use … It?s a verbal badge of groupthink.
Not only groupthink, but an attempt to turn perfectly normal thinking patterns into a pyschological “disorder” - calling the healthy “sick” and the sick “healthy”.

Diversity now means conformity.

It means making sensible people afraid to contradict nonsense so obvious as to insult their intelligence.
A challenge presented to academia by Heston. We wait to see if they’ll get the point.

If it?s “diversity” you want, don?t look for it among journalists.
Here’s a quote worth repeating - in the ears of every journalist you know, in editorials to your local papers, in any public forum where you can get your two cents in.

Normal people aren?t even proud of being normal; they take it for granted. But “pride” in an abnormality?
Not only are heterosexuals not proud, but if they even thought about a straight pride parade, the groupthinking diversiphobic press would slaughter them before they got started."

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.

  2. Your health insurance costs would go up. The facts presented in this thread show that gays are a much larger spreader of HIV and AIDS than heteros.

Gay marriage would lead the common person to believe homosexuality is ok (e.g., it is legal, so it must be ok), and it is reasonable to believe more people would “try it out”. More gay sex = more AIDS = more health care costs.

more to come…

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
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.

  2. Your health insurance costs would go up. The facts presented in this thread show that gays are a much larger spreader of HIV and AIDS than heteros.

Gay marriage would lead the common person to believe homosexuality is ok (e.g., it is legal, so it must be ok), and it is reasonable to believe more people would “try it out”. More gay sex = more AIDS = more health care costs.

more to come… [/quote]

Of course, genetically heterosexual kids are going to magically become gay because there are civil unions. Best case scenearo = less gay sex with civil unions. More monogamy. Worst case-things remain exactly the same with the same people in committed relationships. And the same amount of cheating or general promiscuity. Facts and statistics cannot say something’s acceptable or unacceptable. They are only cold, hard facts.

Whether what they reveal is acceptable or not is a value judgment. More to come. I can’t wait. Laughable. As is your conclusion that anything will change in the gay community besides putting a label on realtionships that already exist among them.

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
If gay marriage were legal:

  1. Your children, my children, and any children attending public school would be taught that being gay is OK[/quote]

Hate to break it to you-this is happening in a lot of places anyhow

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Normal people aren?t even proud of being normal; they take it for granted. But “pride” in an abnormality?
Not only are heterosexuals not proud, but if they even thought about a straight pride parade, the groupthinking diversiphobic press would slaughter them before they got started."
[/quote]

I do agree with this. I don’t understand gay pride. How about not ashamed. That’s perfectly legitimate. But I don’t understand what there is to be proud of, especially as their sexual orientation is not in their control.

Although, thinking about it Zeb, more than anything it would seem to be a tool to band together and combat discrimination.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
In addition to this the gay lobby folks, and the social liberals play mean! They brand people “homophobes” and call them every nasty name they can think of, if they even think of standing up to them.
[/quote]

Just like you brand everyone who doesn’t agree with all your policies, but who on balance and as a whole may be very moderate and centrist, a social liberal?

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

Of course, genetically heterosexual kids are going to magically become gay because there are civil unions.[/quote]

I think that we all know by now no one knows how people become gay, no one! So why wouldn’t kids experiment with homosexuality? Do you know for sure that they won’t? Of course not.

Don’t make me drag out the study which demonstrates that even most “committed” homosexual relationships have provisions built in for cheating.

If you legitimize this behavior you will have more of it not less of it. Name one behavior which is embraced by society which lessons?

That is no where near the worst case scenario! A behavior embraced by society will increase. Name one which has not!

I agree, but when they clearly demonstrate that homosexual behavior causes pain for everyone involved then we would be smart to heed the warning.

Naivete can be dangerous.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
If gay marriage were legal:

  1. Your children, my children, and any children attending public school would be taught that being gay is OK

Hate to break it to you-this is happening in a lot of places anyhow[/quote]

So is rape, what’s your point?

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Normal people aren?t even proud of being normal; they take it for granted. But “pride” in an abnormality?
Not only are heterosexuals not proud, but if they even thought about a straight pride parade, the groupthinking diversiphobic press would slaughter them before they got started."

I do agree with this. I don’t understand gay pride. How about not ashamed. That’s perfectly legitimate. But I don’t understand what there is to be proud of, especially as their sexual orientation is not in their control.[/quote]

But your ACTIONS are always under your control.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Although, thinking about it Zeb, more than anything it would seem to be a tool to band together and combat discrimination.[/quote]

Discrimination is wrong I agree. As I’ve stated before, I don’t like bullies and that’s just what people are who try to deny someone certain rights that we all enjoy.

However, I have never seen a group do more actual harm to themselves than gays. And I think it starts at the top with the powerful gay lobbies.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
If gay marriage were legal:

  1. Your children, my children, and any children attending public school would be taught that being gay is OK

Hate to break it to you-this is happening in a lot of places anyhow

So is rape, what’s your point?[/quote]

In what schools is rape being taught as “ok”?

I hate that this thread is this damn long, but occasionally upon stopping by to check out the nonsense, I get hit with an extra dose of it in one simple sentence.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
If gay marriage were legal:

  1. Your children, my children, and any children attending public school would be taught that being gay is OK

Hate to break it to you-this is happening in a lot of places anyhow

So is rape, what’s your point?[/quote]

There are no schools where they are teach that rape is ok. Everyone agrees that rape is wrong. Not everybody shares your value judgment that gayness is wrong. Or if it is that it is those people’s faults or there’s anything that can be done about it.

Zeb, you and your studies are funny. Can you explain any possible reason why gays who are not in committed relationships right now would enter them because they are recongized as legal civil unions.

Or if they did why that would cause increased promiscuity and spread of disease even with built-in provisions for cheating, as opposed to not being in relationships and having no self-imposed restrictions on who they have sex with? No, because there is no explanation. What are all these gay people doing now who are not in relationships with cheating provisions doing? Having lots of sex.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Although, thinking about it Zeb, more than anything it would seem to be a tool to band together and combat discrimination.

Discrimination is wrong I agree. As I’ve stated before, I don’t like bullies and that’s just what people are who try to deny someone certain rights that we all enjoy.

However, I have never seen a group do more actual harm to themselves than gays. And I think it starts at the top with the powerful gay lobbies.

[/quote]

I don’t agree. I haven’t encountered any big, vocal gay lobbies. But from I have seen, the only things they promote is safe sex (as safe as anal sex can be) and discourage drug use and other risky behaviors.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Of course, genetically heterosexual kids are going to magically become gay because there are civil unions.

I think that we all know by now no one knows how people become gay, no one! So why wouldn’t kids experiment with homosexuality? Do you know for sure that they won’t? Of course not.
[/quote]

We are pretty damn sure that it’s not a choice whatever some ignorant zealots might say. The most credible studies suggest a highly genetic component with some prenatal and early childhood environmental impact causing expression. The exact relationship has not become clear, but the genetic dominance is pretty clear. You have to admit that sexual attraction is pretty organic. Anybody whose ever felt it subjectively understands that. Pretty inconceivable that kids are going to ‘experiment’ unless they feel some visceral attraction for the same sex.

As the vast majoirty of the population feels repulsion at the thought of sex with the same sex. And we couldn’t get hard if we wanted to with sexual touching with another guy.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Best case scenearo = less gay sex with civil unions. More monogamy.

Don’t make me drag out the study which demonstrates that even most “committed” homosexual relationships have provisions built in for cheating.

If you legitimize this behavior you will have more of it not less of it. Name one behavior which is embraced by society which lessons?
[/quote]

Allowing civil unions is not as all the same thing as embracing promiscuity. In theory, civil unions are supposed to be monogamous. In theory, marriage is supposed to be monogamous. In practice, that’s often not what happens. That’s because of the choices of individuals. It has nothing to do with the institution. Your suggestion would lead to the conclusion that regular marriage encourages promiscuity.

If anything it acts as a constraint; only some people don’t choose to follow it or honor their committment. Civil unions are the same. Gay people can choose to be in committed realtionships now or not. Your statistics, if true, suggest they choose not more often than heterosexuals. You think creating an insitution that extends legal rights to same sex individuals who are supposed to be in a commited monogamous relationship is going to encourage cheating when they have full discretion as it is to either cheat or be committed. That doesn’t follow. That’s naivete right there.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Worst case-things remain exactly the same with the same people in committed relationships. And the same amount of cheating or general promiscuity.

That is no where near the worst case scenario! A behavior embraced by society will increase. Name one which has not!
[/quote]

You’re again misunderstanding what would actually be embraced.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Facts and statistics cannot say something’s acceptable or unacceptable. They are only cold, hard facts.

I agree, but when they clearly demonstrate that homosexual behavior causes pain for everyone involved then we would be smart to heed the warning.
[/quote]

Heed what warning and do what about it? Maybe there’d be some merit if we could actually cure homosexuality. But no credible evidence of that-the only evidence I’ve seen at all is that bogus study you posted which only followed some indiviuals who supposedly became straight, the only evidence being that they were married and had sex. Not any different from supposedly straight guys with families who come out of the closet after awhile.

I’d be extremely interested to see the recidivism rate of the individuals of that study if there’s a follow-up. I think it’d be extremely high. No, we don’t know exactly what causes homosexuality (though as said, it’s believed to see a extremely strong genetic component influenced by early environmental factros). But we don’t know how to fix it as of yet. I think it’d be a good thing if we did. But until that happens, those people should be respected and given the same LEGAL rights (that’s why I am for civil unions and not marriage) as anyone else in this country.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Normal people aren?t even proud of being normal; they take it for granted. But “pride” in an abnormality?
Not only are heterosexuals not proud, but if they even thought about a straight pride parade, the groupthinking diversiphobic press would slaughter them before they got started."

I do agree with this. I don’t understand gay pride. How about not ashamed. That’s perfectly legitimate. But I don’t understand what there is to be proud of, especially as their sexual orientation is not in their control.

But your ACTIONS are always under your control.

[/quote]

Asking people not to have sex at all is asking a hell of a lot if that’s what you’re suggesting. Asking them not to have unprotected sex, not sleep with a lot of people, and not engage in drug use-well, those are their own choices. But I agree that if they want to improve their health as a community and also to gain esteem and respect in the eyes of the rest of America, they need to get their act together.

[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]

lorisco, you ignorant slut, please read lawrence v. texas:
Lawrence & Garner v. State of Texas
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that sodomy laws are unconstitutional on June 26, 2003.
http://www.sodomylaws.org/lawrence/lawrence.htm

The Supreme Court ruled that laws banning gay sex are unconstitutional. Now that I have once again “owned” your ignorant ass, please STFU up about state laws against gay sex.

None of you people (ZEB, tinyivan, etc.) has proven that the things you fantasize gay men doing (butt sex, blow jobs, etc.) is somehow less harmful when straight people do them. Your logic and reasoning are perverse. You post stats that you understand not at all. Here are some stats for you:

"Researchers use the term “alcohol problems” to refer to any type of condition caused by drinking which harms the drinker directly, jeopardizes the drinker’s well-being, or places others at risk. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, nearly 14 million people in the United States-1 in every 13 adults-have alcohol problems, though most do not realize or acknowledge it.

It is additionally estimated that 43% of U.S. adults (76 million people) have been exposed to alcoholism in the family–they have a parent/guardian, spouse or other family member who is or was an alcoholic or a problem drinker."

I wonder if all those 14 million people are gay? Let’s look at some more.

“Recently, however, the proportion of HIV cases acquired through heterosexual contact has increased and almost equals the proportion of cases attributable to injection drug use. The proportion of all AIDS cases reported among women has tripled since the mid-1980s, primarily as a result of heterosexual exposure and secondarily through injection drug use. Minority groups are the most heavily affected by HIV associated with drug injection, and Blacks and Hispanics now account for an estimated 70% of all new AIDS cases.”

Who is at highest risk for suicide in the U.S.?

"There is a common perception that suicide rates are highest among the young. However, it is the elderly, particularly older white males that have the highest rates. And among white males 65 and older, risk goes up with age. White men 85 and older have a suicide rate that is six times that of the overall national rate. Why are rates so high for this group? White males are more deliberate in their suicide intentions; they use more lethal methods (firearms), and are less likely to talk about their plans. It may also be that older persons are less likely to survive attempts because they are less likely to recuperate.

Over 70 percent of older suicide victims have been to their primary care physician within the month of their death, many with a depressive illness that was not detected. This has led to research efforts to determine how to best improve physicians’ abilities to detect and treat depression in older adults."

"Are gay and lesbian youth at high risk for suicide?

With regard to completed suicide, there are no national statistics for suicide rates among gay, lesbian or bisexual (GLB) persons. Sexual orientation is not a question on the death certificate, and to determine whether rates are higher for GLB persons, we would need to know the proportion of the U.S. population that considers themselves gay, lesbian or bisexual.

Sexual orientation is a personal characteristic that people can, and often do choose to hide, so that in psychological autopsy studies of suicide victims where risk factors are examined, it is difficult to know for certain the victim’s sexual orientation. This is particularly a problem when considering GLB youth who may be less certain of their sexual orientation and less open. In the few studies examining risk factors for suicide where sexual orientation was assessed, the risk for gay or lesbian persons did not appear any greater than among heterosexuals, once mental and substance abuse disorders were taken into account."

  1. Gay Relationships
    a) 40-60% of gay men, and 45-80% of lesbians are in a steady relationship
    J Harry-1983 in Contemporary Families and Alternative Lifestyles, ed by Macklin, Sage Publ.
    L Peplau-1981, in Journal of Homosexuality 6(3):1-19
    J Spada-1979, The Spada Report, New American Library Publ

b) Studies of older homosexual people show that gay relationships lasting over 20 years are not uncommon

D McWhirter-1984, The Male Couple, Prentice-Hall
S Raphael-1980, Alternative Lifestyles 3:207-230, “The Older Lesbian”
C Silverstein-1981, Man to Man: Gay Couples in America, William Morrow Publ.

Homosexual and heterosexual couples matched on age, etc, tend not to differ in levels of love and satisfaction, nor in their scores on other standardized scales

M Cardell-1981, Psychology of Women Quarterly 5:488-94
D Dailey-1979, Journal of Sex Research 15:143-57
S Duffy-1986, Journal of Homosexuality 12(2):1-24
L Kurdek-1986, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:711-720
L Peplau-1982, Journal of Homosexuality 8(2):23-35 (see L Peplau-1991, Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, ed by J Gonsiorek).

Psychological Testing Affirms the Mental Health of Homosexuals

This represents the evidence that homosexuality is not pathological, and comes from studies that were primarily done in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. There were a flurry of studies done after the classical study by Evelyn Hooker in 1957, which produced the large body of studies from the 60’s -70’s. Then the studies dwindle down as the 80’s progress, and very few studies can be found in the 90’s. This is because all of the evidence is convergent, so no further studies were warranted, and the conclusion was that homosexuality evidenced no pathological characteristics that were significantly different from heterosexuals.
a) MMPI data:

L Braaten-1965, Genetic Psychology Monographs 71:269-310
R Dean-1964, J of Consulting Psychology 28 483-86
W Horstman-1972, Homosexuality and Psychopathology(dissertation)
Adelman-1977, Arch of Sex Beh 6(3):193-201
Oberstone-1976, Psychology of Women Quarterly 1(2):172-86

b) Other tests (Eysenck’s Personality Inventory, Cattel’s 16PF, California Personality Inventory, etc)

R Evans-1970, J of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 34:212-15
R Turner-1974, Br J of Psychiatry 125:447-49
M Siegelman-1972, Br J of Psychiatry 120:477-481
M Siegelman-1972, Archives of Sexual Behavior 2:9-25
M Freedman-1971, Homosexuality and Psychological Functioning, Brooks/Cole Publ.
J Hopkins-1969, Br J of Psychiatry 115:1433-1436
M Wilson-1971, Psychological Reports 28:407-412
N Thompson-1971, J of Abnormal Psychology 78:237-40
E Ohlson-1974, J of Sex Research 10:308-315
D Christie-1986, Psychological Reports 59:1279-1282
H Carlson-1984, Sex Roles 10:457-67
T Clark-1975, Am J of Psychoanalysis 35:163-68
R LaTorre-1983, J of Homosexuality 9:87-97
P Nurius-1983, J of Sex Research 19:119-36
C Rand-1982, J of Homosexuality 8(1):27-39 J Harry-1983, Archives of Sexual Behavior 12:1-19
E Hooker-1957, J of Projective Techniques 21:18-31

How’s that for studies and stats and tests? Far more than you guys have and from a variety of sources.

You’ll most likely ignore it all because it doesn’t fit your beliefs about gay people.

I’m beginning to think you really like being dominated by a lesbian. That’s why you keep saying stupid ignorant crap.

Get on your knees, wormboy.