I haven't seen any evidence, conclusive or otherwise, that states that homosexuality is a result of sexual predators grooming young people to satisfy their appetites. This reminds me of old propaganda films from the fifties. Please provide relevant sources to back this statement up.

Certainly

Link



Frankly, with the huge strides we are making in genetics, if there is a "gay gene" then we will certainly find absolute proof soon. Then what happens if they make a pre-natal test that detects that gay gene?.....talk about a can of worms

That article is HORRIBLE. Really, it is a disgrace to science. Here is an example of what's wrong:

For starters, it immediately labels a school of thought as "self-serving," applying a political bias to science which is absolutely absurd. Then it proceeds to draw a bewildering conclusion through an extremely faulty chain of logic.

Some homosexual men are abused (as children)...
Some homosexual men are unhappy...
Therefore homosexuality is derived from abusive childhoods, and homosexuals are inherently unhappy.

That is absurd reasoning of the highest order. For starters, the example which Gandalfh actually provided (while keeping a straight face amazingly enough) only identified that a third of homosexual men identified themselves as having been "encouraged or forced to have sexual contact before age 19 with an older or more powerful partner." This number isn't contrasted to a control group, ie. straight men to see if it differs.

What is further galling about this example is that it makes no mention of a link between these experiences and homosexual behaviour. If you go to the citation you can see that it was published in a journal regarding CHILD ABUSE... The statement "Our data suggest the risk of sexual abuse may be high among some male youth, and increased attention should be devoted to prevention as well as early identification and treatment." At the end of this passage therefore almost certainly applies to treatment of child-abuse issues in homosexual and bisexual men, not the sexuality itself.

Bad bad science.

I have to agree with Ultimatejoe, if you look further in the referenced site http://www.narth.com/menus/statement.html you will find the real agenda of NARTH.

"The American Psychological Association has assumed an authority it cannot rightly claim. The group claims that science has somehow "proven" that homosexuality and heterosexuality are qualitatively indistinguishable. Thus A.P.A. advocates in the political arena for a broad array of social policies--telling our lawmakers that science supports, if not in fact mandates, gay marriage and adoption--as if any particular social policy could flow directly from the facts (from an "is" to an "ought") without an intervening philosophical judgment."

If you read further in the article you will find NARTH is also seeking a “treatment” for Homosexuality,
“NARTH's function is to provide psychological understanding of the cause, treatment and behavior patterns associated with homosexuality, within the boundaries of a civil public dialogue.”


This group has an agenda, and there for any of their findings I view them as skewed.
I note also that the referenced study was only preformed on patients who had STD's, patients, who could be more promiscuous, which could be a sign of abuse in it’s self.


I am a Heterosexual male my brother is Homosexual. We grew up in the same house hold 3 years apart and spent our entire child hood together. I knew that my brother was different at an early age. There was no abuse in the house hold. It was a good supportive environment for us to grow up in. Should my Brother be able to get married? Yes.

As to morality, in some religions divorce is not allowed or pre-marital sex would not be considered being moral. There fore should divorced people or any person who has had pre-marital sex not be allowed to get married? Or afforded the same rights as everyone else?

There are several 'Sunday Laws' on the books, which I think will, eventually will be found to be unconditional. As to public nudity, I think that exposing yourself in public or private to children will always be against the law.

Well, I didn't make it much further than the first page of posts in which I saw claims that legalizing homosexual marriages would "force" the homosexual lifestyle on a person, or something to that effect. I don't presume they are saying it would force them to participate in a homosexual way of life, but rather they don't want to see homosexual relations condoned in public where they might be offended.
This same person, who I doubt needs to be named, also tried to imply that homosexuals have the same right as any other person... "to marry a person of the opposite sex." They went on to suggest that to allow a homosexual to legally marry would possibly be on par with allowing 13 year-olds to marry or for men and women to have multiple marriage partners. Personally, I find this ludicrous.
Why shouldn't a homosexual couple be allowed to marry? What detrimental effect would it have on society? We already know the lifestyle exists and some of us frequently encounter it, regardless of our sexuality. It's openly accepted and practiced in other cultures and it hasn't brought down any rain of sulfer like some contemporary Sodom and Gamorra.
And there is a considerable difference between to allow homosexuals to marry and allowing a 13 year-old to marry. We have laws against 13 year-olds marrying (with exception to those emancipated or, at least in some states, those bearing children) because it is recognized that they are not yet educated to the extent that they can make such important decisions.
As for polygamous marriages, I don't personally find issue with this so long as it suits all the members involved. I'm not well versed on the law prohibiting this, but I would imagine it is something supported more by insurance companies and the like with politicians on their campaign payrolls.
Prohibiting responsible adult homosexuals from enjoying an experience such as marriage is, in my opinion, unconstitutional. It also seems to be driven by nothing but fear and broad homophobia. "I don't want to see two guys holding hands..." It's ridiculous behavior for a supposed global leader and "enlightened" society.
If you disagree with the notion that the opposition is driven by fear and homophobia, I might also point to the other anti-homosexual laws in many states of our nation. It's illegal for people to perpetrate acts of sodomy even with consent (this would include anal and oral sex) in just about every state still. Naturally, it would be an invasion of privacy to bust down the doors and examine what hetero- or homosexual couples are doing, but that's precisely the case seen in Texas today. Two men are having to appeal to the Supreme Court regarding their arrests in their home for engaging in homosexual sex acts.
There may be subtle differences, but this fear and behavior is no better than our repression of African Americans and women throughout our nation's history. Everybody has their right to disagree, but I'm deeply saddened and disappointed that people would still allow prejudices and silly, irrational fears govern their thoughts and lives.

It's very late (2:30 a.m. here) and I've only scanned over the previous posts after typing my most recent response to homosexual marriage. From what I gathered in skimming, there seemed to be a bit of an issue of whether homosexuality is a result of abuse or somehow natural.
This seems a bit off topic, but perhaps that issue can be resolved. If homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality, it would seem there would be less reason to persecute the practice. Naturally, others will still present other arguments, but this would still eliminate one obstacle in the pursuit of equal rights for openly homosexual couples.
There is a book, Biological Exuberance, that details

In addition to this, researchers at Bethesda have discovered a gene in fruit flies -- among the most sexually proficient creatures on earth -- that allows them to not only engineer homosexual flies, but also to "flip a switch" altering the flies preference between hetero- and homosexuality.
A natural argument will be that flies are not humans. And they aren't. But considering the extensive research by both Bagemihl and researchers at Bathesda, the evidence certainly seems to suggest a genetic origin for homosexuality. Prohibition by medical ethics clearly leaves us unable to verify beyond doubt that similar genes exist in humans as in fruit flies. But to turn away from such compelling evidence is to shut the eye of reason.
In return to the original, and important, topic of discussion, if homosexuality is indeed genetic and natural, what other reason have we for opposing homosexual relationships and marriages if not fear and prejudice? And if we have no other reasons, how can we in good conscience continue such discrimination?

That only came up in the last few posts actually. Cyan started a thread regarding this issue here Nature v. Nurture. Please join us there if any of you would like to continue discussing the idea of abuse and homosexuality.

(Also, please avoid posting two posts in a row. You may simply go back and edit your previous post if you have something to add )

More on your last post, Abs, can be found in the the Nurture vs. Nature thread.

As to the poor self-hating people at NARTH, their research is more skewed than even AJE suggested. The "research" which they are citing (Effects of mother-son incest and positive perceptions of sexual abuse experiences on the psychosocial adjustment of clinic-referred men by Robert J Kelly, et al. in Child Abuse & Neglect, 2002, and Self-reported childhood and adolescent sexual abuse among adult homosexual and adult men by LS Doll, et al. published in Child Abuse & Neglect, 1992) concluded exactly the opposite of what they are claiming. The Doll study was quite controversial when published and it looks like the NARTH folks are trying to exact some kind of revenge on the results - and the UCLA study which deigned to quote it.

In reality, this research suggested that some gay children may be more vulnerable and susceptible to alleged abuse "because there are few acceptable ways of expressing their sexuality". According to Doll, "young gay youth often lack peer and familial support as they explore their sexuality and sexual identity. With little connection to gay communities and other gay youth, they may be confused about their right or ability to refuse any unwanted sexual contact or, perhaps, seek sexual contacts in dangerous environments that put them at risk for sexual exploitation."

This would be similar to my own case - though, in my history, I was more the "exploiter" of my older partner - and I would, in no way, count my delightful sexual experiences as a child as "abuse". More on all this can be found, however, in the various Childhood Sexuality threads here in the Lifestyle Debate.

Edited to add:
You owe me a Coke, Jaime.

So I guess all men are created equal...unless they're gay, right? If we are going to take away their right to hapiness then that is what you are advocating.

CP

I agree with the people who are saying that it's forcing your views onto others to NOT let gay people get married. Of course the should be able to get married! Why is it your business who anybody else marries or not? It isn't. Marry who you love, why is it such a big deal?
Also, I'd like to point out the being gay is NOT, I repeat NOT a "lifestyle." Monogomy, Promecusity, and Chasity are lifestyles. How you live sexually has nothing to do with if your partner(s) are male or female. The lifestyle is how you act, how you treat your partnet, and the commitment you show.
I, myself, am what some might like to call a "fag hag," (a straight woman who prefers the company of gay men) and I thus have a lot of friends who are gay, several of whom are still in the closet to most of the world, and none of them would hurt a fly, and I don't know who any of you think you are to tell them that they can't get married or who they can marry.

Okay, So maybe the answer is to abolish the term "marriage". Man and Woman were put on this earth to pro-create, We humans chose to be"married" to one person.Or in some places to many people. By eliminating legal"marriage" altogether, would make it possible for gay people to be together legally, To get health and life insurance together, To adopt children. People wouldnt be able to talk about a persons lifestyle as much if "marriage" wasnt part of our vocabulary.

I believe children should be raised in as stable of a home environment as possible. Granted, a legal document saying you're 'married' doesn't indicate it's necessarily forever, judging by the divorce rate. However, it is a document which requires that two individuals are responsible for each other (and any subsequent offspring) at least until the termination of that contract.

Whether it's called marriage or life partnership, or whatever, once children are brought into the equation, there should be a legal commitment. And yes, I think that any two commited people should be able to adopt. As long as they've expressed their commitment through a legally binding contract.

Excuse me if I repeat what someone else has said, since I haven't taken the time to read the entire thread.

KimPossible dismisses the idea that by allowing gay marriages, we would be forcing society to accept something that many find unacceptable.

The simple truth is that the acceptance argument is valid, but there's even more to the argument than originally offered.

Marriage is a public "contract". (The reality that marriage isn't really a contract at all is fodder for another thread.) Marriage does more than bind two individuals to each other, it also places specific obligations and restrictions upon the public at large. These are "costs" to the public. In order to overcome these costs, a case must be made for public benefits from gay marriage, benefits that cannot be accomplished in any less costly fashion, and the benefits must outweigh the costs.

Heterosexual marriage clearly meets this test, as the large social costs we are incurring from both the breakdown of traditional marriages and the non-formation of marriages demonstrate. Virtually all of the breakdown costs are centered on children, as are almost all of the social benefits. Does extending the social and legal benefits of marriage to gays when children will be the exception rather than the rule make social sense?

No. It does, of course, make a tremendous amount of sense for gays, because they can "free ride" on the heteros.

Whether or not it makes sense for a particular company to extend benefits to "committed couples" or "life partners" or whatever euphemism is in vogue is up to that company. As a practical matter, legalizing gay marriage removes the choice from the company, as they will be forced into an "all or nothing" proposition.

Finally, the "forced acceptance" concept is dismissed with the claim that "nobody is going to force you to accept anything." A review of the battles the Salvation Army and other religious organizations have been forced to fight in the Bay Area clarifies this issue. Gay activists have worked quite hard thus far attempting to force others to accept, rather than merely tolerate, them. What can credibly be offered to lead anyone to believe that they won't continue doing so, with the added weight of legalized marriage behind them?

"Free ride" how?

Can you elaborate on these "costs" please. What would society have to give up by allowing homosexuals to marry?

Maybe homosexuals wouldn't be so desperate for acceptance if the existing lack thereof didn't result in beatings, murders, and the other perils attached to being a part of an unaccepted minority.



I hate to drag the term up, but this seems somewhat un-American. Why shouldn't someone campaign, though perfectly legal channels, to be accepted?

All in all your post on the outside SEEMS to be a rationalization for exclusion. The last time I checked, America is founded on the principle of an individual's PRIVATE rights being more important than the rights of the public at large. It would be a strange reversal for you to suggest that the PUBLIC interest is suddenly the most important factor in determining legal standing.

Cyan, one example of a cost to society of marriage is the "marital shield", a legal doctrine that protects one person from being forced to testify against their spouse. Other costs relate to community property and the issues that "power of attorney" addresses.

UJ, I'll respond to your post either tomorrow or Monday. I've got a concert to go to now...

Bikerdad, I still fail to see the problem. What difference does it make what gender a person is? Don't these issues that you have mentioned surpass the boundaries of gender?

I also didnt read the whole thread but believe gay marriage should be legalized. As with cyan I see no difference because the people are the same gender. What I do see is the possibility of committed couples who may get health insurance, legally have children and inherit.
In contrast to Bikerdad, I think this represents less strain on society, economically and otherwise, but that would not be my reason why. For me its just about humanity.

Bikerdad: First, I am not really a proponent of "gay marriage" myself - in fact I would like to see the failed institution of marriage done away with altogether and the many "costs" of heterosexual marriage (which are shared by everyone, gay or straight, single or married) abolished. As that is not going to happen in our lifetimes, why should millions of gay Americans absorb these costs for their heterosexual brothers and sisters and, at the same time, be permanently excluded from any possibility of their benefits? They have all the same duties and responsibilities, pay the same taxes, live under the same Constitution (which says nothing about heterosexual marriage having a special place in our society, but much about the rights of the individual), yet they have none of the many benefits which have since been accorded to straight people through marriage. In short, at this point in our history, gay people are carrying straight people. Where do you see any justice in this state of affairs?

I thought debating the merits of the marriage contract (for any couples) was worthy of its own thread. I started it here The Marriage "Contract". Please join me

So much to reply to, guess I'll get right to it.



Those are the same perils faced by pedophiles, necrophiliacs and cannibals in our society. The widespread approbrium attachs to the actions of the "unaccepted minority." Please keep that in mind, because it is crucial to the entire issue. ACTIONS




A truth you seem to hold is that not everything legal is moral, correct? Otherwise, the prohibition against gay marriage would be moral. Further, the question of whether or not the channels they are using are "legal" is highly debatable (in another thread, of course). For an example of where "tolerance" has gone (i.e., forced acceptance), just take a look at Brigit Bardotte's latest adventures in France. If you like, there are similar examples from Europe and Canada where homosexuality is being "defended" with criminal or civil prosecution of those who speak out against it.



Then perhaps you had better check again, first your logic, then your history. Hermits and anarchists are the only one's who can make the claim that an individual's private rights are categorically more important than the rights of the public at large. Hermits, simply because there is no "public at large" within their paradigm, anarchists because, well, their anarchists.... The creation of a government is an explicit statement that the "public at large" does matter, and you can check the Preamble to the Constitution if you have any doubt. Phrases such as common defense and general welfare kinda make the point, don't you think?

Now, within this context, "common defense" is not directly relevant, but it does point us in the right direction. More guidance is found in "general welfare." Effective public law is based upon the general case, not upon the exception. Aside from the clear economic and social benefits TO SOCIETY that marriage brings (married folks are generally healthier, happier, live longer, more productive and less inclined to socially destructive and criminal behavior), marriage does one absolutely essential thing better than ANY other social structure.

Concieve, birth, protect, socialize and raise children, i.e., insure the continuance of society, which is where "common defense" points us, since it has the same goal. Now, all of these tasks CAN be conducted outside of the confines of marriage, but the general result is inferior to the "marriage product." Unfortunately, without either stepping outside the bounds of marriage, invoking medical meddling, destroying a marriage, or salvaging a messed up situation, the there is no way for a child to be introduced into a gay or lesbian marriage. (This doesn't even consider the distinctly different and crucial elements that men and women bring to parenting, differences that are lost within a homosexual marriage.)

Marriage and sex are linked, and they should be, precisely because of the procreative element. The social and legal constructs around marriage are primarily about responsibility, and unfortunately for your arguments, gay and lesbian sex doesn't even rise to the level of shacking up on the responsibility scale. Human psychology wins out every time. Because there are no consequences to homosexual sex, it fosters a culture of irresponsiblity. Society has no business promoting irresponsibility, and hence, no business promoting homosexuality. And yes, granting a marriage license to homosexuals is "promoting" it.

Back to the issue of history, you'll find that our government was founded upon a balanced notion of rights, authority and responsibility. As a rule, homosexual marraiges serve no public purpose, so there is no reason for the public collectively to endorse them, is there?

On to others now...

As noted above, no they don't, because the optimal structure for raising children is the one man, one woman for the duration marriage. Social capital is invested in supporting this structure, not for the benefits of the husband and wife, but for the benefit of the children.



Health insurance? Why? The reason employers started offering health insurance was to attract better employees, i.e. the more stable ones who had children. There's no reason for an employer to do that with a homosexual couple. Also, there's little reason for a society to support the concept of one member of a homosexual couple being a "homemaker", since the social benefits are so minor. "But," you say, " what if they have children?" How are they going to have children? The only way they can do it is by, in one fashion or another, violating the norms that uphold the optimal structure. Inheritance? Make a will. Oh, but you don't want to go to the trouble of making a will? What benefit to society if you don't have to make a will? What benefit is it when a married couple with children doesn't have to?

Relationships always incur certain costs and certain benefits. Heterosexual marriage offers one potential benefit to society that no other relationship offers, the optimal structure for raising children.

By and large, the only ones who will benefit from homosexual marriages are the homosexuals. That they pursue it comes as no surprise. It offers legitimacy, a myriad of benefits at the public expense, all without the responsibility. Yes, hetero couples who marry and choose to never have kids are free-riding as well, but it isn't worth the social cost to root them out of the "marriage system", especially when you'd have to differentiate between those who CHOOSE no kids, and those who tragically can't have them.....

'nuff for now, time to go bye. bye.

I think this last remark summarizes the closed mindedness and bizarrity ( is that a word?) of most of the previous commentary. You appear to believe that all lives, and all things done in life are about 'benefit to society' and a very narrow society at that. (Are you a communist? seriously.)
Since couples that marry and dont have children are getting some 'free ride' ( I cant imagine what) I expect they are also marginal members of this homogenous child rearing, child responsible society that we are all supposed to be creating, and all others should well be excluded. It is mentionable that the 'heterosexual marriage and child rearing society' is failing at its attempts in leaps and bounds, but that is not really the issue. The issue is basic humanity.
You seem to be threatened by same sex marriage, and consider it a problem for society. I dont see the case. Maybe a scenario of the detriment could be something you might expound upon, if we were to legalize it?

I would like to refer you to all your commentary in the male reproductive rights posts, which blows your theory of 'happy healthy hetero' child rearing right out of the water, as far as a societal benefit. In those posts, women are manipulators, and do not deserve exclusive reproductive rights, or support from men pre-birth, and all kinds of low-percentile hypothesies mentioned about women raping and drugging men to make them resposible for unwanted pregnancies, as ridiculous as it was, you cant have it both ways. Its either a happy hetero world or a diverse and chaotic situation.

I think, your whole societal arguement is a disguise for homophobia, clear as the day is long.

Humans dont fit into neat little boxes, a great portion of our society is on the margin. We try to make a liveable world the best we can for as many as possible and societal conceptions continually expand to meet new needs and expectations.

[quote=Bikerdad,May 19 2003, 11:05 PM][quote=Ultimatejoe,May 15 2003, 02:45 PM]Maybe homosexuals wouldn't be so desperate for acceptance if the existing lack thereof didn't result in beatings, murders, and the other perils attached to being a part of an unaccepted minority.[/quote]

Those are the same perils faced by pedophiles, necrophiliacs and cannibals in our society. The widespread approbrium attachs to the actions of the "unaccepted minority." Please keep that in mind, because it is crucial to the entire issue. ACTIONS[/quote]
Really? Could you please cite some cases of pedophile-bashing - or necrophile-bashing - or cannibal-bashing. Could you cite some examples of cannibals being denied a joint mortgage with their life partner or a necrophile being refused the right to adopt. As the majority of pedophiles are straight and male and married, I doubt you can come up with many instances of violent aggression against them as a class. But, hey, any evidence to support your ludicrously prejudicial slant here would give you a modicum of credibility.

I need hardly point out (I hope) that many other "unaccepted minorities" have been subjected to beating, lynching, rape, murder, vandalism, and other forms of violent aggression in the past: blacks, Jews, Asians - even the disabled. The widespread opprobrium is based entirely on irrational fear and prejudice, not the actions of any of the victims - apart from being. Take the instance you're justifying: queer-bashing. Gay people are not beaten or murdered because someone happens upon them in flagrante delicto and is so morally outraged that they're moved to a crime of passion. These men and women are beaten to death or stabbed to death or shot to death merely because they are "known" to be gay - or, perhaps, are seen patronizing a gay venue or - horrors! - demonstrating affection for their life-partner in public.

But you are right about one thing: ACTIONS are crucial. In this case, the degenerate, morally bankrupt actions of terrified, murderous bigots. May we assume you would support violence against all "unaccepted minorities"?

[quote=Bikerdad,May 19 2003, 11:05 PM][quote=Ultimatejoe,May 15 2003, 02:45 PM]All in all your post on the outside SEEMS to be a rationalization for exclusion. The last time I checked, America is founded on the principle of an individual's PRIVATE rights being more important than the rights of the public at large. It would be a strange reversal for you to suggest that the PUBLIC interest is suddenly the most important factor in determining legal standing. [/quote]

Then perhaps you had better check again, first your logic, then your history.[/quote]
I'm afraid your logic rather speaks for itself throughout, but you are in desperate need of a history lesson:

[quote=Bikerdad,May 19 2003, 11:05 PM]The creation of a government is an explicit statement that the "public at large" does matter, and you can check the Preamble to the Constitution if you have any doubt.  Phrases such as common defense and general welfare kinda make the point, don't you think?

Now, within this context, "common defense" is not directly relevant, but it does point us in the right direction. More guidance is found in "general welfare." Effective public law is based upon the general case, not upon the exception.[/quote]
This has been covered ad nauseam elsewhere on this board, but our form of government was in no way founded on such a notion - especially one embracing a narrow and reactionary ideology into the bargain. Our government was founded on the protection of the rights of the individual - which isn't quite what Ultimatejoe was saying - but he was sure closer than you are. The idea of some monolithic public at large - particularly with the assumption of any kind of mandate - was anathema to the framers of our Constitution. As I say, this has been argued here repeatedly in a variety of threads. As you have not been around as long as some, allow me to quote (myself ) from one such thread:[quote]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

The document quoted above, with which you are apparently unfamiliar, lays it out fairly clearly. Governments are instituted to guarantee the rights of "all men", as our Founders quaintly put it. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" were to be ensured to everyone (every one), not solely to the members of a consenting majority. Our government should derive its powers from "all", just as the ends of that government should effect the Safety and Happiness of "all" - not just those that some majority deems worthy.

Our Founders - all of them - were informed by the French Enlightenment, which sanctified the rights of the individual. This is best delineated in "The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen", a document contemporary with our Constitution (which states, for example, that "the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights"). Our legislature, particularly the House of Representatives, was designed specifically to give voice to as many individuals in this country as humanly possible.[/quote]

You may not agree with what our Founders intended this country to be. You may not like what our Founders intended this country to be. But you cannot dispute what they intended this country to be. The spin you try to impose on "defense" and "welfare" in order to legitimize your irrational prejudices and give weight to some presumed mob morality is, as Ultimatejoe described it, irredeemably un-American.

[quote]Aside from the clear economic and social benefits TO SOCIETY that marriage brings (married folks are generally healthier, happier, live longer, more productive and less inclined to socially destructive and criminal behavior), marriage does one absolutely essential thing better than ANY other social structure.[/quote]
Please cite a source for your notion that "married folks" are generally healthier than unmarried folks. Please cite a source for your notion that "married folks" are generally happier than unmarried folks. Please cite a source for your notion that "married folks" generally live longer than unmarried folks. Please cite a source for your notion that "married folks" are generally more productive than unmarried folks. Please cite a source for your notion that "married folks" are generally less inclined to socially destructive behavior than unmarried folks (especially the most destructive of these behaviors such incest, child abuse, and spousal battery) . And please cite a source for your notion that "married folks" are generally less inclined to criminal behavior than unmarried folks.

[quote]Concieve, birth, protect, socialize and raise children, i.e., insure the continuance of society, which is where "common defense" points us, since it has the same goal. Now, all of these tasks CAN be conducted outside of the confines of marriage, but the general result is inferior to the "marriage product."[/quote]
Please provide some foundation for this exercise in speculation.

[quote]Unfortunately, without either stepping outside the bounds of marriage, invoking medical meddling, destroying a marriage, or salvaging a messed up situation, there is no way for a child to be introduced into a gay or lesbian marriage. (This doesn't even consider the distinctly different and crucial elements that men and women bring to parenting, differences that are lost within a homosexual marriage.)[/quote]
Please cite evidence for your presumptuous gender stereotyping and foundation for your further assumption that, should such distinctions indeed exist, they are in any way "crucial".

[quote]Marriage and sex are linked, and they should be, precisely because of the procreative element. The social and legal constructs around marriage are primarily about responsibility, and unfortunately for your arguments, gay and lesbian sex doesn't even rise to the level of shacking up on the responsibility scale.[/quote]
Please provide some sort of evidence for your conclusions regarding the level of responsibilities within gay and lesbian relationships. In fact, provide lots of evidence for this particular flight of fancy.

[quote]Human psychology wins out every time. [/quote]
I wouldn't necessarily say every time, bikerdad.

[quote]Because there are no consequences to homosexual sex, it fosters a culture of irresponsiblity.[/quote]
Please clarify what you mean by "no consequences" and, please, cite evidence of such a culture of irresponsibility, and, if your notion of this "culture of irresponsibility" proves to be in any way supportable, provide further evidence that it can be traced, directly or indirectly, to "homosexual sex".

[quote]As a rule, homosexual marraiges serve no public purpose, so there is no reason for the public collectively to endorse them, is there?[/quote]
How, on God's earth, could you possibly deduce this? There are no "gay marriages" - at least not in this country. Oh - I get it, you just made this up. I should've figured that out from the rest of your posting. Sorry.


On to other statements now...

[quote]As noted above... the optimal structure for raising children is the one man, one woman for the duration marriage.[/quote]
"Note above" as much as you like. "Note below" if it floats your boat. But until you can provide a single source with a screed of evidence to create a semblance of foundation for one of these things you keep "noting", please do not expect to be taken seriously by anyone. And don't expect your "arguments" to be treated as anything more than so much wasted space.

[quote]The reason employers started offering health insurance was to attract better employees, i.e. the more stable ones who had children. There's no reason for an employer to do that with a homosexual couple.[/quote]
Please cite a source demonstrating that employees with children are "better" or "more stable" than homosexual employees. And it had better be damned well-documented. While you're at it, you might wanna find some kind of support for the notion that the birth of health insurance was motivated by the desire to attract employees with dependents.

[quote]Also, there's little reason for a society to support the concept of one member of a homosexual couple being a "homemaker", since the social benefits are so minor. "But," you say, "what if they have children?" How are they going to have children? The only way they can do it is by, in one fashion or another, violating the norms that uphold the optimal structure.[/quote]
God, this is tedious. Please cite a source for your outlandish theory that this "norm" you're so fond of is in any way the "optimal structure" for anything apart from abuse.

[quote]Relationships always incur certain costs and certain benefits. Heterosexual marriage offers one potential benefit to society that no other relationship offers, the optimal structure for raising children.[/quote]
Again with the totally unfounded hypothesis that there's an "optimal structure" for raising children - and that you have managed to identify it. Evidence, foundation, sources, proof - PLEASE!

[quote]By and large, the only ones who will benefit from homosexual marriages are the homosexuals. That they pursue it comes as no surprise.[/quote]
By and large, the only ones who do benefit from heterosexual marriages are married heterosexuals. That some of them strive so desperately to protect the exclusivity of their privilege comes as no surprise. So what?

The statements made above, all without foundation, all without empirical evidence to support them, all bereft of any kind of source material to back them up, all, in short, nothing more than speculation founded on unproved (and even unstated) hypotheses, were clearly made by a person who regards his own beliefs as unquestionably right and any opinion differing from them as unreasonable, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, a person who is obstinately and blindly devoted to his own grand leaps of faith. That, interestingly, is the dictionary definition of a bigot.

[quote]'nuff for now, time to go bye bye.[/quote]
At last, we agree.

Wow Wertz,
I certainly couldn't add much to your post, which was great!
I will just add a little of my opinion here, in response to the following, specifically:

Since homosexual couples have expressed an interest in 'salvaging a messed up situation' (specifically adopting children who are either unwanted, parentless, in the foster care system, or homeless which our society have an abundance of) it seems to me it IS in society's interest to sanction homosexual marriage. This is a promotion of responsibility, not the opposite (IMO).

Yeah - I was kinda saving that for rebuttal if necessary.

As my (same-sex) partner and I have two previously unwanted foster sons (one had been homeless, the other in state care), to have mentioned it in the post above felt like it would've been a bit self-aggrandizing. Not that I'm above self-aggrandizement, mind you - but it also seemed a bit exploitative or something - especially in the context of that response. It feels much "cleaner" mentioning them to you, mrs p.

It's worth pointing out as well that this was effected in Holy Catholic Ireland, not here in "the land of the free". While we're unable to legally adopt our kids in either country (we could do it singly, but not jointly), at least Ireland gave us legal guardianship through fostering.

One wonders how many children discarded from these famous heterosexual marriages the opponents of gay partnerships have taken in...

It would be great if the powers of government were limited to the point that this subject was not up for political debate. It would be nice if man did have certain unalienable rights that a tyrannical majority could not take away.

This, if in fact true, supports 'marriage', be it gay or straight. Unless you have an arguement that 'gay' marriages are less happy, healthy, productive etc.

Obviously you haven't met my wife

It's probably worth mentioning at this point that as of yesterday homosexual marriage is legal in Ontario, and despite the fact that I'm straight, I couldn't be happier.

It is touching when a couple has so much devotion to each other that they want to proclaim it publicly. There is a spiritual dimension to pledging your love to one person to the exclusion of all others, especially when you mean it.

You will note that I mentioned neither heterosexual nor homosexual.

And what is wrong with wanting to provide for the person you love if something happens to you?

If gays want to be married, why not? Why shouldn't a de facto gay marriage be legally recognized? Government recognition does not necessarily mean a ringing endorsement from heterosexuals who are not comfortable with gay marriages.

Attitudes go hand in hand with actions. A loving, stable, monogamous relationship is desirable in any case.

(edited)

That's great! We'll get there someday, too. People aren't dying out, stable home environments are. Anything that promotes famly stability is a good thing.

why not, i will say the typical thing " i am straight " but i see no problem in it personally. we take children to monster truck shows, what could be worse.

To my Canadian friends I can only say:

Thank you.

Homosexual marriage has been legal over here for about a decade now. I can't see what the big deal is about really. But then. I don't believe in God either...

Because marriage is a physical and emotional relationship. And it's the physical part I have a big problem with.

Men and women have genitalia specifically meant to reproduce. Obviously, there are other methods people use (if you're doing it right), but the man and women have compatible "plumbing".

Two people of the same sex don't. I don't want to get graphic, but they are using parts of their bodies to fulfill their physical needs that were designed for other purposes. In other words, they are forcing their bodies to be physically compatible to match their emotional compatibility.

But when they attempt to force unnatural relationships on us as a natural act, I have a problem with that. What's next? Gay couples get recognized, so do brothers and sisters get the same coverage? Do fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, get these same protections? If my son wants to marry a billygoat, should he be protected as well?

Why should gays get special treatment? All my examples are not natural and the plumbing even "fits" fits better.

If two people of the same sex feel they need to be together as lovers, more power to them. But don't force us to recognize that unnatural relationship as something natural. Otherwise, my kid might be marrying that billygoat.

I think some of your examples are a little extreme.

If we are going to have government only recognize sex for the sake of procreation, then use of birth control de-legitimizes it as a natural act.
Should a married, heterosexual couple be penalized if their union does not produce children, the natural result of such a union?

I am not comfortable with the idea of homosexual relationships. Does that mean that a person who loves another person and cohabitates with that person for many years should be denied the same rights and considerations of a spouse? I do not feel I have a right to deny those rights.

And let's consider this: Men who are otherwise known as heterosexual have forced themselves on other men. This is known as perversion in our society. Is it any less perverted if a man forces himself on a woman? Rape is rape. Rape is perversion. Sex between consenting adults is not known as rape.

Government is amoral. Many of those who post here would say that it is not the business of government to legislate morality. Think about the poor heterosexual couple that gets caught by the sex police while enjoying fellatio in a state that still has blue laws. Fellatio, by your definition, is not normal. Need I say more?

(edited)

I agree with Paladin. Some of the things brought up by Dayton are either incorrect or incredibly extreme.
The genitals are "designed" for procreation. While homosexual couples will find their sexual acts incapable of producing offspring, not every heterosexual engages sexually for their designated purposes either. If they did we wouldn't have birth control and we wouldn't have sex near as often for the simple pleasure of it. If we only used our genitals for their natural purposes we would only have sex for the sole purpose of procreation, not to get off.

In this regard homosexuals engaging in sex for pleasure or emotional fulfillment would be no more forcing their bodies to do something "unnatural" than heterosexuals having sex for the same reasons.

I hold the "unnatural" comment to be misleading because it's already been scientifically proven that homosexuality is a common occurrance throughout all of nature. There is nothing "unnatural" about it. Tattoos, body piercing, artificial light and intentional poisoning of our bodies (smoking, drinking, drugs) is unnatural. Homosexuality is not; it's just different.

Homosexuals aren't looking for "special treatment" but rather equal treatment. That doesn't seem too terribly demanding of society from where I sit. If men and women the world over can engage in sexual relationships where love is optional, why shouldn't homosexuals truly engaged in loving relationships be afforded the equal right of expressing their love in a public commitment such as marriage?

Just because homosexual relationships, incest or bestiality don't fit into our convenient family structure does not mean they are unnatural, no matter how repulsed you may be by such practices. Responsible adults should be allowed to make responsible decisions so long as they don't prove a significant danger to society on the whole. Homosexual relationships do not. Marriage of homosexual couples will not change that, but rather pave the way to a new family structure. We risk more by continuing to ostracize an entire group of people, promoting intolerance and hatred in our communities.

Dayton Rocker



Reading your post it seems to me that your only problem is that you don't like it and your idea that it is some how unatural for homosexuals to make love, is extremely unfair.

First off; Since when was marriage natural? marriage is a human institution, and as such must be open to human interpretation.

Second; is it natural to wear clothes? or fly? or create nuclear fission?

We don't legitimize those actions via our legal system in terms of gicing tax credits based on the number of piercings you get.




Not the response I was expecting, but I am not surprised. You are endorsing incest to legitimize gay marriages.

The only thing we can agree on is that gay couple should not get the only exemption from life's design. what we don't agree on, is that it's ok for any two living and breathing creatures that can say "I do" to marry.

I find this whole premise revolting and an excuse to cheat the natural order of life.

I look at marriage more from the family stability aspect than sexual ethical aspect. Whatever goes on sexually within a marriage is independant to the relationship between the two partners.
A marriage (especially with children) goes far far beyond the 'whose parts fit with whose'. The fundamental premise for the foundation of marriage is to encourage stability within the family. Whatever the sexual dynamics within that partnership are irrelevant, whether they include sexual aid devices, extra partners, same or different sexual relationships, birth control or none. Homosexual couples can (and do) provide loving, stable home enviornments for parentless or unwanted children. Those families should be entitled to the same benefits and incentives as any other family unit.

I wouldn't go so far as to promote incest, because that sort of union could have devestating genetic consequences to subsequent offspring.

It is being suggested that homosexual couples can be married without requiring children. So, if one of the couples of incest were "fixed", how does that affect your argument? Would you go as far to say, as long as they can't have children, brothers can marry sisters, fathers can marry daughters, etc? There would be no public health issues if any do exist.

Trust me, I think these examples are beyond gross. But I am pointing to the hypocrisy. This is a can of worms that goes far beyond two people of the same sex. Gay couples are demanding an exception that cannot reasonably be extended to all circumstances. Unless you think marrying your mom after she divorces your dad is reasonable.

Geez, I need to take a shower after this debate.

LOL! Yes, those examples are gross.

Look at it this way. In the pragmatic sense...There is no way to legally force the 'fixing' of one or both members of an incestuous relationship. I suppose Woody Allen proves fathers can marry daughters, as long as it isn't a biological link.

Honestly, I don't look at homosexuality the same way as you. I believe it's a natural inclination. Since no children could possibly be produced from that union, but a LOT of unwanted and discarded children could be saved it's a practical measure towards ameliorating a growing problem (unwanted kids).

I hate "yes" or "no" responses, so I skipped the poll and read the whole thread.

I could care less what two (or more) consenting adults do behind closed doors. It's none of my business.

Gay marriage is so far down on my list of priorities as to be barely a blip, but I will say this much.

Divorce rates among hetrosexuals are somewhere in the 43 to 50 percent range, I believe. I hardly think two committed indivduals in love of the same gender could do any worse. The purpose of marriage isn't all about the making of children. There are too many happy couples without children for me to buy into that bogus argument.

Gay marriage? Not my thing, but it's okay for those whose thing it is.

A couple can be very happy and childless, they can be very happy and just living together unmarried, too. The primary purpose of government sanctioned matrimony is to promote a stable home environment. The tax advantage gives a couple the incentive to have a stay at home (or part time working) spouse while the children are in the house. There is a 'penalty' for a dual working couple. The only true advantage, as far as tax writeoff is concerned, is the stay at home spouse scenerio. Not a bogus argument at all. I'm starting to think I'm some sort of verbal target for you.

I don't believe there is anything to show that a legally married heterosexual couple can provide an any more stable home than a legally married homosexual couple. The only disruption to homosexual relationships different from those to heterosexual relationships is the contempt and prejudice put upon them from outside sources.

The problem isn't affording homosexual couples the equal right of marriage -- be it for love, companionship or a stable, if slightly different, home -- but rather the inability of others to accept a way of life different from their own.

The taboo against incest is cultural, and has not always existed. There's a reason so many Royals had hemophilia. There are sound scientific reasons for that taboo, as it turns out. The taboo about homosexuality is also cultural, and also has not always existed, nor does it exist in every culture. And there are no valid scientific reasons for the taboo. You're comparing apples and oranges, because the two are so very different.

So far you have not presented a single valid reason why homosexuals shouldn't marry. Instead you are resorting to "gross-out" tactics, yet it's about something totally different. Your argument about incest might be valid if they were forced to get sterilized, but since that's not going to happen, why are else are you bringing it into the discussion except as emotional fuel?

I suggest you get out a piece of paper and list the reasons why you think gays should not marry. Then cross out all the reasons that are based on prejudice or homophobia. Got any reasons left? Bring them here, and I'm sure some of us will be happy to show you why you forgot to cross them out as well.
Peace

Dayton Rocker



Does that mean you'd refuse surgury if you needed it?

You're trying to invalidate my argument by saying it's a gross out tactic.

Gross to who? You?

Gee, that's funny. I'm grossed out by two males bumping uglies and you call me a homophobe. Yet, I can show you another group of couples "in the closet" that would love the same legitimacy you want for gays and you're grossed out by them.

I'm sure there are tons of blood relatives who can't have kids that would love the same protection and rights you want to afford gay couples.

You don't have an answer to your hypocrisy, so, you're trying to invalidate my point.

Whatever.


Because they didn't have birth control.

It would be hypocritical to bestow freedom on some people [heterosexuals] and not others [gay people], that is hypocrisy, isn't it?

CP

I can but agree with your identification of the problem, Abs. I would extend your first paragraph a bit, though. I don't believe there's anything to show that a legally married heterosexual couple can provide an any more stable home than a legally married homosexual couple or a heterosexual couple which is not legally married or a homosexual couple which is not legally married. I think, rather than extending marriage rights to gays, we need to think about abolishing them for everyone.

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

Dayton Rocker: You really should read a thread in its entirety before posting to it. Every single point which you've made has already been addressed - some of them several times over now. Rather than repeating things which I've already posted (some of them two and three times) or reiterating things that other people have posted (some of which have already been reiterated two and three times), I will just suggest again: review the thread. You might also want to take a look at the Nurture vs. Nature thread, which addresses some of your more extreme prejudices, and the Marriage "Contract" thread which extends this debate a bit beyond the issue of homosexuality. If you're looking for more outlets to let your intolerance run wild, the Gay Adoption thread should provide further opportunity, I'm sure.

If you have something to counter the arguments which have been made or the evidence which has been presented again and again and again (here or in any of the other threads cited), please present it. If you're only here to say "I just don't like it - so there", fine. We've got it.

Next, please...