Gay marriage

[bradleybadly]

You have excellent reading comprehension skills. I say "genes aren't the only factor responsible for phenotypic effects," in other words, of course, and you link me to something about genes. This clearly has no bearing on what I said, because what I am implying is that genes might not necessarily be the cause for homosexuality. Try again when you understand what I'm saying.

Well, don't keep us all in suspense! What are these other factors? I understood you, but I think you're trying to shift the attention away from genetics. I've said homosexual behavior is a learned behavior.

By the way, feel free to argue against those quotes that I cited. You'll just be arguing against the homosexuals themselves.

[Frigidus]

Strong families produce good societies.

what's your definition of a "strong family"?

Heterosexual marriage.

It doesn't guarantee a strong family but the odds are more in favor of it than same sex marriage.

But divorce is rampant among heterosexuals. As I've pointed out before, if you really want a stable, strong family then make divorces more difficult to acquire. Heck, what's the difference exactly (to "society", although that's a vague term) between two guys "living together", being in a "civil union", and being married? It's not like kids (in response to the occasional "but what about the children" argument) are going to distinguish between the specifics.

[got tonkaed]

Strong families produce good societies.

what's your definition of a "strong family"?

Heterosexual marriage.

It doesn't guarantee a strong family but the odds are more in favor of it than same sex marriage.

given the amount of information we have thus far about heterosexual marriages vs any other type of marriage out there, the incidence of trouble on the heterosexual side is so astronomically greater than any other type of marriage that your statement is silly.

Why is this the case, is it because heterosexual marriages are deviant or because heterosexual people are bad people? No of course not, but this should help illustrate the point that when you make silly statements like the odds being in favor of it, that your bound to run into problems.

[bradleybadly]

To Detlef: Good point! I don't like those kinds of shows either. The point is people chose to go on them and act foolish on TV. Still a choice though.

[Neoteny]

I think the only sane people in this topic are wearing cowboy hats... *puts on his cowboy hat*

I can promise you homosexuality is not genetic. Anyone who tells that knows nothing about genetics...

lulz at ACLU...

Homosexual marriage has a success rate of much less than 1%
Heterosexual marriage has a success rate of about 50%

Anyone who can state with any certainty that they are aware of the genetic components of sexuality does not know anything about genetics.

[bradleybadly]

given the amount of information we have thus far about heterosexual marriages vs any other type of marriage out there, the incidence of trouble on the heterosexual side is so astronomically greater than any other type of marriage that your statement is silly.

Then you should have no problem posting it instead of just saying it's all silly. I also noticed you tried to change what I said from producing strong families to "incidence of trouble". That could mean ANY form of trouble. Hell, there are more heterosexuals in the world than homosexuals so of course by sheer numbers that would be so. The percentages would be something much different.

[got tonkaed]

given the amount of information we have thus far about heterosexual marriages vs any other type of marriage out there, the incidence of trouble on the heterosexual side is so astronomically greater than any other type of marriage that your statement is silly.

Then you should have no problem posting it instead of just saying it's all silly. I also noticed you tried to change what I said from producing strong families to "incidence of trouble". That could mean ANY form of trouble. Hell, there are more heterosexuals in the world than homosexuals so of course by sheer numbers that would be so. The percentages would be something much different.

thats what im getting at. Your making a statement that while attempting to be innocent enough, widely shapes how the discussion of the issue so go, in a very biased direction. I pointed out the foolishness of my retort, to the point that it was designed to be as such.

Frankly ive gotten to the point where i dont really find much use in discussing these issues back and forth, i would just expect people when they make statements like the one you did in the post i responded to, to think them through a little further, or not make them at all.

[tzor]

One of the problems with the definition of a "strong" family is that it is a discussion of ideals. When all is said and done, love, that is the notion of people visably giving of themselves to others, makes a strong family. The rest may augment it but without that you have nothing.

Honestly if you get to what a strong family it's not just the parents. The parent's parents are important, the parent's sisters and brothers are important. But even then it all goes back to that love thing.

[reminisco]

It doesn't guarantee a strong family but the odds are more in favor of it than same sex marriage.

citation please. i am unfamiliar with those odds. i am further unfamiliar with peer-reviewed scholarly research into the subject.

[detlef]

To Detlef: Good point! I don't like those kinds of shows either. The point is people chose to go on them and act foolish on TV. Still a choice though.

So this choice is fine but the choice for two people of the same sex to make a formal pledge of love and devotion is not?

I mean, you guys can sugarcoat and back pedal all you want about the fact that the government already recognizing civil unions. The fact is, the only reason there's an amendment being proposed to not recognize same sex marriages is divisive in nature. There's really no other way to explain it. You're saying, "we're better than you and we want to pass a law that says so."

My first post sums up my stance completely. Like you, I don't believe the government should recognize gay marriage. Thing is, I don't think they should recognize mine either. The government should see the legal union of two consenting adults exactly the same way. Any other way is completely un-American.

[Napoleon Ier]

To Detlef: Good point! I don't like those kinds of shows either. The point is people chose to go on them and act foolish on TV. Still a choice though.

So this choice is fine but the choice for two people of the same sex to make a formal pledge of love and devotion is not?

I mean, you guys can sugarcoat and back pedal all you want about the fact that the government already recognizing civil unions. The fact is, the only reason there's an amendment being proposed to not recognize same sex marriages is divisive in nature. There's really no other way to explain it. You're saying, "we're better than you and we want to pass a law that says so."

My first post sums up my stance completely. Like you, I don't believe the government should recognize gay marriage. Thing is, I don't think they should recognize mine either. The government should see the legal union of two consenting adults exactly the same way. Any other way is completely un-American.

What a load of bollocks.

[got tonkaed]

I dont know theres a pretty reasonable legal precedent for the idea that you cannot really get around the issue without either accepting the unions as equal or denying them completely.

The whole separate but equal argument has already been tested in history and it did not work in the previous context it was used.

To be honest i think the people who are advocating for gay marriage may be taking the wrong tact. They probably could be better served by trying to drive this into a debate where either you accept everything or nothing, because it would really force people to tread a very thin line. Nobody likes to be called a bigot.

[Neoteny]

I dont know theres a pretty reasonable legal precedent for the idea that you cannot really get around the issue without either accepting the unions as equal or denying them completely.

The whole separate but equal argument has already been tested in history and it did not work in the previous context it was used.

To be honest i think the people who are advocating for gay marriage may be taking the wrong tact. They probably could be better served by trying to drive this into a debate where either you accept everything or nothing, because it would really force people to tread a very thin line. Nobody likes to be called a bigot.

And I so enjoy calling people bigots...

[Napoleon Ier]

I dont know theres a pretty reasonable legal precedent for the idea that you cannot really get around the issue without either accepting the unions as equal or denying them completely.

The whole separate but equal argument has already been tested in history and it did not work in the previous context it was used.

To be honest i think the people who are advocating for gay marriage may be taking the wrong tact. They probably could be better served by trying to drive this into a debate where either you accept everything or nothing, because it would really force people to tread a very thin line. Nobody likes to be called a bigot.

I accept marriage as societal recognition of a family unit. I find the idea that homosexuals are considered capable of founding a building block for family life and the nation as repulsive as suggesting that a father and his daughter could legally marry.

[detlef]

To Detlef: Good point! I don't like those kinds of shows either. The point is people chose to go on them and act foolish on TV. Still a choice though.

So this choice is fine but the choice for two people of the same sex to make a formal pledge of love and devotion is not?

I mean, you guys can sugarcoat and back pedal all you want about the fact that the government already recognizing civil unions. The fact is, the only reason there's an amendment being proposed to not recognize same sex marriages is divisive in nature. There's really no other way to explain it. You're saying, "we're better than you and we want to pass a law that says so."

My first post sums up my stance completely. Like you, I don't believe the government should recognize gay marriage. Thing is, I don't think they should recognize mine either. The government should see the legal union of two consenting adults exactly the same way. Any other way is completely un-American.

What a load of bollocks.

Oh do explain. And while you're at it, explain why, as a conservative, you want to support some nanny state saying who can and can't get married because it's all for the common good.

I mean, if that's the basis, there's a whole lot of things that should be outlawed.

Why do you hate America?

[got tonkaed]

I dont know theres a pretty reasonable legal precedent for the idea that you cannot really get around the issue without either accepting the unions as equal or denying them completely.

The whole separate but equal argument has already been tested in history and it did not work in the previous context it was used.

To be honest i think the people who are advocating for gay marriage may be taking the wrong tact. They probably could be better served by trying to drive this into a debate where either you accept everything or nothing, because it would really force people to tread a very thin line. Nobody likes to be called a bigot.

I accept marriage as societal recognition of a family unit. I find the idea that homosexuals are considered capable of founding a building block for family life and the nation as repulsive as suggesting that a father and his daughter could legally marry.

I dont think i was in the dark about where you would have stood on the issue. I think the point is it might serve people advocating for gay rights to take this type of tact, because i think far more people are going to find what you say ridiculous than those who advocate the idea that separate cannot be equal. as a result if we are going to talk about things like the rights that are conferred in a marriage being granted to people who do love each other, marriage will probably be closer to having legal footing than it does now.

[Napoleon Ier]

I dont know theres a pretty reasonable legal precedent for the idea that you cannot really get around the issue without either accepting the unions as equal or denying them completely.

The whole separate but equal argument has already been tested in history and it did not work in the previous context it was used.

To be honest i think the people who are advocating for gay marriage may be taking the wrong tact. They probably could be better served by trying to drive this into a debate where either you accept everything or nothing, because it would really force people to tread a very thin line. Nobody likes to be called a bigot.

I accept marriage as societal recognition of a family unit. I find the idea that homosexuals are considered capable of founding a building block for family life and the nation as repulsive as suggesting that a father and his daughter could legally marry.

I dont think i was in the dark about where you would have stood on the issue. I think the point is it might serve people advocating for gay rights to take this type of tact, because i think far more people are going to find what you say ridiculous than those who advocate the idea that separate cannot be equal. as a result if we are going to talk about things like the rights that are conferred in a marriage being granted to people who do love each other, marriage will probably be closer to having legal footing than it does now.

To be honest, the gay marriage campaign to me signifies to me nothing but the desire of profoundly evil, twisted, and sick men (a vile league including but not limied to extremist gay lobbies) trying to utterly rape all that was left of a society of dignity and owrth with respected institutions.

[got tonkaed]

and thats sort of the type of message that i think those evil people want to have you understood as voicing. I dont think their side of the issue is hurt by putting the debate as such.

Everyone is entitled to their own notion of what is to be held dear and protect within the society they inhabit.

[Luvr]

Three reasons why Gay Marriage should be legal (and also why the term "Civil Union" is an illegal cop-out):

Reason the First: There is no consensus as to whether or not homosexual couples who marry have any effect on the stability of the institution of marriage as a whole. The idea of protecting the institution from people who want to be institutionalized is akin to opening a restaurant and then not letting anyone eat any food.

Reason the Second: Gay Marriage should be made legal simply because there's no really good reason why it should be illegal. There is no statement to back this up, simply because I think this is the most obvious reason.

Reason the Third: Gay Marriage alternatives (i.e. Civil Unions) are separate entities from the legal term marriage. Under the Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education, the "Separate, but Equal" doctrine was declared to be unconstitutional. In other words, denying specific rights to a group of people based on their difference from the majority, but giving them rights that are "just as good" isn't just as good. Either everyone is treated equally, or the system breaks down. You can't have different water fountains for whites and non-whites, and you can't have different forms of marriage for heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals.



That's my statement.

I fully agree.

Me too. I read through 6 pages of this then skipped to the end. The whole thing should have ended with this or before it.

[Snorri1234]

Actually it is. It's a learned behavior.

From who? Who do these kids learn it from and why would they choose it over heterosexuality?

I've posted the citations from homosexual organizations who are tired of being told their lifestyle is innate. The reason for this is that if there is a gene making people homosexual then parents will either pay to have it altered, eliminated, or in some cases decide to have an abortion.

I could find you a citation from an organization who thinks the world is flat and we're all being led to believe it's round because of all the governments having a secret agenda....


The biggest problem ofcourse when saying it's a choice is that have to justify people being gay with all the persecution, hate and violence directed against gay people. Why is it that people choose to be gay despite all this? Is it because they enjoy gay-sex more? And if so, wouldn't that mean they are actually predisposed to being gay?
Because at the end of the line, it's far easier to just be a heterosexual than a homosexual.

[PLAYER57832]

It doesn't guarantee a strong family but the odds are more in favor of it than same sex marriage.

citation please. i am unfamiliar with those odds. i am further unfamiliar with peer-reviewed scholarly research into the subject.

I don't have access to peer-reviewed journals any longer, but this is a pretty old issue and there is plenty of evidence that children growing up within homosexual families are, if anything actullay MORE stable. The reason is that homosexuals actually have to go out and do some work to get kids. They are older, have jobs -- are READY to have kids when they decide to do so.

BUT, without quoting Bradley's lengthy post --

The ACLU picks controversial subject to defend. Since no one is threatening regular heterosexual marriage, there is no reason for any defense. They have, however, defended both Nazis, Christians, Creationists, Vegans, etc. etc. As for your communist dig did you happen to notice this is 2008 , not 1958? We are still paying for Macarthy's rampages today, but communism, as he perceived it, is long gone.

As for my "agenda". No one is threatening your lifestyle, but the only explanation you can give for why we should not TOLERATE others is to say "you communist" or to claim that we have no understanding, are trying to subvert the morals of the country --- get real!

And yes, I do realize you yourself are not Christian becuase you said so. I just answered in one posting rather than repeating.

[PLAYER57832]

To be honest, the gay marriage campaign to me signifies to me nothing but the desire of profoundly evil, twisted, and sick men (a vile league including but not limied to extremist gay lobbies) trying to utterly rape all that was left of a society of dignity and owrth with respected institutions.

Exactly how is wanting to have legal protection for someone you love and your children "trying to rape all that was left of a society of dignity and owrth with respected institutions"?

You act as though they are trying to call regular marriage illegal or some such.

This will do nothing .. NOTHING against heterosexual couples. All it will do is protect a few people .... who, yes, have a life style you don't happen to like.

[Snorri1234]

I think the only sane people in this topic are wearing cowboy hats... *puts on his cowboy hat*

I can promise you homosexuality is not genetic. Anyone who tells that knows nothing about genetics...

lulz at ACLU...

Homosexual marriage has a success rate of much less than 1%
Heterosexual marriage has a success rate of about 50%

Anyone who can state with any certainty that they are aware of the genetic components of sexuality does not know anything about genetics.

Word. I think this thread suffers massively from a misunderstanding about genetica on a certain side.

People! Genes and genetica are so massively complicated that we're not aware of what even half of it does! Most genes that we do know of are just the obvious ones. It's not a simple genetic/non-genetic-question, it's complicated. I know some people don't like that word on both sides, but to base your conclusions solely on whatever newspaper feeds your thoughts is silly.

[Snorri1234]

Sorry, wrong. The ACLU is full of folks who truly believe in freedom -- whether they agree with the idea or not.

Sorry, I'm right. The ACLU was founded by people who were communist.

Holy shit, this matters?

[Nataki Yiro]

Genetics do not affect behavior except in cases of when genes are retarded. Are you saying homosexuals are retarded?