[quote]ZEB wrote:
First of all I have rarely argued any statistic regarding lesbians and you know that. Most of the data (and opinions) that I’ve produced involved gay men.[/quote]
I’m glad you’re admitting that your “statistics” are limited to gay men. And yet how many hundreds of times have you extrapolated from these statistics to draw unwarranted conclusions on homosexuality in general? Does that not strike you as disingenous, if not outright dishonest?
I realize why you don’t want to discuss lesbians. They don’t fit any of your common canards for proving how horrible homosexuality is.
So let’s settle the question once and for all. Are you opposed to lesbian marriage? Why or why not?
[quote]Mishima wrote:
No. I said it is better to be brought up by a loving gay couple is better than in a foster home. But where we disagree is when you assume that therefore they should have per se the same rights as a heterosexual couple. Just like: I think a bird that falls of its nest is better brought up by loving humans than leaving it to die.[/quote]
Did you not see my earlier response to you on this? Are you suggesting that a child should be forced to stay in a foster home until a straight couple adopts it? Or are you suggesting that if a gay couple comes along, they should be allowed to adopt the child? If gay couples and straight couples can both adopt children in foster homes, how is this not granting them the “same rights”?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
When marriage is reduced to cohabitation, marriage disappears.
Which is why marriage shouldn’t be reduced to cohabitation. It should entail legally binding responsibilities and benefits that apply, irrespective of whether the couple is the same or opposite gender.[/quote]
That’s what gay marriage does, reduce marriage to co-habitation. One aspect of marriage is the recognition of who is the biological parent of whom. That’s one of the main reasons why people marry. Gay couples cannot produce biological children just by definition.
If you change the meaning of a word, you do so by changing the content of the concept. The very aspects of marriage that make you want to marry will disappear if you are legally allowed to do so.
If everyone has a million dollars, what do you think it will buy you?
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
“Why would a ‘gay gene’ survive?” is actually an interesting question – on the face of it, a gene for homosexuality would seem to hurt an organism’s chances of passing on its genes. How do any genes survive if they don’t help the bearer reproduce better?
As a matter of fact, you can ask that question about other things that make it harder to pass on your genes – genetic diseases for instance. Why would a gene for sickle-cell anemia survive? Or a gene for Tay-Sachs disease, or for cystic fibrosis? Well, frequently, even though having two copies of the gene gives you the disease, carrying one copy of the gene has a beneficial side effect. Carrying sickle-cell anemia protects against malaria, Tay-Sachs protects against tuberculosis, and cystic fibrosis protects against cholera. There’s even speculation that something similar worked for mental illnesses: a mild carrier version of OCD may have helped the bearer to remember to clean food properly and prevent spreading disease.
Homosexuality isn’t a disease, but it is a trait that makes the bearer less likely to pass on his genes. It would make sense to look for a similar pattern in “carriers” – some reproductive advantage if you only have one copy. (Note that you don’t have to know where the gene is to do an analysis of heredity.) Well, it turns out that a gay man’s female relatives tend to be more fertile than average. It’s as though there’s a “man-loving” genetic trait carried on the X chromosome. It confers no Darwinian advantage if it winds up in a man, but in a woman it increases reproduction. I don’t think this is quite conclusive yet, but it’s intriguing and it makes sense.[/quote]
The only people that are baffled by a gay gene are those who do it ass backwards.
They say it is detrimental and therefore should not occur in nature. What they are really saying is that they see no clear advantage and that they substitute their judgment for natures appraisal.
It is a fact that nature produces gay people. They happen. So if nature produces them they serve a genetic purpose and are perfectly natural. All we can really say is that there must be a reason , we just don´t know it yet.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
forlife wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Humans place value on things both for themselves and in terms of others. There’s no denying that we love to live in a big home, for ex, both because of the home itself AND that we earned it while others did not.
I would submit that valuing something specifically because you have it and someone else does not, tends to reflect false pride, insecurity, and emotional immaturity. Why not value it for its own sake, rather than needing it as an ego boost over others? It is my hope that my daughter will learn this lesson as she matures, and hopefully a few adults will learn it as well.
Besides, in the case of gay marriage, it isn’t anything that you “earned while others did not”. You didn’t do squat, you just happened to be born with a heterosexual orientation.
Do you know what marriage even is? Marriage is an announcement to the community that these two people (modern version now) choose to stay exclusively with each other. They intend to form a family.
What’s the difference between that and co-habitation? None, except recognition by society of a public bonding. And until gays can convince the public to accept marriage between gays in the same way as marriage between heterosexual couples, then you don’t have the right to marry. Its that simple.[/quote]
Well, nobody can force you to acknowledge anything.
But since it is governments business now who you marry and there are social benefits attached to it it is unfair to deny it to gay people.
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
First of all I have rarely argued any statistic regarding lesbians and you know that. Most of the data (and opinions) that I’ve produced involved gay men.
I’m glad you’re admitting that your “statistics” are limited to gay men. And yet how many hundreds of times have you extrapolated from these statistics to draw unwarranted conclusions on homosexuality in general? Does that not strike you as disingenous, if not outright dishonest?[/quote]
You and I both know that the debate which has raged on for several years has always been about homosexual men with only an occasional comment or two regarding lesbians. You calling anyone disingenuous is like Obama calling someone a spendthrift.
Lesbians suffer from some of the same problems that gay men do:
“The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated that “as many as 30% of completed youth suicides each year” are performed by gays and lesbians.”
They also have higher rates of domestic violence in their lives several studies pointed to this as I recall.
By the way glad you’ve given up trying to defend gay men and want to move onto lesbians. I’m laughing so hard right now I can barely type, you’re a real case study forlife.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Did you not see my earlier response to you on this? Are you suggesting that a child should be forced to stay in a foster home until a straight couple adopts it? Or are you suggesting that if a gay couple comes along, they should be allowed to adopt the child? If gay couples and straight couples can both adopt children in foster homes, how is this not granting them the “same rights”?[/quote]
No I get you. I just say: If there is no heterosexual couple that adopts a child than the kid would be better of to be adopted by a gay couple than stay in a hell like a foster home. And to make this clear to you: I don’t think that at some point of your life you have suddenly chosen to be gay. You were born that way and you have every right to be happy with a man. I don’t think it is sin and I am very open to the arguments that it is a part of nature (which is it gay people exist). But it gets difficult when a child gets involved.
"Woman Marries Her Dog (Seriously)
NewsOh PleaseWeird NewsStrange News94 CommentsLook, we love our pets, but a woman in Ghana has married her dog. We repeat, her dog.
Uh, what? Yeah, this actually happened. Says the blushing bride (ew) Emily Mabou, 29: “For so long I’ve been praying for a life with a partner who has all the qualities of my dad. My dad was kind, faithful and loyal to my mum, and he never let her down.”
Don’t see how this translates into marrying your dog? Read on! Mabou claims that her relationships have all been with “skirt-chasers and cheaters.” The priest who performed the ceremony told people not to mock the wedding, but instead “rejoice with her, as she has found happiness at last.” Don’t mock? Not likely, lady. (Though we get why some folks decide to marry their cats.)
When asked about her plans for babies, Maribou responded, “We’ll adopt.” Fantastic! Next story: Woman and Golden Retriever Adopt Twins. Gross. Weird. Disturbing. Any more adjectives we forgot?"
Who are we to deny happiness to these two people err I mean creatures?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Marriage entails a large set of legal responsibilities and benefits designed to support that mutual commitment.[/quote]
that is correct and there is no reason why a gay couple should not have equal rights. but why bother calling it marriage? you could have a valid legal contract. One of the reason that a man and a woman get married is that they want to get children. these children benefit society. that is the big difference. If it is just for personal pleasure than you really could marry your dog. what’s the big deal than.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
That’s what gay marriage does, reduce marriage to co-habitation. One aspect of marriage is the recognition of who is the biological parent of whom. That’s one of the main reasons why people marry. Gay couples cannot produce biological children just by definition.
[/quote]
You said earlier that marriage was about committing yourself to another person for the rest of your life. That applies to both gays and heteros.
Now you’re adding to the definition of marriage by discussing biological children. Of course, we both know that doesn’t hold water since infertile straight couples marry.
BTW, Mishima, did you know your namesake was (probably) a gay weightlifter?
[quote]
In 1955, Mishima took up weight training and his workout regimen of three sessions per week was not disrupted for the final 15 years of his life. In a later essay published in 1968, Sun and Steel, Mishima deplores the emphasis given by intellectuals to the mind over the body. Mishima later also became very skillful at kendÅ?.
Although he visited gay bars in Japan, Mishima’s sexual orientation remains a matter of debate, though his widow wanted that part of his life downplayed after his death.[4] However, several people have claimed to have had homosexual relationships with Mishima, including writer Jiro Fukushima who, in his book, published a revealing correspondence between himself and the famed novelist. Soon after publication, Mishima’s children successfully sued Fukushima for violating Mishima’s privacy.[5] After briefly considering a marital alliance with Michiko ShÅ?daâ??she later became the wife of Emperor Akihitoâ??he married Yoko Sugiyama on June 11, 1958. The couple had two children, a daughter named Noriko (born June 2, 1959) and a son named Iichiro (born May 2, 1962).[/quote]
[quote]Mishima wrote:
No I get you. I just say: If there is no heterosexual couple that adopts a child than the kid would be better of to be adopted by a gay couple than stay in a hell like a foster home.[/quote]
That was my question. How long are you proposing that the child be required to stay in a foster home before you determine that there is no heterosexual couple to adopt the child?
I agree with you on all counts, being a father of two children myself.
[quote]Mishima wrote:
that is correct and there is no reason why a gay couple should not have equal rights. but why bother calling it marriage? you could have a valid legal contract.[/quote]
A legal contract doesn’t deliver much unless the federal government is party to the contract. If you’re just talking about granting the same legal responsibilities/benefits to gay couples under a different name, I would be fine with that.
Having children isn’t, and has never been, a requirement of marriage.
As discussed extensively, gay couples can providing loving homes for children, and these children benefit when their adoptive parents are actually married.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Of course, we both know that doesn’t hold water since infertile straight couples marry.[/quote]
This argument is obvious but not valid. An infertile couple is an exception not the norm. Within a gay couple Infertility is the norm. No one says every straight marriage is perfect.
[quote]Mishima wrote:
This argument is obvious but not valid. An infertile couple is an exception not the norm. Within a gay couple Infertility is the norm. No one says every straight marriage is perfect.
[/quote]
Of course it’s valid. If you allow infertile straight couples to marry, it is only fair to allow infertile gay couples to marry. Obviously, fertility is not a precondition to marriage.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
BTW, Mishima, did you know your namesake was (probably) a gay weightlifter?
not probably he was gay. and he has written the best book about a heterosexual intercourse ever called “patriotism”. Like i said before I do not have anything against gay people.
[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
MOf course it’s valid. If you allow infertile straight couples to marry, it is only fair to allow infertile gay couples to marry. Obviously, fertility is not a precondition to marriage.[/quote]
no it is not. you could argue that these couples benefit from the fact that most of the married people can get children, but htats it. if getting children was the norm between gay couples than there would not be any poblem.
but can you tell me why you insist on the term marriage? i don’t get that. if you could have equal rights without calling it marrige why don’t you like that?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
"Woman Marries Her Dog (Seriously)
NewsOh PleaseWeird NewsStrange News94 CommentsLook, we love our pets, but a woman in Ghana has married her dog. We repeat, her dog.
Uh, what? Yeah, this actually happened. Says the blushing bride (ew) Emily Mabou, 29: “For so long I’ve been praying for a life with a partner who has all the qualities of my dad. My dad was kind, faithful and loyal to my mum, and he never let her down.”
Don’t see how this translates into marrying your dog? Read on! Mabou claims that her relationships have all been with “skirt-chasers and cheaters.” The priest who performed the ceremony told people not to mock the wedding, but instead “rejoice with her, as she has found happiness at last.” Don’t mock? Not likely, lady. (Though we get why some folks decide to marry their cats.)
When asked about her plans for babies, Maribou responded, “We’ll adopt.” Fantastic! Next story: Woman and Golden Retriever Adopt Twins. Gross. Weird. Disturbing. Any more adjectives we forgot?"
Who are we to deny happiness to these two people err I mean creatures?[/quote]
Shit as long as she is not abusing the animal (by which I include any sex as the animal cannot consent) I don’t give a fuck what she marries. She can marry a fish for all I care. It’s just not something other people should be worrying about.
To the people who oppose gay marriage, would you support removing the government aspect of marriage and make it down to churches who they want to marry as a religious ceremony?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
ZEB wrote:Oh please don’t get all uppity on me forlife. We’ve had this conversations several pages back. You got all upset because the APA DOES NOT condemn reparative therapy. They feel that reparative therapy can DO NO HARM, in fact it may be quite helpful.
spits out drink
Reparative therapy? Are you serious? Are you an idiot, or just a liar? How about some reparative therapy to turn you gay? No amount of it would have any effect, would it?
Your assumption is that one is born gay and anyone who dare question this fallacy must be, well they must be thinking for themselves. Much to the chagrin of the modern politically correct establishment it has never been proven that anyone has ever been born gay. Since this is the case that makes your statement “how about some reparative therapy to turn you gay” pretty silly. Now get a towel and clean up the mess that you’ve made and understand that most people, correction most thinking adults, need proof before they accept your nonsensical fantasies as reality.
[/quote]
So what age were you when you CHOSE to be straight?
Quit being a moron. There are gay bird, turtles, and everything else. Quit your fantasy world.