Proof Gay Marriage is Wrong

[quote]dcb wrote:
Hey everybody, I’m back. Happy New Year!

One of the main beliefs of the anti gay marriage crowd here seems to be that allowing gay marriage will equal more gay sex and therefore more HIV/AIDS.

I guess I just don’t understand that belief. There are a finite number of gay people anyway who may or may not be out having sex right now. Is there a concern that allowing gay marriage will create more gay people and therefore more gay sex?

I would assume that by allowing gay marriage you give that community a better standard of relationship to aspire to and it would ultimately lead to more monogamous relationships among gay people. That to me just seems to make sense.

If hetersexuals couldn’t get married I think the the average number of sex partners a person has would probably go up. Certainly there would be many couples who would remain monogamous without marriage, but I think my main point makes sense.

So wouldn’t the same logic apply to the gay population? [/quote]

Changing the definition of marriage for gays to be able to marry same sex partners is not about more sex or more gays. It’s about sanctioning (condoning) a sexual lifestyle that has been shown to be physically and psychologically destructive. The same reason Heroin, LSD, and other illicit drugs are illegal; because they are self-destructive. So changing marriage to allow same sex is the same as legalizing drugs.

Next, with the medical outcomes of the gay lifestyle and knowing that most of the cost of healthcare for these people is put on the government, and the already overburdened healthcare system, it would be a very stupid move to support gay marriage as it would ensure a continued high volume of gay people with physical and mental problems. So it would not be a very smart fiscal approach by the government to support gay marriage.

Legalizing any deviant activity does increase it’s participation. Just look at some of the Scandinavian countries that have legalized drug use. They have a very high addiction rate, much higher then the States or Candida. So the fear that supporting gay marriage would increase gay sex and those who “are now gay” would seem valid.

As for the idea that gay marriage will cause monogamy among gays, I don’t see any proof of that. You can’t compare a self-proclaimed non-conformist group to a conformist group and believe they will respond the same in the same circumstances.

One of the big issues that gays tout is that they are not bond by the normal rules of society. So to think that will change once they are bound (by marriage rules of society) doesn’t make sense. If fact, the idea that this self-proclaimed free-wheeling group would even want to be in the same conformist institution like marriage doesn’t make sense either. It’s probably just that it’s human nature to want what you don’t have.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So we have no reason to not allow gay marriage, but plenty to not allow gay sex. So gay marriage without gay sex is my vote!

LOL I like that one lorisco.

The only problem is, they are such a promiscuious bunch that one gay man is probably already having more sex than any 20 straight men!

Yea…I’m sure all that would just go away the day that gay marriage was sanctioned. :slight_smile:

LOL

LOL I like that one ZEB.

Well, ZEB, I’m guessing you’re basing that on personal experience? My personal experience is, I have a lot more sex than my gay friends do, and with more partners too… probably because it’s easy for me, being straight and all, to go out and find action. Single white males are such a promiscuous bunch. But that’s just my opinion. :slight_smile:

LOL

Oh darn the stats are against you AGAIN:

"Promiscuity among Homosexual Couples. Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of “committed” typically means something radically different from marriage.

? In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that in a study of a hundred-fifty-six males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years,

Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[13]

? In Male and Female Homosexuality, M. Saghir and E. Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[14]

(They are clueless as to what monogamy is)

Homosexual Promiscuity

Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime: A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.9 In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.10 A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than a hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than a thousand sexual partners.11 In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."12

Now make sure to post some statistics which demonstrate that homosexuals are LESS promiscuious than the average.

Oh wait…you can’t do that huh?

Next…

[/quote]

Yeah. Move on. Your point about promiscuity is such a weak one.

I’m not sure why you felt particularly compelled to find a bunch of statistics in this case. They don’t refute my anecdote. There are some straight people who are much more promiscuous than some gay men. Wilt Chamberlain has bragged about sleeping with 10000 women. So what?

Well, his high risk lifestyle isn’t justification for not allowing him to get married. That’s what.

So why does a high risk lifestyle suddenly matter if you’re gay when it comes to marriage? If you think it does matter, then you are, in fact, creating a discriminatory practice which unfairly targets homosexuals.

I’m sorry if you feel like your stat is important somehow. But it doesn’t tell us anything about why we should or should not let gays enjoy the rights afforded by civil unions. The only thing your point tells us is that you are discriminating against homosexuals, or else you’d be calling for marriage to not be extended to anyone else who practices a high-risk lifestyle.

Of course, you’ll fail to recognize that fact. I’ve already said this dozens of times in just as many ways. I’m sorry that you don’t get it, but there’s not much else I can do to help you out. At some point you need to help yourself, ZEB.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
One (and only one) of the concerns is that if same gender sex went mainstream that more individuals would indeed try it out. Keep in mind that there is no proof that one is born that way. Therefore, I think that this is a legitimate concern. [/quote]

But it’s mainstream anyway right? I guess the concern might be that there’s probably a lot of people who are attracted to both sexes whether they admit it or not. So it may be only social stigmas that keep them from acting on those feelings.

[quote]
I’m sorry but that makes about as much sense as expecting your wife to change “after” you marry her. That never happens and neither will people who seek sex with those of the same gender be “less” promiscuious if they are allowed to marry. The facts just don’t bear it out. [/quote]

Here I agree and disagree. First of all I didn’t expect my wife to change, but I see your point about individuals. I’m talking about a society over the long term though and I think that’s different. Again, do you think we would act the same if we could never marry women? Not you and I specifically but straight men in general. I think it’s safe to say that many straight men would be WAY more promiscuous if they could never marry. I know the facts you’ve stated but they may not apply to a culture 100 years from now after gay marriage is allowed. You and I may not live to see it, but in other countries where gay marriage is allowed the facts will support one side or the other. Until then there are no facts that matter, it’s just opinion. It’s my opinion that allowing gay marriage will create more monogamous gay couples and therefore improve the health of our society.

[quote]
Why don’t we first answer that question before we rush off to legitimize a very dangerous practice![/quote]

It’s not dangerous to get married. This is also a point I don’t understand; the focus on the “homosexual act”. I’ve got news for you guys, I’m a heterosexual in the down time between when I’m having sex with my wife no matter how short a time I try to make that. Homosexuals can love each other the same way that we love ours wives/girlfriends. A marriage is (most of the time) much more than sex.

Here’s the saying: Men are the “gas”, women are the “brakes”. There’s a reason for that and it applies to all men.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Changing the definition of marriage for gays to be able to marry same sex partners is not about more sex or more gays. It’s about sanctioning (condoning) a sexual lifestyle that has been shown to be physically and psychologically destructive. The same reason Heroin, LSD, and other illicit drugs are illegal; because they are self-destructive. So changing marriage to allow same sex is the same as legalizing drugs. [/quote]

Thank you so much for validating my original posts with regard to the obese , drug abusers etc. Food abuse may not be illegal, but it’s every bit as destructive to our society as drugs are. So you and I agree on that point.

There always have been and always will be gay people. Allowing gay marriage will not increase the gay population. By the way, since when is 2% of the population considered “high volume”. This part of your argument doesn’t make sense.

Trust me I’ve had this conversation with some of my gay friends and I’ve asked them why they would want to give someone the right to take half their stuff. :slight_smile:

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So we have no reason to not allow gay marriage, but plenty to not allow gay sex. So gay marriage without gay sex is my vote!

LOL I like that one lorisco.

The only problem is, they are such a promiscuious bunch that one gay man is probably already having more sex than any 20 straight men!

Yea…I’m sure all that would just go away the day that gay marriage was sanctioned. :slight_smile:

LOL

LOL I like that one ZEB.

Well, ZEB, I’m guessing you’re basing that on personal experience? My personal experience is, I have a lot more sex than my gay friends do, and with more partners too… probably because it’s easy for me, being straight and all, to go out and find action. Single white males are such a promiscuous bunch. But that’s just my opinion. :slight_smile:

LOL

Oh darn the stats are against you AGAIN:

"Promiscuity among Homosexual Couples. Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of “committed” typically means something radically different from marriage.

? In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that in a study of a hundred-fifty-six males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years,

Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[13]

? In Male and Female Homosexuality, M. Saghir and E. Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[14]

(They are clueless as to what monogamy is)

Homosexual Promiscuity

Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime: A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.9 In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.10 A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than a hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than a thousand sexual partners.11 In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."12

Now make sure to post some statistics which demonstrate that homosexuals are LESS promiscuious than the average.

Oh wait…you can’t do that huh?

Next…

Yeah. Move on. Your point about promiscuity is such a weak one.[/quote]

Weak one? Why don’t you read the stats above one more time. While you’re at it take a look at the AIDS problem in San Fransico. Do you think these thinks are a coincidence?

Two males having sex spreads disease. Add to that the promiscuity of the average homosexual and you have a gay lifestyle that is absolutely detrimental to society.

Bad behavior begets a bad result!

That never changes…

Statistics don’t refute one anecdote?

Why don’t you rethink that line before people drive you from this thread with hearty “LOL’s”

Why don’t we promote smoking and being overweight? Are we discriminating against fat smokers? Not at all! What we are doing is saying “look we care about you and we want you to live longer lives so stop smoking and lose weight.” In addition to this the overweight smoker is costing us in health care, not unlike the homosexual.

Because promoting a dangerous behavior will indeed cause that behavior to rise, not fall!

What other dangerous behaviors do you want to promote in the name of “fairness?”

-Smoking?
-Alcoholism?
-Kids playing with guns?
-Drug use?

Don’t those people have a right to participate in their chosen dangerous behavior as well?

What the statistics tell those of us who have not swallowed the politically correct pill is that two men having anal sex spreads disease, pain and death in many forms!

OPEN YOUR EYES!

What you have to do is something that you have not done on this post or any other: You have to give us some valid reasons FOR gay marriage.

I call attention to the fact that one more post has gone by where no valid argument has been given FOR gay marriage.

It’s just an “emotion fest” with you guys, with lots of liberal logic thrown in-But never any valid reasons for gay marriage!

What about adults playing with guns…maybe maybe that should be banned in the US, if gay marriage will lead to an outbreak of down right fruitiness.

The points regarding kids/guns/drugs are not in paralell to the issue of gay marriage. It is an issue of social justice or equality, at least in terms of law and legal rights.

I have not heard of a gay marriage killing anyone yet.

[quote]miniross wrote:
What about adults playing with guns…maybe maybe that should be banned in the US, if gay marriage will lead to an outbreak of down right fruitiness.

The points regarding kids/guns/drugs are not in paralell to the issue of gay marriage. It is an issue of social justice or equality, at least in terms of law and legal rights.

I have not heard of a gay marriage killing anyone yet.[/quote]

Have you ever heard of AIDS? Lot’s of people in the gay lifestyle die from it.

Have you ever heard of domestic abuse? Pretty prominent in the gay lifestyle.

Have you ever heard of suicide? Happens to a disproportionately high number of people in the gay lifestyle.

PS - your equality argument is baseless. Nobody said that gay people are equal to straight people in the eyes of the law. A gay man can marry a gay woman, just like a straight man can marry a straight woman.

Anybody read about the woman marrying a dolphin? (Not legally binding, thank the Lord)

Just thought it was interesting to see just how much marriage is really under attack - and gay marriage wouldn’t help things any.

I sure am glad the vast majority of the country is morally minded enought to say no to these silly ideas of gay marriage and animal/human marriage.

[quote]dcb wrote:

Trust me I’ve had this conversation with some of my gay friends and I’ve asked them why they would want to give someone the right to take half their stuff. :slight_smile:
[/quote]

This is the silliest thing you have posted to date. Nobody wants to give away half of their stuff (unless you are a monk), but it happens when people divorce.

[quote]dcb wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Changing the definition of marriage for gays to be able to marry same sex partners is not about more sex or more gays. It’s about sanctioning (condoning) a sexual lifestyle that has been shown to be physically and psychologically destructive. The same reason Heroin, LSD, and other illicit drugs are illegal; because they are self-destructive. So changing marriage to allow same sex is the same as legalizing drugs.

Thank you so much for validating my original posts with regard to the obese , drug abusers etc. Food abuse may not be illegal, but it’s every bit as destructive to our society as drugs are. So you and I agree on that point.
[/quote]
Yes, I agree that food abuse is equally destructive and the stats on obesity related deaths support that.

First, it is now 2% when they are not allowed to marry. There are numerous documented cases (some very public) of people all of a sudden becoming gay. Just getting up one morning and saying “I think I’m now gay”. Some of these people then latter decided they weren’t gay. So there is a lot of support for the idea that it is NOT genetic. And if it is truly a choice than more people would decide to be gay if it was more accepted. And making gay marriage legal would make it more accepted. And just like drug use went up when it was legalized in Scandinavian countries, so would being gay if it was more accepted.

Dude, in the last few gay rights marches there were hundreds of thousands of gays running around acting a fool. So plenty of them support this type of non-conformist lifestyle.

[quote]dcb wrote:
ZEB wrote:
One (and only one) of the concerns is that if same gender sex went mainstream that more individuals would indeed try it out. Keep in mind that there is no proof that one is born that way. Therefore, I think that this is a legitimate concern.

But it’s mainstream anyway right? I guess the concern might be that there’s probably a lot of people who are attracted to both sexes whether they admit it or not. So it may be only social stigmas that keep them from acting on those feelings.[/quote]

Then I say GOOD for social stigmas! We don’t want people acting out dangerous behaviors do we? In fact, I wish there were more social stigmas regarding those who over eat, smoke etc.

Also, keep in mind no matter how “mainstream” that you think it is currently, if it were legitimized by society it would become more so.

[quote]I’m sorry but that makes about as much sense as expecting your wife to change “after” you marry her. That never happens and neither will people who seek sex with those of the same gender be “less” promiscuious if they are allowed to marry. The facts just don’t bear it out.

Here I agree and disagree. First of all I didn’t expect my wife to change, but I see your point about individuals. I’m talking about a society over the long term though and I think that’s different. Again, do you think we would act the same if we could never marry women? Not you and I specifically but straight men in general. I think it’s safe to say that many straight men would be WAY more promiscuous if they could never marry.[/quote]

What about the millions of straight couples who “live together” without a marriage certificate? They seem to be able to be monogamous for the most part.

That can sort of apply to almost anything can’t it? What will anything be like in 100 years?

I somehow doubt that but we won’t know for sure. A more important matter to me is that it will promote homosexuality as being “normal.” And the facts are not in yet regarding this behavior.

[quote]Why don’t we first answer that question before we rush off to legitimize a very dangerous practice!

It’s not dangerous to get married.[/quote]

I think that the homosexual act is indeed dangerous and I have backed that up with volumes of statistics.

I don’t want to get graphic. But if you review some of my earlier posts you will see why one man placing his penis in another mans rectum is a very unhealthy practice. Add to that the potential for promiscuity and you have doubled or quadrupled the problem.

[quote]If they are gay because of some childhood experience(s) then perhaps they are promiscuous for the same reason.

Here’s the saying: Men are the “gas”, women are the “brakes”. There’s a reason for that and it applies to all men.

[/quote]

I think that is a very good comparison!
Hence, if you have two men who are attracted to each other and want to have sex there is no “brake.” You may have just explained why homosexual men are so very very promiscuious! And since there will never be a “brake” in that relationship what makes anyone think that marriage will solve the problem of promiscuity?

[quote]miniross wrote:
What about adults playing with guns…maybe maybe that should be banned in the US, if gay marriage will lead to an outbreak of down right fruitiness.

The points regarding kids/guns/drugs are not in paralell to the issue of gay marriage. It is an issue of social justice or equality, at least in terms of law and legal rights.

I have not heard of a gay marriage killing anyone yet.[/quote]

Forgive me if I wasn’t clear. I did not mean those examples as direct parallels. I used those things as examples of other dangerous behaviors which we should not promote.

[quote]miniross wrote:
What about adults playing with guns…maybe maybe that should be banned in the US, if gay marriage will lead to an outbreak of down right fruitiness.

The points regarding kids/guns/drugs are not in paralell to the issue of gay marriage. It is an issue of social justice or equality, at least in terms of law and legal rights.

I have not heard of a gay marriage killing anyone yet.[/quote]

That’s because gay marriage is not legal yet. But the gay lifestyle has killed hundreds of thousands through AIDS, other sexually transmitted disease, and suicide.

So if it’s a “rights” issue, it is having the right to engage in self-destructive behavior. And if we give gays that right, we need to give it to any drug user as well. Self-destructive is self-destructive, it doesn’t matter that gays happen to be PC right now and drug abusers not.

Research Suggests That Homos Are Genetically Drawn

[quote]Is Our Behavior Written in Our Genes?

Dennis Drayna, Ph.D.

Scientists recently reached an important milestone in the understanding of genetic contributions to behavior. A new study demonstrated the role of a single gene in specifying sexual behavior in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster.1 The findings prompt provocative thinking about the contribution of genetic factors to sexual orientation in humans, as well as about genes that might underlie a broader spectrum of human behaviors.

The investigators in the fruit-fly study, Demir and Dickson, focused on a gene called fruitless that has long been known to have strong effects on mating, fertility, and reproduction in fruit flies. The messenger RNA product of this gene (see figure) encodes a transcription factor that is essential for development and that can occur in any of several variously spliced forms. Two of these forms are sex-specific, one being unique to male flies and the other to female flies. Demir and Dickson used genetic manipulation to produce anatomically female flies that carried only the male form of the gene (see figure). The resulting flies exhibited courtship and mating behavior toward females that is normally engaged in only by male flies. Whereas previous studies have shown that the male form of the fruitless gene is necessary for male courtship, the new study shows that it is sufficient to produce this behavior, even in females ? making it the first single gene to be identified as both necessary and sufficient for specifying a complex behavior in a higher-level organism.

A study by Demir and Dickson1 showed that a single gene is sufficient to specify behavior in the fruit fly. The authors generated female flies that spliced the fruitless (fru) gene in a male-specific manner, and male flies that spliced the fru gene in a female-specific manner. The modified females showed a reduction in receptivity to mating and were likely to court other females; the modified males showed a disinclination to court females and were more likely to court other males than were control males. S denotes sex-specific, and mRNA messenger RNA.

What other forms of behavior with such complex manifestations might prove to have such a simple origin? Is it conceivable that complex behaviors in humans could be specified by a single gene? Could these results deepen our understanding of human sexual orientation or sexual behavior?

Behavioral genetics has long been hampered by the fact that a vast array of structures and functions in the human body are required to produce a behavior, and the failure of any one of them can render that behavior impossible for a given person. Thus, it is not difficult to show that a gene is necessary for behavior, but such a demonstration is often not very informative. Mutations that result in defects in the bones of the arm may prevent humans from playing the violin, for example, but what we would really like to know about are the neural functions that underlie humans’ apparently unique ability to produce and appreciate music.

The scientific issues surrounding the general problem of the influence of genetic factors on behavior have been laid out,2 and researchers have found particular behaviors in several different model organisms that seem likely to be determined by single genes ? for instance, the foraging behavior of drosophila larvae and the social behavior of nematodes. Among higher-level organisms, it is known that genetic factors specify the nature and quantity of provisions that parrots gather for their nests and the types of nests that mice build. However, the sophisticated genetic manipulations we can undertake in fruit flies cannot yet be performed in these other organisms, so we do not have unequivocal proof of the role of any particular gene.

Key characteristics of these genetically influenced types of behavior are that they are highly instinctive and consist of a series of programmed actions that directly affect the survival and reproduction of the organism. As such, these behaviors can be directly affected by natural selection. Indeed, since natural selection acts by affecting the genes of a species, it would not be surprising to find a strong influence of genetic factors in generating this class of behaviors.

Humans have highly developed cortical functions that control behavior by integrating many different sensory inputs and motivations; moreover, these functions are highly plastic and susceptible to modification by experience. Most human behavior seems likely to be insulated from the effects of natural selection and therefore is unlikely to be associated with the action of one gene or a few genes.

Nevertheless, humans do display some simple reflex behaviors, such as the hand-grasping (Darwinian reflex) and startle (Moro reflex) responses of infants. The other hallmark of single-gene behavioral control in lower-level organisms is that the gene controls a program of actions carried out by structures such as neural circuits that are specified by other genes and already in place. Dedicated neural circuits have been identified for simple muscle reflexes in a number of systems, and such circuits may also exist for some human behaviors. Beyond simple motor reflexes, other types of behavior that occur in all persons in a recurring, programmed fashion may have strong genetic influences. Such behaviors often have important health consequences ? they may, for instance, include some activities associated with food intake, sleep and wakefulness, and even tobacco use.

Despite being variable and subject to strong cultural influences, human sexual and reproductive behavior has some components that are probably instinctive. Together with existing evidence that human sexual orientation has a genetic component, this instinctive element raises the question of whether sexual orientation or aspects of sexual behavior in humans could be determined by the action of one or a few genes ? a provocative hypothesis, but one that is not addressed by the results of Demir and Dickson. The fruit fly has no neural functions comparable to those of the human cerebral cortex (which has a large role in most human sexual behavior). There is evidence that male sexual orientation in humans ? in particular, male homosexual orientation ? has some characteristics of an instinct. The sexual orientation of the human male is a consistent feature that is under neural control, that generally leads to specific behaviors, and that is thought to have a strong biologic basis.3 However, detailed genetic studies of male sexual orientation have produced conflicting results. The sum of the data suggests a role for specific genes on specific chromosomes, but no individual genes have been identified.

Human genes are not subject to experimental manipulation, and there can be strong political resistance to certain types of research into human sexual behavior. As a result, it may take some time to accumulate evidence that any particular gene is necessary and sufficient to specify sexual orientation or a particular sexual behavior in humans. More generally, human behavior is an exceedingly complex phenomenon and cannot be viewed as the product of a set of genes. Nevertheless, our behaviors that are instinctive and crucial to survival and reproduction are likely to be subject to simple genetic control. Such behaviors might include those necessary to maintain homeostasis ? such as eating, drinking, excreting, and thermal regulation ? and those associated with mating and the maternal care of infants.

Source Information

Dr. Drayna is the acting chief of the Section on Systems Biology of Communication Disorders, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, Rockville, Md.

References

Demir E, Dickson BJ. Fruitless splicing specifies male courtship behavior in Drosophila. Cell 2005;121:785-794.
Baker BS, Taylor BJ, Hall JC. Are complex behaviors specified by dedicated regulatory genes? Reasoning from Drosophila. Cell 2001;105:13-24.
Mustanski BS, Chivers ML, Bailey JM. A critical review of recent biological research on human sexual orientation. Annu Rev Sex Res 2002;12:89-140.
[/quote]

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
miniross wrote:
What about adults playing with guns…maybe maybe that should be banned in the US, if gay marriage will lead to an outbreak of down right fruitiness.

The points regarding kids/guns/drugs are not in paralell to the issue of gay marriage. It is an issue of social justice or equality, at least in terms of law and legal rights.

I have not heard of a gay marriage killing anyone yet.

Have you ever heard of AIDS? Lot’s of people in the gay lifestyle die from it.

Have you ever heard of domestic abuse? Pretty prominent in the gay lifestyle.

Have you ever heard of suicide? Happens to a disproportionately high number of people in the gay lifestyle.

PS - your equality argument is baseless. Nobody said that gay people are equal to straight people in the eyes of the law. A gay man can marry a gay woman, just like a straight man can marry a straight woman.[/quote]

What is the biggest killer of women in the world aged 18 - 40. Domestic Violence. Not specifically gay relationships. It is not seperate by class, country, gender.

Does Scuicide happen disproportinately in people living a “gay lifestyle”, well i am not sure, but i doubt there to be a huge difference…maybe it was because there are biggots about and they cant get married?!

Thousand of people die of Aids (and other STD’s) throughout the world, their sexual choice besides.

As far as “equality in law”, it is not baseless. Long term couples (if not married) regardless if gay or straight, had no legal rights over property in case of death etc) and next of kin Etc. This is what i mean by that.

I have heard about this.

Interetingly, gay offspring normally are the second child. In cases where it appears to be the first, then it is likely that the mother had an unknown first pregnancy (which happens at an suprisingly high rate, around 50/60% of women)

miniross, much of what I have posted to you here has been posted earlier in the debate.

I apologize to those who have been following along for having to repeat this information. However, when the same old mythical gay arguments are brought to light they must be shot down by cold hard statistics.

There is one new Dutch study regarding homosexual emotional health being no better since the advent of marriage in that country.

The “they are emotionally upset because they cannot get married” myth is dubunked.

[quote]miniross wrote:

What is the biggest killer of women in the world aged 18 - 40. Domestic Violence. Not specifically gay relationships. It is not seperate by class, country, gender.[/quote]

Some studies indicate that just as many lesbians suffer from domestic violence as heterosexual women. However, others show that there is a much higher rate of abuse among lesbians:

“In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research found that “slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse.”[70]”

An even larger problem in lesbian relationships is verbal abuse as one partner attempts to dominate the other:

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

Any way you slice it the myth lesbian relationships having less abuse than the norm is quite misleading.

In addition to lesbians suffering more abuse they also have many more health problems to deal with:

"Bradford, J. (2002, July 10). Lesbian and bisexual health: an overview for healthcare providers. Journal Watch Women?s Health [On-line], Available: womens-health.jwatch.org.

Lesbian and bisexual women have higher reported rates of risk for cancer and cardiovascular disease as well as obesity and High rates of human papilloma virus infection."

And this:

Cochran, S.D. et al. (2001 April). Cancer-related risk indicators and preventive screening behaviors among lesbians and bisexual women. American Journal of Public Health. 91 (4); 178-81.

Increased prevalence rates were found in lesbian/bisexual women for obesity, alcohol use, and tobacco use."

And this:

"Fethers, K. et al. (2000, July). Sexually Transmitted Infections and Risk Behaviors in Women Who Have Sex with Women. Sexually Transmitted Infections. p. 345.

Women who have sexual relations with women are at significantly higher risk for certain sexually transmitted diseases: ?BV (bacterial vaginosis), hepatitis C, and HIV risk behaviors in WSW as compared with controls."

And this:

" Frieberg, P. (2001, January 12). Study: Alcohol Use More Prevalent for Lesbians. The Washington Blade. p. 21.
Lesbian women consume alcohol more frequently, and in larger amounts, than heterosexual women.

Lesbians were at significantly greater risk than heterosexual women for both binge drinking (19.4 percent compared to 11.7 percent), and for heavy drinking (7 percent compared to 2.7 percent)."

And this:

"Aaron, D.J., Markovic, N., Danielson, M.E., et al. (2001). Behavioral risk factors for disease and preventive health practices among lesbians. American Journal of Public Health. 91 (6): 972-975.

Lesbians were more likely to report cigarette use, alcohol use, and heavy alcohol use."

And this:

Bradford, J. et al. (1994). National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 62: 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81.

More than half of lesbians had felt too nervous to accomplish ordinary activities at some time during the past year and over one-third had been depressed."

And this:

"Diamant, A.L., Wold, C., Sritzer, K., Gelberg, L. (2000, November-December). Health Behaviors, Health Status, and Access to and Use of Health Care. Archives of Family Medicine. 9: 1043-1051.

Lesbians and bisexual women were more likely than heterosexual women to use tobacco products and to report any alcohol consumption, but only lesbians were significantly more likely than heterosexual women to drink heavily."

It’s okay to be liberal and believe whatever you like. However, simply because you may follow politically correct rules the following rule will never change:

“When we practice a bad behavior we get a bad result!”

There is actually a very big difference and it’s not attributable to homosexuals not having the right to marry as some suggest:

"Psychiatric Illness

Multiple studies have identified high rates of psychiatric illness, including depression, drug abuse and suicide attempts, among selfprofessed gays and lesbians.74 Some proponents of GLB rights have used these findings to conclude that mental illness is induced by other people’s unwillingness to accept same-sex attraction and behavior as normal. They point to homophobia, effectively defined as any opposition to or critique of gay sex, as the cause for the higher rates of psychiatric illness, especially among gay youth.75 Although homophobia must be considered as a potential cause for the increase in mental health problems, the medical literature suggests other conclusions.

An extensive study in the Netherlands undermines the assumption that homophobia is the cause of increased psychiatric illness among gays and lesbians. The Dutch have been considerably more accepting of same-sex relationships than other Western countries ? in fact, same-sex couples now have the legal right to marry in the Netherlands.76 So a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with homosexual behavior in the Netherlands means that the psychiatric disease cannot so easily be attributed to social rejection and homophobia.

The Dutch study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, did indeed find a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with same-sex sex.77 Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the interview, males who had any homosexual contact within that time period were much more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder. Females with any homosexual contact within the previous 12 months were more often diagnosed with major depression, social phobia or alcohol dependence.

In fact, those with a history of homosexual contact had higher rates of nearly all psychiatric pathologies measured in the study.78 The researchers found "that homosexuality is not only associated with mental health problems during adolescence and early adulthood, as has been suggested, but also in later life."79 Researchers actually fear that methodological features of "the study might underestimate the differences between homosexual and heterosexual people."80

The Dutch researchers concluded, "this study offers evidence that homosexuality is associated with a higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders. The outcomes are in line with findings from earlier studies in which less rigorous designs have been employed.“81 The researchers offered no opinion as to whether homosexual behavior causes psychiatric disorders, or whether it is the result of psychiatric disorders.”

GAY MAGAZINES AND GAY GROUPS VERY OWN STATISTICS:

"Gay men are six times more likely to attempt suicide than their straight counterparts and the numbers increase exponentially during the holidays. This story appears in the Dec/Jan 99 issue of Genre (A GAY MAGAZINE) and examines the issues behind why they are taking their own lives, and offers some solutions to the holiday blues.

(Also see our own # 7 Happy Holidaze A report from P-FLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) states that in a study of 5,000 gay men and women, 35 percent of gay men and 38 percent of lesbians have considered or attempted suicide.

The statistics are even higher among gay teens: The Department of Health study indicates that gay youth are up to six times more likely to attempt suicide than straight teens, and gay teenagers account for up to 30 percent of all teenage suicides in the nation."

As we can see by the above it matters not whether homosexuality is accepted as it is in the Netherlands (in the form of marriage) or is not accepted, the suicide rate is still higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals!

Yes, AIDS can effect everyone. However 63% of all AIDS cases are actually homosexual men! And they comprise only about 2% of the entire population! Obviously the incidence is staggering among this group.

Read about this yourself from the Center For Disease Control’s very own web site:

“An estimated 19,846 MSM (Men Who Have Sex With Men) received a diagnosis of AIDS, accounting for 63% of all men and 46% of all people who received a diagnosis of AIDS [1]”

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/msm.htm

One could even make a case that homosexuals are virtually responsible for the AIDS crisis. Certainly far more than any other group.

Rule number one never changes regardless of political correctness:

When we practice a bad behavior we get a bad result!

[quote]As far as “equality in law”, it is not baseless. Long term couples (if not married) regardless if gay or straight, had no legal rights over property in case of death etc) and next of kin Etc. This is what i mean by that.
[/quote]

In your country it appears that they do have “legal status.”

“The new law gives homosexual couples the same property and inheritance rights as married heterosexual couples and entitles them to the same pension, immigration and tax benefits.”

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/12/05/british_gays_sign_up_for_civil_partnership/

Legal status of “live in” heterosexual couples varies by state in the USA.

This has gone way beyond gay marriage.

What does everyone think of bisexuality and transgenderism?

That should be good for another 1500 posts. :slight_smile:

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This has gone way beyond gay marriage.

What does everyone think of bisexuality and transgenderism?

That should be good for another 1500 posts. :)[/quote]

Someone already brought transgenderism into the debate many posts back.

I said a while back we were going to hit 2000 posts. That could easily happen.

This stupid thread has more visits than the asian vixen worship thread! Blasphemy!

I’m gonna go look it up, TWICE!