[quote]Mick28 wrote:
One more time, logically the denial of marriage rights would not MAKE anyone more promiscuous.[/quote]
Your friends in this thread have been arguing that straight marriage encourages straight men to stay faithful to their wives. Are you saying this isn’t the case?
It isn’t just the APA. Do you really expect people to believe that every major medical and mental health organization in the world (American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, etc.) is so biased that their conclusions on sexual orientation based on hundreds of scientific studies should be ignored?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Ha ha…how is it that gays such as yourself can have sex with women?[/quote]
Straight men could have sex with men too (happens in prison all the time)…that doesn’t mean it is their natural orientation.
For that matter, people could have sex with a watermelon. Does that mean they have a watermelon orientation?
What you don’t understand it that sexual orientation is about a lot more than just who you have sex with. It also relates to your capacity for love and emotional intimacy. As much as I wanted otherwise, I wasn’t able to enjoy anywhere close to the same intimacy with my wife that I feel with my partner.
Knowing real people doesn’t magically erase bigotry, but it makes it more difficult for people to operate by shallow stereotypes.
See above.
[quote]I guess we CHOSE different paths…
[/quote]
You can choose your behavior. You can’t choose your orientation. No matter how hard you try, you will never be able to find men attractive in the same way a gay man does. It’s not a choice for you.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
In the above sentence he is saying that somehow gays would be less promiscuous if they were allowed to marry. I disagree as he has supplied ZERO evidence of this.[/quote]
It is generally recognized that marriage encourages fidelity, by virtue of the moral and legal responsibilities associated with it. Obviously it doesn’t guarantee fidelity (take a look at the number of married men that cheat on their wives), but it increases the probability of it.
Are you saying that you disagree with this? Even your fellow anti-gay advocates in this thread have said as much.
Kind of like girls feeling squeamish about spiders, or Hindus feeling squeamish about eating cows, or conservative southerners feeling squeamish about having a black President?[/quote]
As if I could possibly think Forlife was more amateurish, he traffics in the same sleazy stereotypes he hysterically complains that folks do about homosexuals.
“I am not open-minded in the slightest, but you are bad if you aren’t open-minded.”
“You shouldn’t indulge in stereotypes, but I get to.”
It is generally recognized that marriage encourages fidelity, by virtue of the moral and legal responsibilities associated with it. Obviously it doesn’t guarantee fidelity (take a look at the number of married men that cheat on their wives), but it increases the probability of it.
Are you saying that you disagree with this? Even your fellow anti-gay advocates in this thread have said as much.[/quote]
Well, before Mick does that, you’ll need to square the circle of your fellow gay marriage advocates arguing that marriage does nothing to promote fidelity, etc.
[quote]windex wrote:
Im not going to read this entire gay thread , but its obvious that only Jesus freaks and their ilk are opposing gay marriage.
What would you guys think about switching everyone over to civil unions and having marriage be under the jurisdiction of religion?[/quote]
Which religion? The only way I can see it working is to give those rights to any consenting adult relationship that applies for marriage. Government rights btw, individual religions can impose whatever restrictions they want.
But apparently that will spell the end of civilization as we know it, so yeah.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
windex wrote:
Im not going to read this entire gay thread , but its obvious that only Jesus freaks and their ilk are opposing gay marriage.
What would you guys think about switching everyone over to civil unions and having marriage be under the jurisdiction of religion?
Which religion? The only way I can see it working is to give those rights to any consenting adult relationship that applies for marriage. Government rights btw, individual religions can impose whatever restrictions they want.
But apparently that will spell the end of civilization as we know it, so yeah.[/quote]
Yeah, basically. Civil unions supply the rights and marriage is just a religious formality that you can have if you want. This way angry gays and christians can be pissed at churches and stop clogging up my news time.
There is no reason why this thread can’t take a positive turn…And as long as I’m going to be called a bigot…[/quote]
Exactly. Forlife doesn’t live in a world where reasonable people can disagree - he lives in a world of two types of people: those that agree with him, and bigots.
There are no reasonable people who disagree with Forlife - for there can be no opposition to gay marriage in the rational world.
Where debate is fun is when reasonable people disagree and respect that they can disagree in good faith.
Of course, how many gay marriage advocates have finally show their bloomers and just declare everyone that stands against them to be “bigots”?
I can count two in this thread. Shame. Forty plus pages of wasted effort.
[quote]windex wrote:
Yeah, basically. Civil unions supply the rights and marriage is just a religious formality that you can have if you want. This way angry gays and christians can be pissed at churches and stop clogging up my news time.[/quote]
Nice idea, but I’m sure the people that don’t want equal rights will jump in with the usual crap about how you should keep it with child-bearing couples and gay promiscuity and other such bull.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
windex wrote:
Yeah, basically. Civil unions supply the rights and marriage is just a religious formality that you can have if you want. This way angry gays and christians can be pissed at churches and stop clogging up my news time.
Nice idea, but I’m sure the people that don’t want equal rights will jump in with the usual crap about how you should keep it with child-bearing couples and gay promiscuity and other such bull.[/quote]
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Exactly. Forlife doesn’t live in a world where reasonable people can disagree - he lives in a world of two types of people: those that agree with him, and bigots.
There are no reasonable people who disagree with Forlife - for there can be no opposition to gay marriage in the rational world.
Where debate is fun is when reasonable people disagree and respect that they can disagree in good faith.
Of course, how many gay marriage advocates have finally show their bloomers and just declare everyone that stands against them to be “bigots”?
I can count two in this thread. Shame. Forty plus pages of wasted effort.[/quote]
Fine. Here is a suggestion in good faith. What if gay people started campaigning for the individual rights one at a time to be included under civil unions?
One I can think of is the ability to make medical decisions on the behalf of their spouse.
Or would that dilute the “already fragile” institution of marriage?
Fine. Here is a suggestion in good faith. What if gay people started campaigning for the individual rights one at a time to be included under civil unions?[/quote]
Tactically? I think it is smarter. If I were a consultant to the movement, so to speak, my humble opinion would be to ditch the Crusade in favor of changing people’s minds by metes and bounds.
In other words, the opposite of Forlife’s nonsense, which serves only to make pragmatists think he is a kid who suddenly “discovered” the Ultimate Truth that no one else has considered before. I am also reminded of BeeBuddy’s idiocy on the matter.
Great idea - tell me, are gays unable to execute a medical power of attorney putting their medical decisions, should they become incompetent, in the hands of their gay partner?
Hmmm, note the scare quotes - so, you’re saying the institution isn’t fragile?