Personally, I liked Quark's idea of a list. I'd like to see if you could perhaps come up with one, if you're at all interested in the challenge, Dayton.

While I was trying to get at the same thing Quark said in his last post, I believe he did it much better than I.
You've attempted to take a cultural stereotype and interpret it as natural/unnatural. The idea of uniform human sexuality isn't much less an institution than the idea of marriage itself. There is nothing more natural about monogamy than homosexuality, yet you would prefer the world see it that way.

If you have valid points that extend beyond prejudice and homophobia, Dayton, I think the list Quark mentioned would be of great contribution to this topic. In just the last few posts of yours, however, you seem only to have really resorted to the argument that you are "grossed out", "find the whole premise revolting," and expressed your need to "take a shower" just for participating in a debate about gay marriage. These truly don't seem like valid arguments. Perhaps you do have something else to offer if you sit down and think about it, though...?

[Edited to add: As to the extension of the argument and the abolition of all marital benefits, Wertz, I can agree to that. ]

My intent was to show you why I think gay marriages are a mistake. I thought that was the topic.

I didn't realize I had to search the americasdebate website to make sure I didn't repeat what someone else said. Ooops.

My challenge to you people saying why you think it is right (versus my opinion of it being wrong) for people of the same sex to marry is to find out where it stops and who is protected. You don't like another class of people that would probably want the same protection and you attack my postings.

I am not grossed out and needing to take a shower by the gay marriage debate and that is a purposeful misinterpretaion of my remarks. I'm repulsed by talking about blood relative heterosexuals that want these rights as well. If that makes me some type of narrow minded idiot, I'm guilty as hell.

Someone needs to rename this thread "Justification For Gay Marriages" because that would more accurately describe what's going on here.

Actually, DR, I'm not grossed out by it. In fact, as long as they are unable to reproduce, the only barrier to incestual marriage is cultural, and that was my point. What I was saying as well is that since we are obviously not going to force sterilization on anyone, there is a scientific reason to disallow incestual reproduction, and therefor bar most incestual marriages. I have no moral problem with incestual marriage. I'm grossed out by the idea of, say, kissing my sister, but that has no bearing on the matter. I'm grossed out by the idea of me engaging in gay sex, but that hardly translates to a reason why being gay is inherently wrong. I'm simply not gay, and I'm not attracted to my sister.

So, there are obvious reasons to not allow incestual marriage, given reproductive problems (and assuming you don't care for the idea of forced sterilization).

There are obvious reasons why you should not be allowed to marry a goat, since a goat has no legal rights, and by definition can give no consent. Nor should a woman be able to marry a vibrator.

Please, then, list some real reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry. The fact that it grosses you out is, I'm afraid, not a sound enough basis for opposition. I am not trying to "invalidate your argument." Your argument, is, however, invalid without any help from me.

Not much else I can say.

Oh please, DR. Why don't you be a little more constructive. What moral basis do you have against incest, beyond "it makes me feel icky?" It makes me feel icky too, but I recognize that this is because of a cultural paradigm. I guess you don't see that. You're right. Not much else to say about that. But hey, it is a really good way to avoid making constructive arguments to bolster your irrational argument against gay marriage!

Doesn't incest [sex] have a chance of damaging the child? I heard that somewhere, but regardless, I hate to have more gov't intervention, but for the love of God, incest is just not something I can morally tolerate, it really is that simple.

CP

Perhaps you missed my explanation, CP. There is a valid reason to make incestual reproduction taboo, for the reason you mention. That does not mean that incestual sex, as gross as it seems, is necessarily immoral. I think a new thread may be in order here, to prevent us from going further off topic.

DR brought this into the conversation in order to show how gay marriage rights would be hypocritical without allowing incest or bestiality based marriages. While I am saying incest itself is not morally wrong, I am also saying that, unlike gay marriage, there are valid reasons to not allow incestual marriage.

Sorry, I misunderstood. I guess your right, it isn't immoral to everyone.

CP

I believe Quark addressed that in the previous thread discussing incest as contrasted with homosexuality. While his last statement about not having any moral bias against it stands, there is still the scientific argument to be held against allowing incestuous marriages. I believe that is where he drew the line Dayton mentioned he was looking for.

While the genetics can get rather muddled in an incestuous relationship, and thus provides us with a scientific and rational reason for objecting to incestuous marriages, the same can not be said for homosexual relationships. While there may be arguments made against them from a cultural stand point, there just isn't any sound, scientific argument against it. And if the only reasoning you have is that you don't like it (the cultural position), that seems hardly a valid reason for objecting to it.

[Edited to add: Sorry for the redundancy... posted at pretty much the same time as both Quark and Pat ]

Yikes - did I say you had to search the whole of the America's Debate web site? Sorry - I meant to say should read a thread in its entirety before posting to it. Oh - or was that "a purposeful misinterpretation of my remarks"? Anyway, you don't have to search anything - or even read anything - it's just that reading the thread to which one is posting has traditionally been a basic tenet of discussion board etiquette. If nothing else, it lets others know what kind of participant you are: one who is interested in discussion or one who is merely interested in broadcasting one's own opinion.


Oh, is that what your challenge was? Hmmn - that sounds pretty easy to me: before you started muddying the waters of this debate, it seemed to me that those who think it is right for people of the same sex to marry felt that that was where it stopped: with thinking it was right for people of the same sex to marry. As I don't particularly count myself among their number, though, I could be wrong. Perhaps by thinking it is right for people of the same sex to marry they really meant thinking it was right for people to marry their widowed mother or a goat. How perceptive of you to detect such a subtle subtext in their contributions!

That's making the assumption that an incestuous relationship is hetero. Can sisters marry sisters? Brothers marry brothers? Moms/daughters? Fathers/sons?

My point here is not to inflame or derail anything. I've been stating all day that this is a huge can of worms by allowing gay marriages. That means anybody who wants to be married can be married. That's the point.

So, what are the long term repurcussions? Siblings marry for insurance and tax purposes and get a dissolution when they don't need them any longer?

What does marriage become?

Edited to respond to quark:


Ok, give me one valid reason I can't marry my brother (note, this is for debate purposes only. My brother wears the wrong cologne for me).

Whoa Nelly! Incestual marriages should never be allowed, they can actually do damage. That's not what I'm saying. And I don't think that's what quark is saying either.

CP

This is nothing limited to either the idea of homosexual or incestual marriages. Heterosexuals you deem appropriate can marry for insurance and tax purposes already, yet you don't seem to have a problem with heterosexual marriages. Further debate on this topic, however, would probably be best suited for The Marriage Contract thread.

Since the only real knock on the incestuous marriages was the genetics, what is to stop a brother marrying a brother or a sister marrying a sister? Other than personal distaste for the idea I'm not sure there should be anything stopping it. As Quark has already pointed out, the opposition is cultural, not natural. Incest and homosexuality were once common practices, not only among commoners but royalty as well. Continuation of incest related topics are probably best suited for Quark's NEW THREAD, though.

If the only thing anybody can come up with is family members or homosexuals possibly marrying for insurance or tax purposes, there is nothing separating them from heterosexual marriages. Personally, I still don't see a valid argument against homosexual marriages being presented.

Let's be clear about this. The question was, Should gay marriage be legalized?

The question was not, Do you think that homosexual sex is right, or Do you approve of incest/bestiality/using a vibrator!

Legalizing gay marriage is not saying the same thing as, Gee, that sounds great. I think I'll recommend that to my ________________ (fill in the blank).

It is a matter of recognizing that a segment of the population cares enough about their significant "other" to proclaim their love, promise their fidelity, and provide for that person "for better, for worse, in sickness, in health," etc.

I don't want to picture the homosexual sex act in my mind. For that matter, I do not want to picture my next-door-neighbor getting it on with her boyfriend!

And I certainly do not want my family's children to be born with lower IQ's or genetically-transmitted illnesses because their DNA is too similar.

As far as sexual relations go, I would think that a person would have enough self esteem to stay within his own species!

Again, the issue is GAY MARRIAGE.

While I haven't been specifically referring to the legalizing of homosexual marriage, that's what I have been trying to convey in my support of them. Apologies for any miscommunication there, Paladin.

I don't see any differences in homosexual marriages than heterosexual marriages short of prejudice and homophobia. Homosexuals and heterosexuals would both be capable of marrying for insurance or tax purposes; they would both be capable of providing a stable home environment; and they would both be capable of engaging in monogamous relationships with only each other.

The pursuit of legalized homosexual marriage is not a pursuit of special rights. They aren't seeking anything not afforded to heterosexual couples engaged in matrimony. All they ask in the pursuit is to be granted equal rights. I see no reason to deny them this and fully support the legalization of homosexual marriages.

Do I believe Gay Marriages should be legalized? Yes. That is my opinion.

A waitress at a restaurant where we eat frequently has been in a committed relationship for 10 years, They own a house together. They are raising two children together. At every single step of their relationship, they have had to consult an attorney to draw up a new contract that covered a contingency that had arisen. I have listened to her describe at length sometimes what they have gone through. I have often advised her that it seems like it would be a lot easier if they could just get married.

"My parents went through a divorce, and it was really traumatic. Our kids know that we're not married, so if we ever break up; it won't be a shock to them."

If they ever break up, it would be a shock to us. The waitress and her boyfriend are living without benefit of marriage by choice, and it is a complex relationship that many people see as immoral. I've known a few gay couples too, that were in long term committed relationships. They have to live without benefit of marriage simply because the law won't allow it.

I've been approached by gay men before. I've said no. If a man asked me to marry him, I would say no. That is the end of any personal threat to me from the concept of gay marriage.

I recall a day at work when the conversation turned to a news article from the night before. A number of gay men had been arrested at a rest stop. There was a lot of very loud gay bashing going on. A truck driver, a total stranger to the group, interrupted with, "About 10% of the population is gay. There are 20 people in this room. You're probably offending a couple of people here." That ended that discussion.

I understand that. But this is America and it will not stop there. We cannot discriminate against anyone with a pulse wanting those same rights. I've mentioned another group of society that will want the same thing. And that's the biggest problem I have.



That is true. And my point. Marriage has been limited to heterosexual couples because of the design of our bodies. Gay couples want to change that by saying it has nothing to do with our physical designs. By changing this, if we prevented anybody from getting married for any reason (such as examples I've posted), we would be discriminating. This means, any two people wanting to get "equal rights" as married couples could get them...regardless of the situation.

No, Abs, you're fine.

I just think that a lot of fringe issues were argued into this thread in an effort to characterize those of us who think that gays should be able to marry as morally destitute libertines.

I would disagree that it has been limited because of anatomical design. There has been nothing to prevent a handicapped or otherwise impotent couple from enjoying the benefits of legal marriage. Not every man or woman married in the eyes of the state are able to engage sexually or sexually reproduce. Their bodies are either not designed or are no longer capable of what you would deem made them suitable candidates for marriage.

Marriage doesn't have much at all to do with our physical attributes. It's supposed to have everything to do with love, emotional compatibility, etc. Even then, though, there are still heterosexual couples who take advantage of the system for none of these reasons, least of all the compatibility of their genitalia.

If heterosexuals are afforded the right to pervert the institution of marriage, what do we have to lose affording homosexuals the right to legalized marriage? Certainly they won't be the first to marry without physical compatibility and they won't be the first to do so solely for insurance or tax purposes. The only thing they'll be doing differently is marrying somebody with similar reproductive organs.

Marriage has taken many different forms in many different cultures: polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, endogamy, exogamy, monogamy, etc. Each of these forms of marriage had a distinct purpose based on the needs of the particular societies they were practiced by.

To ascertain whether or not gay marriage is acceptable in our society, I think it’s important to determine the reasons for getting married AND to determine what role the state should play in each of these reasons.

1. Religious sacrament – A secular state has no reason to legally recognize a religious sacrament. This portion of the ceremony and recognition should be left to the various denominations of the various different religions.

2. Procreation – One of the many reasons for marriage is to provide a stable environment in which to raise children. I would argue that homosexuals are equally capable of providing a stable environment to raise children, but it is a moot point because the state recognizes marriages that do not include children.

3. Love – The concept of marriage predates the concept of love. Love, as we know it, did not even come onto the scene until the 11th century, and in our society, it is one of the major reasons for getting married. Homosexual couples do have the capacity to love, but I don’t believe that the state has any business putting a legal claim on an emotional concept, especially since people can fall out of love.

4. Sex – We have sex for procreation and/or we have sex for pleasure. In marriage, unless there is some other arrangement between the two married people that both parties consent to, it is normally understood that sex is to be had only with the marriage partner. This, in my opinion, is positive for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, especially considering the risks that can be involved in having multiple partners particularly if one partner is unaware of the other partners activity. Even having said that, I don’t think that the state should be involved in regulating people’s sex lives. This is a social contract that belongs within the relationship alone.

5. Property Rights – This is the only area in which I think that it’s reasonable for the state to be involved, because it deals with people’s rights to own, manage, and protect their property. This applies to both homosexual and heterosexual couples, and in a country that places such high value on property rights, it makes no sense to deny people on the basis of gender. It can be said that homosexuals don’t need the institution of marriage to protect their property rights, but the same can be said of heterosexuals. Marriage is simply a less beaurocratic means of accomplishing this task. If the state is not going to recognize the right of homosexuals to manage their property through marriage, than I can only say that marriage should not be recognized by the state at all, and property rights should be handled through a different form of contract.

Gay marriage. As far as I am concerned, live like you want to live, if you wanna be gay, go ahead, be gay, but don't flag it in my face and expect me to take it well.

And going as far as marriage, I wouldn't humiliate myself and my whole family, being gay is sick, and perverted.

Maybe you could come up with something constructive in regards to this topic bd123? Your own personal prejudices and homophobia are hardly good reasons for not allowing gay marriages to legally take place.

Nobody is asking you to marry somebody of the same sex or "humiliate yourself" or your family. While you may personally feel that homosexuality is sick or perverted, there is nothing unnatural about it, as has been previously discussed here and on a separate thread dealing with the nature -vs- nurture aspects.

I would encourage you to be more constructive in your future posts here, or any other topic for that matter. Simply relying on unfounded prejudices does nothing for the debate itself or your own position on this board.

I said just a little to much thats all.

The topic was askin what You think, and mainly what I wanted to say was, do whatever, don't mean I agree with it, and don't flag it in my face.

While I agree with the response to an unconstructive post, I can't disagree with the message in part.

If homosexuality were natural, human bodies would be designed to accommodate each other.

You attempt to dismiss something unnatural as natural because you say it happens in nature. That's a *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** argument. In the animal world, mates kill the other after intercourse, mothers eat their young, the young are reguraly abandoned, cannibalism is fairly common, and some pee all over our carpet.

So, all this is natural for humans? Excuse me, but which one is the civilized society? Or are you reducing all of us to being like the uncivilized animal kingdom to justify you ("you" is not directed at anyone in particular) not liking the opposite sex?

The animal kingdom hasn't survived by dry humping the same sex. Even they have enough sense to know that like us, if they don't reproduce, their whole species dies. Just like our environment, nature is a balancing act. Promoting same sex relationships and marriage upsets the balance of our existence.

Obviously, not all hetero relationships bear children. But as a rule, they do (or we wouldn't be here today). In gay relationships, as a rule, they do not.

Just for the sake of argument, let's say we're going to allow any two people that want to marry, to marry (please don't make me go through all those groups - besides the gay ones - again). For the sake of argument, let's stipulate we won't discriminate against anyone who can marry. What happens to our birthrates? Who are you to say "well, it's not THAT bad". That's like Grace Chemical stating "Well, this little bit of pollution is not THAT bad".

This is not just prejudice. What it is, is not promoting unnatural behavior to get an exception from the hand life dealt you. Obviously, people are going to do what people are going to do. And I'm fine with that. But as a society, we don't need to promote upsetting the balance of our existence anymore than we need promote polluting our planet.

You call it prejudice because many of us don't think it's natural at all. You call it natural because it's almost as common as eating your young in the wild. I call it unnatural because the last several inches of some guy's large intestine was not designed to accommodate some other guy's penis. And to say it's natural just because it fits goes back to all my previous arguments (please God, not again).

Gay marriage is a very, very bad idea. We start toying with our entire existence by promoting this in our society. There is nobody on this board or on this planet that can say that by promoting homosexuality by legitimizing it via a marriage contract, can never have an affect on our life balance.

This is not unfounded prejudice at all.

How is gay marriage going to toy with our existence? I think you are thinking way too extreme about this. Do you think if we don't promote gay marriages that homosexuals will magically engage in heterosexual sex for procreation? If they are homosexual and are determined to live a homosexual life, allowing or disallowing them to marry will not change their sexual behavior, will not lead them to procreate for the benefit of the species and will not have any discernable effect on our life balance. The only way I can see that allowing homosexual marriages could ever affect our life balance is if you take the unprecedented approach of assuming homosexual marriages will somehow encourage otherwise heterosexual couples to convert to a homosexual preference and refuse to procreate. I doubt seriously if you or anybody else believes this to be the case when considering the legalization of homosexual marriages.

And while you may like to separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom, we are still animals. Also, while there are those animals who eat their young, eat their mates, abandon their young, etc... not all animals do this. Yet there are over 400 catologued species who engage in homosexual behavior, other primates included. Primates engage in similar family behavior as human societies, generally refraining from eating their young and such. Of course, that also doesn't even go to account for the occasional humans who eat their own, abandon their young or kill their mates... we aren't as different as you might like to think.

But, in keeping with the topic and addressing your post, legalizing homosexual marriage is not, as you say, "toying with our entire existence." Legalizing homosexual marriages will not convert heterosexual persons, endangering our way of life, anymore than not allowing legal homosexual marriages converts homosexual persons to a heterosexual preference.

Sexual preference is a natural, inborne trait. Marriage is nothing more than a cultural institution. Altering a simple institution will have no bearing on the inherent sexual preference of people of a state, nation or species. Your argument here isn't one of prejudice per se, which is nice to see, but it does remain unfounded.

Too many people are gay to disallow them from marrying :The percentage of population that is gay
This shows that over 15% of the population is gay or lesbian, that is about 4.5 million people, and that's only as of '91, think about how many there are now. Are we to simply say that these people should just get over it and live an incomplete life?

CP

No offense, but that isn't any kind of a point. You have been stating this repeatedly, true, but argument by repetition does not make your ad nauseam claim any more valid. There is no reason to assume that, by lifting the prohibition of same-sex marriages, we would automatically be lifting the prohibition of incest - no matter how often you repeat it. And, on a social as well as a legal level, there is no reason on God's earth to leap to the conclusion that, because a majority of people no longer subscribes to the taboo against homosexuality, a majority of people no longer subscribes to an incest taboo. We have seen ample evidence that this is far from the case in this very thread.

Your "This means that anybody who wants to be married can be married" is an astonishing statement. That's not what allowing gay marriages "means" at all. Allowing gay marriage means allowing gay marriage. Period. It doesn't mean allowing marriage between siblings or between fathers and sons. It doesn't mean allowing marriage between humans and goats. It doesn't mean allowing people to paint their neighbor's furniture magenta or allowing people to cut the legs off of canaries and glue them to their foreheads. It doesn't mean anything beyond what it means. Once again, allowing gay people to marry means allowing gay people to marry and it implies nothing further - nothing whatsoever.

This repeated assertion of yours could be seen as arguing from adverse consequences - using scare tactics (or, in this case, what you presumably see as gross-out tactics). It could also be seen as begging the question and assuming the answer: "we must prevent gay marriage in order to prevent incest". Though, most clearly, you are employing the slippery slope fallacy. It's like arguing "If we lower the voting age to eighteen, this means that we must necessarily lower the voting age to fourteen months - indeed, we'll be forced to extend voting rights to embryos". No matter how you slice it, Rocker, it is a totally fallacious argument. I'm astounded you've got as much mileage out of it as you have.


Clearly, none - apart from allowing same sex partners to marry.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

Parental advisory in effect for the next few paragraphs:


You clearly have little experience in this matter. I beg to differ - though if you require further enlightenment, I'd suggest taking this up through PMs. And don't get me started on the "design" of the prostate gland. May I ask what your position on oral sex is? One could argue that the esophagus was not "designed" to accommodate some guy's penis, nor the vagina "designed" to accommodate some guy's tongue. While I'm certain you would never engage in so gravely unnatural an act, should we presume that you're arguing that those who do practice oral sex should be denied marriage rights? What of those who practice mutual masturbation? Or frottage? What of heterosexuals who engage in anal sex? Seems to me we'll be losing even more marriages to your proscriptions than we already do to divorce. Are you a closet opponent to marriage, Rocker?


Um, yes it has. The animal kingdom does dry hump the same sex. The animal kingdom penetrates the same sex, for that matter (cf. the Nurture vs. Nature thread). Last time I looked, it appeared to me that the animal kingdom was surviving.

Now back to the PG rated portion of this posting:


Granted. Has it occurred to you that part of this balancing act is a natural method of population control by producing some individuals who are not predisposed to procreation? It has been argued by some that, in our own species, some individuals are "selected" for homosexuality to enable them to fulfill functions in their society which the encumbrances of family or the burden of pregnancy can impede - like the military and the priesthood - and that the presence of such individuals contributes to the survival and advancement of their society - or, without the presence of stifling prejudice, should. That is probably the stuff of another thread, though.


I'd estimate that our birthrate would be approximately identical. Gay marriages are not going to produce gay offspring. Legitimizing such marriages is not going to increase the incidence of homosexuality. What kind of heterosexual panic gives rise to such phobic notions?


Actually, I'd say that the fact that the recognition of gay marriages would leave our birthrate totally unaffected is a bad thing. As a species, our population is out of control and is severely damaging the environment which sustains us. If the recognition of gay marriages would impact on our over-population (which it wouldn't), I'd say you've just come up with a brilliant argument in favor of gay marriage.


In fact, it is far more common - and widespread. It occurs in far more total species than the eating of young and in all higher mammals, where the eating of the young is extremely rare.


I can't even begin to address these statements. Fortunately, Abs has admirably commented on this already.


You coulda fooled me. For someone who protests too much about not being prejudiced, your postings here seem to be rife with "adverse judgments or opinions formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts". That is rather how prejudice is defined.

I must give kudos to the patient and well worded level of debate here. The only thing I have to add to Abs and Wertz is an objection to the word 'promote'.

I dont see legalization of gay marriage as 'promoting' anything, but more a 'granting' of equal opportunity in an already existing and unchangable fact of life. Simply a legal aknowledgement of a committment contract between two humans with the general bindings of the already accepted heterosexual marriage contract. What people do with their bodies has had no bearing on hetero marriage contracts and therefore has none here.

It seems that those against believe that by societal acceptance , 'much more' of this 'perverse' behavior , (ie:promoting) will be going on, hetero-sexuals will be somehow endangered, hampered or damaged by it. I fail to see how, but possibly one of you who are against might bring that to our attention.

In my experience we arent going to 'turn' heteros into homosexuals or the other way around.

In humor, goats are not consenting, so throw that out completely as stupid and irrational, but a perfectly legal arguement against marriage with goats, sheep or cats. ( and why and how could anyone jump to that kind of insane comparison as a slippery slope issue?)

Hmm, we're not designed to accomodate milk, body piercings, diapers, oral sex, tylenol, coke, hard-hats, shoes, underwear, cars, etc.

None of these things are "natural" and yet they are all elements of our daily lives. Are you suggesting that anything that is unnatural be purged from human society? Where do you draw the line? The fact is that our body tolerates all these things extremely well, and in most cases it provides a marked improvement over the norm.

After have time to chew on this, I've come to realize that you people here have come to accept marriage as some kind of certificate representing the achievement of simply being together. Gee, that takes a lot of work.

Historically, marriage has been the legal representation of a couple that entitles them to some additional benefits because of the assumption they will have children. As a rule, they do have children. Homosexual couples, as a rule, don't. Obviously, gays can adopt, but marriage historically promotes the creating and raising of a family. Of course, I'm sure I'll get hammered on the inconsequential nature of pregnancy and childbirth as being irrelevant.


You know that's a half truth and I know that's a half truth. While I acknowledge that people are genetically inclined to be homosexual, I also believe people turn that way because they just like it. Otherwise, we would never have bisexuals. I'd hate to wager how many like it just because of the sex.


So, as more gay people get married, more of other classes of non-child bearing people get married. who knows where it stops? Then, it begins to interfere with population balances. We are not encouraging people to reproduce. There is already a problem with underpopulation in 61 to 83 countries (depending on which reports you use), but it does not take away from the fact that as a global society, we are facing underpopulation. And this report is from the OVERpopulation website.

http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/200...003/000034.html

Giving benefits child bearing couples have enjoyed to non child-bearing couples as a rule is no different than dumping a can of oil into a river. It may not seem like a big deal, but we are toying with the balance of nature. Some things are beyond our control, but we don't need to encourage it.

Dayton, marriage varies from one society to the next, and while reproduction is one historical reason for marriage, it is not the only reason. Marriage also has involved property rights and the division of labor. We define, within our society, what marriage will be, and certainly, in the United States, love plays a key role.

Do you think that gay marriages should be legally recognized?

No.

I do not believe any marriage should be "legally" recognized. The government governs the people, not the groups.

-Robert

Why not? Why shouldn't gays have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness just like everyone else?

CP

Read closer.

I believe the government should not legally recognize ANY form of marriage.

The government is of the poeple, not the dyad.

-Robert

Ohhhhh. I get what you're saying, my bad. Interesting thought. But I will now direct that question to DaytonRocker, why shouldn't gays be allowed "straight people's" rights?

CP

Marriage is not a "right". Gay people are not being denied any liberties. What they claim to be "denied", is the benefits married couples get under the assumption that will create and raise a family. They are not LOSING anything.

Gay couples cannot reproduce. It is anticipated, while not always true, that married couples will reproduce. Therefore, we get a little bit of a break on some things in the best interest of raising children. Much like child care credit. We get that because it is anticipated we will have child care expenses. My wife works out of our home office, so we are an example of the exceptions that exist everywhere.

Um, I don't think anyone has advanced this position. The assertion seems to be that marriage is simply a legal recognition of the permanent and binding commitment that two PEOPLE make.



Wow, I didn't know the American legal system extended back to the Tigris Euphrates valley. That's where civilization originates (or so some people claim) and marriage has been documented almost as far back as human history extends.



How on earth do you expect people to take you seriously or show you any respect when you repeatedly put words in their mouths in efforts to denigrate their argument?



Oh yeah, because being part of a hated and persecuted minority is a real walk in the park. Do you have ANY actual foundation for this opinion? It certainly isn't in the bible, and all of the gay people I know were extremely tortured by their experience of coming out of the closet. Not a one of them made the decision lightly, and none of them would have found it worthwhile if not for the fact that it was not a choice.



You lost me here. Has it never occured to you that if the physiological condition can exist to allow people to be attracted to men or women then they can also exist to allow people to be attracted to both? It is no great stretch of my imagination.



I don't know how things are with your wife, but most people have a deep emotional connection to sex; and with their partners. It's not about simple physical pleasures but being able to connect to the people they are schtupping. And if you're a homosexual man then that connection will not exist with a woman.



Nobody is talking about extending legalized marriage to anyone and everyone under the sun. The beauty of the legal system is that it evaluates each scenario on a case by case basis so this argument that "if gays marry then anyone can" makes no sense whatsoever. Even if it did have a foundation in reality though it still would not be a valid argument because by their very nature people who would marry into a "non-child bearing" couple aren't going to have children whether they are married or not. Unless you're worried about legally sanctioned marriage making it seem fashionable and someone in your family "getting the gay" like some sort of fad that is.

(Personally that what it seems like you're trying to say without actually saying it outright.)



You know, constructing a simile doesn't simply entail saying one thing is like another. There has to be an actual connection for the simile to function.

Child-benefits are extended to parents who have children, not all married couples. Should there be a law saying that all couples that do not produce children lose their tax benefits?

DR: My liberal Canadian friend [UJ] is right. By the way, of course marriage is a right, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How can you pursue happiness if the gov't won't allow you?

CP

First, what is your source for this assumption? I've never seen anything in any legislation relating to marriage which stipulates producing children.

Second, as has already been mentioned in this thread, if we were to accept this assumption, then marriage should be denied to those who are impotent or barren, those who have had vasectomies or hysterectomies, and all women who have experienced menopause. You would obviously think this was fair. I suspect that millions of others would not.

I'll put my two cents worth in... I have no problem with not calling a gay union marriage. Domestic partnership maybe or some other term will do. I think that partners, straight or gay who combine their resourses financially and have a loving and nurturing home together is much healthier than a single struggling to get by paying rent and being permiscuas. I've been in a committed relationship for two years with a woman, we both have good jobs, insurance and are buying a house together. If some unforeseeable tragedy occurred in the future and something happened to one of us, I only think it's fair that we have the resources available to us that every other tax paying citizen has. Straight people have domestic partnerships that are recognized by some states and most of the same rights that come with marriage, and in certain conservative religious circles, they are considered sinning just as much as a homosexual. But the government still allows and recognizes straight domestic partnerships. Why is this hypocrisy overlooked?

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2003...lection219.html
These guys suggest that Darwin was wrong about natural selection as they promote homosexual behavior. But what is interesting is this:





Well, gee. Imagine that. Scientists supporting homosexuality are using the arguments I've been using for the last 3 days.

And this gem:
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug97...27470.Ge.r.html

I thought some homosexuality was a genetic trait until I started digging in on this subject. I find it interesting that only 50% of identical twins are both gay. Meaning, in 50% of twins, only one of the twins is gay. This is fairly significant as it rules out genetics being the ONLY reason for homosexuality.

I ignored any reference to the one very popular anti-gay researcher, Cameron (or whatever his name is), because he appears to be a lackey for the Christian right wing. He may have some interesting data to support my argument, but he's obviously biased. So, I started looking for more neutral sources.

And none of my research supports any argument on here. The animal world is NOT the place to look for human "natural" behavior. And there is nothing conclusive indicating homosexuality is genetic. They've been looking for a "gay" gene for years and nobody has found it.

Which gets back to gay marriage. With the research I've been doing, a person's environment plays a key role in a person's homosexuality. Which means to me, that a gay couple adopting will increase the odds of those children being gay.

This is evolutionary suicide.

Through 60 million years, we've lost our tailbone, our teeth has changed to our diets, and our bodies have evolved to our climate. But male and female reproductive systems (except for the female's pelvic area) have not changed. After 60 billion years of "natural" homosexual behavior (as you people call it), the anus still does nothing but expel waste.

LOVE does not care about gender. I don't understand how one tracked minded some people are. SEX is NOT the center piece of a healthy, mature relationship. Why is it that when homosexuality is talked about, the anis seems to be the center of attention? What about the heart? What about the fact that some "normal" straight men are glorified for their promiscuity, when, for all tense and purposes, is just as SINNFUL as homosexuality!! I also don't understand the Christian Right Conservatives in America who spat prejudice and intollerance, when Jesus taught LOVE THY NEIGHBOR. JESUS ate with the sinners, the tax collecors, the prostitutes, the OUTCAST of society. Modern extreemist Christians live seperated from the world, out of touch and wear blinders to many of the issues that plague this nation. AIDS (which also doesn't care what sexual preference you have), drug abuse and discrimination. Jesus was the first activist for equal rights. Now, before you go and say, "Theres a Christian hater", no I'm Christian. And it's sad that many people overlook the parables and simple teachings that he gave and instead heed the words of the apostles who where flesh and flawed.

There is no doubt in my mind that some homosexuality is inherent. My first boyfriend was homosexual. On a social level, we were extremely compatible best friends, but physically it just didn't go very well. We tried for 3 long years. He was from a strict religious household, so was in denial. First I thought it was a physical problem, then I thought it was me. Eventually, after much ill will we split. It would've never worked out for him with a female, and he is much happier now with his new, male 'roommate'.

In many cases, I believe it is a choice of sorts. I think most people lean towards one side or the other. Some are sitting on the edge, and some are in the middle. I don't see what difference that makes. You don't really think we're dying out, do you DR?

Thus, my point. I've been debating you people for days about the merits of gay marriage. I've given reasoned debate and have stayed away from the "you sick queer" crap.

In return, I've been compared to an anti-semite, Hitler, and have been accused of not being able to hug my kid.

The biggest argument I've been given to my objection to gay marriage is "it happens in nature", so it must be natural. When I counter that's not a fair comparison, my views get dismissed as simply being too biased to "get it".

Well, I've done the research and I've learned that as a rule, it is NOT natural and no matter how hard people have been trying to find the "gay gene", they can't find it.

To argue that marriage has nothing to do with sex is about as lame argument as you can get. If we were talking about homosexual relationships, that would be a valid point. But we're talking about marriage - meaning you can't reasonably leave out the sex aspect.

I've spent tonight researching homosexual behavior and I have to say I'm shocked. I'm shocked that you people have been spouting stuff that has no - I repeat NO - scientific basis. However, I can show you scientific evidence to support my view, and I'm regarded as a narrow-minded idiot.

Try some of these stats. I picked this one out of many. There is nothing unique to these figures.
http://www.cprmd.org/Myths/Myth_Fact_002.htm

We spend more money in AIDS research than we do on cancer, yet 5 times as many people die of cancer. Only 5% of AIDS cases are heterosexual, so much of this is preventable. However, you want to shove this lifestyle down our throats.

The 1948 Kinsey report has been completely debunked - even by the pro-gay scientists. In fact, about every goofy statement I've heard here has been debunked.

What HAS been true, is that there are people of the same sex who love and care for one another. That, I have no problem with. But what also has been said, is that some people here are in monogamous long term relationships. And I'm sure the good people here stating that are straight up and honest.

But statistically speaking, you're lying.


Actually, yes. We are having an underpopulation problem. Although some countries are obviously overpopulated, globally we are on the decline. Of course, this is not a direct result from homosexuality. But as I've been saying, if you let gays marry, you have to let anybody marry. That type of propogation could begin to affect the underpopulation problem. At a minimum, it's not going to help.

And who's my source regarding the underpopulation problem? No other than OVERpopulation.com
http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/200...003/000034.html

I'm not sure where to begin, but lets get this selective blindness of yours out of the way, shall we? I offered an in depth and reasoned response to your earlier comments, which were promptly cast aside. I challenged you to:

• Explain how anyone would make such a tortuous decision (to come out) because "they like it."
  
• Explain why a biological origin for homosexuality would preclude bisexuality.
  
• Explain HOW ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH allowing homosexual marriages allows ANYONE to marry
  
• Justify your claims on the origins of marriage
  
• And most of all stop the wounded puppy act and stop villainizing us long enough to actually speak coherently.

Have you done any of these things? Let me check... oh yeah. NO!

So now that we've cleared that out of the way, lets discuss your last post.

[quote]The biggest argument I've been given to my objection to gay marriage is "it happens in nature", so it must be natural.[/quote]

This is just flat out wrong and if you don't know it you need to brush up on your reading skills. "It's natural" is the least of the arguments that has been advanced in this thread, and it has never been correlated to marriage. Lets take a quick glance at the last few "pro- gay marriage" posts shall we just to make sure...

Mrspigpen talked about her relationship with a gay men; speaking to his phsycological condition.

BillyJean (who by chance has it is not my lover...) talked about true love as she sees it. In the previous post (not including yours she talked about the legal definitions of various unions and their value.

Wertz talked about the legal implications of your position on the nature of marriage.

Conservpat talked about life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness.

Ultimate Joe (being me) talked about various elements of your earlier posts. Notice how nowhere to be found in my post is the discussion of "it happens in nature."

Perhaps if you actually tried to adress any of the above-mentioned concerns then this mental fixation you seem to have would clear.

Lets go on...

[quote]Well, I've done the research and I've learned that as a rule, it is NOT natural[/quote]

No you didn't. That's just plain foolish. You cited a body of work that says that it IS natural in the animal kingdom, but because that is so doesn't mean we should take it as being natural for humanity. That position has merit, but it is a far cry from this "rule" that you think you've found.

[quote]To argue that marriage has nothing to do with sex is about as lame argument as you can get. If we were talking about homosexual relationships, that would be a valid point. But we're talking about marriage - meaning you can't reasonably leave out the sex aspect.[/quote]

Ok, why? We've rehashed this issue. If marriage is about heterosexual sex then sex should not be an EXPECTATION but a requirement. How much sex is required?

This argument invariably encroaches into the realm of children. You have posited on countless ocassions that marriage exists as an institution to provide for the propogation of the species. We have offered NUMEROUS rebuttals to this position which you have ignored bar none. Let me summarize for you:

• If children is the point, then barren/infertile couples should not be allowed to wed as they have as much of a chance as a gay couple. (Actually they have a far less chance.)
  
• Married couples that CAN produce children MUST produce them for your position to have any validity. Otherwise you're extending a right to a group because they simply have a better chance of producing offspring, and laws shouldn't be determined by chance.
  
• There exists no legal precedent for your position, as childhood benefits are dispensed based on people's status as PARENTS not husband and wife.
  
• Gay couples can and do adopt children, or in the case of lesbians, can also give birth through in-vitro fertilization. They can also assume parental roles through personal tragedy or through other relationships. Now since we can all agree that a married couple offers the most stable environment for raising children, then it is only natural to extend marriage to allow children raised in these homes the best family structure.

All of those are STRONG objections to your sex/child-producing position. Care to respond to, I don't know... ANY OF THEM?

[quote]I've spent tonight researching homosexual behavior and I have to say I'm shocked. I'm shocked that you people have been spouting stuff that has no - I repeat NO - scientific basis. However, I can show you scientific evidence to support my view, and I'm regarded as a narrow-minded idiot.[/quote]

Lets look at this "research" of yours. You cite the Citizens for Parent's Rights webpage. Lets look at the first passage on their webpage:

[quote]The ideal natural family is one man and one woman brought together by marriage,  who enjoy a monogamous relationship, and with Gods' blessing are given children to raise and love.[/quote]

In fact, one of their mission statements is:

[quote]Defeating the homosexual agenda[/quote]

Now do you honestly expect an organization like this to offer fair and unbalanced evidence? If you do you should review your research practices. But what's really interesting is how your "evidence" as it is provided A) defeats itself and makes the strongest possible case for homosexual marriage (which I will explore when I'm done destroying your citation. Here are various elements of your "evidence:"

[quote] a 6-month long daily sexual diary, gay men were averaging somewhere around 110 different sex partners per year.  Source:  Corey, L. and Holmes, K.K., " Sexual transmission of Hepatitis A in homosexual men," New England Journal of Medicine, 1980; Vol. 302, pp. 435-38. [/quote]

This seems to directly contradict an earlier citation on the same page:

[quote] In 1978, a study done by two homosexual doctors revealed staggering statistics. Of 685 homosexual men, 589 (83%) had 50+ partners in their lifetime, 497 (73%) had 100+, 394 (58%) had 250+, 284 (41%) had 500+, 182 exceeded 1000 partners, an astonishing 26%. And 79% noted that over half their sexual contacts were total strangers.  Source:  Bell, A.P. and Wienberg, M.S. " Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women " (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.) [/quote]

and this:

[quote]A Los Angeles study conducted in the late 1980s found that male homosexuals averaged over 20 partners per year.  Source:  L. Linn et al., " Recent Sexual Behaviors Among Homosexual Men Seeking Primary Medical Care," Archives of Internal Medicine 149 (December 1989): pp. 2685-90.[/quote]

Beyond the obvious contradictions the page is riddled with UNSCIENTIFIC citations...

[quote]Actor Woody Harrelson admits: " Every (acting) business I ever entered into in New York seemed to have a casting couch...I've seen so many people sleep with people they loathe in order to further their ambition."  Source:  Stephanie Mansfield, " Wild and Woody," Chicago Sun-Times, USA Weekend section, July 5-7, 1996, p. 5.[/quote]

Actually that one is really funny because Harrelson is straight and he's not talking about homosexuality but sex in the entertainment industry.

The bulk of the "evidence" found on this page merely says that homosexual men (and women although men are the focus of most fragments) are much more promiscuous than heterosexual men. This makes a very poor argument and has no scientific value whatsoever. The rest of said page exists to describe the recklessness of homosexual sex (especially amongst gay men) in an attempt to describe it as an addiction.

What any of that has to do with marriage rights is beyond me? But I'll get back to what I was saying earlier... The page makes it quite clear that homosexual (again, mostly men) do not have as many stable long-term relationships. It seems to me that recognition of marriage rights would be a fine remedy for this supposed problem.

[quote]We spend more money in AIDS research than we do on cancer, yet 5 times as many people die of cancer. Only 5% of AIDS cases are heterosexual, so much of this is preventable. However, you want to shove this lifestyle down our throats.[/quote]

Care to provide a source for this? It's not on the page you mentioned. What does sexual orientation have to do with preventability anyways? And once again, nobody here wants to shove any lifestyle down any throats. (Although "down the throat" lessens the chance of AIDS transmission.)

[quote]That, I have no problem with.[/quote]

You quite clearly do. You've called homosexual relationships sick on several ocassions across the forums. You've also branded yourself a homophobe on several ocassions. By definition a homophobe is someone who has a problem with homosexuals.

[quote]Actually, yes. We are having an underpopulation problem.[/quote]

No, you have a BIRTH RATE problem. Big difference there buddy... Yes the natural birth-rate is appalingly low in all first-world countries. This is compensated for by legal immigration. In fact, the birth-rate could drop 50% and there would still be ample supply of people looking to fill up the country. Now unless you have some sort of problem with immigrants I fail to see the problem. The global population is growing at an increasingly stable (yet ample rate.) Your "article" even says that the U.S. doesn't have a population problem in it's concluding paragraph?!

[quote]The United States seems likely to maintain its middle road and continued world dominance. Unlike Europe, the U.S. total fertility rate hovers above 2.1 and it continues to accept more immigrants than any other nation. As a a result, the U.S. population will likely increase by another 100 million people in the 21st century.[/quote]

Now the rest of the site is unavailable so I have no way to verify if it is indeed a site dedicated to the "overpopulation" problem as your description implies, but I find your emphasis EXTREMELY dubious.

So, if you want a "rational discussion," please feel free to adress the numerous arguments that I have made here, and the others that have been presented. By choosing not to you are only demonstrating your own unwillingness to participate.

DaytonRocker, I love your sources.

Joan Roughgarden from Stanford? What do you suppose her position is on gay marriage? She did have this to say (BTW she is herself a transgender person):

She doesn't mention marriage, but I would bet she's for it.

Next, you source what seems to be a forum... not sure what to make of it, but I didn't see anything that would lead one to believe that homosexual marriage is wrong...

And then, my favorite. Citizens for Parents' Rights. On the front page are their three stated goals:



But let's put all that aside. What if homosexuality is chosen instead of genetic. So what? Why would that have anything to do with marriage? I prefer redheads. I married one.


You do keep saying that, but you have yet to show us why that is the case. Do you think that there is a large enough minority of people who practice incest or bestiality to actually skew population propagation, even if they were allowed to marry?



Indeed, it's not even an indirect result. In the article you cite on population, the main "problem" as it was defined is a political one, and a particularly biased political problem, at that. How will the West maintain its dominant role while being outbred? Totally different topic, and not relevant. There is no underpopulation "problem," not in any scientific, biological way.

You also keep saying you don't mind what people do behind closed doors. I agree. People shouldn't have sex on the street, gay or straight. And yet your entire argument appears to be predicated on the fact that you DO mind what they are doing behind the doors.

Try completing this sentence:

It's perfectly fine to be gay, but gay people should not be allowed to marry, because ____________.

I guess I just don't see a logical way to end that sentence.

There is no specific mention of the word "marriage" in the constitution, so on that basis alone marriage is not a right. But if you recall, there are a couple of little ditties in the Constitution called the 9th and 14th Amendments. These popular numbers include such things as the rights of the people and due process and equal protection of the law. And by its very nature, marriage IS a right---something to which we have a just claim, as well as a liberty. Marriage is arbitrarily granted to one group(heterosexuals) and denied to another(homosexuals). And as I understand liberty, it is the freedom from arbitrary control, and the "positive enjoyment of social... rights and privileges." As long as I am being denied the "legal" recognition to marry, then my liberties and rights are being abridged.



For the sake of argument DR, I am going to assume that you are married with children. I will further assume that like my partner and I, you have 5 children, fall into the middle-income bracket, and both you and your wife work to support the family. Now, my questions is this: Are my partner and I, as well as our children, any less deserving of "a little bit of a break" than you and yours? If so, then why? Exactly what is it about your family that makes them any more valuable and precious than mine?

Do marriages happen in nature? Actually, and I am just teasing a bit here DR, but humans are the only animal that gets "married." Other animals do maintain monogamous relationships though and sometimes those relationships are with the same sex. Animals also have same sex relations for pleasure.

http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cn...2-06-10/591.asp

http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/1_4_97/bob1.htm

http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/co...15featurea.html

But what does it matter if this behavior is natural or not? No one is required to accept homosexuality as a natural lifestyle. But do we as a society have the right to discriminate against a person because they are gay?

Gay marriage isn't about homosexuality being right or wrong. It's about granting a human being, who has made a commitment to a person of the same sex, access to all the benefits a heterosexual couple take for granted, i.e., filing taxes, death benefits, health-care benefits,



DR, sexless relationships are far too common in heterosexual marriages. Many, MANY heterosexual couples stop having sex after a period of time. I can't imagine homosexual relationships would be any different. You marry someone because you love them and want to build a life with them. Sex is just one benefit of that union.

Reverse the issue. What if only homosexual marriages were accepted and heterosexuals were told they couldn't marry someone of the opposite sex, couldn't adopt and raise children and couldn't have access to their significant other's benefits? How would you feel?

Dayton Rocker: Like Quarkie, I must admit that I love your sources! You admit that you've spent an entire evening "researching" homosexuality. Congratulations. I've been at such research for over thirty years. Forgive me if I find your reliance on pseudo-science and hate-group web sites for your "evidence" a bit less than rigorous.

[quote=DaytonRocker,Jun 18 2003, 07:13 PM]These guys suggest that Darwin was wrong about natural selection as they promote homosexual behavior.[/quote]
Is this meant to come as a shock? I don't think there's a geneticist alive who accepts the Darwinian theory of evolution as flawless or sacrosanct. The models developed by many subsequent theorists are much more widely accepted and the specifics of the subject are still being widely - and hotly - debated.

The "evidence" cited in your first reference is, however, non-existent. This article is not based on any new research being completed, any new observations having been made, any new experiments having been conducted, or any new studies being published. It is based on the speculation of two members of a symposium rehashing extant reports. In short, it is little more than navel-gazing. Even if we were to accept what your couple of armchair scientists are musing about, they rather undermine your argument for you (if you read everything that they say) - their claim, for example, that "sex may have functions [ahem] other than procreation -- a healthy ecosystem sports diversity for diversity's sake." You, then, according to your own sources, are arguing for an unhealthy ecosystem. I'd like to see you justify that.

Next up, we have the high authority of a coupla postings from a discussion board in which it's mentioned, without reference, that not all identical twins share a sexual orientation. Some "gem", DR. The only link provided, to The Gay Gene, again contradicts the point you're desperately trying to make - as, indeed, does the rest of the posting you cite! That you later claim "none of my research supports any argument on here" is absurd - the very sources to which you link do!

In any event, "Mad Scientist Network volunteer Louise Freeman", whom you reference (I'm not making that up - it's how she's described), presents three arguments relating to homosexuality and genetics (pedigree analysis, twin study, and gene linkage). All three points strongly indicate that there is a genetic link. That you leap on the one argument where you perceive a possibility of fiddling around with the data, while ignoring the others, demonstrates your level of desperation. Even the only argument you mention has Ms. Freeman concluding that "Researchers found that the concordance rate for homosexuality is highest among identical twins, lower among fraternal, and lowest in adopted siblings. Such a pattern is evidence for a genetic basis to homosexuality." If this evidence is not a clear indication that there is a genetic basis for sexual orientation, I don't know what is. Did you think none of us would follow your links or what??

The fact that "only" 50% of identical twins admit to sharing an orientation toward homosexuality, is not a very powerful argument against a genetic link (even if there were a source to back this up). There's ample evidence that identical twins, apart from overall physical characteristics, are not all that identical. Several studies have shown that the number of pairs where one twin is left-handed and the other right is about 20-30% regardless of whether they're identical or not. Chris McManus, a neuropsychologist at University College London, has come up with a model of handedness that is one of the most widely accepted in the field of genetics:[quote]According to his model, lefties are, if not more evolved, at least more recent arrivals on the hominid scene—the product of a second mutation that occurred somewhere between 20,000 and 100,000 years ago, long after right-handedness became the norm. This mutation, rather than directly coding for left-handedness, simply cancels out the bias to the right, giving those who inherit it a 50-50 chance of ending up left-handed.[/quote]
Thanks, Rocker, for setting me off on some genuine research on identical twins. Without your inspiration, it would never have occurred to me that, like left-handedness, there's a possibility that homosexuality is the result of being more highly evolved!

[quote]And none of my research supports any argument on here.[/quote]
I hate to tell you this, but your research has not been very in-depth - and it's been laughably selective at that. That said, even the few fringe sources you've managed to dredge up do support the arguments of your opponents here - if one looks beyond the couple of words you've chosen as your focus.

[quote]The animal world is NOT the place to look for human "natural" behavior.[/quote]
This is arguable - though there are very few on your side of the argument (not that that should have any major relevance). But even the article you cite, supposedly debunking this "myth", mentions that the two people presenting their case at a drinking party at Stanford go against "decades" of research conducted by evolutionary psychologists. And that the remark, made by one of them, was an aside to the actual debate, commenting on such phenomena as animals actually changing sex.

But, hey, let's say this guy is right. Let's say it is wrong of us to conclude that what occurs in nature is natural. Let's say that the fact that homosexuality is widespread in the animal kingdom is no reason to assume that it's "natural" for humans. Is this any reason to assume that it is not natural for humans? Do you have anything to indicate that homosexuality isn't natural among homo sapiens? If so, I'd like to see it.

[quote]And there is nothing conclusive indicating homosexuality is genetic. They've been looking for a "gay" gene for years and nobody has found it.[/quote]
In reality, there are those who claim that they have found it - or at least have isolated the chromosomal territory it inhabits: region Xq28, to be precise. This research goes back to 1995 and has been debated on and off since - with no conclusions yet being reached either way. Such research, however, is a long arduous, and inexact process, DR - don't expect definitive results even after decades of research.

[quote]Which gets back to gay marriage.[/quote]
i don't see the correlation, but we'll let that pass...

[quote]With the research I've been doing, a person's environment plays a key role in a person's homosexuality.[/quote]
Really? Not any of the research you've presented here.

[quote]Which means to me, that a gay couple adopting will increase the odds of those children being gay.[/quote]
WHOA!!! What kind of a leap is that??? Even if we accepted all of the unsupported assumptions you've been making up to this point, you have presented no evidence whatsoever to jump to such a patently absurd conclusion.

All of the available evidence - all of it, DR, all of it - demonstrates that the sexual orientation of parents has no impact on the sexual orientation of their children and that children of lesbian and gay parents are no more likely than any other child to grow up to be gay. More than eight such studies are cited here.

But one doesn't need studies or research to determine that your conclusion is utter nonsense. If children "learned" their sexual orientation from their parents, there would be no homosexuality. Unless, of course, you're arguing that only gay men and lesbians have ever had gay sons or lesbian daughters - in which case, DR, it's time for you to seek professional help.

[quote]This is evolutionary suicide.[/quote]
Sorry, no. It's hysterical balderdash.



[quote=DaytonRocker,Jun 18 2003, 11:53 PM]I've been debating you people for days about the merits of gay marriage. I've given reasoned debate and have stayed away from the "you sick queer" crap.[/quote]
How reasoned your debate has been is debatable. You have not countered any arguments and have presented very little to support your own arguments (and what you have presented has been composed of distinctly minority opinions). Further, if you now have to resort to the likes of Citizens for Parents' Rights you might just as well be using all the "you sick queer" crap.

[quote]In return, I've been compared to an anti-semite, Hitler, and have been accused of not being able to hug my kid.[/quote]
You are referring to a total of two postings, DR - one taken entirely out of context and both from another thread. Are we to weep for your noble efforts spurned? Spare me.

[quote]The biggest argument I've been given to my objection to gay marriage is "it happens in nature", so it must be natural. When I counter that's not a fair comparison, my views get dismissed as simply being too biased to "get it".[/quote]
First, that is not "the biggest argument" you've been given (nor was it related to the question of "marriage), it's one of the few arguments at all that you've felt equipped to address - and you have failed miserably even at that. Second, your having to resort to mischaracterization of the genuine rebuttal which has met your "research" is just sad.

[quote]Well, I've done the research and I've learned that as a rule, it is NOT natural.[/quote]
I know you have convinced yourself that homosexuality is unnatural - you were convinced before this debate began. But you are making yourself look ridiculous by coming up with a single hypothetical statement from one individual and claiming it as a triumph of research. Seriously, DR - you should have more self-respect.

[quote]I've spent tonight researching homosexual behavior and I have to say I'm shocked. I'm shocked that you people have been spouting stuff that has no - I repeat NO - scientific basis. However, I can show you scientific evidence to support my view, and I'm regarded as a narrow-minded idiot.[/quote]
On the basis of what you produced in your last posting, you did not spend the night researching homosexual behavior, you spent the night surfing hate sites. Not quite the same thing. How many unbiased sites did you peruse for longer than it took to determine that the authors didn't hate faggots, Rocker? How many? You wanna post a few of their URLs? I had not previously considered you "a narrow-minded idiot", but, you know what? You're starting to make a pretty damned good case. For example:[quote]Try some of these stats.[/quote]
From Citizens for Parents' Rights?? Why? To what end? I already know how much anti-gay propaganda there is on the web. I already know how much fear and hatred there is in the world. I need no off-topic reminders from you. Thanks all the same.


Think you'll ever get around to addressing any of the real points that everyone else here has been making???

because gay relationships are NOT ok.

Until the last couple days, I thought it was none of my business what goes on in someone's bedroom. Well guess what? It IS my business! We spend more on AIDS research than cancer to cure a disease that is completely preventable. While it is true some forms of transmission is IV related, the overwhelming problem is associated with the gay community. Heteros use IV drugs too, but heteros only account for 5% of AIDS. Now, don't get me wrong. We need to find a cure for AIDS because nobody deserves to die for anything. But it doesn't stop there. Because of the type of sex between homosexual males, we have TB, typhoid, and all the other diseases associated with third world countries.

So no, we cannot agree any longer that gay relationships are ok. They are a drain on our society because of the overwhelming medical problems caused by attempting to have unnatural sex and the tearing at the moral fabric of our society trying to justify evolutionary suicide.

Marriage is designed to promote traditional family values to help ensure the welfare of a mother and her children. There is not a study in the world that has concluded that families consisting of a father, mother, and child are no better off than any other type of family. We promote families as a society because we need to reproduce while making sure children are raised the best we are capable.

homosexuality is clearly a lifestyle CHOICE (which I would have never believed until I actually did the research). Pushing your lifestyle choice on our traditional family values undermines the complete moral fabric of our society. Sure, some homosexuals adopt. But there is nothing to stop that adopted child from being taken back by a biological mother that can make a decent case in court. And at 13, that child can make a decision to go back to h