Proof Gay Marriage is Wrong

Off Topic
1249

[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
ZEB wrote:
SWR-1222D wrote:
(especially all of the hypocrisy and ignorance that is coming out of Zeb;

I have no problem with anyone voicing their opinion of what I have posted. However, in light of the fact that you have spoken out in favor of gay marriage I think your opinion regarding my “ignorance” and “hypocrisy” should fall into question.

At least be so fair as to point out specific posts, or part of posts which you find “ignorant” or “hypocritical.”

Otherwise, you will seem like just another pro gay hate filled social liberal. One who despises anyone not marching in lock step with what you consider politically correct.

You don’t want that do you? :slight_smile:

I was refering more to how you said you don’t want people calling you names/slinging insults and then you turning and doing right back to other people.

I have plenty of friends who feel differntly about gay marriage than I do. We agree to dissagree and move on with our lives.[/quote]

No question that I have returned in kind on occasion. You can only be called the standard liberal hate lines so many times without just a little retaliation. But I think I have also let many fly by with no retort.

I think what’s really bothering you is that your side has lost this debate, both here on T-Nation and nationally as well.

If you are suggesting that we should all “move on” and forget the debate about gay marriage, you might have a point there. I think both sides have had a fair shot at it. But do Keep in mind that no one is forcing you to click on this thread. If you are sick of it then stop posting, don’t even read it, right?

I know it’s probably bothersome to you when the standard politically correct pro gay malarkey is rebuffed time and again.

Don’t let it stress you out. Go play with our two year old daughter. This entire debate will be inherited by her, and my children as well, sooner than you think!

1250

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

I am suggesting that we bow to the inevitable. Since there is no choice in it anyhow. Homosexuals are and are going to be adopting unless it becomes clear over the next decade or two that it’s too harmful to kids to allow it. And if not white, American babies-hey, it’s a big world. There’s a big world. A lot of kids need homes. Better with gays than not at all. And I don’t agree with your comparison. I don’t think being raised by gays is automatically harmful. And a lot of other people don’t either. Ideally, is a being raised by a healthy heterosexual couple preferable? Absolutely, if only cause the way society reacts to homosexuality and how the kids are likely to be treated. But there’s no data that says it’s necessarily disatrous for kids. And some anecdotal evidence that it’s not. There was an article in sports illustrated detailing a college hockey player with two gay mothers who was happy, healthy, a good athlete, had a girlfriend, did well in school. That’s one individual, of course, but it’s still something.

Bow to the inevitable? What are you talking about? Why don’t we bow to the majority instead? Makes a heck of a lot more sense to me.

This thread has gotten way off base. I suggest we get back to the basics. And, they are:

Is homosexual behavior dangerous and destructive? Answer: Yes. Statistics show that it is (e.g., violence, diseases, unhealthy assoicated behaviors, etc…)

Will gay marriage promote homosexual relationships? Answer: Yes. Gay marriage would tell society it is OK. Children would grow up to be taught it is OK. Gays would likely adopt children, which further promotes homosexual activity in kids.

So, if gay marriage will likely promote a damaging destructive behavior, then gay marriage is not good for society. We don’t need a 30 year study for this conclusion to be validated.

P.S. Thank you to everyone who has been participating in this debate. It has been…lively to say the least.
[/quote]

“Promote homosexual activity”?

You’re not a bright man.

1251

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Professor:

If nothing else (and it has been nothing else) you have brought a smile to my face with your lunacy :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Hey, you are the one who claimed being fat had NOTHING to do with marriage. I simply showed that marriage does seem to play a part in weight gain. Sorry if that offended you but your ramble about happiness doesn’t change that. There are apparently quite a few Americans in not so happy marriages.

1252

[quote]harris447 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

I am suggesting that we bow to the inevitable. Since there is no choice in it anyhow. Homosexuals are and are going to be adopting unless it becomes clear over the next decade or two that it’s too harmful to kids to allow it. And if not white, American babies-hey, it’s a big world. There’s a big world. A lot of kids need homes. Better with gays than not at all. And I don’t agree with your comparison. I don’t think being raised by gays is automatically harmful. And a lot of other people don’t either. Ideally, is a being raised by a healthy heterosexual couple preferable? Absolutely, if only cause the way society reacts to homosexuality and how the kids are likely to be treated. But there’s no data that says it’s necessarily disatrous for kids. And some anecdotal evidence that it’s not. There was an article in sports illustrated detailing a college hockey player with two gay mothers who was happy, healthy, a good athlete, had a girlfriend, did well in school. That’s one individual, of course, but it’s still something.

Bow to the inevitable? What are you talking about? Why don’t we bow to the majority instead? Makes a heck of a lot more sense to me.

This thread has gotten way off base. I suggest we get back to the basics. And, they are:

Is homosexual behavior dangerous and destructive? Answer: Yes. Statistics show that it is (e.g., violence, diseases, unhealthy assoicated behaviors, etc…)

Will gay marriage promote homosexual relationships? Answer: Yes. Gay marriage would tell society it is OK. Children would grow up to be taught it is OK. Gays would likely adopt children, which further promotes homosexual activity in kids.

So, if gay marriage will likely promote a damaging destructive behavior, then gay marriage is not good for society. We don’t need a 30 year study for this conclusion to be validated.

P.S. Thank you to everyone who has been participating in this debate. It has been…lively to say the least.

“Promote homosexual activity”?

You’re not a bright man.
[/quote]

Seven words and four of them are used to demean. Congratulations that might be a new record!

By the way, terribleivan is exactly correct. Can you name even one activity, that when embraced and promoted by society does not increase?

Think about it.

1253

[quote]ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

I am suggesting that we bow to the inevitable. Since there is no choice in it anyhow. Homosexuals are and are going to be adopting unless it becomes clear over the next decade or two that it’s too harmful to kids to allow it. And if not white, American babies-hey, it’s a big world. There’s a big world. A lot of kids need homes. Better with gays than not at all. And I don’t agree with your comparison. I don’t think being raised by gays is automatically harmful. And a lot of other people don’t either. Ideally, is a being raised by a healthy heterosexual couple preferable? Absolutely, if only cause the way society reacts to homosexuality and how the kids are likely to be treated. But there’s no data that says it’s necessarily disatrous for kids. And some anecdotal evidence that it’s not. There was an article in sports illustrated detailing a college hockey player with two gay mothers who was happy, healthy, a good athlete, had a girlfriend, did well in school. That’s one individual, of course, but it’s still something.

Bow to the inevitable? What are you talking about? Why don’t we bow to the majority instead? Makes a heck of a lot more sense to me.

This thread has gotten way off base. I suggest we get back to the basics. And, they are:

Is homosexual behavior dangerous and destructive? Answer: Yes. Statistics show that it is (e.g., violence, diseases, unhealthy assoicated behaviors, etc…)

Will gay marriage promote homosexual relationships? Answer: Yes. Gay marriage would tell society it is OK. Children would grow up to be taught it is OK. Gays would likely adopt children, which further promotes homosexual activity in kids.

So, if gay marriage will likely promote a damaging destructive behavior, then gay marriage is not good for society. We don’t need a 30 year study for this conclusion to be validated.

P.S. Thank you to everyone who has been participating in this debate. It has been…lively to say the least.

“Promote homosexual activity”?

You’re not a bright man.

Seven words and four of them are used to demean. Congratulations that might be a new record!

By the way, terribleivan is exactly correct. Can you name even one activity, that when embraced and promoted by society does not increase?

Think about it.

[/quote]

How about marriage? While you and the rest of the fundies have been screaming about how sacred and dignifed it is, less and less people are getting married.

1254

[quote]harris447 wrote:
How about marriage? While you and the rest of the fundies have been screaming about how sacred and dignifed it is, less and less people are getting married.
[/quote]

That’s really too bad. I think everyone should know and experience a good, healthy, strong, heterosexual marriage that embrases love, respect, loyalty, and commitment.

And, the greatest joy that comes from this type of relationship is the kids!!! I get to see a part of me in each one of them, and it is absolutely exhilarating!

1255

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Professor:

If nothing else (and it has been nothing else) you have brought a smile to my face with your lunacy :slight_smile:

One of your studies showed this:

“People who married during the study gained an average of 6-8 pounds”

I’m not sure but next to the gay epidemic (higher suicide rate, more STD’s, higher rate of AIDS, higher depresion and anxiety etc.) I wouldn’t call that too bad.

You also forgot to mention that married people live longer, are happier, healthier, wealthier and have better sex than singles too! YIKES that last one just couldn’t be huh? LOL:

http://www.psychpage.com/family/mod_couples_thx/waitgalligher.html

And this:

http://ink.news.com.au/mercury/mathguys/articles/1997/971116a1.htm

And this:

http://www.nih.gov/nihrecord/01_04_2005/story01.htm

And this:

http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/dossiers/vergrijzing/publicaties/artikelen/2002-0980-wm.htm

And women make sure you marry a young virile stud:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_n12_v23/ai_8552527

Looks like (heterosexual) marriage is a very positive thing for those who are committed to the relationship!

It’s not unusual that when we take Gods path (for those who hate God, or deny his existence, call it the natural order of things) that we are happier and healthier.

You are still single right Prof?

Anyway thanks for the laugh! [/quote]

Great post Zeb!

1256

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Professor:

If nothing else (and it has been nothing else) you have brought a smile to my face with your lunacy :slight_smile:

Hey, you are the one who claimed being fat had NOTHING to do with marriage.[/quote]

It has no cause and effect. Where as there is a direct cause and effect with homosexual sex. Shall I recite the statistics again? No, you know them by now.

Actually the divorce rate is not what it may appear to be if you remove those who have divorced more than once from the number. It’s actually quite low relative to what most think.

And heterosexual marriage has nothing to do with homosexual marriage. If you think marriage is bad (which it is not by the statistics anyway) adding homosexual marriage improves it how?

We went over this many pages back-You must have missed it.

1257

[quote]harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

I am suggesting that we bow to the inevitable. Since there is no choice in it anyhow. Homosexuals are and are going to be adopting unless it becomes clear over the next decade or two that it’s too harmful to kids to allow it. And if not white, American babies-hey, it’s a big world. There’s a big world. A lot of kids need homes. Better with gays than not at all. And I don’t agree with your comparison. I don’t think being raised by gays is automatically harmful. And a lot of other people don’t either. Ideally, is a being raised by a healthy heterosexual couple preferable? Absolutely, if only cause the way society reacts to homosexuality and how the kids are likely to be treated. But there’s no data that says it’s necessarily disatrous for kids. And some anecdotal evidence that it’s not. There was an article in sports illustrated detailing a college hockey player with two gay mothers who was happy, healthy, a good athlete, had a girlfriend, did well in school. That’s one individual, of course, but it’s still something.

Bow to the inevitable? What are you talking about? Why don’t we bow to the majority instead? Makes a heck of a lot more sense to me.

This thread has gotten way off base. I suggest we get back to the basics. And, they are:

Is homosexual behavior dangerous and destructive? Answer: Yes. Statistics show that it is (e.g., violence, diseases, unhealthy assoicated behaviors, etc…)

Will gay marriage promote homosexual relationships? Answer: Yes. Gay marriage would tell society it is OK. Children would grow up to be taught it is OK. Gays would likely adopt children, which further promotes homosexual activity in kids.

So, if gay marriage will likely promote a damaging destructive behavior, then gay marriage is not good for society. We don’t need a 30 year study for this conclusion to be validated.

P.S. Thank you to everyone who has been participating in this debate. It has been…lively to say the least.

“Promote homosexual activity”?

You’re not a bright man.

Seven words and four of them are used to demean. Congratulations that might be a new record!

By the way, terribleivan is exactly correct. Can you name even one activity, that when embraced and promoted by society does not increase?

Think about it.

How about marriage? While you and the rest of the fundies have been screaming about how sacred and dignifed it is, less and less people are getting married.

[/quote]

Do you think marriage is “embraced and promoted by society?”

Please give examples of this.

1258

[quote]ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

I am suggesting that we bow to the inevitable. Since there is no choice in it anyhow. Homosexuals are and are going to be adopting unless it becomes clear over the next decade or two that it’s too harmful to kids to allow it. And if not white, American babies-hey, it’s a big world. There’s a big world. A lot of kids need homes. Better with gays than not at all. And I don’t agree with your comparison. I don’t think being raised by gays is automatically harmful. And a lot of other people don’t either. Ideally, is a being raised by a healthy heterosexual couple preferable? Absolutely, if only cause the way society reacts to homosexuality and how the kids are likely to be treated. But there’s no data that says it’s necessarily disatrous for kids. And some anecdotal evidence that it’s not. There was an article in sports illustrated detailing a college hockey player with two gay mothers who was happy, healthy, a good athlete, had a girlfriend, did well in school. That’s one individual, of course, but it’s still something.

Bow to the inevitable? What are you talking about? Why don’t we bow to the majority instead? Makes a heck of a lot more sense to me.

This thread has gotten way off base. I suggest we get back to the basics. And, they are:

Is homosexual behavior dangerous and destructive? Answer: Yes. Statistics show that it is (e.g., violence, diseases, unhealthy assoicated behaviors, etc…)

Will gay marriage promote homosexual relationships? Answer: Yes. Gay marriage would tell society it is OK. Children would grow up to be taught it is OK. Gays would likely adopt children, which further promotes homosexual activity in kids.

So, if gay marriage will likely promote a damaging destructive behavior, then gay marriage is not good for society. We don’t need a 30 year study for this conclusion to be validated.

P.S. Thank you to everyone who has been participating in this debate. It has been…lively to say the least.

“Promote homosexual activity”?

You’re not a bright man.

Seven words and four of them are used to demean. Congratulations that might be a new record!

By the way, terribleivan is exactly correct. Can you name even one activity, that when embraced and promoted by society does not increase?

Think about it.

How about marriage? While you and the rest of the fundies have been screaming about how sacred and dignifed it is, less and less people are getting married.

Do you think marriage is “embraced and promoted by society?”

Please give examples of this.
[/quote]

How typical. I answer your question, and you retroactively change it.

Pathetic.

1259

[quote]harris447 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

I am suggesting that we bow to the inevitable. Since there is no choice in it anyhow. Homosexuals are and are going to be adopting unless it becomes clear over the next decade or two that it’s too harmful to kids to allow it. And if not white, American babies-hey, it’s a big world. There’s a big world. A lot of kids need homes. Better with gays than not at all. And I don’t agree with your comparison. I don’t think being raised by gays is automatically harmful. And a lot of other people don’t either. Ideally, is a being raised by a healthy heterosexual couple preferable? Absolutely, if only cause the way society reacts to homosexuality and how the kids are likely to be treated. But there’s no data that says it’s necessarily disatrous for kids. And some anecdotal evidence that it’s not. There was an article in sports illustrated detailing a college hockey player with two gay mothers who was happy, healthy, a good athlete, had a girlfriend, did well in school. That’s one individual, of course, but it’s still something.

Bow to the inevitable? What are you talking about? Why don’t we bow to the majority instead? Makes a heck of a lot more sense to me.

This thread has gotten way off base. I suggest we get back to the basics. And, they are:

Is homosexual behavior dangerous and destructive? Answer: Yes. Statistics show that it is (e.g., violence, diseases, unhealthy assoicated behaviors, etc…)

Will gay marriage promote homosexual relationships? Answer: Yes. Gay marriage would tell society it is OK. Children would grow up to be taught it is OK. Gays would likely adopt children, which further promotes homosexual activity in kids.

So, if gay marriage will likely promote a damaging destructive behavior, then gay marriage is not good for society. We don’t need a 30 year study for this conclusion to be validated.

P.S. Thank you to everyone who has been participating in this debate. It has been…lively to say the least.

“Promote homosexual activity”?

You’re not a bright man.
[/quote]

Eh, deeeerrrrr, mamma always says “stupid is as stupid does”, eh, deeeeeerrrr.

1260

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
harris447 wrote:
How about marriage? While you and the rest of the fundies have been screaming about how sacred and dignifed it is, less and less people are getting married.

That’s really too bad. I think everyone should know and experience a good, healthy, strong, heterosexual marriage that embrases love, respect, loyalty, and commitment.

And, the greatest joy that comes from this type of relationship is the kids!!! I get to see a part of me in each one of them, and it is absolutely exhilarating!

[/quote]

Good for you. I happen to think people who care to should experience a good, healthy, strong, homosexual marriage that blah blah hlah.

Kind of like the relationship my Great-Uncle Tommy had with his companion, Patrick. They were together for over 50 years.

Do you see in your children the part of you that hates gays?

1261

[quote]harris447 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
harris447 wrote:
How about marriage? While you and the rest of the fundies have been screaming about how sacred and dignifed it is, less and less people are getting married.

That’s really too bad. I think everyone should know and experience a good, healthy, strong, heterosexual marriage that embrases love, respect, loyalty, and commitment.

And, the greatest joy that comes from this type of relationship is the kids!!! I get to see a part of me in each one of them, and it is absolutely exhilarating!

Good for you. I happen to think people who care to should experience a good, healthy, strong, homosexual marriage that blah blah hlah.

Kind of like the relationship my Great-Uncle Tommy had with his companion, Patrick. They were together for over 50 years.

Do you see in your children the part of you that hates gays?
[/quote]

Again, don’t put words in my mouth. I don’t hate gays. With all sincereity, I say what I say because I love people, and I want to see the best for them and our country.

Just guessing - your great uncle Tommy and his companion Patrick probably were not able to bear children. Because of that 50 year choice, they both missed something wonderful.

1262

[quote]harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

I am suggesting that we bow to the inevitable. Since there is no choice in it anyhow. Homosexuals are and are going to be adopting unless it becomes clear over the next decade or two that it’s too harmful to kids to allow it.

And if not white, American babies-hey, it’s a big world. There’s a big world. A lot of kids need homes. Better with gays than not at all. And I don’t agree with your comparison. I don’t think being raised by gays is automatically harmful. And a lot of other people don’t either.

Ideally, is a being raised by a healthy heterosexual couple preferable? Absolutely, if only cause the way society reacts to homosexuality and how the kids are likely to be treated. But there’s no data that says it’s necessarily disatrous for kids. And some anecdotal evidence that it’s not.

There was an article in sports illustrated detailing a college hockey player with two gay mothers who was happy, healthy, a good athlete, had a girlfriend, did well in school. That’s one individual, of course, but it’s still something.

Bow to the inevitable? What are you talking about? Why don’t we bow to the majority instead? Makes a heck of a lot more sense to me.

This thread has gotten way off base. I suggest we get back to the basics. And, they are:

Is homosexual behavior dangerous and destructive? Answer: Yes. Statistics show that it is (e.g., violence, diseases, unhealthy assoicated behaviors, etc…)

Will gay marriage promote homosexual relationships? Answer: Yes. Gay marriage would tell society it is OK. Children would grow up to be taught it is OK. Gays would likely adopt children, which further promotes homosexual activity in kids.

So, if gay marriage will likely promote a damaging destructive behavior, then gay marriage is not good for society. We don’t need a 30 year study for this conclusion to be validated.

P.S. Thank you to everyone who has been participating in this debate. It has been…lively to say the least.

“Promote homosexual activity”?

You’re not a bright man.

Seven words and four of them are used to demean. Congratulations that might be a new record!

By the way, terribleivan is exactly correct. Can you name even one activity, that when embraced and promoted by society does not increase?

Think about it.

How about marriage? While you and the rest of the fundies have been screaming about how sacred and dignifed it is, less and less people are getting married.

Do you think marriage is “embraced and promoted by society?”

Please give examples of this.

How typical. I answer your question, and you retroactively change it.

Pathetic.
[/quote]

I did not retroactively change anything!

My question to you is, “do you think that marriage is embraced and promoted by society.” The implication on my part being that it does not seem to be. If you don’t want to answer that question that is your prerogative. And in fact I think it would be quite difficult to launch any sort of argument regarding our society embracing and promoting marriage. At least not over the past several years.

However to declare my question “pathetic” speaks only to your inability to carry on logical discourse without your usual name calling.

Let me know if you change your mind.

1263

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Do you see in your children the part of you that hates gays?
[/quote]

terribleivan, if you notice harris can’t really carry on any sort of conversation without resorting to social liberal hate lines.

-Religion is against him
-Tradition is against him
-Health statistics are against him
-The polls are against him
-State referendums are against him

The social liberals have nothing left but hate lines. Peel them away and they have virtually nothing to say!

Therefore, if you are against gay marriage they will say that you hate gays. It’s a simple way to attack with no ammunition. It’s not working on this thread and it’s not working nationally.

Do you see why he’s bitter?

1264

[quote]ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Do you see in your children the part of you that hates gays?

terribleivan, if you notice harris can’t really carry on any sort of conversation without resorting to social liberal hate lines.

-Religion is against him
-Tradition is against him
-Health statistics are against him
-The polls are against him
-State referendums are against him

The social liberals have nothing left but hate lines. Peel them away and they have virtually nothing to say!

Therefore, if you are against gay marriage they will say that you hate gays. It’s a simple way to attack with no ammunition. It’s not working on this thread and it’s not working nationally.

Do you see why he’s bitter?
[/quote]

yeh, us liberals: the people arguing that gays are immoral and shoule be changed back into proper, god-fearing christians.

Pot, this is the kettle: you’re black.

1265

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Good for you. I happen to think people who care to should experience a good, healthy, strong, homosexual marriage that blah blah hlah.

Kind of like the relationship my Great-Uncle Tommy had with his companion, Patrick. They were together for over 50 years.

Do you see in your children the part of you that hates gays?
[/quote]

Well Harris, based on current statistics, your Uncle seems to be a rare case. The most recent numbers I read were that Gays have the least stable (monogamous) relationships and that they average more than 1 sexual partners every three months (62% of gays poled), (See AIDS Behav. 2005 Dec 3;:1-11).

So while your Uncle may have been in a stable monogamous relationship, the majority of gays are not.

Not wanting to support gay marriage and the self-destructive lifestyle that it entails is not hatred. Just the same as not supporting drug use or prostitution. We don’t hate those people either, but don’t condone their behavior.

1266

[quote]harris447 wrote:

yeh, us liberals: the people arguing that gays are immoral and shoule be changed back into proper, god-fearing christians.

Pot, this is the kettle: you’re black.
[/quote]

Do you honestly think that you are showing love by closing out any possible opportunity for those who do want to change?

Screaming at the top of their collective lungs liberals say “THEY ARE BORN THAT WAY.”

How does this help the large percentage of those with same sex attraction who are not happy?

1267

[quote]harris447 wrote:
…Kind of like the relationship my Great-Uncle Tommy had with his companion, Patrick. They were together for over 50 years.

…
[/quote]

Did Uncle Tommy tell you it was a pack of lifesavers in his pocket when you sat on his lap? (j/k)

1268

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
harris447 wrote:
…Kind of like the relationship my Great-Uncle Tommy had with his companion, Patrick. They were together for over 50 years.

…

Did Uncle Tommy tell you it was a pack of lifesavers in his pocket when you sat on his lap? (j/k)[/quote]

Ok, I have to admit that that was funny!