Study on children raised by gay parents
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is called "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd." Pointing out plenty of people in groups have obstacles to overcome. However, every point is true.
There is no homosexuality in the animal kingdom. And please don't waste my time pointing out the pro-gay Wikapedia article saying there is. Animals do not have sex for pleasure. Male-on-male animal mounting is all about domination, like male-male rape in prison is. Finally, you are not "born homosexual." Homosexuality is a behavior driven by choice.
Quote: UWPeteOIt suffices to say that people, who by living an alternative lifestyle of their choice which does no harm to anyone else, should not be discriminated against.
And they aren't. You can live any lifestyle you want.
Your fight is really for the "right" to call a particular lifestyle a different word, which is traditionally attributed to denote a different thing (and not even that really - you can call it whatever you want too ... what you are really trying to do is to force others to call it what you want). Note, nobody objects any choice of a lifestyle here ... it's calling it something that it really isn't that some people have problems with.
Quote: weaselmanThere is really nothing specific that can be said against gay marriage, it's just a word. And meaning of words is always subject to the definition. Up until now, the meaning of word "marriage" has been a union between one man, and one woman with the assumed main purpose of procreation.
Gay people want to get married and be offered the same rights as other married couples get. It's not just a title they're after, they want the legal status (and rightly so).
The definition of marriage is constantly evolving, and to cherry pick your favorite use of the word from the history (from Roman Catholicism, no less), seems a bit arbitrary. Marriage in biblical (old testament) times was basically purchasing a woman (or several). The woman did not need to consent, and was considered the man's property. If a man raped a virgin, he had to purchase her from his father, and they were to remained married forever. Ancient societies all had their own meaning of marriage, and several of them recognized gay marriage.
And marriage in the US today? Not really for procreation only. Nor is it a lifelong bond between two people. So clearly your definition has already fallen out of favor.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is called "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd." Pointing out plenty of people in groups have obstacles to overcome.
And gays have larger obstacles to overcome; obstacles that are mostly placed there by straight people.
Quote: AZDuffmanThere is no homosexuality in the animal kingdom. And please don't waste my time pointing out the pro-gay Wikapedia article saying there is. Animals do not have sex for pleasure. Male-on-male animal mounting is all about domination, like male-male rape in prison is. Finally, you are not "born homosexual." Homosexuality is a behavior driven by choice.
When did Wikipedia become pro-gay? And ample research has been performed to show that pretty much the entire animal kingdom displays various forms of homosexuality and bisexuality, and not only as show of domination (pair bonding, parenting, affection).
And do you honestly think someone would choose to be gay? How about the homosexual couples in the Middle East that face execution for their behavior? And the kids committing suicide because they're gay? Surely if it were a choice, they'd just choose to be straight if they felt so ashamed for their feelings. And what makes you (or any straight person) an authority on such a matter? When do straight people choose to be straight?
Quote: UWPeteO
Gay people want to get married and be offered the same rights as other married couples get. It's not just a title they're after, they want the legal status (and rightly so).
I have not heard any serious opposition to the civil union idea - an arrangement, providing same rights that married couples enjoy - except from the gay people themselves. I think, the title is exactly what they are after.
Quote:The definition of marriage is constantly evolving, and to cherry pick your favorite use of the word from the history (from Roman Catholicism, no less), seems a bit arbitrary.
Who is doing the cherry picking?
There is current meaning of the word, and a movement to arbitrarily change it to mean something entirely different.
Quote:And marriage in the US today? Not really for procreation only.
Not, not only. But it is still its presumed purpose. And, many of the benefits gay marriage activists are after are actually afforded by the government to married couples specifically because of the intent to promote procreation. It simply makes no sense to extend the same benefits to couples that are together for other reasons.
Quote: UWPeteOAnd gays have larger obstacles to overcome; obstacles that are mostly placed there by straight people.
Ah, yes, blame straight people yet again.
Quote:When did Wikipedia become pro-gay? And ample research has been performed to show that pretty much the entire animal kingdom displays various forms of homosexuality and bisexuality, and not only as show of domination (pair bonding, parenting, affection).
The article is pro-gay, the site I am not commenting on. I repeat, to state that there is homosexuality it the animal kingdom is to insult the intelligence of the person you are telling that to. ANIMALS DO NOT HAVE SEX FOR RECREATION. It is about domination. Behavior will also be changed when the animals are in captivity, same as humans in prison.
Quote:And do you honestly think someone would choose to be gay? How about the homosexual couples in the Middle East that face execution for their behavior? And the kids committing suicide because they're gay? Surely if it were a choice, they'd just choose to be straight if they felt so ashamed for their feelings. And what makes you (or any straight person) an authority on such a matter? When do straight people choose to be straight?
Yes, I think it is a choice. Unless someone has a gun to your head you choose who you go to bed with. I have all the proof I need that it is a choice in the reactions of gays when you suggest thearapy or counseling. If "conversion thearapy" were useless they would have no fear of it. Instead they cry to Apple to ban a conversion app and try to ban thearapy in CA. They are not afraid that it does not work, they seem afraid that is DOES WORK. The more it works the more proof we get that the whole thing is a choice. The idea that "you are born that way" is used to justify the unhealthy behavior. When it is shown to be a behavoir choice their whole paradigm falls apart.
On your last part nobody chooses to be straight----we are all born straight.
Quote: UWPeteOAnd ample research has been performed to show that pretty much the entire animal kingdom displays various forms of homosexuality and bisexuality, and not only as show of domination (pair bonding, parenting, affection).
I never saw the relevance of htta sideline argument. There are plenty of human-specific behaviors and characteristics that animals don't ever display. for example, animals don't have conceptual langauges. Animals don't understand complex math. Animals don't engage in religion.
Say, wouldn't that mean religion is unnatural and should be stamped out? Not ot mention there is no "religion gene," much less a "Christianity gene," and shouldn't all Chrisitians be helped by converting them away from Christianity to something sensible?
Those childish rhetorical tricks, barely even deserving of the name, are about all the good that comes out of that argument. But then the arguments against homosexuality are even more ridiculous, not ot mention puerile. They boil down to "I find it icky!"
Quote:When do straight people choose to be straight?
Oh, good question. Unfortunately you are asking it of a concrete wall with as much capacity for serious,a ctive thought as, well,a concrete wall. And about as much empathy as well.
Really, you shoulnd't waste your time arguing with the trolls. If they have to lie about the data in studies to justify their prejudice, that's just one big, glaring sign that they've lost the war and they know it. So they are resorting to something like Kamikaze tactics. Except they aim their rhetorical aircraft loaded with intellectual explosives at empty spots of water.
We should pity them, really.
Quote: NareedReally, you shoulnd't waste your time arguing with the trolls. If they have to lie about the data ins tudies to justify their prejudice, that's just oen big, glaring saign that they've lost the war and they know it. So they are resorting to something like Kamikaze tactics. Except they aim their rhetorical aircraft laoded with intellectual explosives at empty spots of water.
True. But I take much solace in the fact that society is moving swiftly in the direction of progressiveness on the issue.
I believe that if you look back towards the view of physiologists in the 1970s, and early 80s that you'll find that they had a different view on the situation and were, at the time, looking for ways to treat it, and possibly cure it. It's too bad that research in this area has come to a stand still.
Quote: KeyserMy post count is much lower than most of yours so I can't comment on this subject as freely as you, or I could face another 14 -21 day ban.
Your post count has nothing to do with being banned.
Quote:I believe that if you look back towards the view of physiologists in the 1970s, and early 80s that you'll find that they had a different view on the situation and were, at the time, looking for ways to treat it, and possibly cure it.
If you look back in time you'll find all sorts of missconceptions championed by perfectly repectable poeple with good intentions. At one time people tried to cure left-handedness. And do you recall eugenics? Some perfectly decent, intelligent, religius and capable poeple, like Stonewall Jackson, regarded the slavery of balcks as a kindness bestowed upon the slaves, by giving their lives purpose and meaning.
Quote:It's too bad that research in this area has come to a stand still.
Yes, we would have learned so much about pointless, useless torture.
Quote:It's too bad that research in this area has come to a stand still.
Quote: Nareed
Yes, we would have learned so much about pointless, useless torture.
Once again, my point made. Let someone suggest perhaps thearapy is better and you get a reply like this. We hear about how "bad life is for gays" yet offer a solution that would require them changing their behavior and this is the kind of reply you get. The demand is always that the rest of society change its behavior to accomadate the choice of a gay lifestyle.
Let me ask the gay folks or those supporting the homophile society. If being gay is so much of a hardship; if you are a second-class citizen yadda yadda yadda; if all of this is true and some people might be spared all of this by conversion thearapy, why would this not be a good thing? Why would research to correct the behavior be a bad thing?
And the biggie: If science invented a pill that could "make you straight" with one dose, would you take it?
In short, I believe that some people (Sorry, but I don't know the politically correct term for them these days. And the scientific term seems to offend those here.) are born that way. Some choose, some don't. Science should continue looking for a cure. Society should not treat these people as outcasts. They shouldn't be treated any differently than somene that is manicly depressed, etc.
Quote: KeyserI would debate you on the subject, but my views aren't politically correct enough for this board.
In short, I believe that some people (Sorry, but I don't know the politically correct term for them these days. And the scientific term seems to offend those here.) are born that way. Some choose, some don't. Science should continue looking for a cure. Society should not treat these people as outcasts. They shouldn't be treated any differently than somene that is manicly depressed, etc.
Being gay is not a disease that need a "cure". As a doc I love to "cure" folks. This does not need my help.
Quote: NowTheSerpentQuote: rdw4potusBad news is better than no news, isn't it?
You're joking, right?
I realize this is from pages ago...to be clear, I meant badly-reported news. Not news of catastrophes, etc.
You can go that route, but it's basically volunteer (like I think the Catholics might do something like that) where they evaluate a couple
But basically the marriage standards are so low that you really do reveal BIGOTRY worrying specifically about gay marriage.
Quote: rxwineyou really do reveal BIGOTRY worrying specifically about gay marriage.
My point exactly!
And proponents of gay marriage themselves are the only ones who do that.
Their opponents don't really have anything against gay marriage specifically - there is a blanket exclusion of everything except for a union between one man and one woman, who are not close relatives, and of approariate age.
Quote: weaselmanMy point exactly!
And proponents of gay marriage themselves are the only ones who do that.
Their opponents don't really have anything against gay marriage specifically - there is a blanket exclusion of everything except for a union between one man and one woman, who are not close relatives, and of approariate age.
You lost me there weaselman.
You can ask to be included in something without specifically being against or even answering the question of who else deserves to be married. If that's what you mean, and I'm not actually sure.
Quote: AZDuffmanFoxNews is fair and balanced, ....
FoxNews is about as fair and balanced as the rest of the media.
Quote: rxwine
You can ask to be included in something without specifically being against or even answering the question of who else deserves to be married. If that's what you mean, and I'm not actually sure.
What I mean is that the opponents of the "gay marriage" issue do not exhibit any "bigotry", by opposing it, because they are not seeking to exclude gays (or anyone else for that matter) as you seem to be suggesting.
I at least, understand what you mean though now. Thanks.
Quote: rxwineBut that could be a rhetorical trick, such as, sure you can vote, you just need to be white and male?
It could ... But I don't think it is :)
You see, there is no such thing as "the right to marry". Moreover, even if there was, gays would not be denied it. They can still marry without stopping to be gay, just not to each other. So, your analogy does not quite work.
It's more like "sure, you can vote, but not for the president of Antarctica, sorry".
The whole dispute is around the definition of a term "marriage", not any particular right of any particular group of people.
Ken
for things i don't really care about.
Quote: weaselmanThe whole dispute is around the definition of a term "marriage", not any particular right of any particular group of people.
... and the legal rights and responsibilities that a person in the status of marriage has which are different from those people not in a state of marriage.
Quote: WongBook mrj, i will be sure to file that under "T"
for things i don't really care about.
I said it earlier this week, I dont bow down. If a subject/question is brought up, am I suppose to HIDE my thoughts just because it might not gel with everyone else? I could careless. My opinion is EQUAL to any guy/gal who feels its okay for gay parents to raise kids. My opinion/view counts, just like yours does.
Ken
Quote: thecesspit... and the legal rights and responsibilities that a person in the status of marriage has which are different from those people not in a state of marriage.
Nah ... That would be civil union. The idea has been brought tabout many times, and the gays have made it clear, they did not want it. They don't care about rights (frankly, there really aren't any of importance. Hospital visitation? Please ...) - they just want to be married.
